Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229

Would an admin please do me a favor and selectively delete/revdelete the junk on my IP talk page? If I'm not requesting this correctly, please tell me (I don't watch AN).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

...and remove the IP's talk page access?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. Feel free to ask me directly, or any admin who happens to be active at the moment, if you need this again.--Kubigula (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just blocked Goofs and Saddles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki). They recreated, word-for-word Michelle Obama's arms. If anyone disagrees then feel free to unblock. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin observation: While I can't see the exact content of either version, I could see the case where someone uses a google cache of the page to restore it to it's armed glory. Considering that there doesn't appear to be any other edits that could be used for behavorial analysis, I think it might be jumping the gun to make that ABF on behalf of the 4 hour old (at the time of blocking) account. Hasteur (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1. That article has been zapped from Wikipedia for a long time now (many times), and I doubt it would have remained in Google Cache still.
2. This is  Confirmed as User:Grundle2600, who has been banned by the Wikipedia community; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive607#Request to modify my topic ban.

–MuZemike 14:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And that was all I was asking for. To see a random admin (that I haven't seen before) announce a sock puppet blocking on such a shortly lived account implies that there had to have been either a light speed SPI check or copious reams of behavioral evidence. Again, I reiterate my disappointment at how quickly this was rammed through with just the recreation of the named article as being enough for a DUCK test. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it was unreasonable to conclude ban evasion from that article alone (especially after "playing dumb" at the AfD); he created the article multiple times with multiple socks, not to mention his blatant long-term POV-pushing on anything related to Barack Obama, Hugo Chavez, and others. –MuZemike 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Word-for-word recreation of a deleted article (with all of its formatting, linking, and categories intact) isn't an accidental or coincidental occurrence. Doing so with a new account's very first and only Wikipedia edit is extraordinarily suspicious. Doing so with an article that was an area of contentious interest for a banned user with a history of sockpuppetry is conclusive. One can identify a DUCK after one quack if the quack is very loud.

It's disappointing, Hasteur, that you're jumping to loaded language like "a random admin" and "rammed through" even after you've been acquainted with the circumstances. Incidentally, CambridgeBayWeather has been editing Wikipedia since 2005—that you're unfamiliar with his name is due to a lack of experience on your part, not his. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur with TOAT. This is obviously Grundle, and people unfamiliar with his history may be inclined to not feel that this was a worthwhile block. Whatever. He's clearly worn out his welcome long ago, and we've no need to rehash that entire mess. If Grundle had wanted to be a positive contibutor to Wikipedia, he knew long ago what that entailed. Good block. --Jayron32 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --Golbez (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, those of us like Cambridge familiar with this joker recognize his penchant for tv, movie and pop culture-themed usernames. This one is from Goofs and Saddles, a Three Stooges skit. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Hasteur did the right thing in questioning the block and they should have done so even if they had seen me about before. I don't post on here often. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him (politely) querying the reasons for a DUCK block; that's how newer editors learn how things work. I do see a problem with his attitude in the followup comment, where even after he had been provided with a full and reasonable explanation of the context (and had time, if he so desired, to do his own research into the history of the situation), he decided to dive into deeper implications of bad faith and incompetence. While I think that CambridgeBayWeather has been a great sport about this – and I'm saddened but resigned to the notion that abusing admins is socially acceptable – it would be classy of Hasteur to take steps to make amends. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Or other experienced user in good standing. Somebody is going to have to summarise the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English and make the call, some time, and it might be better if some masochist did it round about now, rather than putting it off while the page gets even more tl;dr. The usual 7 days have passed. It's true that it's still being edited, but by now in a rather desultory and repetitious way. The respective positions are completely entrenched, as indeed they have been all along, and I should think all possible arguments, good and bad, have been offered. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Well the big problem is that most people are arguing about something that isn't the focus of mfd which is clouding the issue. But I do agree it really should be closed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Useless comment but meh: I wouldn't touch that with a 100-foot pole.--v/r - TP 19:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with Kim and the Cavalry) Oh, quite, quite. It'll have to be a real sucker for punishment, I'm afraid. Merely reading it is painful enough, and then whoever does it will surely get flak over their decision. I just feel age will do nothing to improve it, you know? Bishonen | talk 19:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

I already !voted, means I don't have to close it! Yippee!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll close it. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chase. I should have realised "masochist" and "sucker for punishment" would be likely enough to mean an arbitrator. Those crazy guys. :-) Bishonen | talk 19:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Someone sent in the Cavalry! --Jayron32 20:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cannon to the right of them, Cannon to the left of them, Cannon in front of them Volley'd and thunder'd; Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell Rode the six hundred." I won't spoil the ending. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Charge of the Admin Brigade? --Jayron32 20:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I never expected any other result, thus why I MfDed it, but it is pretty amazing to see just how entrenched some editors - on both sides - are on the issue of diacritics. Thanks for taking the time to deal with that, Chase. It is always easier to open one of those than it is to close! ;) Resolute 20:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anybody interested can comment on a new proposed image for Template:Unreferenced here. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 11:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Maintenance, but try to keep the discussion in one place. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo chapters (591–790) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How much foreign language in an English Wikipedia article is too much. This looks like a bit overboard. I bet there are others as well. Any thoughts?--JOJ ^Hutton 02:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like part of a walled garden. No context, and nothing to show it as being notable, either. Resolute 03:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer is, generally,any foreign language is too much unless it's being quoted, and then it should be accompanied by a translation. Tag the page it as 'not English', see if it's been lifted from another Wikipedia, run some of the text through Google and see if it comes up anywhere else, and do a rough Google translation to see what it's all about. If it appears to be non notable or a copvyvio , tag as appropriate. Twinkle automatically puts a message on the creator's talk page, and if it's not translated within two weeks, it might get procedurally deleted. Not an issue for this noticeboard. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this, but I know for a fact that tons of you LOVE Selena's music (I don't know who she is, I must say). Can one of you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Girl in Town and maybe come to a conclusion, or do something with this odd AfD? Squank you, Drmies (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For days now, User:Wikiisunbiased is reverting my edits at article Yugoslavs with no explanation, even though I aksed him to participate at the talk page - he refused (since he didn't discussed anyithing or explained his actions). I left arguments at the talk page, but this user doesn't want to read them or doesn't care about them, and he continues to revert my edits with explanation that I'm doing this because "I have a political agend."

I did asked him at the article's talk page to participate in discussion, in edit summary and at his talk page, but I got no answer. --Wustenfuchs 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Not sure what's happened here - I think a page move has caused an article to escape deletion. I'm in a rush to go out, so I wondered if someone else could have a look at Bmejobs.co.in please. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenBuxton (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Got it :) thanks. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I contacted administrator Black Kite about his deletion of the Body Sensor Networks wiki page. However, the message was removed and he posted on his talk page that he is currently on a break and I should contact another administrator. Could you please let me know who would be the appropriate person that I should contact in this case? Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airuko (talk • contribs) 08:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You've got the attention of lots of admins now, so here is probably a reasonable place to ask. However, given that the article in question was converted to a redirect as a result of this articles for deletion discussion you might want to start a discussion about the closure of the discussion at WP:DRV or simply start adding content to Body area network per the result of the AfD discussion. However, I am concerned about your post on Black Kite's talk page. Why did you repeatedly refer to yourself as 'we' in it? - Wikipedia does not allow shared accounts. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I did not share my account with any other users. I use the word 'we' as I am representing a group of few people who are currently working in the area and on the Body Sensor Networks wiki page. Airuko (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I will file the DRV and will try my best to avoid COI. (Airuko (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC))

International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks created by this user should be deleted immediately as a copyvio of [this], the site they are trying to promote. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to unanticipated vacancies, there is a pressing question of how many Arbcom seats WP:ACE2011 should fill. Voting is scheduled to start in about 30 hours. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011#Supplemental_RFC_on_number_of_seats_to_fill:_ACE2011. Monty₈₄₅ 16:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't seem to make any headway on this. I had presumed this matter resolved and forgotten all about it, but apparently the user Chrisieboy * has taken up some stance against my edits. He apparently wants me to reinitialize a discussion from nine months ago, which after a few edits by me and then a lot of edits by him resulted in the article having the information I am trying to revert back to at this time (as some anon messed it up five months ago). Obviously you should read the discussion to semi-fully understand the matter, but to summarize:

1. The Italian government decided to in 2003 formally codify their flag's colors, and the colors they chose pissed a lot of people off.
2. In something resembling a compromise, the colors were re-codified in 2006, and the colors they chose pissed a lot of people off.
3. Chrisieboy is reverting two tangible changes of mine, at least one of which (#2 here) he has previously allowed:
   1. The removal of a (now defunct) link to a(n unofficial, but we need not get into that) document referencing the 2003 law's colors, which the article text in question does not address (it explicitly addresses the 2006 law's colors alone).
   2. The accurate representation of the official 2006 law's colors in CMYK form (despite the RGB and HTML values being correct) [the HSV values I saw no point in, I have not checked if they are accurate equivalents].

As I said I had forgotten about this, but reacquainting myself with the aforementioned tedious month long discussion I had with this user last time, I doubt the two of us alone will be able to resolve this in any timely manner. TIA for your time.
¦ Reisio (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you found the wrong noticeboard. Issues of this type are handled at WP:DRN. --Jayron32 01:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, but about inapplicable references and indisputably inaccurate data. I'll try there, however. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of shooting ones self in the foot, considering that Reisio has been on and off trying to push for a change of the way we define the colors of the Italian flag for the past 6 years.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is shooting anyone anywhere. The OP can start a thread at WP:DRN. If no neutral editors support them, then whatever. But this is still not an admin issue. --Jayron32 01:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Reisio is disruptive and doesn't seem to grasp how Wikipedia works. He has previously been blocked for making personal attacks and edit warring on this page and others, including Commons where he is blocked indefinitely. Per WP:BRD, I have asked him to discuss the changes he wants to see, but he doesn't feel this is necessary. I will take it up at WP:DRN if he raises it there. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue seems resolved for the time being. Thanks. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC on the Manual of Style linking guideline may need attention. Over three weeks have gone by since initiation, and the input has died down (no comments for the past week) so it may be time to look into and see if there is consensus, and close it. Could some admin with time to read and digest the comments please take a look? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin do me a favour and do an IP check on both mine (it's my user name) and JentinaChapman as Kww blocked it thinking it was me, when it's not, one of my friends has the actual Jentina Chapman's Facebook, she's an ex-rapper-ex-model turned mum who has Gypsy in her blood, and both her and my friend are posting on Facebook and they're doing their nut about it, and this is a major urgent request as I don't think someone like that should suffer 'cause of Kww's mistake, I'd be happy if after someone's done a IP check to tell Kww that it's not a match. Please contact me ASAP please, thank you. 86.142.233.1 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: "thinking it was me" certainly sounds like an admission of being MariahJaydHicky, so the blocked user is pleading with us to restore the edits of an account that claims to be a famous singer on the grounds that they weren't actually by the blocked editor, they were actually by the famous singer? Blocking the IP, undoing previous edits due to admission of block evasion.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean about "IP check", and what do you want us to do? Are you thinking of a Checkuser? Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

MuZeMike already confirmed the block on the IP, and blocked yet another sock, JentinaRoseChapman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 00:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wicca is now overdue, anyone care to make a decision? (I proposed it, so I can't....) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is another backlog at WP:RPP waiting for every admin that sees this :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We've also got a (small) backlog at WP:AIV.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Rivas&action=historysubmit&diff=462357078&oldid=462026854

The subject or rep of the subject is editing his article. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) does not feel that the restriction listed at WP:RESTRICT prohibiting him from making cosmetic changes to wikicode has legitimacy, and at least one administrator feels that this restriction should not be enforced as listed [1]. The restriction was implemented following this discussion and is reproduced below for ease-of-reference:

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged. Sanction imposed per this AN discussion, to be enforced by escalating blocks

Was this restriction duly imposed and should it remain in effect? –xeno^talk 14:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, you are conflating two issues. Whether "one administrator feels that this restriction should not be enforced as listed" is not at issue. At least one administrator feels that you are not uninvolved.

And really I would much rather discuss this issue when I have time to spend on it, and would raise it then.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

The purpose of this thread is to explore whether the editing restrictions are in force and thus should be enforced. It will clarify to you whether you should be adhering to the restrictions, or ignoring them as you have been.
If you want to explore the issue of whether I am wp:involved, and whether User:Fences and windows should have unblocked on that premise, then initiate a separate thread. –xeno^talk 14:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK I had missed the details other than the involved admin part

... the violations linked to above are trivial and all edits involved other changes. Blocking for capitalisation changes from {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} is punitive and provides no benefit to the encyclopedia. Fences&Windows 02:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Responding to the main question. R.F. has a history of violating our norms for large-scale editing (both by bots and on his main account) by making changes that impose his personal style preferences on articles (e.g. this bot edit [2] with a misleading edit summary). The history of problems can be seen in his block log and the block log for his bot SmackBot which was renamed to Helpful Pixie Bot. In general there is no reason that an editor would make cosmetic changes to a page that don't affect its rendering, particularly on a large-scale basis, so the edit restriction would not even affect an editor who is following our best practices. The reason for the restriction is that R.F. has continued to do so even when editors complain or warn him there is no consensus for the changes he is making. For this reason, edit restrictions are, unfortunately, necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Two comments. 1) I feel you (Xeno) are misrepresenting the unblocking admin (Fences and windows) when you say that he feels the "restriction should not be enforced" – he unblocked because he felt you were involved and that the block was punitive. 2) Reading over the restriction, I do not see a consensus – rather the closing admin deciding "This Gordian knot clearly needs cutting, and I hereby cut it: the restriction proposed above is enacted" with seemingly no regard as to what the actual consensus is. Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He could have made a thread on AN or ANI, for example. By a somewhat distant analogy: once you pay a parking ticket, it's too late to go back and complain that ticket was wrong. R.F. was already blocked in September under one of the restrictions, months after they were enacted, and there is no sign he tried to have either of the restriction removed. If he thought they did not have consensus, it would not make sense for him to let them go unchallenged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The unblocking admin wrote that "Blocking for capitalisation changes from {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} is punitive and provides no benefit to the encyclopedia" - this reads to me like they believe Rich should not be blocked for such cosmetic changes despite the editing restriction prohibiting him from doing so. –xeno^talk 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding your interpretation, perhaps you are correct (I would not speak for Fences and Windows). For some reason, the impression I got from your opening statement was that you thought that F&W had unblocked because they disagreed with the restrictions (on re-reading your statement, I probably read too much into it). IMO, the main reason for unblocking appeared to be because F&W thought you were involved – what F&W thinks of the restrictions appears to be a side note. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The fact that the restriction remained on WP:Editing restrictions is evidence that there was consensus for it, as it would have been removed otherwise. R.F. knew that the restriction was enacted, but did not work to try to have it it removed. He was blocked under it for a week in September 2011, and the block was not overturned early. It appears from R.F.'s actions that he accepted the restriction as valid. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    Who would it be removed by? Are there actually editors who watch that page and make sure that the referenced discussions at AN and ANI have been closed correctly (i.e. that the consensus was interpreted correctly)? Half of Xeno's question when starting this thread is "Was this restriction duly imposed". Is your answer to that honestly 'yes, because it is still listed at WP:Editing restrictions'? That does not actually answer the question. Also, have you recently read the AN discussion that is linked? I just read it again and I cannot see any consensus. But I am just a lowly editor, so perhaps you could explain to me why Rd232's closure was a correct reading of the consensus? Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    I believe that block was for his other editing restriction. –xeno^talk 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the logic here is simple. The edits in question aren't helpful, and they are sometimes disruptive. Thus the injunction imposed is logical and sensible. Rklawton (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - looking at the lnked edits, each of them, I believe, is changing the order/locations of the footnote markers, which isn't a cosmetic change to the wikitext; additionally, since he did the edits using AWB, several other cosmetic changes happened in accordence with the explicit exception listed. I don't think that him changing the "r" at the beginning of a {{references}} between upper and lower case, as part of a relevant edit, is harmful - but I believe that it isn't part of the automatic AWB corrections, which would make it a violation of the ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support The restrictions and Xenos block. Obviously this was not a punitive block as I just saw this on my watchlist this morning [3]. There only changes were cosmetic. It shows a change, in red, but they look identical. I see no visual difference between either version of the page.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If people wonder why we have such restrictions: Rich Farmbrough is currently changin a lot of Ice hockey player articles, based on a discussion at the Wikiproject talk page. Similarly to the issues that lead to hiw restrictions, he is again becomeing sloppy. This is an example of what he attempts to do (note: these changes alter nothing in the appearance of the page). Among the last ten such edits are again two examples where he introduces errors thoughn in this one he changes [[Shot (ice hockey)|shots]] to [[Shot (ice hockey)|shootss]] (apparently a script that changes "|shot" to "|shoots" gone wrong in the body of the article), and in this one he changes in a citebook template |location=Toronto |id=ISBN 0-385-25999-9 to |location=Toronto ISBN= 0-385-25999-9; the original gave a good looking result in the references, the new one is a lot worse.

These are not huge errors, but considering that the improvements of the infobox changes are minimal (next to non-existent), the end result is hardly making the encyclopedia better. Fram (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair the hockey ones will result in a change on the page. We are streamlining the code in the infobox and currently support the old version and the new version so that there was no loss displayed data. Once we strip out the old code if he did not make those changes the information would stop displaying. Referring to the first link you provide. The second one I have no comment on. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, so the infobox changes are useful, but how he does them and what he attempts to change otherwise is too often problematic, which is exactly why he got restrictions in the first place. Fram (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree I have previously agreed with his restrictions. Was just pointing out the reasoning for the first one. I believe he was probably testing for a Bot Request he has in on it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair they'll only result in a change if they're in use, edits like this [4] where he's removing 2 fields not in use and changing capitalization have absolutely no bearing on proposed template changes, or page rendering.--Crossmr (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

People have had time to chew this over, and I don't really see anyone objecting to his restrictions here, nor any strong objections that these kinds of edits fall under his restrictions. And yet, Rich continues to make edits like this [5]. These changes have no visual meaning, nor do they have any meaning for future code versions of the template. Now do we have any uninvolved admins who can actually enforced the communities agreed upon editing restrictions?--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it if we really are all wrapped up on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for CBM (or anyone, really) to answer my questions above. Also, I'd at least like to see Rich given the chance to explain the diffs that Crossmr has provided. Jenks24 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The question "who would it be removed by"? I can say that if someone randomly placed an editing restriction against me, and I didn't think it had consensus, I would just post at ANI and let someone remove it if it didn't actually have consensus. Indeed if this discussion shows there is not consensus for the restriction then someone will remove it. In the end, the main test for consensus is whether an edit sticks. The particular edit that recorded the restrictions does seem to have stuck. R.F. was well aware of it, so he had ample opportunity to appeal if he thought the edit was wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not as enamoured of process as you. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

As Rich has indicated above, he doesn't have time to discuss it now, because he's apparently far to busy making these edits rather than discuss them, which is all the more reason he needs to be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You would enforce an apparent ER without (a) satisfying yourself that it was properly imposed and (b) checking that the edits violated it? Interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

• Comment - I think capitalising template names in template calls is something that stock AWB can do, and therefore has nothing to do with the restrictions anyway? Deryck C. 09:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • But he is doing "AWB" runs which change templates in a non-AWB manner, e.g. changing <references/> to {{Reflist}}[6][7]. No idea why he is piping links in the Persondata template, it's a rather useless waste of space[8][9]. And I thought the reordering of refs had been objected to?[10] Fram (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    1. What's with the snarky quote marks around "AWB"?
    2. <references/> is not a template, it is deprecated and incorrect markup.
    3. I share your opinion on piped links in {{Persondata}}, it is however not a big deal, and standard AWB
    4. Correctly ordering refs is standard AWB.
  • So basically just the same modus operandi. Throw enough mud, maybe something will stick? Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Because your "AWB" edits often are not really comparable to what AWB usually does? E.g. your last AWB edit removes a section, still tags it as minor, and doesn't do what the edit summary describes, i.e. put the removed text on the talk page. That's not an AWB error of course, it's your problem. Reordering refs is indeed an AWB feature, so that's no problem. Piped info in persondata as well, I'll start a discussion on the AWB page. Where's your evidence though that "references/" is "deprecated and incorrect markup"? Pages like Help:Footnotes treat it as if it is perfectly acceptable, and it is not a standard AWB feature to replace it with "reflist". Long discussions indicated that there is no consensus to replace "references/". In fact, this edit is given as an example edit of what AWB will do in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. Fram (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If you don't know why that's malformed, go and read one of our pages on mark-up languages. And we should keep mark-up as simple as possible.
      • Well of course AWB doesn't paste it to the talk page. I have to save the edit, switch to a browser and do that manually, possibly on a different machine. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC).
        
        • Which in both cases totally misses the point. The first one is supported on Wikipedia (in fact, reflist is only given as an alternative to it, not as the accepted and wanted replacement), and you shouldn't impose your preference over other accepted methods, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. And the problem with the AWB edit was a) that it definitely wasn't a "minor edit", and b) that you didn't follow it up and so used an incorrect edit summary. Like I said, "That's not an AWB error of course, it's your problem." Fram (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
        • And please correct your edit summary when you start making more AWB edits[11][12][13]. Fram (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Re Deryck C.: The restriction is to the things that are built into stock AWB. In principle AWB could be programmed to do anything, and it is very extensible; one issue with R.F.'s edits has been things that he wrote to add to AWB. The list of things built into AWB is at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. Capitalizing template calls (e.g. {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}}) is not listed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So again, anyone willing to enact the editing restrictions? He continues to make further useless edits such as this [14] and has provided no explanation for them. Capitalization and removing fields not in use is clearly a violation of his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that the hockey player ones were discussed, to some extent, at the talk page for that infobox. Thus they are not a bright line violation of the restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - though those edits have rather low value, the task arguably meets the test of 'demonstrable consensus'. –xeno^talk 13:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, a local consensus cannot override a larger one. A local consensus on a particular article/template/etc page wouldn't override the community imposed editing restrictions. There doesn't seem to be anything in his quoted restriction above making an allowance for it either. That said, he is not editing per the discussion on the talk page either. There is really only a proposal from one person with a couple comments, none of which really are addressing the edits Rich is making in my above examples, and then Rich steps in and starts doing it. Even still in the proposal, it suggests change shot to shoots. It does not say "if shoots already exists, remove redundant unused fields and perform unnecessary capitalization.". The request was more or less created by Rich himself as far as I can tell. He can't go out and create a request to get around his editing restrictions. I highly suggest people take a far more detailed look at how these edits have come about.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is borderline, but it's better to let him be once too many than to block him once too many. Either he will no longer make more blatant violations of his restrictions, and then the restrictions have basically worked (finally), or he will make more blatant violations, and then is the time to block him again. For now, I suggest lettng him continue with the Ice Hockey infobox edits (if they aren't finished yet), but to indicate to him that he is not allowed to make a number of other changes (template capitalization, changing references/ to reflist, ...), either separately or combined with such edits, unless there is clear consensus for such changes as well. Standard AWB changes are of course allowed to be combined with these edits. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything borderline about it. He's taken it upon himself to perform edits which are not part of the proposal, which did not come from a consensus generating discussion, and which clearly violate his editing restrictions. Where is the borderline here?--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One would think that removing deprecated fields would be implied in a request to update the infoboxes on pages to the new code being used. I know I certainly would want the old fields removed to not confuse future editors. While I have in the past very much thought he crossed some lines in regards to his restrictions, at this point I think you are just picking at him. The capitalization he probably shouldn't do though since he is restricted from it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that with his past edits aside he is doing the Ice hockey editgs at the request of that project and that project should be watching to make sure that problems are fixed. I also agree that removing deprecated parameters is a very good thing even if the removal of them does not render a change to the page. --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If the field was in use, I would certainly agree that removing them was the appropriate thing to do. That is what he is supposed to be doing. However, if the fields aren't in use, there is no benefit from going through and removing them. They're just like any other unused field in a template. No one on the template talk requested he do that. It was only requested that field names be changed. It was Rich's choice to go ahead and remove these fields, which is something he's had issues with in the past. Since he's not actually updating fields on these articles, the net result is that he's doing nothing to the page render. And DJ Sasso if you agree he shouldn't be doing that capitalization, and he is, I'm not really being that picky am I?--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with some of the arguments against him and think that some of the casing changes are a bit dubious I strongly disagree that leaving a deprecated parameter makes no difference. It encourages new users to fill the data in and then it adds to confusion about why its not working. Leaving deprecated parameters whether populated or not is just a bad practice akin to leaving empty beer cans around the kitchen in our homes. We wouldn't do this there we shouldn't do it here either. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an extremely rare case, and I don't find it likely that with an existing field listing those values that a new user would go in and start trying to fill out the same information in another field. If other useful edits are taking place on the page and those fields are removed at the time, fine. But as it is, Rich is doing the same thing he's always been doing here, at no one's request but his own.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Argument problems

I added this as a subsection to not confuse it with the ongoing discussion. Aside from the issues with Rich's edits in the discussion there seems to be a lot of sloppiness in the accusations against him. I find it a little troublesome that in multiple cases in this discussion I have seen edits blaming Rich for violating a rule that the accuser either doesn't understand or is choosing to interpret in a way hat misrepresents the problem. If we are going to accuse a member of violating the policy we need to ensure that our accusations aren't themselves "sloppy". --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading this whole conversation, I have become convinced that the editing restrictions are more trouble than they're worth and should be dropped. I'm really not seeing a benefit to the 'pedia in keeping these restrictions active. 28bytes (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also reread the discussions that lead to the restrictions in the first place. The benefit to the encyclopedia is that with the restrictions, we have much less problems with Rich Farmbrough making error after error (e.g. with rapid page or category creations), and with Rich Farmbrough misusing some cleanup task to impose his own preference in hundreds or thousands of articles (e.g. changing the capitalisation of the parameters in the persondata template against the general consensus, or changing the capitalisation of templates like citeweb and citenews, or adding or removing spaces in headers), often coupled with more errors. See e.g. User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Oct#Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines: he changes hundreds of cases of U.S. to US (to be MOS compliant), but didn't check his edits very thoroughly, revealing a number of serious errors after a cursory glance at them. What's the point of making a minor change that doesn't add anything to the meaning of a page but makes it slightly more MOS compliant, if at the same time you change bluelinks to redlinks, thereby making the article worse? Fram (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare e.g., from the same run of US-corrections, the version pre-Richard Farmbrough[15] and the version post-Richard Farmbrough[16]. Scroll both times down to "Selected recorded music reviews" to get an idea of the difference. It was corrected ten days later by another editor. Fram (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, those edits you link to are undeniably bad. But it's not clear to me that those obviously bad edits are what editing restriction is targeting. If we're going to crack down on something, I would rather it be the harmful/page-breaking edits than the cosmetic ones. 28bytes (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection against any improved editing restrictions which reduce the level of errors (and unnecessary or unwanted changes) further while keeping the possibility for Rich Farmbrough to do useful gnoming or repetitive work anyway. For the moment, the current restrictions are the best method to, if not eliminate, at least minimize the re-emergence of earlier problems. Fram (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem with the current restriction is that it does nothing to curb the problematic edits like the ones you linked to, while generating much needless noticeboard drama about harmless (if pointless) cosmetic edits. A worthwhile restriction would do precisely the opposite. 28bytes (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Many people objected to his unending pointless cosmetic changes. that is why the restrictions came about.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to refer an open proxy unblock request here for discussion (Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Unblock#80.239.242.0.2F23). I've also placed an {{unblock}} request on the page of the IP address itself.

The history is this is an IP that was originally blocked on enwp back in 2009 for five years on the grounds that it was an "open proxy". I've no idea whether it is still an open proxy or not. There is no recent history of vandalism (indeed no history at all according to the contributions page, although there may be some oversighted edits that I can't see). It's used on mobile phones for editing, so I think there could be quite a strong argument on inclusion grounds that we should allow editing from this IP. Should it be unblocked? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember now. Anyone, including our many banned editors, can pop along to the demo version on the web and continue editing, as I just did with 80.239.243.46 (talk · contribs). Yes, that would qualify it as an open proxy. I also remember much previous discussion about getting its XFF headers, but I'm hoping someone else will know what's occurred about that. It could be a more limited range that's assigned to the demo version. I'm hoping someone will know more about this range than me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(Moved to AN/I [17], since it concerns a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please process entries left? Bots cannot handle them as pages either form redirect loops (or redirect to self) or are protected preventing bot fixes. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Any redirects in particular? I don't see any mainspace redirects on that list that haven't already been fixed. 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Userspace ones in particular needs fixation. We do not need any of these really. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see them now. Doing... 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the obvious errors (user talk self-redirects). The others appear to be either intentional redirect testing in userspace or .js pages, both of which I'm reluctant to fool with unless the users specifically request it. 28bytes (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You can get rid of the js/css safely, I believe. They came from renames. T. Canens (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right wiki to test these. Test.wikipedia is the address. I don't see why one needs to test this on wikipedia anyways. It is a hog on bot-time and clutters the finite slots of the double redirect log. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned out a couple dozen but that's all I have time for tonight. Hopefully another admin can pitch in and clear out the rest. 28bytes (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The ones that are left are mainly respected users (and admins?), who could have a note dropped - and are loops. Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect I'm not sure about. Clearly it has documentary value, and is not a loop. I'd be inclined to leave it. Test.wikipedia can be useful for testing, however be aware that it for a specific type of testing that may not be what you have in mind. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

(I left messages on the ones I didn't delete G2.) Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

There's a discussion going on here [25] regarding the banning policy and particularly WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Please drop by and join in the discussion. Night Ranger (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Today, I discovered that when Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider W was moved, several redirects to it (to save time in not making identical editnotices for other pages) were speedily deleted because they were at the time broken redirects. Rather than restoring these (as some other pages were moved), and because I would like additional uses of the edit notice on newer pages, I would redirects to the aforementioned template set up at the following pages as to save time and effort in making identical templates:

• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider Double (character)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider Accel
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider Skull
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Dopant (Kamen Rider)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Kamen Rider W characters
• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Kamen Rider W episodes
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider OOO
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider OOO (character)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider Birth
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Yummy (Kamen Rider)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Kamen Rider OOO characters
• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Kamen Rider OOO episodes
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider Fourze
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider Fourze (character)
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Zodiarts
• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Kamen Rider Fourze characters
• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Kamen Rider Fourze episodes

Thank you.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... --RA (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Regards, --RA (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Arjun Barwal. If anyone recognizes the nature of the disruption (a form of slamming to a shock-site); the user who did this admits to being a sock, but I can't place them in a drawer. If anyone can help connect the dots, perhaps we can start a WP:SPI report and/or dig out any sleeper socks. The edit-filter hit that brought down the block is here: [26]. --Jayron32 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The target of the shortened URL is something with 'meepsheep' in it. Looking at the SPI archive it seems that one of their nameing schemata is Indian names. Is this the drawer you were looking for? If not, I also remember Grawp doing some vandalism in that vein. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The two blocked accounts were on open proxies, so I'm sure whoever it is has hopped to another one by now. –MuZemike 00:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your appeal photo from Brandon Harris is freaky, frightening and scary.

And your process for contacting you is so complicated I wonder if anyone will ever see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.131.168.208 (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? --Jayron32 06:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A photo of Brandon Harris is featured in this year's fundraising appeals for the Wikimedia Foundation. Graham87 09:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor Brandon. — Joseph Fox 11:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at User_talk:173.131.168.208 AndrewRT(Talk) 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please have the garbage in the history of User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed selectively deleted? I don't want good faith IPs to see that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 04:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a backup at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, could somebody take a look when they have a chance? Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it might be useful to ask Helperbot to automatically remove username reports after they've gone maybe 72 hours or so without being blocked, provided it is within the bot's capabilities. It is fairly safe to say that a report that has gone unblocked for two or three days is not a blatant username violation, but on any given visit to UAA you can find several such reports, particularly in the bot list. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's cleaned up.--v/r - TP 16:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"most of my AfD votes are not abusive". Best quote I've read all day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

As proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Feedback#Codification, I have written a first draft for a new long-term policy for ArbCom elections. The first draft is at User:Od Mishehu/Arbitration Committee Elections, and users are welcome to comment about it at User talk:Od Mishehu/Arbitration Committee Elections. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are 786 articles in the category Category:Abortion, and sub categories, and 786 talk page. (List here.) Do we really want to semi-prot atleast 1522 pages for 3 years? Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

That passed only 7 to 5, see the discussion. Not sure that was really thought through. Perhaps ArbCom should semi-protect them all by hand so they get an idea of the scale of what they've decided? Fences&Windows 22:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "all articles" refers to a subset of the full category? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It refers to sections 4 and 4.1 which say "broadly construed" unless I've misunderstood. That could include the 3336 pages (Plus talk = 6672) which link to abortion, or the significantly more that merely mention it. Vagueness is also not a good feature of that particular remedy. Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

No administrator is obligated to carry the decision out, nor, I would argue, should they. Leaving it for other administrators to implement on individual articles at their own discretion is probably the best decision, IMO. (Disclosure: I was a party to this case). NW (Talk) 03:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that sets up a very interesting Worcester v. Georgia situation. This should be interesting. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have notified the other members of the Arbitration Committee about this discussion, and have asked them to comment here. I am recused on this specific case. Risker (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• My own opinion is that preemptively semiprotecting all those articles would be a valid, although probably immensely silly course of action. Much more rational is reading that remedy to allow such semiprotection on an as-needed basis if and when trouble pops up.

  The point of that remedy is that it was clear from the evidence (and even cursory inspection of the page histories) that much trouble was caused by anonymous editors' POV insertions and warring, shutting down that source of inflammatory conduct seemed like the most logical course of action. On pages where there is no such trouble, or where that trouble isn't significant, semiprotection is just busywork. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what's the difference between your reading of remedy 1 and proposed remedy 1.1, then? Moreover, when someone says "shall", they usually do not mean "may". T. Canens (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Either ArbCom needs to reword that remedy, or they need to desysop most of us admins for disobeying it, because "shall do X" means "may not avoid doing X". Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And why does it say that 1.1 didn't pass? 7-2 is usually passing, isn't it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that any admin may, even preemptively, semi-protect any page which falls under the criterion of "relating to Abortion", or the talk page of such a page; and that at the first sign of trouble on any of these pages from anons or new users, it should be semi-protected. Expiry of such protections should be 28 November 2014. While "shall" doesn't mean "may", there is no admin who is required to enforce this remedy completely. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1 and 1.1 are alternatives, and 1 has more support than 1.1. You need 7 votes to pass a proposal (a majority of the 12 arbs active), and Coren's support for 1.1 is conditioned ("iff") on 1 not passing, which means that 1.1 is really 6-2 and did not pass. T. Canens (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

*headdesk* Of course. Sorry, I've been tired for the past couple of days. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to create an article on the title Hemistola kezukai, but this title seems to be blocked. It is a valid moth species, so I see no reason why it should be blocked. Could someone "de-block" it for me? Thanks Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've created the page for you, so you can add to it now: Hemistola kezukai. User:BarkingFish has spotted the entry on the black list which is blocking it from being created, so I will have a look into that as well. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Could you do the same for the corresponding talk page? I always put a project template on the talkpage. Thanks again! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Done the talk page too now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You rock! Thanks Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin please hide this? WP:DENY.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I hid some more revs that came around near 6:13 UTC. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old → I don't know if Thanksgiving break did something to throw everything off, but there are some AfDs there that are long overdue for closing, some going to 10 days now. –MuZemike 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, there is a ongoing discussion regarding the use of bots in WP:NFCC#3b enforcement at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Fbot_9. In a nutshell, a bot is being used to flag oversized non-free media files for size reduction. There is however, some disagreement on the maximum size of non-free images (without violating WP:NFCC#3b, and thereby requiring a size reduction) and the method of determining what files should be exempt from WP:NFCC#3b. Please, we want input from all editors! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently created Cancer research institute is about the specific Cancer Research Institute (cpitalized). Title was protected in 2007. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: article speedied. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, CRI seems notable. Perhaps the page should be unprotected? Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Hi all. I'd like to introduce a new, revolutionary bot task to the community! Have you ever had the problem where you've had to replace one image with hundreds of image links with another image? Have you ever had to orphan a file redirect with an excess of links? If you've ever had either of those problems, they'll trouble you no more; I'd like to introduce Fbot task #10, a bot which will swap the usages of one file for another on request by any administrator! It's easy to request a swap. Simply go to User:Fbot/Replace, follow the administrator instructions, and you're good to go. The bot will complete your request within 48 hours. While Fbot #10 is currently in trial, it is fully functional, and ready for use. Presently, requests may be made by any autoconfirmed user, as Fbot 10 is still in trial. That said, for the duration of the trial period, all requests will be manually checked before being submitted to the bot, and inappropriate requests will be promptly removed. Once the trial is over, requests will be limited to administrators only, and non-admins may request swaps here. Happy swapping! FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's say that everything works perfectly as it's designed. Will this bot work like CommonsDelinker does at Commons? Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it will duplicate the replace function of CommonsDelinker, but locally. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You should probably include note of this bot in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please could an uninvolved admin (or possibly several) take a look at sections 1-11 of WT:NOT (the discussions about Wikipedia and censorship) and preferably close some (or all) of the discussion threads. This has been going on for the several weeks now and tempers are showing signs of fraying. There is 740k of text on the page now, almost all of it related to the censorship issue (108,000 words / 169 A4 pages of wikitext in 12pt text). Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And with this comment, I think the line into personal attacks has been crossed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>And of course Tarc's IDHT behaviour and insistence that NOTCENSORED takes precedence over NPOV has nothing at all to do with it.</sarcasm> Hans Adler 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, Ludwigs' IDHT behavior and insistence that his POV takes precedence over NPOV and NOTCENSORED has nothing at all to do with it... That said, there are a few editors that really need to be told to drop the stick already. All this bickering got old weeks ago, yet certain people remain convinced that argumentum ad nauseum is a winning strategy in their little war. Resolute 19:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't bring the discussion to this page, there's already enough to go around there. What matters is that personal attacks have no place in civil discussion, regardless of who made them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• For the sake of bringing the tensions down a bit, I have hatted my most recent comment in that thread. Other editors may extend the hat as they see fit. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Lol, I can predict the response of those reading this:

Please could an uninvolved admin (or possibly several) take a look at sections 1-11 of... (stops reading)

You really are not going to attract many users, admin or not, to a 740k heated discussion, especially not several. That being said while I am disappointed with the behavior of several editors, much of that would be aimed towards those who have been proposing these changes, asking for admins to intervene won't change anything if there's nothing particularly needing their powers.AerobicFox (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I need an uninvolved administrator to close Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban. The discussion is simply not got going to go anywhere and the two involved in the dispute are getting increasingly bitter. Comments from uninvolved editors appear to be falling on deaf ears. Nightw 14:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If an administrator closes this RFC which was not able to reach to any conclusion nor consensus, I would ask an administrator to give an advice where to take this issue to find a solution. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I left an outside perspective.--v/r - TP 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried that. No wonder all the regulars on that noticeboard have bailed... Nightw 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The closing administrator is also requested to draw out a summary of rough consensus on the issue (if he can see one at WP:NPOVN#Taliban) along with the closure and close the RFC on the talk page (which doesn't seem to get any comments from outside) if a higher form of dispute resolution is advised . --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am closing. I'm putting the archive template in now, and will fill out the details of closure shortly afterwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nicely said. Nightw 13:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read Claritas' ultimatum to the en.wiki community here (from Meta). –MuZemike 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also see User talk:86.6.32.228, if you're interested. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can users please check out Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011#Sitenotice and leave comments and suggestions? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to print the AmigaOS article, but the PDF produced is without images. I 've ruined the article beyond recognition (added lines etc) in hope the changes will make the PDF creator create a PDF with images, but with no result. Someone fix Wikipedia's PDF creator and revert the changes I 've made (i don't know how) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.197.118 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a better place for this would be Wikipedia: Village pump (technical).`` ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 15:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the images are non-free, so I suspect that the lack of images in the PDF is intentional — fair use online doesn't necessarily mean fair use in printed form. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

next pages are duplicate CEOSS and Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services--Musamies (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Both those pages need to be deleted as copyvios of [38] and other pages under that domain. Goodvac (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Those were pretty blatant copy-and-pastes of the source site. 28bytes (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was discussing how Wikipedia works with my students, and one question they asked me with regards to our policies got me pretty stumped. Here is the hypothetical scenario. Assume editors A and B are under no restrictions or sanctions. Editor A writes a Wikipedia article in a private space, then gives it to editor B, who posts it as his own. This was done with editors A consent. Did any violation of the rules occurred? I was thinking that some copyright/attribution might be the issue here, but if editor A releases any rights to the text, then is there any issue? This scenario is in fact not uncommon in the educational settings with student projects, and I am pretty sure that many students have done / are doing / will do things like that (student A writes the text, sends it to a more wiki savvy student B, who then posts it). In a related scenario, I can imagine editor A being a wiki expert, and editor B, a n00b, with editor B sending editor A some text in an email attachment and asking for help with wikification and such. After editor A fixes the text and sends it back to B, B would post it on Wikipedia. Thinking about such examples, I think that they violate no wiki policy I am familiar with (I considered forms of puppetry and such), but what is your take on it? Of course ideally all editors involved would have the skills to write, format and post content themselves, but this is hardly enforceable, and thus nothing in the editors' interactions described above is objectionable, right? I hope I can tell my students that they are not doing anything wrong :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'Importing text' section of the terms of use seems to answer that question. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My reading of it suggests that is ok, providing that all authors agree on using a Wikipedia-compatible license, and if the license does not require attribution (let's say that authors use pure CC-SA), even attribution is not required, correct? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding:

1. Copyright is an issue if the material is released only under licenses which require attribution. Any content posted on Wikipedia, unless stated otherwise, is under the CC-BY-SA - meaning that it can only be reproduced with proper attribution. Naturally, a copyright holder may choose to allow a specific person, or all members of a specific group of people, to not attribute him/her.
   Additionally, the CC-SA license (discontinued since 2004 - see Creative Commons licenses) isn't compatable with our licensing, as we are under a different license, and by changing over to our license you would be violating the SA component.
2. Each of your students is personally responsible for any content (s)he posts. If student A writes content which violates any of our policies, and user B posts it, then user B is considered responsible for the violation.
3. One thing you can do is have each student create these articles as subpages of their own user pages (see Wikipedia:User pages), and when the articles are ready they can be moved to the article namespace. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the work is copyright user A and attributed to user B. By posting it without attribution to someone user B is claiming copyright, which is wrong. If they post it and say merely "This is PD" then it is probably OK, although it could attract the attention of OTRS type folk. The terms of use do not cover this, perhaps you should drop a note on the discussion of the new terms of use. Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

When student B saves the page, it says, "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" (full message here). In the scenario you present, Student B may or may not have appropriate permission to grant such a release of the material. However, others would have no way to tell - we assume good faith, so if someone posts material that doesn't appear to have been copied from elsewhere, we would assume that the person was being honest in their agreement to the release, unless we had some specific reason to question it (for example, if the text was on another website).

Hence, the upshot in practical terms is - it's unlikely to be problematic, but it's certainly not best-practice, and not a good thing to be teaching the students to do - because correct attribution is important. It is really quite simple for Student A to paste the text onto Wikipedia for themselves, prior to Student B fixing the formatting; Student A should just head to WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, create a page, write their text there, and save it. Student B could then edit the page - and the page history would show correct attribution.  Chzz  ►  16:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "gives it to editor B", and "with editors A consent"? Either of those phrases should be sufficient.

1. If by "gives" you mean copyright assignment then the original author is irrelevant; for all intents and purposes B is free to do with the content as he pleases, including posting it here under CC-BY-SA. He need not (and indeed may not) assert authorship of it, but our license really deals with ownership and not authorship. The two are not synonymous.
2. If by "with editors A consent" you mean "under a license which permits B to both relicense the work under CC-BY-SA and to assert ownership of it", then again we're in the clear.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. A and B may do whatever they want with each other's text if the other permits: it's fine for A to post B's text or vice versa, even without attribution, if the other permitted it. I'm free to ignore both GFDL and CC for a piece of text if the author says that I may. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Key question there is, "if the other permitted it". Imagine I gave you some text, Nyttend - in person - and said "here ya go, do what you like" - and you posted it; later, I showed that I'd published it in a magazine years before, and demanded my rights. If you had a neato-written-agreement, you'd have no worries; if you just had a verbal 'yep, cool', then you'd have a problem.

This is "academic" - in several senses - but, it's best to do things properly.  Chzz  ►  04:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So long as one can prove it was given, a verbal contract is just as good as a written one. But nevertheless this is quibbling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And since it's emailed, it can be proven. No problems here. Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to search for an ANI thread in which I participated and could not find it. I did the manual work of digging through the history to find the point where it was archived: here. 2:37, 14 August. MiszaBot II "Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713." The four threads it removed were "Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat"; "Suspicious edits"; "DragoLink 08 redux"; "User:GenKnowitall". But the three threads it had placed (at 2:36, 4 August; the foundational edit to the page) were "Suspicious edits"; "DragoLink 08 redux"; and "User:GenKnowitall".

MiszaBot is an awesome tool. I rely on it heavily. But this concerns me. :/ I don't see any reason why it would claim to be archiving four threads when it actually archived three. The only thing I could think of (that would be a problem) is if at the time it did the archiving (2:36), there were 3 threads over 24 hours old, but a minute later when it removed the content, a 4th one crossed that threshold. I don't see any timestamps that would seem to confirm that theory, but maybe I'm overlooking something? And even if that's what happened, that would seem to be a problem on a page as busy as ANI. It's likely to happen regularly.

Anybody have a clue why this is happening or what we need to do about it? I think it's important that the ANI archives be complete. I'll leave Misza a note, but since he hasn't edited in over six months thought it best to locate the discussion elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the bot is working properly. It archived the Marina Poplavskaya thread here, which filled the archive (713), so it started a new one (714) for the remaining threads. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks so much. :) Then the problem I'm having isn't with the bot, it's with the search bar. Putting "Poplavskaya" in the search bar at the top of AN results in this: [39]. (This, at least when I do it, is no hits.) I note that it defaults to article, but checking "all" doesn't make any difference: [40]. Inputting the user name instead doesn't help: [41]. Any idea what's up with that? :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is odd. I am having the same results that you are. I'm not sure what the problem might be, although I'm not particularly knowledgeable about how the search function works in the first place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(TPS from Misza13's talk) I'm glad this isn't the bot. I do see the same issue with the search function and have been experimenting but with no luck. Looks like a bug to me.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gb8pGFyohbcg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently sent me e-mail complaining that they’d been unfairly blocked as an alleged sockpuppet. The admin who blocked this user didn’t use the “blocked” template in this account’s user talk, which prevents them from asking for their block to be reviewed. I’m not sure how one is supposed to ask for a block to be reviewed when the blocking admin hasn’t used the blocked template, but hopefully asking about it here will work. The blocking admin also hasn’t specified who the alleged sockmaster is. As far as I know there wasn’t an SPI about this user, and the block apparently wasn’t a checkuser block either, because if it was it would have been listed as that in the block log.

This probably isn’t a totally new user, based on how soon after joining they were able to make complex edits, as well as the fact that this user apparently is familiar with me even though I don’t recognize them. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a sock; it could be a legitimate alternate account or a clean start account. If the evidence that it’s a sockpuppet is just that it made complex edits soon after joining, I don’t think that alone is an adequate justification for blocking. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why didn't you take this up with the blocking admin on their talk page before bringing it here? Reyk _YO! 04:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, I added a {{sockBlock}} template. The user can appeal the block, if they wish. Fixed?  Chzz  ►  04:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reyk: my impression had been that you're not supposed to challenge an admin to explain their basis for blocking a sock because of WP:BEANS. Is that not correct? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Because if the admin explains their rationale it'll help the sockmaster learn to sock more undetectably? I'm not sure what that has to with the template. Reyk _YO! 04:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the idea, I think. I've challenged admins about this a few times in the past, and had WP:BEANS cited as a reason why they couldn't provide me with an answer.

The template is a separate issue. I could have asked Bongwarrior to add the template, waited for him to add it, and then replied to Gb8's e-mail to tell him he could appeal his block now, but I don't see what that would have accomplished that wasn't accomplished by posting here. The point is to get other admins to review the block, and that can happen here also. Per WP:BURO, I don't see why the intermediate steps are necessary if the eventual outcome (other admins reviewing the block) will be the same either way. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered e-mail if privacy is a concern? Crazynas ^t 06:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This was community banned user Grundle2600, as admitted by said person on this off-wiki thread.[42] It was easy to find this by searching on the web for the screed he added to Hugo Chavez; indeed Grundle references the diff. Half the sock's edits were deleted. More a case of WP:DFTT than WP:BEANS. Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you mean. He said in one post that he was Grundle2600, and in another post he included a diff of an edit from Gb8 which he said was his sock. I wonder how Grundle2600 knows who I am? I don’t think I’ve ever seen him before.

I think it would’ve saved a lot of trouble if Bongwarrior had tagged Gb8 as a Grundle2600 sock, rather than leaving it unspecified who the sockmaster was (and even whether he had a specific sockmaster in mind at all). For an admin to tag a sockpuppet after blocking it isn’t troll-feeding; it’s a pretty standard practice. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Often sockpuppet accounts aren't tagged, but it's usually just an oversight rather than anything sinister (e.g. [43] a query I made about a sock of BelloWello (talk · contribs)). As the person who was trolled by email and then posted here and on Talk:Hugo Chavez,[44] you should perhaps be more wary of unsolicited emails. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably it's worth reveiwing WP:CBAN before contemplating acting as a proxy for banned users. [45] Mathsci (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I commented there again is because in my initial post I was being skeptical of whether the block was valid, and I thought it was important to mention that the account had now been confirmed as a Grundle2600 sock.

Your assumption seems to be that material added by a banned user must always be removed just because the editor who made the edits is banned, but policy doesn’t support that. What this part of the policy actually says is “Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them.” In this case, Jimbo Wales was independently arguing for the inclusion of material that a banned user tried to add. This is a near-perfect example of a situation where there are independent reasons for making these changes. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You were duped by a mega-troll and this is your reaction? To volunteer as a proxy for him? Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't how I would describe it, but either way why does it matter? According to the policy that I quoted, there isn't anything wrong with what I'm doing. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I very rarely add sock tags, for two reasons. First, I dislike building shrines for vandals. The sock templates are useful for keeping track of newer and possibly more unfamiliar socking behavior, but they are much less useful if the pattern is obvious and the socking is long-term. Secondly - although it wasn't the case in this situation - in some cases the sockmaster might not always be readily apparent, but it's pretty obvious that the user is someone's sock. As for the blocking templates, I don't usually add them if it's evident that the user has been blocked n times before. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The admin who blocked this user didn’t use the “blocked” template in this account’s user talk, which prevents them from asking for their block to be reviewed. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but the absence of a block message or sock tag in no way prevents a blocked user from adding the {{unblock}} template to their talkpage. Although, in this case, it would have been a futile effort anyway. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly redirect

Sex Specialist page to Sexologist Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr ajith (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest. As an autoconfirmed user, you can do this yourself anyway, the page is not protected from creation. See WP:REDIRECT for how to proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And now it's been created, and then summarily deleted a few minutes later with the following log entry: 11:28, 3 December 2011 Edokter (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Sex Specialist" ‎ (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) . I guess deletion review would be the next place to go about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...can't say it strikes me as totally implausible - I've seen far worse - but I've never been to DR and don't think I want to start now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably better just to talk to the deleting admin. I dropped them a note. 28bytes (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I really couldn't imagine a rationale for that redirect. Nothing linked to it, and it was incorrectly capitalized. — Edokter (talk) — 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone who reads Wikipedia understands our capitalization rules, and it's certainly a plausible search term. Horologium (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I created the Sex specialist redirect. — Edokter (talk) — 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of image files are showing up on my watchlist as being tagged by Fbot as "non-free file with old revisions" -- these are files that I've edited at some time in the past. The old revisions need to be deleted, but I, as a non-admin, cannot do so.

My questions therefore are:

• Is it technically possible to create a user privilege which would be limited to deleting old revisions in the File namespace?
• If it is, is that something that would be helpful in doing "gruntwork" that only admins can do now?
• Is this the place to bring up these questions?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tell me which ones they are, and I'll G7 them for you. 28bytes (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(In response to your actual questions, it's a good idea, although the VP would probably be the best place to propose it.) 28bytes (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it to VP -- and thanks for the offer, here's the list:

• File:GirlLimboLogo.jpeg‎
• File:The train poster.jpg‎
• File:Woob2 4495.jpg‎
• File:Aipac logo.PNG
• File:Thethingfromanotherworld.jpg‎
• File:Brown bunny post.jpg‎
• File:IDo!IDo!.jpg‎
• File:Watneyslogo.JPG‎
• File:BabyDollPoster.jpg‎
• File:Formeandmygalmp.jpg
• File:Dial M For Murder.jpg
• File:Cat Ballou Poster.jpeg‎
• File:Lenny Bruce at the Fillmore.jpg‎
• File:Zapped.jpg‎
• File:The Blob poster.jpg‎
• File:JiminyCricket.jpg‎
• File:Arnold Weinstein.jpg‎
• File:Jackmercer.jpg‎
• File:Homepostercopysy9.jpg‎
• File:Poster of the movie Stand by for Action.jpg
• File:State Farm Lone Star Showdown Logo.jpg‎
• File:Gone to Earth poster.jpg
• File:Stone at Met 1959.jpg‎
• File:Crawford gable astaire dancinglady poster.jpg‎
• File:MrHaney.jpg‎

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the old revisions that you'd uploaded; I believe the other editors' versions will need to wait the 7 days before they can be zapped. (Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken on that.) 28bytes (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The seven-day requirement for overlarge unused versions of nonfree images always struck me as one of our stupidest rules; I tried to get it changed some time back, but for some reason people objected. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can't guarantee that the uploader won't come back and say "That version is actually free, I was standing next to Lord Snowdon with my box Brownie." Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

In the current issue that I'm addressing at bot request reviews, FBot task 9 was originally approved to automatically tag images for reduction if over a certain size, with DASHbot task 9 to perform that reduction at some point later. There's a few problems here in that some large images shouldn't be automatically resized (presuming that a proper rationale for the larger resolution is given), so were this process to occur, such images could be reduced in size with little fanfare. The waiting period before removing the revisions would be appropriate to allow users to catch when changes occur and request the restoration of the larger image. In the past at NFC, we've agreed that removal of old revisions of a non-free image should actually be given months to a year to be done, simply to avoid issues with editing warring or the scenario of the above. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the same tagging by Fbot, and earlier Skier Dude was deleting old revisions of non-free images. Not saying this is wrong, but if old revisions of non-free images are a problem, then why don't we pursue a software change to not even maintain revisions for these types of files, or to automatically delete them after a certain time period. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're mixing multiple tasks up here Masem. This isn't Task 9. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I recognize that there two tasks of Fbot that come into play: 9 to tag large files, and a different # task (8?) to remove old revisions from non-free image files. When you add the further automation of DASHbot's resizing, you have this set of automated bots that, while generating full compliance with NFC policy, isn't necessarily friendly to false positive catching; thus the time frame before FBot #8 (removing old versions) should not be a simple 7 day period to allow users to catch false positives. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fbot 8 tags old revisions, not actually deleting them. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please go hide all the rubbish on User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed? Be sure to also hide partial reverts (but not full reverts).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Not exactly a revdel, but I feel this was a better solution. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as I was looking over the history of that page I was considering doing the same thing. 28bytes (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins had been doing revdeletion, but I wanted some selective deletion to leave no trace. That's what I'd like from now on.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Since yesterday, the user Yopie is using his rollback right to impose a PoV on the article University of Al-Karaouine (diff) and List of oldest universities in continuous operation (diff), basing on a publication of a freelance historian (Kevin Shillington), despite the fact that I added 4 academic sources, plus the UNESCO and the Guinness Book, all stating the opposite of Shellington's. He argued that this case was discussed before while all I found is a discussion without any consensus, with each person giving her opinions [46][47].

Isn't that an infringement to the proportional representation of the NPOV policy?

Regards.

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling a book from the series "Historical Facts" academic is a bit of a stretch considering that Worldcat considers it to be juvenile literature. If Omar-Toons considers that to be of the same standard as the other sources referenced you have to wonder about his judgement. For instance, what makes Encountering the World of Islam a reliable source? Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yopie does not appear to have rollback, nor does it appear they ever have had it and hasn't had it for a over a year. AN isn't for content disputes, is there some administrative action you feel is justified? Otherwise I suggest you pursue the Dispute Resolution process. Monty₈₄₅ 23:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The DR seems to be a good idea to me. Thanks.

--Omar-Toons (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked for some help on the WP:NPOVN (here).

Maybe an ANI issue: While drawing the NPOVN request, I found that the user Yopie deleted 3 comments by writing "personal attacks" as an edit summary, while only the last one was a personal attack, the two others being comments against the removal of non-European universities and the continuity criteria. Is that acceptable?

Regards.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. Was he aware that he removed other content at the same time?--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed and several other editors (User:Shuipzv3 on Nov 28, 2011 User:Ponyo on Feb 13, 2011 User:Deor on March 1, 2010) find it disturbing too, that 777sms (talk) (contributions) is almost never providing edit summaries. He or she replies that it is not compulsory. One of the reasons given was that he/she is not good in English. I can understand that people make errors against English in the summary, but I find it civil that at least one should try to motivate why a certain change was performed with an edit summary. That's how I interprete Help:Edit summary.

Is the motivation that it is not compulsory enough to get away with this? Can somebody provide his/her second opinion on this? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there some part of "not compulsory" which is unclear to you? Not providing an edit summary is uncollegial and usually not a mark of a collaborative editor, but in the absence of other problems is not worth bothering about. It's only worth administrative action if it is demonstratively causing disruption. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What is unclear to me is where the border is when not providing edit summaries is seen as disruptive behaviour? Except for the last edits since I made my comment, the last 500 edits were without edit summary (except some new articles that got automatically a summary), so somewhere between 1 and 3%. This means that in theory every edit he/she makes must be reviewed for interpretation/apparent motivation. This worries me for somebody that has made over 13.000 edits to the English Wikipedia! What is your (or Wikipedia's) defintion of "demonstratively causing disruption"? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 16:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See Miller test. I don't think there is a strict definition. If several people have serious problems with the behaviour, that's some evidence for a problem. However, if you've "reviewed for interpretation/apparent motivation" a few hundred, and they are overwhelmingly ok, why don't you just WP:AGF and don't check them? An edit summary is useful and friendly, but it's not a guarantee for the quality of the edit anyways. I'd generally expect edit summaries in contentious situations, but there is no requirement for them in the general case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Instances of causing disruption will become apparent when they happen. If that hasn't happened, then there's no problem. If an editor has made 13,000 edits and has not caused any problems, other than not using edit summaries, then that would seem to strongly suggest to me that they're doing fine without summaries. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An edit summary isn't an excuse not to review people's edits, as their summaries can lie or be misleading anyways, and since it can be hard to reflect an entire edit in the relatively small spaces. Not having an edit summary definitely isn't being disruptive or worthy of some sort of administrative action, and frankly I am concerned with the bringing forth a seemingly relatively new editor to ANI over something so harmless.AerobicFox (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I rest my case. I learned that Help:Edit summary can be interpreted in a different way. And to AerobicFox, I my knowledge I did not bring this user to ANI? We are at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 17:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

People have in the past been blocked for not using edit summaries after being asked repeatedly to do so. It's a very simple concept, this is a community and if you want to participate in the community you have to play along. Trying to use helpful edit summaries is one of those things people need to do. They don't need to be 100%, but 0% over a long period of time and if people are requesting you use them, begins to be a problem.--Crossmr (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never known an editor to be blocked solely due to a refusal to use edit summaries. Indeed, doing so would very much suggest that summaries are non-optional. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In the past, and I mean past, like 2-3 years ago at least, I saw at least one blocked for it. The issue is, as I said, participation in the community. to participate in the community you need to communicate and if you refuse to do so after repeated requests, it can become problematic. I don't really see what is so hard for some people to understand that effective community is absolutely essential for a community of this size to operate.--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While I'm normally close to your line of thinking in terms of community conduct, it is also important to note that an effective community must be a tolerant community (the problem being of course what exactly to be tolerant of). Edit summaries have always been optional. They will almost certainly never be mandatory. It is not a good use of our time to go hitting a user with a stick for not heeding an optional system when those requesting it can't seem to point to a single occasion where his lack of summaries is actually hurting the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am in the right place for this but I truly need help. What should I do about what I am calling an edit bully? This person deletes any edit anyone makes to many of the pages they watch. They almost always add a rude comment., Is there anything that can be done or is this just some kind of editing hierarchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soglad Tomeetyou (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This dispute seems to be on the page Missoula, Montana, where the reporting user broke 3RR (1 2 3 4). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming your description is accurate, report it at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. Please note, however, that if you are also being problematic there, such as edit warring, you may also get blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking to me, I should like to say that I am not involved in this dispute. I merely saw this report and looked into it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing of Od Mishehu's response does not lead me to believe they were responding to you ... they saw your post, and replied to the OP (at least based on my parsing). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please procedurally close this discussion without prejudice to any consensus, as action has been taken (subject has been indef blocked) and the discussion no longer serves a useful purpose. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would hesitate to say "no longer serves a purpose" ... indef is not forever, a proper closure may influence later unblocking. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I personally don't think the user should be indeffed - they don't appear to have reached that point as yet. Since I believe they should be unblocked (at the end of the 24 hour period), I think this still serves a very useful purpose. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that he asked to be indef blocked implies this is, at least for the time being, no longer serving an active purpose. A simple "closed for now can be opened later if he comes back" is sufficient. Looks like it's already been done. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a word with Jehochman, who performed the close but when you take into account "it can be reopened"... I don't really have any decent argument. It's not worth worrying about really. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Infamous action is to delete an article, Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal without discussion and to eliminate probative sources. It is proved that this article is not a blatant hoax. Please act fair play!Borgatya (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of notifying the deleting admins of this discussion at [48] and [49]. Monty₈₄₅ 22:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the reporting user appears to be engaged in an edit-war with Jorge alo over this article and Beatrice of Portugal. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend, who declined the latest speedy request had declined a speedy request before somebody else speedied anyway; this does not seem to be a clear-cut case. But, to both Borgatya and his main opponent, Jorge alo: (1) stop edit-warring; you are both well over WP:3RR on two articles and will be blocked if you continue; (2) please stop the dramatic accusations and imputations of bad faith. Other than this, this is not a matter for this noticeboard. Oh, and for the record, I've offered protection to Beatrice of Portugal for a few hours (oh, how chivalric that sounds.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I had deleted it after reading the discussion on the talk page (it might be worthwhile restoring the content on the deleted talk page), which appeared to indicate that the source was not reliable. With hindsight, I should have declined and suggested taking to AfD - which I am going to do now. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have not done so yet - I will give time for some reliable sources to be found (although I couldn't find any) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course Phantomsteve is not right. He has deleted the article when the discuss was not finished and Nyttend agreed with my arguments so his claim of unreliable sources is false statement. Please prolong the protection of the article of Beatriz of Portugal and protect the article of Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal because Jorge claimed on User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise that he wants to undo my editing (Beatriz of Portugal) and nominate the article for deletion (Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal) before the discussion has not finished. Preventing the further debates, please pay his attention for fair play. What is the smaller mistake for wikipedia: to delete or to preserve this disputed article? Even if his existence is disputed, the deletion is wrong solution, I do not understand Jorge and his supporter's ruthlessness. Thanks for your attention. Please act fair play.Borgatya (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one thing that really annoys me — people believe that something is a hoax, so they tax it for speedy deletion as a hoax and complain or revert when it's declined, even though WP:HOAX says hoaxes are not eligible for speedy except in the most obvious of cases. As administrators, we need to enforce this policy better and decline all db-hoax tags except for articles that anyone can see are falsehoods. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is a very long discussion on the article's talk page. Still going on. I agree that this one is not a hoax by the author - but its future needs sorting as to whether it is historic and notable, or a notable hoax by others, or a non-notable hoax by others. Or even historic but microscopically notable. Roll up, roll up..... Peridon (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sleuth21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – reported
• Senra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – reportee
• London Necropolis Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – article triggering the incident

Other peripherally involved editors

• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DavidCane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ErrantX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apologies if I have added someone wrongly or forgotten someone. This is my first ever AN/I on an emotive issue for me. Please feel free to strike yourself or add yourself if I have made a mistake

Sleuth21 (talk · contribs) first raised, what may be, a valid issue with a featured article written by Iridescent (talk · contribs) (currently on a wikibreak) in august this year and then came back recently. Based on another now foreclosed event, I raised my concern with Sleuth21. Was the answer satisfactory? I am not sure. Sleuth21 acknowledged the fairness of my question but did not provide clear evidence that helps me determine the validity of the approach or why he was obfuscating on behalf of "WP's head office".

This is clearly not a civility issue (although his "... if I think it appropriate ..." may be taken as arrogance) and I am making no direct assertions of impropriety. Neither am I trying to out a valid use of an alternate account. I simply wish to know if Sleuth21, acting on behalf of "WP's head office", is right to (harass is too strong here) query another editor on an issue which does not appear to have any open consensus behind it—see for example [50], [51] and [52].

The above comes at a time when I feel less motivated to continue to give my research freely to edit Wikipedia on any non vital article topic.

--Senra (Talk) 14:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The "head office" comment doesn't appear to imply Sleuth is acting on behalf of any head office - as I read it I think this means that they happen to know issues were raised with "head office". Indeed I think I can clear this up, as I suspect I am the admin being referred to. A while ago I handled an WP:OTRS ticket which raised some issues with the Brookwood cemetery article. Firstly relating to the use of a source - but on review there didn't seem to be any actual copyright violation - and latterly over permission to take images. I talked to Iridescent and everything was, as far as I could tell, entirely kosher. So, yeh, that is probably what is being referred to. Whether that was inferred by the one brief message I posted on Iridescent's talk page (the rest of our conversation was by email) or because Sleuth knows the emails that were sent, I don't know. I am sure he could clarify. In terms of inappropriate account use; as I read his messages they don't seem to imply he has another account, just that he also once posted as an IP. If it is the case he currently has another active account (i.e. in use) that is an inappropriate situation, of course. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK a comment by Sleuth on the Talk:Vanity press page indicates he knows the person(s) behind the original ticket and has gotten appraised on the situation by them. A lot of this relates back to the London Necropolis Company; at the time I never got any clear examples of plagiarised text. I meant to find time to get the books mentioned and take a look - but they proved tough to get a hold of (one is out of print). I just refreshed my memory on this and I noticed that Fae recently handled another ticket with the same sort of complaint (in a different queue, which is why it passed my by) and this time some examples of alleged plagiarism were given. I took a look and.. it's hard to say. A lot of the phrasing seemed fine, a few words here and there were reused (but largely where the content was very simple and no other way of expressing it exists). There is more context to the problem here, but I can't explain in full because OTRS email is private - although it wouldn't resolve the root cause it would be handy if someone experienced in copyright could take a look at the alleged plagiarism and give an indication as to whether there is any merit or not. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The alleged plagiarism or otherwise is not the root of my issue. Nevertheless, I may have wasted mine and everyone's time here and in addition, much worse, I may have wrongly accused another editor (Sleuth21) of having another active account. If so, then I fully realise my apology is not enough and I should cease editing Wikipedia forthwith. In my defence, I clearly (in hindsight) mis-read Slueth21's responses and was so determined in my mind to see a "head office" conspiracy that I jumped to incorrect conclusions and I did not carefully research my facts. Actually, on reflection there can be no defence. Sleuth, I am so very sorry --Senra (Talk) 15:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. There is no reason for you to stop editing over one mistake. Mistakes are actually helpful, as long as you learn from them and use them to improve. GB fan 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

GB is exactly right. The fact that you acknowledge you made a mistake and you clearly feel bad about it is enough to convince me that you should stay. We need more of that around here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Senra; so sorry, I didn't mean to imply you had done something wrong! Other people were querying the "head office" thing too, and without you doing this I'd probably not have noticed (and been able to clear it up). So if anything you've done good - even if your reading of the situation wasn't dead on (and that is not necessarily resolved...) :) FWIW the other account business is unclear; what I said above is my own tentative reading of Sleuth's comment, and I could well be wrong! It's very easy to mis-interpret comments on-wiki, I do it all the time, and sometimes all it needs is someone else reading the comments and seeing a different way of viewing it. If I had a penny for the times where I've had to {{facepalm}} over me missing the point of a comment... --Errant ^(chat!) 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(Response from Sleuth21 reproduced from User talk:Senra#Sleuth21)

Hi Senra, I just saw a puzzling exchange of 'ANI' or 'AN' (or whatever) messages. It appears I can't edit or add any text there so I just quickly write this note to assure you that no offence was taken and of course no apologies are necessary, but I appreciate your offer. I would be happy if you mentioned this on the inaccessible ANI (or whatever) WP site.

I would have commented on your message as well but I thought I should wait until my direct e-mail (on his request) to NewYorkBrad would be answered and (what I thought) is WP Head Office would respond to my friend's email (I think he wrote to 'errant').

So, please continue to contribute to WP! (sleuth21) — Precedingunsigned comment added by Sleuth21 (talk •contribs) 19:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Could another admin please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit and provide some input? It's been open since November 28, I'm arguably too involved to take action, and since there's no CU (it's looking at behavioral evidence between a named account and some IPs), it hasn't received any response from anyone. In the meanwhile, the suspected sock is trying to use WP:WQA to squelch discussion of the issue, while never actually denying xe is the named user. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, "wabbit season is now open"

In addition to the real time vote log via the securepoll interface, we have a bot populated voter log right here, which has the username of every user who has voted. We need help inspecting the log for any irregularities such as: someone voting on multiple accounts, a banned user voting on any account, victim of an account or browser hijacking registering a vote that the account owner didn't intend. Take a look at 2009's voter log for examples of what we're looking for. Thank you for all the help!

--Tznkai (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC) ((Cross-posted))

Worth noting, perhaps, that I earlier tried to move this to a better venue [53] but it was "Deliberately cross posted " [54]  Chzz  ►  04:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to notify you that wikimedia is now preparing new project called wikimedia labs, we are currently in process of setting up whole thing, one part of this new cluster will be tool part which would allow hosting of bots, just as toolserver does. So please note that all these bots share similar IP address range, currently we are testing it, so there is only one bot running from there - ArticlesForCreationBot, but it's possible that hundreds of other bots would be moved there later (in several months). Please keep in mind that bots running there share same ip range in case you would need to block some. If you needed more info just ask here, or in #wikimedia-labs ^connect Thanks! Petrb (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is link so that you can read more about it: WMF Projects/Wikimedia Labs Petrb (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be an idea for people building bots on the Labs platform to put a note on the bot's user page much like the ones placed on Toolserver bots warning admins to not autoblock. An example of this can be seen at User:Rotatebot on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom, good point, already created Template:WMFLabsBot just wanted to inform you here though Petrb (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On that note, there's a Mediawiki page, or config setting (I can't remember which), which white lists ip's from autoblocking. The toolserver is on it, this should probably be added as well. --Chris 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we please put Cluebot NG on this cluster? It's down because it's operator can't pay for his server. I manned Huggle last night and there's a really big difference between when it's up and when it's down. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is possible, I replied on talk on mediawiki page. Petrb (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin please selectively delete (not revdelete) the vandalism here?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it, but I'm curious why you don't want it revdeleted? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I'm curious is that the relevant page says that selective deletion should only be used for history merges. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

When vandalism is so extensive that it clogs edit history, basically we're clearing it out. Selective deletion is commonly used for LTAs. Revdeletion would end up clogging the edit history (this occurs daily).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. In my opinion, selective deletion is harder, but whatever. If it is widely used, though, you might want to update Wikipedia:Selective deletion with that fact. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not widely used in the sense that it's only used for a few particular LTAs or otherwise clear a clogged edit history (as was done with List of indigenous peoples).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Revdelete would be fine for this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just have the page periodically deleted? I'd recommend that over giving vandals the pleasure of seeing slashed, grayed out revisions in the page's history. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point at getting selective deletion. I request that when there are like 3 or 4 or more revisions that need removal.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I finally figured out what you meant. I was thinking of it from the "ease of deletion" not the "visibility of the page history" perspective. Now I understand - and agree. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only admin noticing a sudden surge in the number of new editors trolling various articles and talk pages in the last couple of weeks? Articles on my watchlist which haven't been touched for years are suddenly battlegrounds, and the usual problems seem to have gotten nastier. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, definitely not just you; I've observed a similar trend :\ -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Same. It's prompted me to take up Huggle again. Really, I'd rather be doing just about anything else, but at least until Cluebot gets back up... Sven Manguard Wha? 10:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeap, I'm seeing it too. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 6 got borked pretty badly for about ~40 minutes due to a IP putting something in the wrong place and the reversion not fixing it. I've fixed it but thought I'd give a heads-up that there might be "orphaned" AfD noms out there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

'Twas I wot broke the log, accidentally removing the hidden comment "Add new entries to the TOP of the following list" which confused the bot. To where do I go to claim my fish? Bencherlite^Talk 09:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Snotbot (talk · contribs) should transclude any AfD that wasn't transcluded due to the page being messed up. Bencherlite: due to the current economic climate, the Wikipedia Trouting Authority can no longer process requests for trouting as it has run out of money for purchasing new trouts. I'm afraid that you'll have to fish up your own and bring it to the Trouting Authority if you want to be administered a trouting. T. Canens (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I was never a great fan of raw trout, so can I have some smoked salmon instead? Bencherlite^Talk 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that too is beyond our means at the moment, but some cans of Surströmming, 1956 vintage, were recently discovered in our warehouse. Favonian (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/EW needs some admin attention. There are currently 10 open reports there with not a single comment by an uninvolved admin. The oldest was made 36 hours ago. I didn't like the mechanical way in which WMC used to handle 3RR violations, but in retrospect that seems much better than the inconsistency caused by the chronic lack of admins. Hans Adler 09:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just handled several of them. Several of the remaining ones would benefit from the attention of an admin who's familiar with the restrictions on articles concerning climate change. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

A second attempt has been made at coding the policy. Please review User:Od Mishehu/Arbitration Committee Elections, and express your opinions at User talk:Od Mishehu/Arbitration Committee Elections. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to do this in a week or so, when the current election cycle is over? That way many of the active participants, including election administrators, election co-ordinators, and candidates can participate without fear that any comments or recommendations they bring will be accompanied by charges of lack of impartiality or personal self-interest. Risker (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a sizeable backlog of discussions to be closed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. I don't have time to do it myself, and anyway I've commented in a sizeable proportion of them. RfDs are normally much easier work to close than AfDs, and almost always acrimony free! Thryduulf (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I closed several, how's the backlog look now? ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No desperate rush but when someone has a moment, there are about three deletion reviews that are overdue for closure. All the best—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be covered under WP:SPAM, so thought I should post here. Special:Contributions/Yjenith is spamming random editors about his new template. Where is the right place to announce new templates? Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification seems to cover it better; Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification explains the proper places/techniques to make such an announcement. Also, when you discuss any user on this board, there is a big orange banner when you edit this page informing you that you must notify them; it appears you have failed to do so. But, it also appears the user is being educated on his talk page by several users and has ceased said behavior, so this appears to be a non-issue now. If the user starts inappropriately canvassing again, WP:ANI is probably a better venue than here. --64.85.220.56 (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Urk. You're right, I forgot to notify that editor, sorry. Won't happen again. Filing Flunky (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

meta:Talk:Terms_of_use#Closing_of_Discussion:_December_31.3F – Discussions relating to Wikimedia's proposed Terms of Use might end by December 31, 2011. Every Wikimedia user would have to agree to comply with the terms of this document, so if anyone has any concerns, then please let Geoffbrigham and those watching the page know about them. Geoffbrigham responds well to feedback. He and other have made many, many changes due to the feedback they've received. They will politely listen to anything that you have to say, so please don't be afraid to say it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: December 31 will definitely be the final day to comment on the new Terms of use. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is just a quick notification to inform everyone that we have a brfa open, for a bot with administrator rights. The task it's self is fairly simple, it needs the rights to edit a full protected page in it's user space. See also, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 10 for the original BRFA. Thanks! --Chris 02:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If it only needs to edit that one page in its own userspace, wouldn't it be easier to just make it a .js page?  Chzz  ►  02:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's been suggested, yes. 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The request has been withdrawn, in favour of using .css or .js page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A little over a month ago I reviewed Stan Pitt, started by Dan arndt, for DYK, and both myself and another reviewer found instances of plagiarism from the cited sources. The issues were not addressed and the DYK nomination failed. Yesterday I followed up, and using a duplicate detector found that various lines had been plagiarized directly from at least four sources: here, here, here ([67]), and here ([68]). I brought it up at WP:CP. Afterward, I checked out two other articles created or expanded by Dan, and found more of the same: Phil Belbin includes plagiarism from here ([69]) and here ([70]), and Stan Cross contains plagiarism from here ([71]), here ([72]), here ([73]) and here ([74]).
Dan arndt is not a new editor; they've been around since 2006 and have made over 20,000 edits. Glancing through their talk archives shows concerns with copyrighted text and images from the beginning. I don't know how much of this rises to copyvio per se, but this is still a very serious issue that may date back several years, and it requires attention.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not coming to Dan's defense here, but you've given the editor all of 5 hours to respond to your DYK concern and about 14 minutes to respond to your other copyright concerns. Don't you think it'd be polite to allow the user a day to respond to your concerns. Perhaps you could convince them to review their other articles for copyright problems before dragging them here to humiliate them.--v/r - TP 19:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not my intention to "humiliate" anyone. There was well over a month to deal with the concerns brought up at DYK, and it didn't get done. After seeing this and then finding that the problem affects other articles, I thought it best to get additional eyes on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to criticise the way in which Cuchullain is dealing with this. Just dealing with it at all is a service to the project. Looking at Stan Pitt, from October 2011, I can see the issues. The next step from here is often to consider whether a CCI might be warranted. The usual rule at WP:CCI is that five examples from different articles will cause a CCI to be opened. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing the way it's being dealt with. I'm criticizing the time in between elevation. I, myself, was recently brought to AN without an opportunity to address an issue beforehand. I know how it feels when I could've solved an issue quickly and now I'm being put in a dark room with a bright light focused on my forehead. So the guy dropped a DYK nom off at the project and never returned to check on it; if the issue hasn't been brought to their talk page then I say they should be given at least a chance to address it. If they blow it off, then fine, here we are. Excuse me that I don't support coming here prior to a personal discussion. Addition: But yes, I do think it's great that Cuchullain took the effort to look at the sources and check for copyright problems. It's tough.--v/r - TP 19:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've found three more articles that include plagiarism, either in taking entire lines or too-close paraphrasing: Keith Chatto from here ([75]) and here ([76]); Gerald Carr (cartoonist) from here ([77]); and Monty Wedd from here ([78]). The last article doesn't cite to the source and includes uncited quotations. It looks like this may have to go to WP:CCI.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Dan arndt contacted me on my talk page and I think he would be agreeable to reacquainting himself with the copyright policy and fixing his errors. I've suggested he say as much here.--v/r - TP 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They expressed that to me, too, and they've already started work on some of the instances I pointed out. I think this is definitely in the category of errors that can be corrected with a bit of time and effort.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Had a lot of trouble tracking down this thread - I just want the opportunity to clarify the issue (possibly only just for the record). Firstly I would have thought that it was more appropriate if an editor had a problem with any of my contributions then they would approach me directly first. Secondly that they would give me ample time in which to respond - it would apppear that there are some disadvantages to living on the opposite side of the world (i.e time differences). Thirdly that rather than making broad statements - categorising all the articles in question with the same brush that they would have identified that there are differences in all the examples they have cited. Finally the previous history related to when I first started editing on Wikipedia and wasn't familar with all the policies and proceedures (something that we have all probably been guilty of in the past) but I have learnt from those mistakes.

Now that I've got that of my chest - as indicated at each of the talkpages of the articles in question I have undertaken numerous edits to address the issues raised by Cúchullain. There was no intention to infringe any parties copyright. A number of the examples raised were either direct quotes that were properly cited in the article or titles of publications or articles. I do however acknowledge that in some cases the text was directly lifted from the article and as already indicated I have been working my way through each of those articles correcting my errors. I am always happy to deal with any editors concerns but would appreciate them raising them with me directly so I can respond accordingly. Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Recently Fastily has deleted a couple of talk pages on my watchlist with CSD G6. They weren't tagged or anything. Fastily restored the first one when I asked on his talk page, but hasn't restored the second one yet.

Based on recent talk page comments, Fastily has been deleting many other pages, restoring on request. Also some possibly improper AFD closures and other admin-bit actions. I don't have the time or energy to babysit Fastily or look through their deletions; can someone else poke around and see if it's just my impression or if there's actually a problem? tedder (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. Looks like a fairly recent problem (hopefully). Maybe Fastily can just agree to go through all their recent "housekeeping" deletions and make sure they were valid, and to be more careful when applying that reason for deletion in future? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I had experienced a similar deletion of the redirect at Template:nfur by Fastily as G6 without any reasoning. I didn't notify him about it since he was away when I noticed but I also didn't think it was part of a larger problem. If he really has done such problematic deletions on a larger scale, then I think some broader review of their actions is necessary. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have put that talkpage back, and I think I see the problem. He's going through a list of pages in the form Talk:Foo/to do or Talk:Foo/comments and deleting them all. Your deleted edit was Talk:Sepulveda/Expo (Los Angeles Metro station) so probably appeared on his list, assuming he'd used a bot to get pages of the Talk:Foo/whatever format. I'm not sure why all the other deletions are warranted as G6's - but a lot of them do seem to be old pages. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, to explain, it looks like this is the result of having articles with a "/" (forward-slash) in their name. This causes MediaWiki and related tools some issues, ultimately meaning that these pages (incorrectly) appeared in lists of talkpages without content pages -- presumably why Fastily thought they were fair game for summary deletion (as per norms). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The list comes from Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk subpages with redirect parent. Most of these pages should be moved, not deleted. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's just sloppy admin work. I wouldn't call it "abuse" as that implies bad intentions whereas this looks more like laziness. An admin is expected to at least look at a page before deleting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is whether one considers the odd false positive acceptable if one handles lots of deletions. I'm guessing people feel not, here. On the other hand, it would be trivial to make sure your mass deletion attempts exclude titles with forward slashes in them from this point on. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any excuse for deleting a page without looking at it. This is exactly why over-reliance on automated tools is a bad thing. They are no substitute for looking at it yourself and exercising judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fastily has been fast and loose with the deletion trigger for years now. The last time I approached him about it, he retired; looks like he's back at it again. –xeno^talk 19:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, approximately when was that? tedder (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

September 2010 or thereabouts. –xeno^talk 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fastily should no longer be a redlink? Seems like the next step if this is a recurring problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's slow down for a second. Fastily deletes an exceptional number of pages, and he does so very quickly (he's performed about 1,000 deletions today alone). This will inevitably result in occasional sloppy and/or sub-par deletions. Even if 99% of those deletions were good, we would still find 10 bad deletions from today alone and might be noting the numerous complaints on his talk page. So are we seeing some sloppy work? Sure. Does Fastily need to slow down a bit in his deletions? Yes, I would say so. But, in the grand scheme of things, how large is this "problem", really? Swarm ^X 20:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I consider any deletion where an admin clearly did not even look at the page before deleting it a problem. That is simply not acceptable. As others have indicated that this is a recurrent issue with this user that they seem unwilling to correct it, I don't believe we should just sweep it under the rug. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

To Swarm's point, I think we have to look at the total number of errors, not just the percentage. Otherwise we'd have to accept 50 giant fuckups a day if the editor making them made 9950 good edits per day. An error rate of 0.5% is nice, but it's only part of the story. That said, Fastily is generally a responsive admin, so let's give them a chance to weigh in before going too far with this. There might be a perfectly reasonable explanation. 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that people make mistakes, and someone who does as much deletion work as Fastily is bound to have mistakes under their belt as well. From what I can tell, we're not talking about 'giant fuckups', we're talking about pretty minor stuff coming from a generally reasonable admin. Swarm ^X 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fastily recently deleted a photo (File:Nelson Denis.jpg) for which I provided (as both subject and photographer) the copyright permission to OTRS. He left a notice to "get the photographer to release rights via WP:OTRS and the image can be restored." But that is precisely what I already did. I left Fastily two messages to this effect (with the OTRS Permission) and asked for guidance, but he did not respond. I think Fastily is donating his time and doing tremendous amounts of arduous work (1,000 deletions in one day?) but maybe he should have some assistance. That is a staggering workload. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This was already explained to you at the PUF discussion and by User:ScottyBerg. I recommended that you send an email to OTRS, which you did. When the email you sent is processed, and if the permissions are valid, the file will be restored. Frankly, I've done everything I can for you... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, and I think that it's disingenuous, to say the least, for Nelsondenis248 to pile on Fastily and re-re-re-(etc.) -litigate this tired issue here. The photo was deleted because there was a previous PUF[83] which dealt with a previous OTRS letter that said precisely what his latest one did. To put it bluntly, Nelsondenis248's claim that he took this and other photos was simply not credible. Three photos were deleted, and when one was re-created it was deleted under G4. I suspect that he is going to continue to flail away at this issue until everyone is too tired to object. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to some of the concerns raised above:

• Only tedder's first 3 diffs ([84], [85], [86]) represent actual mistakes. These I corrected as quickly as possible. Being human, I will inevitably err periodically.
• I don't close AfDs....ever.
• I used a bot to compile and assess a list of pages (e.g. for usefulness, relevance to the encyclopedia, test pages, ect) subpaged under a talk page which was a redirect. At the time, the results appeared to be good so I went ahead and deleted the items on the list. Obviously, my code was not perfect. I'll be conducting a full restoration of those pages shortly.
• Admin abuse and RfCs? Whoa. I don't ever remember being unwilling to talk about my administrative actions. If I messed up, I'll be happy to fix it, no matter what it is. For the record, I'm neither being defensive about my errors, or for that matter, refusing to undo improper actions.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Fastily. Human errors are okay, the number of errors is what makes me nervous. If we have to take an administrator to RFC/U or investigate "admin abuse", we have much larger issues as a community. tedder (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a few issues that have been connected to Fastily (not necessarily the same problems as above but part of a larger picture?):

• His bot Fbot recently (this week) had two tasks approved for NFCC work, the tagging of images over a certain size for reduction, and removal of old versions of resized images. While both tasks are part of NFCC work, they are handling the process different than what we normally propose by human measure at WT:NFC. However, the WT:NFC regulars weren't even informed of these proposed bot actions, and only until I saw it act on an image I had (improperly, with regards to resizing) did I bring the issue up there. [87] Again, he was approved for the task but didn't seem to establish what the consensus was to do for these tasks.
• Just this morning I've noticed he mass tagged a large number of images for lacking fair-use rationale, which can prompt for their deletion in 7 days if not fixed. (This using the User:FSII) account. Except that a few of the images have non-template, and possibly weak rationales, but by no means lacking an attempt at one. You can see that a number of users are questioning this action on his talk page ([88]). We are generally more lax on tagging: completely lacking a rationale is one thing, but a broken or poor one is a different matter, and I don't think WT:NFC would have approved of this vigilance in the approach.

Alone, these aren't admin issues alone, but with the above cases noted above, there's some behavior that seems out of place for cooperative editing particularly on contentious areas like NFC. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

These are not related at all.

• Fbot Task 9 is indefinitely on hold until consensus on what the threshold for tagging should be, what files should be exempt from reduction under WP:NFCC#3b, and if this task should continue. All users are invited to provide input! I posted a notice here about a week ago, but we haven't received as much input as we would have liked to. Please comment! (hmm, maybe I should start offering beer and cookies in exchange for input? :P )
• I'm working on that the no-rationale tags. As I mentioned on my talk page, in the upcoming days, I plan on conducting a full manual review of all my tags. Granted that you participated in that discussion on talk page, did you not see that? ;-)

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to add wood to the fire, but Fastly just deleted a photo of mine yesterday, that I was sure was properly tagged.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

...and now editors are bringing individual disputes here. For an editor who does as much as Fastily, this could go on all day. Perhaps this isn't the best place guys? FWIW Hutton, you never responded to Fastily's request that you clarify. Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I was just going to let it go and re-upload the pick later. It absolutely flabbergasted me, that he does so many deletions, he had no idea what I was talking about. But when I saw this thread, I just had to chime in. Obviously there is a bit of smoke here. Perhaps we should be looking for the fire.

Here is the file: 250px, if anyone cares to look. I was fairly confident that it had all the proper tags and such.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ×2 Take at look at the file redirects listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 22. All of them were speedily deleted by Fastily while still undergoing discussion at RfD. Indeed some (e.g. File:Hopkins logo.JPG had explicit recommendations to keep and had had speedy deletion explicitly declined previously by another admin. The speedy deletion criterion given was WP:CSD#G7, and while it's true the only person listed in the history of the redirect page requested their deletion (which was declined) in the case of page move redirects G7 does not apply unless the same user was the only significant contributor to the moved page as well - in all the cases I've checked (which isn't all of them), this was not the case (e.g. what is now File:Hopkins Solutions logo.JPG was uploaded by user:Jsmith45 and moved by user:Sfan00 IMG.
While it's possible these would have been deleted anyway, I still think this is wrong:

• Pages shouldn't be speedily deleted while there is an ongoing discussion (unless that discussion is recommending speedy deletion) - doubly so when there are good-faith recommendations to keep (speedy deletion criterion only apply when deletion would be uncontroversial and they would be deleted every time - when there is no consensus this cannot, by definition, be the case)
• Pages shouldn't be speedily deleted after speedy deletion has been declined (except in cases of newly discovered copyvios)
• Pages should not be speedily deleted using criteria that do not apply (the occasional slip-up of selecting the wrong entry in a list is acceptable, but when all of them use the same wrong criterion it doesn't look at all like a slip of the mouse)
• Pages should not normally be speedy deleted when they have not been tagged.

When all four occur for the same page, and on many titles in quick succession, something is wrong.

I wasn't particularly happy about these when I saw them first, but didn't think it was worth mentioning as when I've raised similar concerns with other admins in the past, I've often received responses along the lines of "so what" or "who cares?" (I have a vague feeling that Fastily may have been one such admin to respond like this, but I am not certain and don't remember when this would have been to make searching for diffs productive). It was only after seeing this section that I went back and looked in detail.

Until this is resolved I would like Fastily to voluntarily refrain from deleting any page. We don't want to end up with another situation like we have with user:Δ. What I think we need to avoid that is four things:

• An explicit statement that the community expects very high levels of accuracy in relation to deletions and places a greater value on this than it does on high productivity (measured in terms of the number of actions taken).
• An acknowledgement from Fastily that he understand this statement, and that his recent editing has not been accurate enough
• An agreement from Fastily to take more care in the future, including checking every page before deletion.
• An agreement from Fastily to temporarily refrain from all deletions while discussions about any future concerns raised with him relating to deletion are ongoing. (if, as I hope, there are no future concerns this shouldn't be a problem) Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I believe these points were already addressed, and agreement to such terms was already tacitly made or implied in my responses above. So, for transparency, agreed to all the above except the issue you have with RfD. Nonetheless, I'm not going to fight over it, because it's a stupid argument and I have better things to do with my time; in other words, I couldn't care less if you restored the redirects. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make a general observation. While I'm intimately acquainted with just one of the "problems" complained about, the general sense I get from reading these complaints is that Fastily has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by using, not abusing, his administrative bit by correctly deleting photos etc. There is a pile-on here and I don't think it's warranted. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fastily and I have worked together a lot, and he works faster than I would, but he always addresses concerns when they come up, so this dosen't worry me. I think part of the reason Fastily's numbers are so high is that he can't rely on other people doing the work when he's not around. There were things that just didn't get done when he was gone, and it was only after he came back, and found a large list of tasks waiting for him, that he's gone into hyper mode. Before you cosnider escalating this any further, please allow me to talk with him in private, I think that there's a very simple way to handle this so that everyone comes out happy. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The percentage of mistakes that actually are a problem are small, it's just he makes so many edits. I've always found Fastily fine about restoring/discussing if there is a problem, so I don't think there needs to be too much made of this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard is correct. I personally observed how literally nothing happened to one problematic photo for a period of two weeks, with no corrective action taken until Fastily returned. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo harassment, topic ban, etc

I do not want to run into conflict with anybody, but on the other hand I was just about to issue an ANI report related to Fastily as well as I came to conclusion that his/her approach as enforcing admin is not very fair, strange coincidence I found this report here.

1. Long ago he blocked me ("FASTILY (TALK) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC): You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring.") even though I could find that other administrators approach essentially the same cases differently: "Declined. No more reverts after the warning. Sandstein 06:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)" I do not understand if abstaining from article edits after warnings issued is not deemed as appropriate what else a user should do.

2. Now he closed the ANI case (I was told there is something wrong with this page and it might not be displayed correctly) run against me without bothering to address the arguments presented there in in my favour. I respect his opinion, he might not agree with them, but the ignorance is not very high wiki-etiquette and I strongly object such approach. I believe WP-enforcing admin should have higher standards to apply, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

3. Pls. also note I'm being harassed that I allegedly cannot defend myself against admin actions that I regard for highly biased. I allegedly cannot use mentor for my defence to find the status of material at WP:RSN pertaining to topic of my topic ban and I'm not allowed to ask Fastily to act in line with WP polices on closures.--Stephfo (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You fail to mention that you've been blocked repeatedly for edit warring (including twice by me). Based on your conduct at the time, I fully endorse Fastily's block. The closure of the ANI discussion also looks appropriate - you were actually very lucky to have not been blocked again for an indefinite period given that you violated the conditions which you agreed to when you were unblocked. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But your 7d blocks happened after his 24h block (thus I could not be blocked "repeatedly for edit warring" by then), and personally I consider your 1st block as well as your overall behaviour in cases related to me the same as those of his - highly ignorant of all arguments presented in my favour, and done in spite of fact that after warning I have not performed any activity at article pages. Please explain why you deem as appropriate to ignore arguments raised if WP:policy on closures states that their strength and quality should be assessed?--Stephfo (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that Stephfo is sour for having been topic banned on AN/I. Fastily was an uninvolved admin and I asked him to close the thread because other admins on AN/I were involved and s/he is one of a handful of admins I know by name outside of AN/I. I have no comment as to the separate topic of this thread, I'm just pointing out that Fastily did not act incorrectly regarding Stephfo; there was overwhelming support for a topic ban, including by Stephfo's mentor. Stephfo, you either need to appeal your topic ban to arbcom or AN/I. Attempting to use other venues incorrectly like this may be considered disruptive. N^oformation ^Talk 22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was topic banned by Fastily's closure that was highly ignorant of all opposing votes, IMHO. I do not regard him uninvolved due to reason that he participated in my previous blocks that, IMHO, he was not administering very even-handedly.--Stephfo (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC) And when I look at other admins such, for example Sandstein, how they handle the cases, I'm strongly convinced they would not apply such arrogant approach and the conclusion might very likely be completely different (I might even never be blocked, IMHO--Stephfo (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)).--Stephfo (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, any admin would have closed that discussion the way Fastily did - and a good many of them would have closed it with a sterner penalty. THE COMMUNITY topic banned you. The closing admin just confirmed it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that it was closed in civil manner, when counter-arguments were just grossly ignored. If possible, I'd like to ask whether I have a right to get another admin assigned who has a clean history record with respect to me and who is able to look into arguments of both sides, not just one.--Stephfo (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You've been topic banned from ANI, and the community feedback is clear that it isn't a Fastily issue, it's a Stephfo issue. Please heed the above editors, and note that coatracking into a discussion isn't the best. tedder (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree then you need to post at AN/I or appeal to arbcom. There is no other way to appeal. Posting here will not help. N^oformation ^Talk 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we topic ban Stepho from AN too? This is ridiculous. I'm all in favour of people defending themselves, but WP:CONSENSUS ... indeed, the consensus of the community...has placed certain limitations. If I were him, I'd be trying to fix my reputation, not screw myself over further. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I regard this case of mine pertaining the above topic referred to as "Also some possibly improper AFD closures and other admin-bit actions.". "Consensus of the community" is weasels words, as this community includes also people whose voices and opinions has not been assessed. I wanted to spare one more report, but if you deem it as more appropriate, I can make a separate one. Thankx for your opinion. --Stephfo (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, make a report on AN/I and be done with this. N^oformation ^Talk 00:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just last technical question: I do not see his/her closure and my latest reactions in AN/I case dedicated to me, is it my local problem or is there something wrong with WP? I have tried various browsers and it is missing in all of them. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Look here Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly the same link that Fastily posted on your talkpage. You do understand how an archive works, don't you? Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

script-assisted deletions

The real problem here is the script-assisted deletion. We've had admins in the past who have deleted large numbers of pages via scripts and rarely have such endeavours been without issue. No matter the massaging of the inputs, there will always be pages that shouldn't be deleted if they had actually been manually checked. Yes, there are backlogs but this does not give us license to delete pages at such a breakneck pace as to overwhelm any possible manner of responsible review. And this is an ongoing concern; see AN/ANI archives for "Fastily+deletions" [89]. –xeno^talk 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We also get a large number of problematic fully manual deletions. I did half a dozen CSDs yesterday and one was deleted when I tried to save the the declined-and-fixed version of the page, much the same ratio as when I did a bigger sample a year or so back. A significant number of AfDs go bad, and prods are possibly the worst, with as little control over nomination and I get the feelign a presumption to delete. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Whether its Misza13 or MZMcBride or SQL or any one of the many other past administrations using scripts to make many rapid deletions, it has virtually always resulted in massive amounts of controversy and avoidable errors. It seems like script-assisted deletions should fall under a fully separate criteria for deletion, with much stricter controls to reduce the likelihood of large numbers of errors. Nathan ^T 22:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To some extent deletions are inherently controversial, massive amounts of deletions will hence be massively controversial. "Avoidable errors" on the other hand is usually addressable (or they wouldn't be avoidable), and absent any evidence to the contrary, we should assume that Fastily is addressing avoidable errors as he goes. Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Rich. Reviewing this discussion leaves me with the impression that it has turned into a "everyone bring up your pet beef with Fastily" day, with everyone from disgruntled editors to sitting Arbitrators piling on. Anyone who does this much work is eventually going to get something, maybe even a lot of things, wrong. But when you are 99% right, you should work faster, not slower. causa sui (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to create a new page called "Maximal Atlas" that would lead to Manifold#Atlases. However, it keeps telling me that

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism."

Can someone please tell me why is this happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesak23 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Done for you. CIreland (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way did this cause problems with MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? I can't find anything that should have blocked this title, but I'm not exactly familiar with regex. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything on the local blacklist either. --Carnildo (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• It may be useful if the admins could be circulated asking them to log in Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen all history merges done and all rejected history merges. That would stop it from looking like I am getting all the work of the history merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  Is that the only benefit? Jafeluv (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually WP:SPI does quite a few history merges on it's own, and I would think that the deletion log would be good enough to log them for me instead of having to log one ever time I do one. If we compiled a list for SPI, well, let's just say it would be one hell of a long list. Cases can be merged easily on a day to day basis and to ask admins to go over and log it when it's already in the deletion log...I think that's a little excessive. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• When did history merges become a part of the sockpuppet investigation process? Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• The usual practice is to history merge some of the cases if they relate to the same person but are filed in different places. For example, a case about X was filed at WP:SPI/X and archived to WP:SPI/X/Archive. Then a case is filed about Y at WP:SPI/Y and it turns out that Y == X. Whenever practical (since Y is usually a fresh case, this is very often) we move SPI/Y to SPI/X and merge their histories (instead of merely copying the text over) so that everything archived at SPI/X/Archive can be found in the history of SPI/X rather than scattered around different places. No, we don't do history merges outside SPI case pages. T. Canens (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I don't really see the point of logging history merges, either. I always thought of WP:SPLICE as a noticeboard rather than a log. Is there any particular reason we need to keep track of them? T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• We keep old AfD discussions, and the Wikipedia software automatically logs all the page deletions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  AfDs are, as you said, discussions. They can become quite long and complicated, which is why the log entry alone is usually not enough to understand the complete reasoning behind the deletion. That's not the case here. Again, I'd like to know what benefit there would be for logging every history merge on that page. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made a proposal that a watchlist notice be added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Input on this matter would be appreciated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more admin eyes would be appreciated at 2012 Formula One season, where the article is experiencing the usual addition of speculation, rumours, etc. I've left a clear notice on the talk page that further edit warring etc won't be tolerated. I hope it won't be necessary, but it may be that the article will need to be locked and the banhammer given some exercise. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been concerned for some time that the quality of AFD discussions hasn't kept pace with a clearer enforcement of our inclusion standards and this leads to a lot of unnecessary relists and will result, as participation continues to decline, in the process becoming even more arbitrary and confusing. That's if AFD doesn't end up breaking from a lack of policy based contributions. My view is that we need to improve understanding of what is or is not a policy based vote to improve the quality of debate. This will result in fewer relists, more consistent outcomes and allow the process to continue to work in the future. I'm proposing that AFD regulars who close and relist discussions explain which votes they counted and why and offer direction when they relist to make what's needed clearer. I started (yeah, its awful and needs lots of work) an essay to explain the process as above and would welcome any comments or feedback that anyone has on this. Since I'm going to spam this round the houses WT:AFD or the talk of the essay seem like good locations to hold the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should include a list of inclusion guidelines on WP:AFD in table format and give a general overview of what each one covers and how they are generally interpreted. Then we could also have a list of inclusion essays that are often used. As an AFD admin, I will say that I give a lot of weight to WP:GNG. I also tend to give less weight to AFD regulars that use what appear to be copy/paste rationales on both the keep and delete sides. There are a few users I'll give more weight to if I feel they are voting against what they generally lean. For example, if I see DGG, MichaelQSchmidt, or Warden !vote to delete then I'm more inclined to pay close attention to what they say and will generally give their opinion a little more weight. On the same side, if Stauratyates (sp?) and some others !vote to keep then I will pay closer attention to their rationale. That's how I do it.--v/r - TP 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

and letting people see which votes count and which were a waste of bytes will obviously spur them to making more focused contributions the next time they step into an AFD. I do think its probably to discuss in general rather then name names though. For the sake of Harmony if nothing else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:ATA? That has existed for, oh, years, and hasn't improved much. Essays sure are fun, but are you positive yet another one will help? --Jayron32 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No of course another essay isn't going to make any difference unless we can persuade admins to give a clearer steer on what's a valid argument and what's a discard and providing guidance on relists. That's going to be what makes the difference because AFD participants will be able to understand better what sways a discussion and what is just noise and respond accordingly next time they vote. The essay is a vehicle to persuade AFD closing admins to take this on board and get some discussion going. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the Arguments to Avoid essay gives general examples and best practices, but does not impact the actual content of debates in any direct way, whereas the idea behind IAFD is that admins should commit to providing feedback in the debate itself. And that's not a bad idea at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the same problems. There have been too many AfDs lately where all the comments after (& often including) the nom were for clearly unacceptable reasons. In practice, like Spartaz, I find myself in closing relying upon people I know to be sensible, rather the consensus of whoever might appear. However, trying to summarize the extremely complicated guidelines to a few words will leave out all the qualifiers and e3exceptions; the debate at an AfD is usually not about the basic rules, but over the interpretation or interpretative nuance of one of the rules. The solution is wider participation--if everyone looking here would just comment on 2 or 3 AfDs in the daily list it would help. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't always comment at AFD, but my personal rule is that I comment on two other AFDs for every article I nominate myself; that way I can assure that my nomination doesn't make any more work for anyone else. Perhaps if we made the instructions clearer to encourage anyone nominating an article for deletion to comment on a few. I know over at WP:DYK they made it standard for anyone nominating an article at DYK had to review/comment on another nomination, and it has helped reduce the workload considerably. I know that AFD is very different, but if we had a friendly reminder in a few places letting people know that it would be a good idea, when nominating, to also comment on someone elses nomination, it may drastically increase the participation. --Jayron32 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea but we have to face reality, participation in all of our deletion discussions is going down and that trend will continue. CFD and FFD already have very low participation rates that is affecting their credibility and I have seen numerous comments at DRV that regulars consider CFD so broken its not worth commenting on closes there. AFD is going to struggle in the future if we don't do anything about educating regular participants to make the best possible quality contributions. Am I misinterpreting the commentary here, but isn't it a bit ironic that a project designed around education isn't enthusiastic about a low overhead proposal to educate our own editors on how to best contribute to a key area that is extremely complicated and bedeviled by poor quality contributions? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't go to CFD, TFD, MFD simply because I don't think of them very much. FFD is different — they seem to delete everything that doesn't get an objection, so even if I go there, I don't make any comments on deletion nominations with which I agree, unless someone else has already voted to keep. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

After I deleted Jerusalem Prayer Team as a copyvio, Rjmains asked me for help with the copyright issue, and the source webpage now bears an unambiguous CC/GFDL release statement that's valid under our copyright policy. If I remember rightly, there's a bit of a COI issue involved here, which complicates the issue. I'm in the middle of preparation for finals week in grad school, so I can't spare the mental energy to give this situation the attention it deserves; could someone please help Rjmains? You'd do well to read his talk page and the deleted article before advising him or doing anything else. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Evans (journalist) was also deleted as a copyvio, but I'd guess (from what I remember of the situation) that the copyright issue is now resolved for it as well. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK I have restored these 2 as a WP:REFUND request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All editors are reminded that voting closes for ACE2011 in just over a day's time (Saturday 10 December at 23:59 UTC). To avoid last-minute technical logjams, editors are asked to vote at least an hour before the close, that is, by:

• Saturday 15:00 (3 pm) on the west coast of North America;
• Saturday 18:00 (6 pm) on the east coast of North America;
• Saturday 23:00 (11 pm) in the UK and Ireland;
• Sunday 01:00 (1 am) in South Africa;
• Sunday 06:00 (7 am) on the west coast of Australia; and
• Sunday 10:00 (10 am) on the east coast of Australia; and
• Sunday 12:00 (12 noon) in New Zealand.

For the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please undelete all revisions of I'll Be Home for Christmas and histmerge them back into the article? The article was around for over 5 years, so I refuse to see how the whole thing was speedied as a copyvio. Not all of it could've been a copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked Fastily about it? --Jayron32 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Over 80% of the article was plagiarized from this source, without acknowledgement. That said, I think the Library of Congress is public domain, so revisions could possibly be undeleted as such. Is it? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was still plagiarized. Essentially, if you want to see the deleted article, look no further. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The legal/copyright notices/disclaimers for the library don't appear to mention the copyright status of content they appear to have created themselves: [90], [91]. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Federal agencies place everything they do in the public domain --Guerillero | My Talk 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an extremely dangerous and false urban legend. causa sui (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's actually quite true, if a little oversimplified. Constitutionally, work of the U.S. federal government itself is in the public domain by virtue of not being eligible for Copyright protection in the first place.

That said, this doesn't apply to work by subcontractors, and agencies that aren't strictly part of the federal government, and it's rarely clear when those cases apply or not. — Coren ^(talk) 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To the second half, you're exactly right. The "it's a government thing, so it's PD!" story is a useful "rule of thumb" but when it comes to stuff like this, you don't want to get it right only 98% of the time. I know I'm picking nits but, I feel like we have to. On copyright we have to be right 100% of the time. causa sui (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Just checking, how do we know that they didn't use some of the Wiki article to write theirs? I don't see a date or attribution on theirs.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a few federal entities that are technically non-US government, like the Smithsonian Institution and the Postal Service, and they happily copyright things. However, the Library of Congress seems to be an agency of Congress; check images such as File:US-LibraryOfCongress-AltLogo.svg and File:US-LibraryOfCongress-Seal.svg, which are marked as PD-USGov-Congress. Seems to me that the only relevant problem with the deleted text is that it didn't cite its source: it was plagiarism but not a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In light of the above, and because I'm pretty sure the LoC is PD, I've reinstated the old revisions. I would advise however against reverting to the any of the old versions of the article, as they are mostly not verifiable or neutral statements (e.g. "it touched a tender place", etc). Just not encyclopedic... but not copyright violations either. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Since LOC is PD, is it fair game to copy text from the linked page above into the article? This is an important song, and lots of that detail is great, but budiling it up from scratch again is going to suck. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely. We'll have to work on the tone somewhat, but we can always solve verifiability issues by prefacing statements with something such as "According to the Library of Congress,..." Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, copying text straight from another page to build up an article is not a good thing -- we should always try to put information in our own concepts, not plagiarize someone else's. (Anyone want to take a swing at fixing Ron Nelson, come to think of it?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that plagiarism is uncool, but this can be dealt with appropriately {{PD-notice}}. Not technically necessary, but more ethical. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have tons of examples of "plagarism" of articles copied from PD encyclopedias etc? In any case, I will try to paraphrase where possible, but initial revisions may be copied. I will be sure to use the "includes text from " templates. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now updated the article with information from the link above, as well as a few other sources I have found. I have attempted to modify and paraphrase sufficiently, but others may want to weigh in to see if further modification is needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If Sarek's point were correct, we wouldn't have templates such as {{DANFS}}. Since 2001, it's been accepted practice to copy from PD sources with attribution. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The anti-vandalism bot, ClueBot NG, currently appears to be down. The bot has not edited in almost 24 hours. As the bot has several maintainers, I assumed this would be the best place to post the notification. If I am incorrect, I apologize. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alpha, thanks for reporting this. I've had a look at ClueBot's run page and that seems to be looking ok to me. I've emailed Cobi to make him aware of the issue--5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw that someone has asked about this on Damien's talk page, apparently it was originally down to maintenance work but now the server seems to be offline? Like I've mentioned above, I've emailed Cobi, hopefully he'll be able to give an ETA of when CBNG should be back.--5 albert square (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, a response from Damian, this is apparently a server issue which we're waiting on Rich to take a look at. There's currently no ETA of when this will be fixed, so until it is, I've put a notice on CBNG's talk page saying the bot is down.--5 albert square (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further information. ClueBot has now been down for about 90 hours. Andrew Kurish (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I don't think there's any further information yet, there wasn't an ETA when I put together the notice for ClueBot NG's talk page. Hopefully it won't be too long :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I apologise for CBNG's downtime, this is due to me not being able to pay for the server and hence it being suspended by the host. I can assure you that the server will be back alive on the 9th of December which is when I get paid next. Sorry again for the confusion - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rich, thanks for the explanation. I saw Tedders suggestion on your talk page, do you know if that would be possible?--5 albert square (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How much does hosting cost? I may be able to help, if you want. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset Indent)This may not sound smart but why can't you just get a toolserver account? --Kangaroopowah 02:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Its actually a valid thought, however the toolserver has restrictions on how much resources any one user is allowed to consume. Given what Cluebot does it probably uses too much resources. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The bot may be able to run on Wikimedia Labs at some point. Sven has asked below and I've added a note on the projects's talk page. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Update - The server will now be back on the 8th, however we will be moving it over to a Wikimedia Labs instance ASAP. - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to contact Rich on Skype and IRC without luck for the past two days after he suggested I might be able to help pay for it. ClueBot NG contributions indicates it is still down, so I asked on #wikimedia-labs for an update, and petan said the VM instance is created and Rich tried to start it without success. Nobody has heard from him since yesterday when he said he was busy (he's a student and works too.) I commented out the {{resolved}} header above for the time being; please check contribs before replacing it. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 2 - Okay, OVH have made me rage! They decided in their wisdom to fully terminate the server... so I've lost EVERYTHING(!). Me and Damian can get it back, albeit not fully taught... but it may take a couple of days. I am extremely sorry that this has happened and hopefully we can get it back up ASAP. When it is back up, we are going to need more and more community members to assist looking though the false postives so the database can be re-filled, anyone wishing to help can send me an e-mail or a talk page message and I will get you set up. Many thanks for your continued patience. - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Skype, the installation problem has been resolved on WMF Labs and ClueBot is compiling there presently. This thing apparently uses an artificial neural network (ANN) simulation to judge false positives. Anyway, a lot of help is going to be needed to review logs to get it working well again because the ANN database, which is usually stored in RAM apparently, was lost when the OVH ISP terminated the account. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarity are you refering to the review interface? Crazynas ^t 22:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The review interface just feeds back to the (currently missing) report interface which was databased in the same location as ClueBot itself. That's what the IP was referring too - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can an admin please address the small backlog and requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a couple, but there are a few more; I'd prefer a more experienced admin handle them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been seeing a lot of MediaWiki talk:Customusertemplate-ACP2(something else) type pages being created example: MediaWiki talk:Customusertemplate-ACP2-Be a part of Wikipedia (Technology, Copyediting) which has been deleted 3 time now. Is there some way that we can forbid creation of any page with that prefix unless a user is autoconfirmed? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be done by using the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Maybe you could request that on the talk page. →Στc. 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The usual. Want to unclutter the page history.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There was an RM to fix the 4-Acetoxy-DiPT article (which had incorrect spelling, -DIPT at the end). In the discussion it was said that it couldn't be moved because just changing the capitalization was invalid... anyhoo, I figured I could move it to an interim page, then just move it back with the correct spelling. I didn't realize that the redirect page would block the move back, so now it's stuck at a wayyyy wrong title that I intended to only be for 2 seconds while I moved it back. Oh man. Can someone move this back for me? 4-Acetoxy-DiPT 0101 -> 4-Acetoxy-DiPT. :( -Kai445 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thank you :). -Kai445 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Selective deletion please.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's more to do now.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help me publicize this widely. I'm interested in getting a feeling from the broad community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How about watchlist banners? →Στc. 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I never get into trouble so I don't know this stuff :) If I click on "email this user" and send them an email, and they later claim that I said something completely different from what I said, does anyone on-wiki have a way to check it? If not, what method do you guys prefer if you're trying to keep something private because you don't want to be publicly pointing a finger at someone, but you want to protect yourself in case they claim you said something different? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're emailing a mailing list there is no record of the email sent, and no way to verify if someone lies about its content. The best you can do is select the "E-mail me a copy of my message" option on the email user form--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Being slightly pedantic: that is not entirely true. I ask a CU to comment below.  Chzz  ►  22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, checkuser can verify an email was sent but there is still no way to see the content of the email. –xeno^talk 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, Xeno, that was my pedantic point.  Chzz  ►  03:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in case of an absolute emergency, the Devs could see the contents of the email. Was this an incorrect impression? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the correct impression. Sysadmins can view the contents of an email. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do you have this information from? I don't know that any emails are being logged, not see it in mail config. Petrb (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's not true, it may be logged but I just don't think that Petrb (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look at my own little MediaWiki installation, and did a text search in a database dump, and I don't seem to see stored sent mails anywhere in that, but maybe I missed it. More likely any "logging" is somewhere else (in the mail subsystem used by WP servers, for instance... developers could access that, and the mail subsystem could be configured to log outgoing mail). Alternatively, if it is correct, perhaps it's a particular configuration of the MediaWiki version for WMF sites (or just WP). Begoon ^talk 03:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When a user sends an email via Special:EmailUser from this (English Wikipedia) wiki, currently: The MediaWiki system records the username (if registered), the IP address of the sender, the date/time that the email was sent, the sender's User agent, and an encoded version of the user-name and address of the user it was sent to. That information is only available to people with checkuser access (ie, checkusers, and Wikimedia/Jimbo, etc). The actual content of the email is not recorded by the currently deployed software - although, in theory, the server operators could store any and all information they see fit to (e.g. the content could be cached somewhere). Meta:Privacy policy applies in all cases.  Chzz  ►  04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Deep breath.) If you wanted to you could mail a public key signed message, or merely a suitably checksummed message, and post the sig/checksum of the message on wiki, notifying your victim correspondent on their talk page. If they then wish to claim much later that you said something else they would have to produce a signed message by you with the required sig/checksum. You, conversely would be able to prove that you had sent the message you claimed (if any message). The only thing they could then say was that they received no message or didn't check the sig/checksum. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Send a copy at the same time to a trusted person, crat., steward or whatever. Leaky Caldron 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned in any well-read fora, but User:CorenSearchBot is back for now. A few extra eyes on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations would be very much appreciated. MER-C 08:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Huzzah! We just need ClueBot NG back and we can go back to letting the robots run everything. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as they don't like beer (Did the Good News heading make anyone else think of a certain professor?) Crazynas ^t 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is better to combat and fight vandalism. Its back when it was shut down on July 2011. --Katarighe (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I recognized an old user who used to edit under a different username last year, but ended it and started a new one. I went to his new user-page and called him with his old user ID (essentially exposing his old "user" identity). I wonder if I qualify for any sort punishment.69.232.73.16 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are genuinely concerned that you've outed someone's identity, pointing out that you've outed someone's identity on this noticeboard is going to further compound rather than resolve the problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, genuinely revealed the old username of a current user and my IP has been blocked by an administrator for one month(saying that he knows the user corresponding to this IP). I am asking here if that is a fair punishment.--69.232.73.16 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is. And evading that valid block by editing with a new IP address isn't good either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though the rule says, an IP must not be blocked for more than a few hours?

"Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours," --69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC) By the way, I did not expose his name/address or anything; just his old user ID. Does that also violate the policy?69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Should not" ≠ "must not". I'm not sure whether you're genuinely concerned or just trolling us; if the former, you should contact WP:OVERSIGHT, and if the latter, you should stop before an admin less charitable than I blocks you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda what I hinted at above ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Some IP's are blocked for months or years, just not "indefinite", unless maybe they're open proxies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep? The discussion has been open 10 days.

I ask that the closer not be an arbitrator or arbitrator candidate as NWA.Rep (talk · contribs) is an arbitrator candidate.

I further ask that the closer not be a writer of an arbitrator voter guide because the user has said: "the lynch mob (namely the arbcom voters guide writers) wants me out of this project and are disgracefully trying to sneak this Mfd through when all the people who support it are the 'arbcom voter guide' writers". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If that guy manages to get elected to the ArbCom, it should be a cinch for me the next time I run for admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr, is their consensus to delete that too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr has been filed. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin please visit the RfC here regarding non-free images of deceased persons, and close it one way or another? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as I cannot report this to AIV, and it is not really an incident, I am reporting that this IP needs its talk page access revoked for some time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed talk page access for the duration of the block. Hut 8.5 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The RfC regarding the lead section of WP:V ended a little over a month ago. There was an agreement that it would be closed by User:Newyorkbrad, User:Black Kite and User:HJ Mitchell. However, this has not happened because of the low availability of two of those.

Would anyone be interested in joining the process so that it can get back on track?

There is an existing understanding that closers should be three in number, be admins in good standing, not have participated in discussions leading up to this point and not have commented elsewhere in such a way that their impartiality might be questioned.

It's a responsibility to be taken seriously. A minor change is at stake, but it is one about which there are strongly-held views. It's also the RfC with the highest ever level of participation on Wikipedia. So there is a lot to read and it will probably not be an open and shut case.

Any takers? If so, please put yourself forward by making your mark below. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tempted. Am I wrong, or is that RFC archived twice on that page? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that will make it twice as much work. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be persuaded. Depends how urgent it is, as there's a lot to read and I'm busy this weekend. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is urgent is the sense that a decision is needed by 10 am. But I think editors want to know that it is moving in a forward direction. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to step in if the two above me cannot or someone below me has more enthusiasm.--v/r - TP 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I could do it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe SlimVirgin could work with you. Leaky Caldron 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have plenty of time starting Monday and am willing to wade through the stuff. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have the time to do it justice before Monday anyway so that suits me. If Worm will join us, we'll have the requisite three admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of the three of you, that should be good. But can I suggest making yourselves known on the WP:V talkpage first? There has been a little concern there about the risk of a runaway train of biased and incompetent admins. Yes, its a tautological concept. --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• just checking but are the victims... er I mean volunteers familar with the term hospital pass?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If no one has mentioned it at the RfC by tomorrow, I'll mention it then. Lots of reading to do... yay! Worm^TT · (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We are playing rugby now? :P --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government: "A government can also be agreed to in order to close very contentious RFCs. A notable example of this was the 2011 closure of the RFC on the "not truth" issue in the Verifiability policy text. While in principle any univolved Admin is free to close a RFC, in this case it was decided that a group of 3 editors should have the exclusive right to do this. While no other Admin was formally prohibited from ignoring that decision and close that RFC him/herself, in practice any such closure would have been swiftly reverted." Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That proposal was pretty clearly rejected, Count Iblis -- taking the Rejected tag off is not a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to reflect current practice. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is my understanding that the permission class of a user that the Wikipedia community trusts to specifically judge consensus already exists. If we're going to limit this close to a certain class of editor based on permissions held why not entrust it to the people we already trust to make difficult decisions regarding consensus(send it to 'crat chat)?Crazynas ^t 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In no way is the above meant to disparage or attack the neutrality or objectiveness or ability to judge consensus of any of the administrators that have volunteered, more of a procedural question. Crazynas ^t 20:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding is correct, actually, Crazynas. Admins/bureaucrats don't have the exclusive privilege of closing RfCs. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I do understand that, which is why my second sentence was conditional. This is a question for this particular closure (and others of this nature) why we're limiting the close to a subset of editors that are not selected primarily for their ability to judge consensus when there already exists a usergroup that is scrutinized on their neutrality and ability to gauge consensus. (in other words, allow any editor in good standing to assist the close, or limit it to the well defined group of users that are promoted based on this specific type of trust to judge consensus). Crazynas ^t 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, actually, that makes sense, except bureaucrats do not present a very large pool. I think, in this particular case it is just a case of consensus, for better or worse, between involved editors that they wanted admins. --FormerIP (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and finish what I started on my userpage. I hope you all find it helpful in reaching a conclusion on the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Folks, we have what is one of the largest RFC's ever, and its about a month after comments were closed it looks like we don't even have the closers picked. May I suggest that we create the short list of potential folks here, vett them not only for having no relevant issues, but also for anything that someone could successfully pretend is a relevant issue. And if that doesn't get it down to three, flip a coin and pick three and then roll. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my naiveness, I'm listing the above volunteers and the original three, so other folks can starting paring or adding to the list, please consider this to be editable (not like a part of my post). North8000 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• HJMitchell
• Black Kite
• NewYorkBrad
• Ultraexactzz
• Worm
• Regentspark
• SarekOfVulcan
• Cla68

I interpret the above discussion to mean that the "new team" of closers consists of HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned. Isn't that correct? Neutron (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All three indicated that they would be willing... I would just like them to confirm that they are actually taking this on. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my understanding, but I also said that I won't be up to it until Monday. I'll probably spend a good chunk of monday afternoon on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that people are in a super hurry, they just want to know that it is heading forward, which, right now means hearing a clear statement something like: "HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned are the trio that is or will soon be working on closing this" Can somebody say that? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to be more specific, can ALL of THEM say that? Neutron (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly reading through. I hereby commit to the trio of closers. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've scanned the discussion but won't be able to read it carefully till Monday. Since a Monday-Tuesday timetable seems acceptable, I too hereby commit to the trio of closers. --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to Worm That Turned, RegentsPark and HJ Mitchell... it looks like we have our new "admin panel" in place. Hopefully it won't take yet another month... but we will be patient. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, am reading and writing right now - did I willingly volunteer for this :) --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. About halfway through the poll responses and making notes, but have a long way to go. What on earth did I agree to this for ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, nothing bad's going to happen. The sudden disappearance of Black Kite and Newyorkbrad after they agreed to take on the task is almost certainly nothing more than a coincidence... --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Still reading. This is mighty interesting. Also, I have noticed this guy with sunglasses, mac, and hat pulled down over his eyes following me around. Just another coincidence, I guess :) --regentspark (comment) 16:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Struck myself from the list above -- <Leghorn>that was a joke, son.</Leghorn>--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi could you please review and close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#.22Blocked.22_template_tweak it's blocker for deployment. Petrb (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the thread needs closure per se. It's quite clear that there is consensus in support of the proposal. You now need to convince developers to turn it on.  Sandstein  17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a developer it can't be deployed if discussion isn't closed. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32819 Petrb (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is this procedure stated? Rmhermen (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment Petrb (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about needing to close a discussion. Did I miss something? Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the request to close discussion is in bugzilla. Petrb (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's closed now. Feel free to implement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment too early to say - either way. They need to respond here with an explanation. Leaky Caldron 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Today's Google doodle topic is Robert Noyce, and as usual his WP article is nearly his top g-hit. I read over the article and did a few minor copy edits, and was going to leave a message on the talk page with respect to the over-referencing and use of footnotes to include "cute" anecdotes, when I noticed an allegation of plagiarism. I'm not able to address this myself, as I am about to log off, but it would probably be good if another experienced editor would review the talk page allegations and perhaps also look at some of the other referencing. I know this probably doesn't belong here, but this page is more heavily watched around the clock than most others, and since the article has already required semi-protection due to its sudden popularity, this request is a bit time sensitive. Risker (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the External Links, this page is mentioned as a biography: http://www.elahmad.com/Robert_Noyce.html
• The content of the page is almost identical to the article on Wikipedia. Certainly looks suspicious, though whether it was made itself from the Wikipedia article who knows. Either way, the external link to it is pointless as its a duplicate of content here. I'll let someone with more copyright knowledge work out who copied who... (Its semi-protected anyway so nothing for an IP to do.)) --81.98.52.181 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert by any means. But the link was added today with the edit here. I also note that the elahmad page has the [20] reference in the second paragraph of the career section, which suggests to me that they copied the Wikipedia article, but didn't remove all the references. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone should remove it from the external links section then. If all it does is duplicate Wikipedia content (and claim its a biography) it is of no use to the reader as an external link, and adds no support to any claims in the article anyway because its a cyclical reference. --155.245.103.78 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In future, folks, remember that {{backwardscopyvio}} is around to flag instances of external sites that copy our content being suspected of being plagiarised. But in this case, it's simply a spammy portal linkfarm. I'd be unsurprised if there were plenty of other examples hidden on that site. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, actually, I was talking about Talk:Robert Noyce/Archives/2013#Possible Plagiarism (dating back to July 2010), which suggests that at least part of the copy was taken from the PBS website, not that external link. The article has had a lot of changes since I looked in last night, so I am not certain if this has been addressed. Risker (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Duplicate detector suggests some still remains - but it has its roots in pretty deep. I don't have the time at the moment to do it, but the article needs a deep clean just to rephrase the copied portions. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could try and close the image compromise discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images. The exact section link is Talk:Muhammad/images#Proposed_image_solution, although there is other further discussion elsewhere on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd certainly hope no one claims that wall of text is a closable discussion. Hold an RfC or something, but that's just an argument that is difficult to parse and too long to follow. Voting is evil, but unorganized walls of text are worse. There is just no way outsiders to that discussion could possibly follow or comment intelligently on it without spending at least 30 minutes. It currently stands (if I counted correctly) at more than 31,000 words. That's a third of a novel. At most I'd hope it would be closed as "hold an RfC". Disclaimer/comment: I personally believe a handful of editors are creating these walls more-or-less on purpose in an attempt to get their way on censorship related issues. WP:NOT's talk page being a good example, with the pregnancy image debate being another one (but it at least was readable). Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Frankly, the discussion got trainwrecked by a couple editors (one on each side), and movement forward is unlikely as a result. An RfC would be pointless for the same reason. Resolute 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • • I don't have the time to read it all just now, and probably wouldn't if I did. You're talking about Ludwigs and whom? If you think they're an impediment to reaching a stable article, would you support an article ban for both? I find it impossible to discuss the topic with every thread being derailed into a battle of the egos. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
        • And Tarc. But remove the former, and you remove the latter as well. Ludwigs goes somewhere, repeats the same arguments he made 100 times already, and Tarc replies with the same rebuttal he made 100 times already. Ludwigs moves to the next forum, rinse, repeat. And voila, 500kb of "discussion". Resolute 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
          • My problem is not with Ludwigs' position - that it's a net negative for the encyclopedia to be gratuitously offending our readers - with which I agree, but with his style of argument, seemingly more intent on impressing posterity or silent watchers with his considerable eloquence and logical prowess than engaging and convincing his interlocutor. I thought you Erasorhead, Jayen, Mathsci and the others (excluding Alan, IP and Tarc) were working towards something there but once Ludwigs returned from his month away, the delicate and elegant resolution you'd proposed just got shoved aside while the various gladiators preened and posed. I don't think I've ever called for an article ban before but I'm seriously tempted here. I'll let Ludwigs know about this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
            • While Ludwigs has definitely been annoying and over-argued, he has been prepared to compromise. I'm sorry but I strongly object to topic banning an editor who has behaved significantly better than the editors on the other side. If you want to do a two sided topic ban (so Alan, IP, Tarc and Ludwigs) I'm OK with that, and I'm OK with blocking whoever you think is the worst offender - and that isn't Ludwigs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I've thought about it some more, and I think this needs to go to Arbcom. They can look at the evidence and decide what to do with regards to topic bans. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I was hopeful that someone might try and close it, but fair enough. I thought it was a better option than escalation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is now at arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Muhammad_Images. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Who's got the popcorn contract for that monstrosity? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Referred to WP:WQA

Any admin that has ever deleted an article has probably gotten at least one "please stop deleting my page" and "why did you delete my page" post. I created, awhile back, a page that I would like to offer admins and users alike to user for posts like these, it's User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD. What I do is just post it as {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD}}~~~~ and it creates the section header and signs it itself, just a copy/paste job. It might help so you won't have to constantly answer those posts, saves time and a headache. Just slap the template on their talk page. Feel free to tinker with the page at User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD, if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It may save time and headaches, but I don't see how it helps the contributor to respond by giving a list of reasons that might or might not apply. I would think you use it by modifying the rendered text each time to include only the parts that are applicable——and to include something specific to the actual article in question, in order to indicate you are paying individual attention. And perhaps instead of saying "ask an admin," you really intend to say "ask me". Once we've deleted someone's article, we should consider ourselves personally responsible for whatever follow up is needed. I use prebuilt text phrases also, but never by themselves, except when AGF no longer applies. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin that's why the "ask an admin" part is there. Since I can't do anything (to move it to userspace after it is deleted, etc.), I give them an option to find an admin for help, especially with that. With the "talk" link in my sig, they can contact me easily. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think admins should reply to concerns with more then a boiler plate answer --Guerillero | My Talk 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A long list of possible reasons for deletion is almost certainly just going to invite more questions anyway. I've seen boilerplate like this on some admins' user pages, which is fair enough, but although well-intentioned I don't think it's particularly suitable to a templated response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

One nitpick I have had for a good while is that we need to get rid of the verbiage of "my page" or "my article", because whatever got deleted is not theirs (and theirs alone); the wording encourages article ownership, which not only goes against our basic wiki principles, but also goes against the CC-BY-SA. I think having that verbiage only serves to encourage that when we should be doing the opposite. –MuZemike 05:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

agree in principle, but can you think of an equally short equivalent that won't be clumsy? The best I can find is "the article you contributed" ; we normally reserve "your contribution" to mean a particular edit or insertion of material. Anyway, an article speedy deleted will normally only have had one substantial editor, and can in a very realistic sense be though of as "your article" . DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"The article you created" ? Tarc (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been a fair bit of discussion recently at Talk:Republic of China about restructuring the way Taiwan, Republic of China, Taiwan (island) and several other articles are structured. While not a formal move proposal, the discussion has trended in a very similar manner to a complex requested move discussion. Attention of uninvolved administrators in either assessing consensus or guiding the participants would be much appreciated. I tried to take a look, but decided partway through that I wouldn't be best person for the job. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Republic_of_China#Closing_request. What we need is mediation as part of the dispute resolution process, rather than administrator intervention. But having a fresh set of eyes look at the discussion and try to steer it towards some sort of eventual consensus would be a good start.--Jiang (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that, even whilst mediation might be helpful, an admin close for all the discussions is useful if only to show that there was consensus for the proposal at Talk:Republic of China#New Proposal. There appear to be users who refuse to accept there was consensus for this as there were dissenting voices. However, I think that there were enough votes and good arguments that mean there was consensus for the proposal. Three admins earlier this year did not need unanimity to move PRC to China. I also think that whilst New Proposal was not another formal move request, it has the same significance of one because the previous move request at Talk:Republic of China/Archive 16 was abandoned, with the focus moving to New Proposal. But this is why I would like an admin or admins to assist, so we all know where we stand. John Smith's (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is worse than I thought. Editors are actively refusing to accept there was any consensus at all. Indeed, one user is dismissing the consensus as the views of "Pan green supporters". This is in reference to supporters of formal independence for Taiwan. Given that this is clearly a political disagreement and not one based purely on policy or objective views, I think we need outside admins to take a view as to whether there was consensus or not. Otherwise this page is liable to explode as people start fighting over whether there was consensus or not (and what consensus there was). As an experienced Wikipedian, I humbly request assistance to avert a crisis that ends up in Arbitration. I know it's not a fun job, but I hope someone helps all the same. John Smith's (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I originally posted this on the talk page of WP:C, but no one has responded yet, so I'm rolling over here.

The following phrase needs to be changed in WP:C as it does not reflect the realities of copyright law with respect to the public domain.

• "Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf."

  This should be rephrased into "Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are usually subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed are in the public domain. Copyrighted images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf." Under the old definition, it gives the impression that a photo published in 1922 would somehow be copyrighted, but under the rephrased rule, that photo is properly accounted for and can be listed as a PD image (anything published in the U.S. prior to 1923 is automatically in the public domain).

This nuance is properly reflected in the first sentences of the same section:

• "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed."

I understand we want to discourage copyright infringement, but we must account for media that fall into the public domain and not give users the false impression that some creative works are copyrighted when they aren't. I'd make the change myself, but the page is currently locked. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I highly disagree that this is resolved. The change is uncontroversial and simply needs to be implemented to reduce confusion. I am asking an admin to enact these changes. Buffs (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The matter is resolved as far as this page is concerned. It is inappropriate to ask an admin to make a change to Wikipedia policy without consensus for that change. The reason the page is protected is not because only admins can change the policy, but rather because changes to it must be discussed and achieved by WP:CONSENSUS. Again - as far as this page is concerned, the matter is resolved. I am making no judgment whatsoever as to the change you are requesting; I'm simply noting that this isn't the place to seek action.  Frank  |  talk  23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated before, there is no objection to this change, this already IS WP policy and US law, and it is already reflected in the policy but was simply oversighted in later statements. This is no different than making a change in punctuation or fixing a typo. I kindly request that you stop labeling this as "resolved" when you and I are discussing it. I'd also like another admin's opinion on the matter. If they concur, I'll happily "drop" the issue, with the caveat that no one seems to have a problem with it. Buffs (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no point to discussion here, as this is not a matter for this noticeboard. Nevertheless, I will step aside so that someone else can explain that the matter really is resolved as far as this noticeboard is concerned. Again - I'm making no judgment regarding the edit in question; I am merely saying that this is not the appropriate venue for the discussion.  Frank  |  talk  00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unstruck. Discussion now ensuing on talk page. I invite all input. Buffs (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RPP yet again has a large backlog of unanswered requests.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Non free deletion review discussion requires closure - an admin with experience in non free file usage and the foundations statement as regards such usage would be beneficial to a closing rationale , at discussion - open around eight days, with no comments for the last four days. Youreallycan (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would someone care to close out Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 4#File:OccupyUCD3.jpg? The last comment was made on 7 December. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 10:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like it's already been requested a couple threads up. Kelly ^hi! 10:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• 199.96.156.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Found this out from this. The range given is from the WHOIS lookup for the IP. The single IP in that diff is pingable and has an active webserver that has a webhost management page when you go to it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a TOR node (misclick?), but it hardly matters.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's in fact an open proxy. One of several from this particular proxy provider to hit WP recently [107]. We may need to monitor this particular proxy as it moves to new IPs.... Sailsbystars (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can someone check a block for me? I have User_talk:Taivo who was blocked for 48 hours on 14 December - yesterday. An admin later attempted to reduce the block to 24 hours, but those 24 hours have passed and the user is still blocked. The block duration was set to expire " Fri, 15 Dec 2011 09:16:17 GMT", so it's possible that the day and date are conflicting - or that the day trumps the date, which seems counter-intuitive. I don't want to muck about with it until I know what the problem is, in hopes of not screwing it up further. Note also that I'm not questioning the block or the reduction (though I would not have reduced it personally), nor is the user's conduct in question here - just the technical issue of the block. Any insight is welcome. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume that there is an autoblock or some other IP Block hitting the user. I didn't get the red blocked box when I look at their contributions. Syrthiss (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I clicked "block this user", and the block expiration date was set to "Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:16:17 GMT". I'm guessing the admin mis-typed the block date, and the log takes whatever you type in as a valid date, assuming the date is of the correct format. The software then converted the incorrect date to the correct one (adding 24 hours to make it Friday the 16th).

Syrthiss, you didn't see that he was blocked since I manually unblocked him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick look. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this faulty RFC that is merely attempting to do an end-run gaming of the system by trying to redefine Wikipedia:Consensus and ignoring the results of the just-closed RFC which attempted to remove the very same wording as this one is attempting to do. Clearly an abuse of process with clear consensus to close it. Just to add that this is an out of process RFC that claims to be for the purpose of finding consensus to add material that was actually added and has been present since 2005. It's a faulty RFC to begin with and needs to be shut down now. Dreadstar ☥ 22:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The closed RfC had 279:149 for a very specific solution (a compromise, actually) to the problem with the current wording. The new RfC is proposing a much more radical solution to the same problem, which makes sense since many of the opposers opposed because they found the consensus version too long or not sufficiently radical. The RfC is not "out of process", it has a pointy formulation that grew out of frustration over 'losing' an RfC with almost 2:1 support. Hans Adler 23:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The new RFC is asking for consensus for text which has enjoyed consensus since 2005, the new RFC is out of process and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus. It's merely a duplicate of the just-closed RFC which attempted to remove the very same wording. That one of the proponents to remove the text admits the RFC is "pointy" is a clear indication of the problem. Yes, it's a WP:POINT violation and a faulty, out-of-process RFC that should be shut down immediately. Dreadstar ☥ 23:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to redirect this article to Magic:_The_Gathering as failing WP:PRODUCT, but its saying it is administrator protected. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a redirect to the main article, how about a merged article of all 3 Premium Deck Series? I'm looking at the other ones in that "Class" according to the template and all of them are extrordinarily stub like. Hasteur (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Even together, I dont think they really qualify, but 1 worthless stub is better than 3. Question remains : why is it protected? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Premium Deck Series: Graveborn isn't protected and never was. What error message are you seeing? --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably a caching error, where it would a "view source" tab rather than an "edit" tab; used to happen to me quite frequently - not so much anymore. --64.85.220.17 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wgfinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ADMINACCT

This was originally a request on WP:A/E that has been migrated here because it is not under the scope of A/E apparently.

WGFinley has seemingly lost sight of his of his duties as an Administrator on Wikipedia. As to why I feel this has happened, I will not speculate it was do to his preference towards a certain POV, unwillingness to admit a mistake or even flat out arrogance, because I quite frankly see that as irrelevant. This all stems from his adjudication of the User:Jiujitsuguy case. In quick summary, Jiujitsuguy violated WP:Consensus (in particular WP:Legality of Israeli settlements), by removing reference to Katzrin being an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights. Jiujitsuguy later self-reverted. Something is important to note here: that although the complaint was originally filed for JJGs removal of a consensus statement, more diffs were added which shows that Jiujitsuguy deliberately abused sources to push a certain POV. This was especially concerning considering JJGs recent expiration of a topic-ban of, which he received largely for misrepresenting sources.

I am not going to copy the text verbatim, but it is clear to see from JJGs most recent A/E case he distorted sources to push a POV that Mount Hermon is in Israel. Both User:EdJohnston and User:Timotheus Canens both seemed to agree that there was an issue with JJGs sources and were willing to discuss the matter. But WGFinley was not interested at all. WGF was asked multiple times to please address the issue of JJG misrepresenting sources, he either did not, or claimed that he already did. I still, until this very second, have no idea where he purportedly addressed the issues.

JJG source misrepresentation diffs:

1. 13 Nov 2011 Claims Mt. Hermon is in Israel by using the Fodor's Travel Guide source and the quote he cites in the ref, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain," but leaves out, "at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." The full quote should read (with the strikethroughs being what JJG omitted), "Mt. Hermon -- famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." (see the source here)
2. 13 Nov 2011 Uses this source to claim Mt. Hermon is in Israel, although the source clearly writes, "Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights."

Besides the multiple requests on the A/E thread, WGF was asked on his talk page to explain the issue:

1. 30 Nov 2011 Asked by User:Malik Shabazz to address JJG misrepresenting sources after prematurely closing the A/E thread without seeing T. Canens latest post calling for a topic-ban
2. 30 Nov 2011 User:Gatoclass brought to WGF's attention that the issue in A/E was misuse of sources
3. 1 Dec 2011 Matter brought to attention, again by User:Nableezy with request for an explantion
4. 1 Dec 2011 Asked by myself to, again, address the issue of misrepresentation of sources

WGF's confusion of the matter was further illustrated by claiming that JJG had "self-reverted" himself at Mount Hermon, which he never did (see Mount Hermon's history):

1. 30 Nov 2011

This was the only other time WGF even brought up JJG and Mount Hermon in the same post. Neither of the diffs refer to him addressing misrepresentation of sources at all, whatsoever:

1. 30 Nov 2011

Additional comments

Lets pretend for a second that we want to accept WGF's position that Nableezy was uncivil and, therefore, WGF wouldn't want to respond to someone who was acting to so "uncivil" towards him. Fine. But what is the excuse for the other three editors who posed the same question? WP:ADMIN clearly states, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." WGF can't just say he has responded to something he didn't even respond to push the issue aside. He should be accountable for his actions, he can't use ambiguity to disguise bad judgement calls he has made as an admin. He seems to have an issue with editors questioning decisions he makes, as is evidenced by the amount of "discussion closed" hats he places on his talk page.

But what has become even more hard to bear in this whole debate is the fact that some admins are only catching the tail-end of the situation and noticing Nableezy's perceived "incivility", without even understanding the context of the situation. By doing that, some admins seem willing to sacrifice one "uncivil" editor to better the so-called "Project", but not look at the larger issue of POV-pushing and falsification of sources. Being an admin on A/E is not about personal vendettas or tallying up blocks and bans, it is about using tools in a proper way to make the encyclopedia experience more reliable for the average person trying to get information on a topic based on a simple Google search. This admin, in particular, has decided that a more important issue for A/E is the is an editors perceived incivility, but not one editors manipulation of sources that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. I find that extremely distasteful.

I don't think WGF's adminship should be recalled, but I do think he should not be allowed to adjudicate anything further relating to ARBPIA. He should also be reminded, that he should be required to give a clear response when serious questions (like falsification of sources) are asked to him. -asad (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Full disclosure, I am currently under a topic ban imposed by WG on a separate subject, though I still think I am quite capable of being objective about his actions. I'm pretty thick-skinned.

First, I think this might be for ANI specifically and not the noticeboard in general, though asad appears to have just been acting according to an admin's suggestion. Of course, I don't really know. Maybe this is the right place for it.

Second, I think the inquiry should be broadened a bit since it appears at this point to be little more than calling for a pound of flesh because of a disagreement with WG on one case. While the admin who suggested this area as a more appropriate venue felt there was not much merit, I think that is partly because it is focused on that one case when there are in fact two cases of relevance here. WG's actions in the case against Cptnono appears to be the main cause for concern on the admin's behavior.

That case has seen WG suggesting Nableezy be banned from AE requests and topic-banned because he believed the case against Cptnono was vexatious and because Nableezy had commented on the AE case mentioned above after it closed. I think part of the problem with that is the way WG went about suggesting it. Specifically, he made the suggestion in the AE case against Cptnono in the area for unvinvolved admins. Given some pretty heated words between him and Nableezy it seems charitable for WG to consider himself an uninvolved editor as it concerns Nableezy's conduct, especially since several of the problems WG cited with Nableezy's conduct were on WG's talk page and directed at WG. I should also direct attention to one of those problems (listed as #3 in a list) WG cites where he misrepresents the situation on his talk page. Another admin started a discussion on WG's talk page and Nableezy later commented on those discussions. WG only specifically warns him twice to take the discussion to AE and the second time Nableezy appears to relent, but WG seemingly implies that Nableezy ignored repeated pleas to only discuss on AE.

On a final note, I should add that WG's actions on my AE case were questioned along similar lines to those above.

I really have no opinion on action to be taken, though if WG seems to be out of his depth on more complicated disputes typical of AE perhaps he should be restricted to more technical and obvious areas of administrative purview. Of course, maybe he just needs to be told that carefully reading people's comments so as to understand the dispute is generally expected of an admin when suggesting sanctions. Either way, it seems he may need to be considered an involved admin when it comes to cases regarding Nableezy given the increasingly heated nature of their relationship on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MichaelNetzer

This filing is predicated by disapproval over AE decisions WGF made regarding an editor who spares little discourtesy and rage towards editors and admins who disagree with him. This editor's tone and behavior are often aggressive, disruptive, uncivil and foment a poisonous atmosphere in the editing environment. He and supporters of his POV push in that editing space have mastered the art of trying to silence "opponents", including the art of excessive filing of complaints and filibustering discussions, based on technical issues meant to distract from the aggressive POV pushing behavior, far above what is generally tolerated on WP. This complaint is the last in such a series now intended to silence WGFinley, who has identified the behavioral problem and is proposing a remedy for it at AE. Nothing more. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Going after Nableezy is an unhelpful distraction. Nableezy may be abrasive at times, but that does not mean WG should be elevated to some sort of sainthood for suggesting action against him. There was clearly a heated atmosphere between WG and Nableezy, and it appears to have been specifically between them. He should not be suggesting any action under the guise of being uninvolved when Nableezy has clearly gotten under his skin. My thinking is he should have recognized that his own emotions were too intense and perhaps made a formal request as an involved editor concerning Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Abrasive" is a generously kind understatement for Nableezy's tone in the I/P editing space with editors he disagrees with. His behavior is the root of too many issues there. WGF is addressing this root cause that is too often masked behind technical issues. His involvement is only in his capacity as administrator and does not in any way disqualify him to handle issues with Nableezy. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy has presented five AE cases, I believe, within the past five months or so and two of them lead to sanctions against the reported editors with no action against Nableezy, in at least one case those sanctions were imposed by WG. Another saw several admins supporting sanctions, but was closed because of the opposition from other admins, WG namely. The latest one against Cptnono saw several admins agreeing that the conduct Nableezy reported was a violation or appeared to be a violation. WG's call for banning Nableezy from AE seems incredibly excessive in light of those facts. Given the heated exchanges he has had with Nableezy, him calling for a ban as an "uninvolved" administrator is a very serious problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WGF's concerns and proposal for ban were based on uncivil behavior alone. But he seems to have settled for no ban so the argument is now mute. The problem of behavior remains and will likely become more empowered in light of the peculiarly forgiving attitude of AE admins towards the problem. Something I haven't seen with any other editor who violates civility to this degree, and suggests severe prejudice. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt true, and while it is unsurprising that you persist in making unsupported disparaging claims against others, it isnt remotely constructive. nableezy - 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The most constructive measure that I see needed to return to some semblance of good collaboration is to convince you to tone down your behavior. You and I have shown it's possible on the map. I'd like to see you try to remain in such a behavioral space more often. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think changing his mind after a flood of admins indicate to him that he is overreacting should really be considered a mark in his favor. That he thought he could act as an uninvolved admin in suggesting a ban of Nableezy from AE despite the obvious tensions between the two of them raises serious concerns. If Nableezy files a future AE report WG thinks is wrong and there isn't a flood of admins to convince WG he is overstepping, maybe he will actually impose a hefty ban on Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy himself has said that previous bans have helped him curb his 1RR violations. Whatever it takes for the same in collaborative civil conduct would be constructive and welcome. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

I do not support any actual sanction against WGFinley. However, I wish to record that several times I have been quite startled by the apparent animosity that WGFinley shows towards Nableezy, very little of which seems to be justified by the circumstances, and by the lack of logic displayed by WGFinley when discussing matters related to Nableezy. The AE process should not only be dispassionate, but should appear dispassionate. That is not the case here. I think WGFinley should voluntarily stay away from AE cases involving Nableezy. Zero^talk 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WGFINLEY's Response

This is a complaint about a closed AE case. I stated my opinion in the AE case and engaged in discussion with other uninvolved admins. In the end another admin (not me) deemed there was no consensus for action and thus closed the case.[114] I could go on in detail but I had stated I felt what the editor did was wrong but shouldn't be sanctioned for it. This is the purpose of AE: noninvolved admins reviewing, giving their opinions and engaging in discussion.

During the course of the case some editors asked me questions on my talk page and I engaged in discussion but ultimately referred back to WP:AE as the proper place for the discussion. Many times on AE a tactic used by different sides is to game via filibustering, in this case it's repeatedly asking the same question (to get involved in the content dispute), getting an explanation (refusing to get involved in analyzing sources and getting involved in the content dispute), not accepting the explanation and then asking again. In this case this user and supporters feel admins should be researching sources on WP:AE, I believe this draws admins into content disputes and respectfully disagree.[115][116][117][118]

In summary I commented on an AE case and gave my reasons for my opinion, the case was closed without action by another admin. I didn't take any action that requires explanation but it's clear by the volumes on my talk page I didn't ignore the questions, I just didn't provide the answers desired.

--WGFinley (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Nableezy

WGFinley made several demonstrably false comments and refused to answer questions about them. I have outlined the sequence of events at User:Nableezy/sandbox. The claim that he did not ignore the questions asked of him is absurd, he still hasn't answered several basic questions. I dont expect that this will generate anything in terms of uninvolved commentary or any type of action, and Id suggest that this section be hatted in favor of an RFC/U. nableezy - 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this clear one final time with no reasonable means of ambiguity: assessing sources, outside of blatant cases (i.e. plagiarism and original research) is a content issue. What the source says, paraphrasing what a source says, how it is cited, whether it is a bonafide secondary source, what meaning the source conveys, whether someone is misrepresenting a source, those are all content issues that are handled through the normal process of editing an article. Admins don't do content disputes, thus, I will not answer your question because it is not for me to decide. --WGFinley (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have to disagree there. Misrepresentation of sources is serious misbehaviour that strikes at the heart of collaborative editing anywhere in the encyclopedia, but doubly so in an area under ArbCom sanctions. The two examples cited above are particularly blatant. Kanguole 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• You are trying to misrepresent this as a content dispute. The issue is your bad judgement calls related to an editor misrepresenting sources. The content itself is not in question here. You seem to be handwaving to draw attention from your unsatisfactory administrator behavior. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Against my better judgment, I'll comment on this briefly. Admins do not resolve good-faith content disputes. The qualifier "good-faith" is important: if no reasonable editor well-versed in our policies and practices would disagree on an issue, there's no good-faith dispute. Thus a complaint about misrepresentation or falsification of sources is a conduct issue, not a content issue. Thus WP:Legality of Israeli settlements has been consistently enforced at AE, because no reasonable editor familiar with our practices would have gone against an established consensus determined in a widely participated RfC without establishing a new consensus first. Similarly, a hypothetical editor who repeatedly seizes on a misprint in a travel guide to argue that George Washington was born in 1722 and not 1732 is not participating in a good-faith content dispute and may be sanctioned for misbehavior, even if no source misrepresentation or falsification is involved: no reasonable editor would use a passing statement in a low-quality source like a travel guide, even if otherwise reliable, to argue a point about George Washington's birthday. In my judgment JJG was doing something exactly analogous to that: to argue a hotly disputed point about Israel's borders using a single sentence in a travel guide as a source is not something a reasonable editor would have done. T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• I suppose an admin presumably has the individual right to personally regard misrepresentation of sources as a content dispute, although it's also reasonable to see it as WP:OR which "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". But if that is an admin's personal position, source misrepresentation is outside of their personally defined scope as an admin, there is no reason for them to be looking at AE cases that are based on source misrepresentation. They should leave it to admins who do look at source misrepresentation and sanction editors for it given that is clearly one of the most serious user conduct issue possible in an encyclopedia. Obviously if an admin doesn't regard source misrepresentation as relevant to their activities as an admin, they will never see it as an issue and will never sanction editors at AE who are reported for delibrately misrepresenting sources. It's like a traffic policeman who sees what he knows is a stolen car driving past but doesn't see it as an issue relevant to him because it's not breaking the speed limit. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I was trying to come up with a good example to illustrate the absurdity of WGFinley's behavior, but yours ("It's like a traffic policeman who sees what he knows is a stolen car driving past but doesn't see it as an issue relevant to him because it's not breaking the speed limit.") does the job nicely. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sanction For An Opinion?

I don't understand how I should be subject to review for having a position on a case that was closed with no consensus. I made it very clear early on my position was based on staying out of content disputes and, secondly, I didn't state there should be no action. On the contrary, I stated, " Perhaps an admonishment to use better care and stick to reliable sources in territorial claim articles is in order?." I didn't close the case with no action, another admin did. So basically I am here on AN for a belief, a belief that that action should be taken, just not the action some folks wanted and was eventually concluded with no consensus? Pretty dangerous precedent. --WGFinley (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it was closed as "Clearly no admin consensus to do anything", due to your refusal to treat the sourcing issue seriously, and the closer then resigned his bit. I'm not saying you're the only reason the encyclopedia and AE have (temporarily I hope) lost a fine admin, but perhaps you should reflect on your contribution to the situation. Kanguole 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Im sorry, but that is one untruth after another. You arent here because you had an opinion, you are here because you a. made a baldly false statement and repeatedly refused to either acknowledge the error or explain the statement, and b. because you claim that lying about the content of sources is a content dispute. I myself would be willing to put this in the past if you would finally answer some very basic questions, starting with why you wrote I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. in this diff when the user did no such thing and no diff even mentioned a ski resort (except as the title of a source). There are 2 or 3 questions after that, but if you could finally answer that one I think we may actually get somewhere. nableezy - 15:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• There have been other concerns raised here about your conduct with regards to Nableezy in general, not just by me, but by admin Zero. What Nableezy provided above, together with your comments on my AE case, also suggests you have a bad habit of not properly reviewing the more complicated cases on AE before suggesting action. How exactly do you address those concerns?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, though I am an admin I edit in this topic area so I am "involved". However, I send by the remarks I made as an ordinary editor. Zero^talk 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't realize that there are any admins who actually recuse themselves when it's appropriate. I should spend less time in AE. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh please WGFinley, you are making it sound like your free speech rights are under attack here. For the sake of argument, I will give you the second diff (Popular Mechanics) which could be perceived as a "content dispute", but the first diff, there is no way you can call that a content dispute. When an editor cuts and pastes a portion of of a sentence, when the the end of the sentence said, "is actually in Syrian Territory", you are falsifying the source. Full-stop. -asad (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

One more time, I said he should be admonished and instructed as to sources.[119] If you want to take me to Arbcom for saying a user should be admonished as opposed to sanctioned then you do as you see fit. One would think were I so fully off my rocker I would have been easily dismissed and my opinion written off as nonsense. Yet it was closed with no action. --WGFinley (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You still seem to be actively avoiding answering straight questions such as those by Nableezy just above. un☯mi 03:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by un☯mi

Ignoring everything else, I find the idea of source misrepresentation = content dispute, of a sort that AE should ignore, very disappointing. un☯mi 09:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the case at hand, that is correct. Misrepresenting sources is a user conduct issue, sanctionable at AE. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Many Arbcom cases revolve around WP:Tendentious editing. It should be self-evident that AE has the right to sanction such behaviour just as much as it does violations of WP:3RR.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that if parties wish to ask that an administrator no longer be allowed to enforce AE sanctions (in general or in specific areas) the correct method is to ask the Committee. I'm not going to comment on the specific close here, just a procedural note. SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What about requesting that a specific Admin not be allowed to adjudicate WP:ARBPIA? I thought the correct place was WP:A/E, but I was told it was not so. -asad (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct, that should go to the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To remove an administrator from Arbitration Enforcement who says assessing sources, outside of blatant cases (i.e. plagiarism and original research) is a content issue... (and) admin's don't do content disputes has to go to some committee?

He's basically said he's not competent to determine whether misrepresentation (a type of lying and fraud, often used to skew content and that should be easy to detect) has taken place. Madness.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

After looking at WGFinley's contributions to the AE: In my opinion, this admin's behaviour was outrageous. I have not looked at Nableezy's responses to WGFinley (just noticed that there are many), but in my opinion a lot is excusable in response to WGFinley's extreme IDHT behaviour that can only be explained with bad faith or extreme incompetence. WGFinley should consider themselves lucky if the only result of this is that Arbcom removes them from AE on ARBPIA matters. Hans Adler 01:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up on the ArbCom mailing list myself, so let's see what other arbs think. SirFozzie (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to look into other administrators that have problems with misrepresentation (i.e., lying) let me know. You can start here: [120] (RFC on User:Ash) showing he misrepresented sources, before he "vanished" and became User:Fae, now an admin and Wikimedia UK board member.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it just my impression, or does Arbcom always get a huge heap of work right before Christmas? Hans Adler 08:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Cptnono

I will not comment on the merits since I could not do so without violating a topic ban. Attempting to remove an admin from AE as he is involved in making a decision could set a dangerous precedent. For example, I think that Timotheus Canens has proven that his decisions are lopsided and responds to off Wikipedia communications from one "side" while ignoring the other. I was actually considering starting a discussion on his actions after a very familiar exchange (mentioned on this page). I do not think Wgfinley has come close to that sort of error. It is easy to take away the privilege of cleaning the project when an admin has shown an obvious bias. Wgfinley has not shown that bias. I would ago as far as saying that he has shown restraint when attacked. Gatoclass and Malik have both been honest enough to no longer act as uninvolved administrators at AE. They have been in disputes and it is clear so they acknowledge that (it is appreciated). Timotheus Canens and Wgfinley have not acknowledged any political leanings. So far, Wgfinley has only acknowledged that he sees problematic editing from certain parties, including myself. That is what an admin at AE is supposed to do. I think both admins should consider the behavior of Sandstein and AGK. AGK has actually blocked me and I still think he does it close to right. If Wgfinley wants to take care of business then we should appreciate it as long as it is not biased. Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record Cptnono, I have never attempted to act as an uninvolved admin in the IP topic area at AE. I have occasionally made a post in the uninvolved admins section - usually only when it is late in the day and I am concerned that my comment might be otherwise overlooked. And I've only ever done that when I'm sure the other admins know of my involved status (which ought to be obvious since I mostly post in the involved section). I have never tried to adjudicate an AE dispute in the topic area. So I hope that clarifies things a bit.

With regard to your comments about T. Canens, I think he has generally been an excellent adjudicator at AE, and am quite sure his conduct would stand up to scrutiny from the Committee or from the broader community. Regarding WGFinley, while I'm somewhat reluctant to add to the chorus of discontent above, I have made no secret of my dissatisfaction with his narrow interpretation of what issues may be adjudicated at AE. More specifically however, I have been concerned recently by what seems to me an excessive focus by WGF on Nableezy to the exclusion of other factors, to the point that I myself have been considering requesting him to recuse from cases involving Nableezy. In the latest case for example, it appeared to me that WGF was attempting to act as both plaintiff and adjudicator, complaining about Nableezy's "insults" to himself while also attempting to adjudicate the case. It's not entirely clear to me what protocol should be followed in such situations, but I think if I felt someone was behaving in an unacceptably uncivil manner toward me in those circumstances, I would probably want to start my own case against that person and allow uninvolved admins to make the judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Cptnono has already twice had a go at T Canens in wider discussions and is WP:FORUMSHOP. He has been fixated on T. Canens because Tim inconveniently sees through the nonense from some of Cptnono's political allies.

Here we have an attack on Tim for blocking a copyright-violator who was harassing those trying to clear up his mess. The problem for Cptnono? The copyright-violator shares his POV therefore the block must be a bad thing. Result? The block is overwhelmingly endorsed. Here we have a weasly-worded attack at WT:RFAR. Result? Arbs say Tim has not resigned broom under a cloud.

Cptnono is continuing to harass Tim even after he has redigned the broom. I think it is about time he is hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Are people happy to deal with it here or should I go to AN/I?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Has he resigned under a cloud? It appears he has looked at some of his recent admin actions and perhaps thought a few of them warranted taking a step back? I don't support any boomerang - at least its all out in the open , without off wiki requests for action. My position is that after looking at the users contributions and other users comments - I do not support User:Wgfinley or User:Timotheus Canens continuing to administrate in the hotly disputed Middle east topic sector. Neutrality or at least, a "perception of neutrality" is a requirement of an administrators ongoing ability to action complaints in a topic area and as we have hundreds of administrators available to step up to the mark, there is no need to insist on a disputed administrators continued activity in a disputed area. Youreallycan (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

read my comment closer, Cohen. And if pointing out what admins should and should not do in a topic area while still using civility is a concern for you then I have know idea how to make you feel better about it. There was zero incivility in my comment that was designed to point out ways to make things better. Did he "give up the broom"? I was not aware of that but I do wish him the happiest of editing if he is focusing on that instead of the Israel v Palestine issue at AE. Sorry your page isn't FA anymore, Cohen.Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

and if you misread my initial statement about the actual issue let me know. I gave Tim a heads up on his talk page to be polite. I felt at one time there was ample evidence to get Tim off of AE. He has since modified his behavior. An admin is open to scrutiny. Let Tim fight his own battles and stop crying wolf over a pretty tame comment. If he asks for why I feel he should not be at AE I will let him know. Until then, this isn;t a discussion about Tim. I mentioned him since it was a similar situation. Pointing fingers isn't how things get done and you all should feel a little bad for picking up on the secondary point while ignoring the primary reasoning behind my comment. Like a bunch of bratty kids.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG

Yawn. Most users commenting here are involved in the topic and thus their views can and should be discounted. If you ignore them, not much is left. I will refrain from commenting on substance since I can be considered involved as well. - BorisG (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A person's comment should only be discounted if he or she is not raising a good point. Just because a person is seen as having a personal reason for a complaint does not mean that complaint is invalid. Were that approach taken everywhere there would really be no point in having a system for reporting violations or perceived violations of policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please load up the next two preps to queues at Template:Did you know/Queue? I'd do it myself but they contain hooks of mine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just nominated Tahir Abbas, a biography currently fully protected for BLP reasons, for deletion. I have created the deletion discussion page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tahir_Abbas_(3rd_nomination)) and added the article to today's AfD listing, but have not been able to add the AfD tag to the article itself, as it's fully protected. Could an admin able to edit through the protection please add it? Thanks. --JN466 02:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --JN466 03:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so RBI is good. Disruption is not. I'm not going to specify which IP range I'm talking about, because for many of us it's obvious. They're under the rather strange belief that they cannot be "touched". However, now that some of their edits actually make physical threats of harm, add the race issue, and it's now escalated into something that would legally require their ISP to release the client name/address/etc to the proper authorities, and take Federal action. No action from admins needed, it's more of an escalation :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a dispute at Talk:Pakistan studies#Pakistani textbooks controversy which resulted in the page being protected for a short time. It is huge chunk (~10K) of content that belongs to Pakistani textbooks controversy, me and another editor contested it being against WP:SUMMARY and being WP:POV & WP:UNDUE. The opposing editors are only eager to revert and reluctant to discuss the issue inspite of repeated invitations on Talk:Pakistan studies and on their user talk pages (no reply since a week). [121] [122] & [123] [124]. Previously in response one editor only responded with comments on me rather than on the issue while the other is not even talking about the issue being disputed. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is not really intended for reporting content disputes. If there is edit warring, report at WP:AN3. Otherwise there are numerous venues for WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that I didn't mean to list the dispute itself here, but WP:NINJA by the editors who revert right away but are reluctant to respond to discussion. The page is protected now so there can't be an edit war, but I was reverted by two editors who are not addressing the issue on talk page so the discussion can't go any where and if I revert after protection expires, they will simply revert me. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Since no response has been given in a reasonable time by the editors in favour of keeping the content duplication, can an administrator see if the discussion can be closed on the current reasoning? Or advise if the issue needs to be further taken up (and how to go about that with the editors being non responsive). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You have not taken the advice which I left at Talk:Pakistan studies to open an RfC. If you won't take that step, could you at least try to make a neutral summary on the talk page of what everyone has said so far, including your opponents? An outsider looking at that page can tell that everyone is angry and that politics must be involved, but the issues are hard to understand. Your arguments about WP:MOS and WP:SUMMARY appear to be mere acronym-warring and can't be taken seriously. If your content opponents are not responding, you should at a minimum try to bring others into the discussion, which an RfC provides for. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will take both your advices and write a neutral summary of arguments to call an RFC. I didn't open the RFC before because it seemed like an overkill for a discussion that could be solved by talkpage discussion between the four already involved editors. But due to no response, RFC is the right option. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

...have been posted, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011#Results  Chzz  ►  21:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The article Qizilbash is currently being vandalized by IPs. Please semi-protection. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, a better place for this would be on WP:RFPP. Admins are quicker to process the requests there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd for two days. If it persists after that, make a request at RFPP or ping me on my talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm going to need some very, very willing victims admins who don't mind extreme tediosity to help clear out Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old, which has a 38,000 item backlog. Don't be alarmed though, this backlog is not difficult to process at all; in other words, if you're an admin and if you know how to click a mouse, you're hired. Detailed review instructions are available here. Happy clicking. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How did we get such a huge backlog? Did someone run a bot to find candidates? Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There's been a big push to lower the size of images (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And anyone viewing this thread (regardless of whether or not they're admins) can clean up the tags from images which were handled already. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How frequently does the bot that removes the tags run? January (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

About every 12 hours. It actually finished a run a few minutes ago. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are great! It's only been 2 days and we're already down 10,000 items! :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Homebrew (video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cheating in video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ROM hacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John L. Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One editor keeps adding an external link to these pages, another keeps removing it with the edit summary "advertising". I consider myself to be an involved editor, and would appreciate it if an impartial admin could take a look and protect/warn/whatever as they see fit. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it's a bad case of spam on Asdfsfs (talk · contribs)'s part... At the moment, I'm quite inclined towards blocking him... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the link itself on the blacklist? Should it be? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

GameHacking.org is the link inserted in the first three articles, gshi.org is the link inserted in the Hennessey article. I don't see either in the spam blacklist or the WP:ELN archives. I haven't visited either site, so no opinion on whether they should be added to the blacklist. 28bytes (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• The history at Talk:Asdfsfs doesn't create the impression of clueful editing. A tap with the clue bat seems in order. causa sui (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do you mean User talk:Asdfsfs? Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(From a non-admin) In the case of the Hennessy article, the disputed EL is an informative interview. It is a useful addition to the article, and I see no reason to label it as advertising. (BTW, the URL in the article, http://gshi.org/?s=qna&id=37, is now a HTTP redirect to http://GameHacking.org/?s=qna&id=37.) I can't speak to the other articles listed. CWC 16:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously a content dispute. That's not really what this noticeboard is for. If there is edit warring use WP:AN3. For other problems see WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is actually an "extremely slow edit war" in which an involved admin is harmlessly asking for another opinion. AN3 or ANI would probably be better for this thread, but so what? Overall, Asdfsfs doesn't look to be a spammer and I don't think the addition of these two links is enough to label him as such. I'll drop them both a warning for edit warring, at least, and then if it continues a block may be justified. Swarm ^X 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Swarm. I appreciate your help. 28bytes (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem—I'll try to keep an eye on the editors in case any further action is needed. Swarm ^X 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

After a rather stupid move war, to various titles in and out of article space (with perhaps some cut-and-pasting involved), the early history of Logging truck seems to have been left behind at User:Peter Horn/Logging truck. Since it looks as though the article will be kept at the AfD discussion, could some kindly admin do the necessary histmerge to get all the relevant edits into its history? (There may be stray edits lurking about at other titles, but I haven't found anything significant on a quick scan.) Deor (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Grazie mille. Deor (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help! Trying to move History of V Australia to new name of just "V Australia". Apparently an article by this name already exists but I can't find it. Schulzr (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please revoke user talk page access for blocked User_talk:JAF1999, user is spamming the helpme tag.    Thorncrag  17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. "Experienced editors and administrators will have the option to feature posts more prominently, or hide offensive posts." This new version looks as though it could cause extra work for us (besides any other non-Admin related problems), so Admins might want to be involved in its development (including making sure it appears on watchlists). Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Experienced" is a very vague term. Is there any more information on that, or is that undecided so far? →Στc. 08:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not yet. In the office hours log there is a suggestion that rollbackers (or perhaps all autoconfirmed) should be able to remove any feedback comments, but there is no clear statement. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've asked if there is a guarantee there will be no BLP issues. As this new version abandons ratings for comments, this is a concern. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, edits adding comments via this tool will not appear on a user's watchlist so BLP violations may easily go unnoticed. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody close this RFD that has been open for more than a month? Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks be to God that the "Occupy movement" is finally over. There's a whole walled garden of "Occupy" garbage that will eventually have to be pruned/deleted once the partisans have gone away. Kelly ^hi! 05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It recently came to my attention that Dipankan001 (talk · contribs) is a file mover, despite having uploaded files on the English Wikipedia that do not list the source; the only source given is "Google Image search", most recently File:I am Singh.jpg without giving a reason as to why it falls under WP:NFCC. Therefore, I request that Dipankan001's file mover status be removed. HurricaneFan25 — 22:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Ruslik0#File mover grant for a relevant thread. →Στc. 22:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User right revoked in light of the comments at that thread and the fact the user continues to show a failure to understand the basic criteria involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dipankan001 (talk · contribs) used the file mover right only four times. And all those moves were good. I do not understand how WP:NFCC is relevant for 'file mover' right. Ruslik_Zero 10:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

From WP:FMV: "There is no set requirement but users should be well-versed in Wikipedia's image and media policies." This users actions both before and after gaining access to the tool demonstrate that this is not the case. There is no urgent need for more file movers, it shouldn't be hadn't out willy-nilly to users who clearly have a poor understanding of image use policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You omitted what is written in parentheses. Anyway this guideline has never had any consensus behind it. Ruslik_Zero 07:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All user rights require at least a small bit of trust. If a user lacks the competence to perform basic work in an area (and thus is not trustworthy), that user should not be given advanced permissions to work in that area—common sense. I'd expect a steward, of all people, to be familiar with the basic concept of silent consensus and not resort to the "that page has no consensus" defense...but all the same, if you'd like to start a discussion on removing things like "experienced in working with files", "trusted users who regularly work with media files", "have experience with images" and "well-versed" from that guideline page, you should by all means go ahead and do so. Swarm ^X 17:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Dipankan001#Collecting_flags, and the piles of image-related warnings on their talk page. Clearly not ready. Sorry if it bruised your ego to be overturned, I don't think it's that big of a deal and the user in question has not objected or even replied. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually a consensus do exist and not silent one. The consensus is that the 'filemover' right should granted to users somewhat more experienced than autoconfirmed users. It was established in the discussion that created 'filemover' right. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:Look at my contribs,the file moves I had done are not bad,although.Giving a more descriptive file name, in which, the author had requested to move is not bad, is it?I am also involved in closing some RM's.Any thoughts?Night ^{Of Darkness} 07:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What are the criteria for hiding feedback in Special:FeedbackDashboard? Is it the RevDel criteria, or only for blatant vandalism? (I see admins hide things right now for being nonsense.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's the same as Revdel.--v/r - TP 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The only written guideline that I can find is "Please do not hide things that are not blatantly abusive" (from WP:RESPONSE, which of course is not policy). It looks like people are hiding comments pretty freely on the basis of being "tests", "nonsense" or "vandalism", though. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of user talk pages are showing up at CAT:CSD because some warning template is fooked. I can't figure it out, templates are black magic to me. Could someone who does know what they are doing fix the problem? Grassy ass. --Jayron32 02:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's Template:Autotranslate, which has been deleted. Should fix itself in a few minutes. 28bytes (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitely that template, but I'm not sure why it's taking so long to clear. 28bytes (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The job queue has been know to take days. Don't know what the current wait is, but a null edit should clear these. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Days? Yeesh. In that case, I'll clear 'em manually. 28bytes (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

{The Original Barnstar}} Here's an invisible barnstar to thank you for your hard work. Keep it up! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! That was my delete. I saw the inclusion on lots of talk pages, but I figured that it would clear up soon enough if I waited it out. I guess it didn't. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, all. How about a little pat on the back over here? :-) I just created a whole new category and populated it. It is Category:Progressive Era in the United States. Please feel free to check it out anytime and to comment. Appreciate your help, fellow Wikipedians. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work man. Looks good to me =) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks!! appreciate the good words. anyone else, feel free to take a look too. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ANI#Uninvolved admin - please take a look --Jayron32 05:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lakota Hills Troll, please delete--Musamies (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

These pages shouldn't be considered as talk, it's a part of afc project what was the content? Petrb (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The content was one line of blatant vandalism/hoax. Deleted, and there it stays. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll trust that the content should be deleted. However that doesn't negate that the pretext for it (an orphaned talk page) does not at all apply to Articles for Creation; the submissions are deliberately placed in the Wikipedia talk namespace because IPs cannot create pages in content spaces, only discussion ones. sonia♫ 09:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting it, I meant that the reason for its deletion seemed weird, deleting it as orphaned talk is not applicable for afc pages, otherwise it's ok. My message was intended for Musamies to avoid more similar requests which wouldn't be vandalism but just orphaned afc pages. Petrb (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway I think that sonia explained it pretty well :) thanks Petrb (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The page was not created by an IP. Any page that is vandalism, whether it's part of a project or not, is not wanted to be left anywhere in any namespace and should be deleted PDQ. Nothing has been deleted under a 'pretext' - a pre-set default deletion rationale was used and qualified with an additional optional rationale. The solution is to ensure that there are admins on duty at AfC who can react fast enough.There is not really much point in simply placing an 'article declined' tag on a page that is full of nonsense and that will remain in the backlog like this one did since 11 November, when all that's needed is summary deletion by an admin or tagging G3, and a warning (or a block as the case may be) for the creator. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

...or is it troll season? I've seen tons of user-talk-page trolling this morning. HurricaneFan25 — 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the season with a lot of kids currently on holiday.    Thorncrag  17:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep. No more naps. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Elves keep trolls busy (at least last time I watched LOTR). With the elves all busy finishing up Christmas stuff, the trolls are free to roam. Just keep the damn balrog's away. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tell them that they shall not pass. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Those of us in the Northern lattitudes atteibute such behavior in real life to the Solstice. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're out from under their bridges at the moment. Trolls I haven't seen for months are turning up with new accounts to take part... Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox-- Oh, is that what STD really stands for...? Seasonal Troll Disorder? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should check the lock on the fridge again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, with the cutbacks this year, I did try employing a few idle trolls as delivery boys, but they ran off. Guess they showed up here.--Santa (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(by the way, I'm still picturing Arwen and Galadriel working together putting the finishing touches on my extra-special Christmas gift) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(Great minds thinking alike and all that...) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A user keeps deleting the entire page of Conflagration and refuses to use AFD after being asked. Please see him at User talk:Shiggity Ray-Rays 23:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

First, this should have gone to WP:ANI. Second, he redirected it, now PROD'd (which I declined as obviously contested). I'll drop him a further note ... hopefully you have notified them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We now have a new Transfer to Commons tool: For the Common Good. Please try it out! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The article Qizilbash is still being vandalized by IPs. It was protected for a few days, but now thtat the protection has expired, the IPs return. Please semi-protect the article once again. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Next time, please report this at WP:RFPP -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please see this and revert the move in question? I cannot do so as a new redirect was created at the original title. nableezy - 08:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 82.9.215.103, who has persisted in adding unsourced information despite multiple blocks in the past. Just before blocking, I observed the big notice at the top of the page, which made me hesitant about blocking for technical reasons; I ended up going through with it because others had blocked it in the past, but I'm still not 100% sure what to think. Do I need to worry about it at all? Please unblock if blocking produces a technical problem. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're fine. It appears to be more of a notice to any user editing and/or the ISP rather than a warning not to block.--v/r - TP 15:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I use this notice sometimes, anyone can add it to any IP talk page. It is a (usually futile) attempt to Suggest to the user they will get in trouble with their ISP as well as Wikipedia. Good block, no problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur with above; 1 week makes sense; acceptable collateral damage, sadly.  Chzz  ►  20:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I added an edit request for a watchlist notice several days ago regarding the possible blackout of English Wikipedia from the SOPA RfC. Could an admin please review the discussion and make a determination on the edit request? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone confirm that the content of Susie Cusack differs significantly from the recently deleted version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony, the current version is mostly about the roles she has played the previous version doesn't have that but has some other info that this doesn't. In my view very much not a G4. Not convinced she'd survive AFD though. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it was deleted as an expired PROD, so clearly not a G4 regardless of content. But yes, this seems a likely candidate for AfD, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Cusack. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect all edits by Naminyan may need to be reverted. First time I've encountered this, apologies if here isn't the correct place. 92.40.225.117 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, this is fine. Still, I wish you'd left the editor a note with an explanation. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• For anyone interested: the user is blocked on Commons for copyvios, and their edits on WP consisted of linking to them. I don't think any further action here is required; I gave them a level-2 warning before I discovered the Commons thing, and then left a further note about the copyvio. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Another block of edits by User:Naminyan reverted here, and now blocked indefinitely on Commons for Uploading unfree files after warnings. 92.40.225.117 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie is currently blocked and hence can't put a message here. She has a pending unblock request which requests WP:AN involvement and has asked me to draw your attention to it. Please can somebody take a look? Details at: User talk:La goutte de pluie. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I ask Toddst1 (talk · contribs) (who blocked) and causa sui (talk · contribs) (who maybe knows the background?) to please explain to us that have not followed the entire events, to summarize - I think this is something to do with the user adding refs to lede, and we know lede does not necessarily need refs, but... this is quite stylistic. However, I can imagine how such edits could be pointy. Can you please give very specific reasons, and diffs, for the block. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  00:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I am getting from reading through the pages in question, the user was first blocked because of their editing to Hydraulic fracturing back on the 21st, where they removed a citation needed tag. User Toddst1 then reverted this (clearly making him involved, as I see no discussion on the talk page that points to a consensus on this). La goutte de pluie then reverted back once and was then blocked for that. This is...edit warring? Was Toddst1 also the blocking admin in this case? If so, this is clearly an instance of WP:INVOLVED, regardless of the fact that it's also a very inappropriate block.

Then it seems, after being unblocked today, La goutte de pluie felt that, fine, if you're going to have a citation needed tag there, then you might as well have them for the other (abundant) uncited information in the article, so added more citation needed tags. While a little pointy, the overall purpose was correct.

In both cases here, I see no plausible reason for blocking whatsoever. Is there other pages or discussions that i'm missing here that would put this in better context? Because i'm seeing two very inappropriate blocks here, for which the blocking admins should be admonished. Silverseren^C 00:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In regards to Todd's now-expired block of a few days ago, La goutte de pluie was engaging in rather odd editing over cn tags and references in the Hydraulic fracturing and Range Resources articles (as examples, she removed a reference for no clear reason twice: [128] [129], and removed cn tags for material she claimed was referenced in the next paragraph here). I reviewed the block, and judged that it was reasonable and that Toddst1 wasn't involved as his intervention was limited to what would be expected of an uninvolved admin - Todd's only edit was this in which he restored what seems to have been a perfectly reasonable cn tag which La goutte de pluie had removed. When the block expired she took up WP:POINTY tagging and was blocked again. I also reviewed this block, and think that it was OK. The length of the block is long, but given that the conduct started pretty much as soon as the previous block expired, it seems reasonable to me given her recent history, in which she's been blocked several times for disruptive editing: [130]. I note that two other admins have also reviewed unblock requests in relation to these blocks, and rejected them for similar reasons to the reason I did. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just checked out the Range Resources article too. I still don't see something blockable. The discussion on the talk page has La goutte clearly pointing out that the reference in the next paragraph covered the information in the one before it. The others felt (which I agree with) that there should be a cite for every paragraph, even if it's a duplicate cite. However, instead of then doing the simple method of extending the citation over to the paragraph as La goutte pointed out, the two users just reverted it and left the citation needed tag in. That's the issue here. The other two were edit warring a citation needed tag that was clearly pointed out to be referenced. I consider that to be the disruptive action.

All of the "disruptive editing" i'm seeing in both articles is something that should have never been an issue, as the reverting users could have then just added references according to La goutte's comments, rather than edit warring a citation needed tag back in. Silverseren^C 01:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a plausible line of thought, but I was not optimistic that it would be worth the effort since LGDP was arguing that the extra citations are unnecessary and that repeating a citation in a following paragraph is actually "spam". The issue is more over the serious misconceptions about why citations are important and how they should be used. Our case would be stronger had I actually copied the citation to the prior paragraph and been reverted, but the song remains the same. LGDP could resolve all this easily by agreeing to follow the community expectations about citations explained in WP:V and WP:CITE. causa sui (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's something that requires discussion first then with the user in question. It's true that the information was already verified in the next source right in the article itself. I consider using a reference in each paragraph, if it is a duplicate one, really an editor opinion. I'm for using them for each paragraph, other users are for using them every sentence or every other sentence. And La goutte is for using them at the end of where the information from the reference stops. This is a style issue. And the two of you were antagonizing, as stated by La goutte, by continuing to add the citation needed tag. Silverseren^C 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't view my edits or comments as antagonistic, at least not deliberately so. I'll answer your other points below so that we can have one thread. causa sui (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd also hesitate to focus on the one revert, and I don't think it makes Todd involved either. The removal of the tags on at least two articles is patently disruptive and she ignored multiple editors on her user talk page trying to correct to her numerous and severe misconceptions about how citations work. It is not a content dispute - there is no dispute. There is one editor who seems to be editing in good faith but disruptively, against policy, and disregarding diplomatic efforts on user talk. If an admin judges that a series of edits are worthy of a block, then it usually follows that those edits should also be reverted. That is not breach of admin involvement, which is when an administrator uses sysop tools to enforce his or her own position in a content dispute. causa sui (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean the "diplomatic efforts" here, where La goutte clearly points out that the reference in the next paragraph covers the prior paragraph as well? But where you two kept adding a citation needed tag even after it was pointed out that the reference was right there in the next paragraph and all you had to do was move it up? Silverseren^C 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean on her talk page. Talk:Range Resources was more of a one-to-one discussion. You're the first person aside from LGDP to suggest that this isn't clear-cut. WP:CITE says "However, editors are strongly advised to provide citations for all information added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed", which seems to me to be pretty unambiguous. I think there's a kind of WP:BEFORE argument here where it looks like I could have just moved the citation up myself. But the issue wasn't that LGDP was refusing to do the legwork to copy-paste a ref. It was that she was, and is, arguing that it's actually wrong to cite sources, because (for example) "it is more enlightening for a reader to click on the wikilink where he can see multiple references supporting different parts (in detail) of a rather simple point." The depth of misunderstanding about citations, how to use them, and why they're important is a problem. That's my $.02. But since I'm not the blocking admin, I'll let Todd speak for himself when he gets back, since he may have a different way of explaining it. causa sui (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That was never my opinion. I never said it was wrong to cite sources. I'm actually pretty flexible either way. I mean, I would have just as readily duplicated a reference to solve the issue. What I was alarmed about was that causa seemed to requiring a separate, completely new citation there (because he kept on ignoring the clearly-connected references and context). My other statements were just observations on the status quo in the project.

I mean, as far as I know, we work by common sense; content, not the little circumstances of format, should dictate citations. For example if I break up a paragraph, that had one reference into a one line paragraph and a four-line paragraph, which are directly connected and use the same reference, just so it reads easier, it seems really disruptive to tag that one line with ^{[citation needed]} as though to mock me for my formatting preferences, when the tagger could just as easily copy the reference him or herself.

On the hydraulic fracturing page, causa, instead of going to the wikilink and copying citations 14 and 15 from the article documenting the Act, tagged a well-known fact as "citation needed". In hindsight, though I disagreed that it was blockable, I realised it never hurts to copy a citation. Previously, I thought asking citations for basic or well-known or easily-derived facts (contextual to audience) were OK but not necessary. After Toddst's block, I saw the merit of causa's approach and actually changed my position. Furthermore, laziness seems to be acceptable, so I don't get what's wrong with going around tagging things with ^{[citation needed]} when you think they need citations anyway, and let others do the work. It seems to work for causa. No one posted notices on my talk page saying the citation requests were unnecessary, so it seems my original opinion was wrong. How is it POINTy to change your opinion? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed this block as an univolved administator and unblocked. My full reasons are posted at User:La goutte de pluie. In brief, Toddst1 was involved and the block was a disproportionate response to the conduct in question. There appears to be a genuine dispute about whether citation tags should be used in the relevant context which all involved editors should seek to resolve on the relevant talkpages and projectspace pages. Both blocks appear to have been inflamatory and to have caused more disruption than the user conduct they were aimed at stopping. WJBscribe (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a bad idea to do this before Todd has an opportunity to comment. causa sui (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a really bad unblock (especially as this discussion has only been underway for a couple of hours and the blocking admin is yet to comment). Could an uninvolved admin please re-block La goutte de pluie pending the outcome of this discussion? Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with a re-block under the context that the original block was bad in the first place. Silverseren^C 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The default is not for editors to remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. A disproportionate block was made by an adminsitrator in clear breach of policy. That has now been lifted. The behaviour that resulted in the block has not resumed. This is a content dispute that has gotten a little out of hand on all sides. Everyone should calm done and step away from the block buttons. WJBscribe (talk)

That's not at all in line with Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Block reviews, and you seem to be trying to over-ride this discussion with your own views. Your statement in the unblock request that we can't wait for the blocking admin to comment as they haven't edited since "04:22, 26 December 2011" is rather odd - that's less than 24 hours ago and it's the late afternoon in Ellensburg, Washington where Todd states he lives, so there's no reason to assume he won't log in soon. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really relevant but, FWIW, I read Toddst1's user page (under "Who I'm Not") as saying that he does not live in Ellensburg, Washington. WJBscribe (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing that out! Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we can wait for Toddst1 to comment, but we don't need to re-block in the meantime. The whole point of the block, if there was one, must have been preventative. However, given La goutte explanation above, I think we can say the issue is resolved and since blocks are not meant to be punitive, there is no reason for a re-block. Silverseren^C 02:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I get the greenlight to tag articles now? I have come to genuinely like causa's galvanising approach, and it seems to produce results. Supposedly "basic to the field", but uncited, facts, should be cited anyway, because who is to judge what is basic to the field or not? Better to just tag it anyway. There's a lot of citation laziness in technical articles concerning facts people assume it's OK not to cite. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a greater consensus for the tagging before you resume. There's no urgency that requires the tagging to happen now, and I would recommend seeking a wide ranging cosensus before taking editorial actions that will affect many articles and are likely to prove controversial. WJBscribe (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I remember there being an essay page or something in regards to the technical pages and what qualifies as commonsense information when dealing with specific fields of information, so you might want to slow down a bit. Of course, it's all a WP:BLUE verses WP:NOTBLUE issue anyways. Silverseren^C 02:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad bad bad... honestly... can our Admins please behave responsibly, and ...well...OK, let me spell it out;

If a user repeatedly adds text - what do we say? STOP... talk about it... get consensus. Don't add it, don't remove it; talk. Yes?

So ... admins... you need to be exemplary. Same applies to you.

If an admin blocks someone - you need CLEAR consensus before doing ANYTHING. That's... well, obvious, no?

That's the whole shitstorm over MF, now at arb. And here we go again, with the wheels. The wiki is not on fire. So, let's talk. Stop doing stuff. If a user is/isn't blocked for a bit, so what? Is it doing harm?  Chzz  ►  03:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Too bad the usual {{unblock}} / on-hold process wasn't followed here. WJB has taken unilateral action here (in conflict with the two admins who had reviewed this block and two more that had reviewed the previous block). That is done - no need to reblock unless/until LGDP's disruption and contentious misunderstanding of polciy continues. No further discussion needed here. Move along. Toddst1 (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem rather nonchalant about being INVOLVED here. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask of the Administrator's board to review the role of user Sikh-history ([[131]]) in his role in acting as an administrator for the Jatt Sikh article.

I have been trying to add information on the article - of various reputable sources and published material, both directly using the edit function, and via the discussions page, however, all my edits seem to be reversed by the administrator and I receive an un-necessary nasty warnings in return.

My efforts to add information to the Jatt Sikh article and remove "original research" can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jatt_Sikh&action=history under the IP address 86.17.132.217 , Sikh-history's attempt to remove the information along with its cited sources are clearly evident after my edit.

I believe the cause of edit-wars between myself and SH (Sikh-history) lies on the basis that the quotes and sources from which I am citing from seem to offend SH due to his sectarian orthodox Sikh views (even though the article has nothing to do with Sikhism itself, as it is an ethnoreligious group called Jatt Sikhs - i.e. the descendants of Jatts who's ancestors decided to convert to Sikhism). I do not mean to offend SH if his Sikh views reject caste system and tribal/clan identity, but I am simply trying to provide well sourced information about the military history of these people, along with general cultural information which come from refutable sources (and are well referenced, as you will be able to see if you revert to my edits, everything is specifically cited).

I have even tried discussing the matter with SH directly on his talk page by creating a section called "Please stop including sectarian Sikh opinions on an article related to an ethnoreligious (Jatt-Sikhs)" and giving him a long explanation on why I though his behaviour on the article was incorrect, and for justification of various sources which I believe are "original-sources" from the internet and not properly researched or published historical sources. However, all my attempts to discuss the issue with him on his talk-page are deleted (explained as "reverted non-sense", and in turn, I receive another warning from this horrible, rude and unnecessarily offended administrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sikh-history&diff=467696344&oldid=466141265

86.17.132.217 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way is he acting as an admin? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. You've done it again.Actually World Sikh news is valid in this instance because it directly quotes a leading intellectual in studying Jatt Sikhs Progfessor Kishan Singh that refers specifically to Jatt Sikhs. Falcon has already bee quoted, so please do not try and add his quotes multiple times. Thanks SH 10:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting/reverting all well-sourced edits to the article constantly if they do not fit his orthodox Sikh views, and sending warnings and "ban threats" in return. Failing to have a proper discussion about how his sources are invalid, improper, unpublished and poor "original research". Failing to have a discussion about why my edits are actually credibly (and at least tell me why he thinks they're not, though I am 110% sure they are...and deleting any attempts of me trying to discuss this on his "talk" page. Absolutely shameful, puts me off Wikipedia, I highly doubt he is an academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.132.217 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make him an admin, it just means he has ownership issues. This is an editing dispute issue, and should be addressed under WP:DR, not at this page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sikh-history is not an administrator here on English Wikipedia, period. I took a look at this article when you first posted but, alas, I really could not understand where the alleged problem lies despite having spent a fair amount of time on India-related subjects this year. I think that perhaps you should ask a few questions at WT:INB. Don't accuse anyone of being this or that, just pose a neutrally worded request for some more eyes to take a look at the issue. For the record, yes, I have had dealings with Sikh-history previously, but no issues of dispute that I can recall. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sitush can you provide an alternative explanation into why my edits are being reversed by Sikh-history? I am only receiving warnings on my ip-address for my well researched and cited contributions. And thankyou The Mark of the Beast.

I think the article talk page is perhaps the best place for this discussion. My suggestion is that, rather than blanket statements about bias, you make clear content suggestions (keep each one simple) and wait for editors to respond. As Sitush suggests, if you don't get a response from other editors, then drop a note on WT:IN. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I undo the ton of warnings I have been sent by Sikh-history due to his arrogance at even looking at the sources I suggest? 86.17.132.217 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My Comment - There have been a number of problems with talk , and his edits to article Jatt Sikh. Firstly, his additions to countless other articles have been reverted. He seems to delete valid sources at will. On the article Jatt Sikh, we have a long standing problem in trying to differentiate it from articles such as Jat people so we decided to use only those sources which were related Jats and Sikh specifically, in order to avoid WP:OR. The alternative was deleting the article and merging it with others. The sources the above IP used from Falcon etc have been multiply quoted by him, and despite them being defunct sources based on a defunct Martial Race theory I still included them, albeit in a limited manner. The problem I think lies with all Indian Caste based articles in that everyone want to "big up" there own little tribe. I have had the same problems with Khatri, Tarkhan (Punjab), Labana and countless others. Thanks SH 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The validity of your sources are discussed in the talk page of the article. Just because 'http://worldsikhnews.com/13%20August%202008/The%20Malaise%20of%20Jat%20Consciousness.htm' is a sikh source does not make it a valid source, esp. without a single citation from any published book or historian. I did not re-quote Falcon, Falcon was cited in the reference WITHOUT a quote, I simply provided a quote to PROVE my point. And the Martial Race theory being defunct is absolutely ridiculous, if it was, then why are there still ethnicity based regiments in the Indian, Pakistani and even the British army whom recruit soldiers from a particular background? The recruited tribes where well researched by geographists and genealogists of the time (during the British Raj) before they where recruited, hence why I quote from their work. You might be facing difficulties with articles of other tribes, and exerting Sikh influence of them, but I am simply stating what has been quoted, as a Military History enthusiast. 86.17.132.217 (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I just created an administrator instructions page for Possibly unfree files. It would be appreciated if someone could look at it, that everything is fine with it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 08:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks good to me from a technical standpoint. However, you failed to attribute your source for the page (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions), which you should have done via edit summary. This has broken the attribution requirements of the GFDL. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Hope this corrects it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 11:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Searching for Puna-Hawaii I find one of the maps is in error. The Kau District is highlighted on the Puna detail page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puna,_Hawaii. The map's URL (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HawaiiIslandDistrict-Kau.png/250px-HawaiiIslandDistrict-Kau.png) describes the map as a reference to the Kau District but the search is for Puna. I'm assuming the images just need to be swapped out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuner (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for reporting. (For future reference, posting on discussion page is generally the correct place for comments about article content.) Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK kids, back to work
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone please wipe the vandalism in this article history? The ASCII art is really offensive (see for yourself what it looks like), and definitely meets either or both RD2 and RD3.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Excellent work TParis. We wouldn't want to offend those with delicate sensibilities who also read through the edit history with what appears to be an ASCII Jean-Luc Picard doing a facepalm. Jasper Deng could you please explain how this offends you? Prodego talk 02:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC) What else does it resemble? In any case it's RD3.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC) My response. Also the ASCII art in question. I'm unrevdeleting this. Prodego talk 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________ . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,m . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-., . . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:, . . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\, . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,} . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.} . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./ . . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./ . . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./ . . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/ . . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .} . . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../ . . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../ . . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-” . . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\ . . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__ ,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-, . .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==`` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . .. Do I find a prize for finding a bit that's almost naughty? Here is the man-clit - avert your eyes! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . .. .. .. Egg Centric 04:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC) That's what I was talking about.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Yeah, this sort of thing isn't RevDel-level stuff. I'd class it as "run of the mill vandalism" and, as such, is well below the threshold for RevDeleteing something. --Jayron32 04:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Patrick Stewart's index finger is obscene? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I enjoy a rudely shaped vegetable as much as the next man but I had to look very hard (that'd what she said ) to find that. I would be very interested to know what you see in a roscharch test. Have you considered changing your name to Jasper Dong? Egg Centric 04:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC) It just seems that we have to disagree on the angle we look it at. That's the thing about something as abstract as ASCII art.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this WP:ANI report ("Attack page") was closed prematurely, less than 5 hours after it was opened [132] by User:Lhb1239 aka LesHB. It was closed by the same admin, TParis [133] who removed the material from my talkpage before ANI discussion could unfold, twice. The administrator left a note on my talkpage to which I responded, by objecting and asking for clarification. In my respectful disagreement I asked for specific example(s) of what constituted a personal attack, to no avail. Yet I went ahead and revised the list of links and my comments, re-posted, but it was speedily removed by the same admin. A bit later (at 23:35) I said that I would like to hear others' comments at the ANI thread, however TParis closed the thread as resolved only 20 minutes later, preventing any further discussion. By that time, two alternatives had already been brought up, one by another admin.
      I think the ANI report should be re-opened, re-titled to a more neutral wording, and allowed to progress more naturally. And is that the place to address false accusations of harassment by User:Lhb1239? I hope this is the right place to request this and, if not, please excuse. (Please note: I would have posted this request on TParis's talkpage if our side dialogue had not devolved.) Thanks. El duderino (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

...and what exactly are you looking for in that? You're both in the wrong to a degree, and the "way forward" for both of you has been provided. No blocks will be coming from the discussion, so what exactly is your goal other than to air some dirty laundry about someone you're in conflict with? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I saved you from further scrutiny, but feel free to bring more attention to yourself.--v/r - TP 14:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Could someone please ask the User:Lhb1239 to stop posting on my talkpage? or do I have file a separate request/report? I've asked him several times [134] [135] [136] [137] and removed his comments yet he continues to post there [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] and most recently today: [147] [148]. Thanks. El duderino (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Posting at the user's talk page was an error on my part. Because I was reading something there that concerned an article talk page, I forgot I was actually on a user's talk page and posted, thinking at the time I was posting on the article talk page. I was in the process of removing my post from there when El duderino was removing it himself. I immediately replaced my post to the article talk page. It was an honest mistake. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 03:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, how about stealing another person's custom signature without attribution, was that an honest mistake? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flatulence... or however that goes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would want you to consider changing Wikipedia's current title "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia". The title can correspond to the capital letters in Wikipedia's logo. Thank you for your time. --TJRana (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really the best place to discuss this, as it's not an administrator decision. I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Worm^TT · (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will address this over there. --TJRana (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

See [149]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not, its a guideline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 128#Policy vs. guideline. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, look, yet another "policy" that was never discussed or approved by the community. Why do we even bother to pretend this is a community based project? Silverseren^C 20:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps we should discuss this more broadly before implementing. --JOJ ^Hutton 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope we do, because I believe a majority of the community will say that the "policy" as it is currently written and even how it was conceived by the Foundation constrains our ability to cover certain subjects to a ridiculous degree. We can't write an encyclopedia and make sure we don't offend anyone in the world at the same time. We've probably already broken that by existing in the first place anyways and offending someone's religious beliefs. Silverseren^C 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we, the community, have much of a choice on this? The WMF passed that as a resolution, and as we all know, when they want to forge ahead with something they'll do it. My view is that no one has the right to walk through life unoffended, and it's your own choice to view certain pages (and just don't visit those pages if you don't want to see it; if you insist on it, well it's not my fault you're incapable of using your brain), but I'd rather not expend the extra kilobytes if it won't have any effect in the end. I've been down that road too many times. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We can only but try. We need to make the Foundation understand that if creating a source of all the world's knowledge and, more than that, a source of education, there's certain topics we have to cover and we have to cover them fully. This "policy" hurts that endeavor and constrains it, forcing us to remove images and other such things that inform the reader about a subject. If we have to also factor in whether they would offend someone or not, it lessens our ability to actually be an educational source on a number of subjects. Silverseren^C 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits and problems with WP:POLA are (and I'm on the fence on this), the current text is awkwardly worded and basically impossible for admins and other editors to make any reference to. It appears to require reading several off-Wiki documents (which aren't even summarised as part of the guideline) and the final paragraph tells you to read two documents to understand how it works but then says that part of these documents has since been superseded. The current text seems to have been unilaterally added (in very good faith, I stress) by ASCIIn2Bme (talk · contribs) and I think that it needs to be entirely re-worked so it's much clearer. That said, I'd advocate removing it as it seems unclear what this new set of rules is trying to achieve at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means, get involved. My poor writing skills surely account for some of the awkwardness. But there's some inherent difficulty writing this clearly because [1] the Resolution was written in the first person (We, the WMF) and [2] the resolution doesn't actually state the principle of least astonishment it urges the community to implement. So, there is a bit of divination going on over that. There are some preliminary WMF materials that did explain the principle. Their binding status is less clear though. To make matters worse, those materials are effused with a discussion of the putative personal image filter. We only work with the customer's—that is the WMF's—material on this. It wasn't even clear until one or two days ago if the principle applied outside of Commons or not. That was clarified by email on Dec 28. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The wording is much approved now, and I do agree that what you've had to work with from the WMF is pretty hopeless. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when does the Foundation make policies about content? I mean, WP:CHILDPROTECT is an example of a Foundation made policy, but that applies to editors, not to article content. The only other thing I can think of is WP:OFFICE and I have yet to see an office action that was done properly or with any consideration for the community. So I have even less faith for this, let alone if we're meant to interpret what they mean from various materials. Silverseren^C 22:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you read - Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia#The community does not own Wikipedia? it sems related to your comments. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make things any better though. Silverseren^C 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you can't win them all, if you have extreme stuff that you want to publish why not get yourself a blog. Youreallycan (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about "extreme" things here, though. A tiny yet vocal handful of editors is trying to ride the coattails of this WMF thing to strip images from Muhammad. More eyes from the outside over at the Arbcom case couldn't hurt. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The "decision-making mechanism" works something like this: (1) Someone squeals like a stuck pig for their minority views on Talk:Jimbo Wales. (2) Jimbo Wales concurs. (3) Resolution from WMF implementing minority views as law magically appears as a "policy." (4) Actual decision-making process at ArbCom is neatly sidestepped. It's fundamentally un-democratic. The quicker the archaic notion of a "benevolent dictator" is removed from the formal structure of WP, the better. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to get too far afield, but there are certain users who I won't mention (no one involved in this discussion) who I think should be topic banned from Jimbo's talkpage; a select few people there derail a large number of what could have been productive discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The BLP resolution was a similar case. Both, however, are pretty much plain common sense in terms of what they say about content. --JN466 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how they are worded, perhaps. The BLP resolution has been continually upheld by the community in regards to BLP content. This "least astonishment" thing, however, has been the subject of much debate within the community and, quite often, has seen itself overturned in terms of community consensus. Silverseren^C 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Hey, lighten up, stuff is always like that at The Office. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

All that says is "to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content". Which doesn't mean anything. So why even care about it? Prodego ^talk 22:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Be very careful what you say. I got my ass handed to me when I said something similar. To some people "curating" has a very clear and obvious meaning. See [150] [151] [152]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Making content choices on articles requires care and consensus. If content is controversial then that consensus is difficult to get, and particular attention should be paid. This should be obvious - but a little common sense can replace all our policies. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo and two Arbitrators disagree with you that the Resolution is not saying anything new even if we completely ignore the image filter stuff (see diffs above). The principle of least astonishment is this cool new thing when dealing with controversial/offensive material. I'm not going to do any further arguing on their behalf though; it's better to let them speak for themselves. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

About time. I hope all the people who constantly upload pictures of their dick (or their shit on a plate, or any number of other disgusting things) will now screw off, but I expect them to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the door. Jtrainor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC).

I thought that was the point of Wikimedia Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If it was only applying to Commons, I think most of us would be fine with that. However, this badly formulated "policy" is being used to remove images from a number of articles on the grounds that they are offensive to such and such group, even if they are perfectly relevant to the subject and would not be offensive to most, if not all, of the people actually viewing the page. Silverseren^C 02:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed POLA from the guideline for now. I've explained myself on the talk page and would ask anyone interested in the matter to discuss there. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• - WP:Request for comment is now at Wikipedia talk:POLA#To accept as a wikipedia guideline or not - Youreallycan (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• 184.168.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

GoDaddy, according to the WHOIS.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So now we block people who do not sympathise with anti-SOPA? →Στc. 02:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Webhosts normally should not be editing Wikipedia, as they are often home to proxies and dedicated servers.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That range is not particularly active (using the "preferences" gadget that lets one check the contribs of a range), and there are lots of good edits within that range. I did find one particular address that's being used to abuse Jasper Deng (well, one edit) per the recent pattern of abuse, but I'm not sure that, barring a number of individual addresses doing that, a range block is necessarily warrented here. --Jayron32 03:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact it does host at least one proxy: 184.168.84.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If it does have proxies, then it would be best to report it to WP:OP, as they are the people who are best equipped to investigate and block if needed. Please report the addresses and/or range to that noticeboard. --Jayron32 03:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That one is blocked, but it shows that at least someone in this range uses it for hosting proxies.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bring the range to the attention of WP:OP if you want something done about it. --Jayron32 04:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Filed, but I don't know if they'll take a /16.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: I recently been editing (albeit not a lot) from a webhost as I had to be connected to that server for all my internet aktivities for a few weeks. So editing from a webhost is not unheard of. Agathoclea (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So I already replied at the WP:OP request, but I thought I'd leave y'all a note explaining the current practices at WP:OP and how they relate to the above discussion.

• While some people do edit from webhosts, in general the number is very small. Of the 65000 IPs in the godaddy /16, only 25 have ever edited. Compare that with my current IP from an ISP, where on a /24 (a mere 250 IPs), there have been 10 which have edited (so about 100x more activity than a hosting range). Of those editing from the godaddy range, at least 4 are confirmed proxies, and 4 more looked suspiciously like a proxy with a cursory inspection. So the godaddy range is typical for a hosting range in that the ratio of signal to noise is pretty bad.
• Rangeblocks on webhosts are usually necessary because a.) when there's one proxy, there's usually others lurking b.) proxies frequently switch IPs within a given hosting range
• This has absolutely nothing to do with SOPA, it's just a coincidence that a godaddy range came up now....
• We try to distinguish between webhosts and corporate/school/government vpn type services when proxy checking. I've personally never seen any overlap between the two groups such that blocking the former interferes with the latter (which is a legitimate and fairly common form of closed proxy). It's usually not very hard....
• Why block proxies? Almost exclusively used by banned users, spammers, and to make edits that would be bannable (e.g. nationalist/political edit warring, skirting 3rr, etc.).
• Lastly, no one needs to edit from a hosting range (exception: censored users, but this is dealt with elsewhere WP:WOCP), because no one's sitting typing at a webserver. The proxyblock message Zzuuzz (talk · contribs) has been using lately is "Please disable your proxy to edit" which I think succinctly explains how trivial it is NOT to use a webhost to edit....

Anyway, the thoughts here are my own, but I'm currently in the regrettable position of being the most active proxy-checker and also having no admin bit. Getting more admins to learn how to do proxy checks or to discuss the nuances of proxy-blocking would be a welcome change, since there's currently only a handful of active admins at WP:OP. Oh, and my thoughts in this specific case (in case it's not clear) are that this range should be blocked for an extended period. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please cancel the redirect to the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) article. Someone has redirected it using dubious reasoning and without achieving consensus. See this. Moreover, please send a warning to the fellow not to do this in the future. Thanks. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 19:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - Youreallycan (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Not a matter for this board.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Over the last half of December 2011, I've been tending to the maintenance of the International Press Academy's Satellite Awards. In this last ceremony (December 18, 2011), they combined several awards — namely in the Motion Picture areas. The Drama, Comedy and Musical motion picture awards combined to become Best Film and the respective DCM actor/actress awards became Best Actor and Actress. The articles for the best film, actor, and actress (main, not supporting) for the new main heading are listed as these articles' titles: Satellite Award for Best Film – Drama, Satellite Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama, and Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama. Could someone tidy these up for me? I addressed these issues on their Discussion Pages. I'm thinking SA for Best Film (or Motion Picture), SA for Best Actor – Motion Picture, and SA for Best Actress – Motion Picture. These new titles tie in with the names the IPA gave the new categories. Those are the only three affected with their merger. Thank you for your time. — WylieCoyote (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC) This is not a matter for this board. Please bring these issues up on the Satellite Awards article's talk page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC) It's been my understanding over the short month that I've been an editor at Wikipedia that no one really reads TalkPages. The Satellite Awards article hasn't been edited in six months until I showed up. So I politely came here. Should no one care about my request, I won't lose sleep over it. But I will lose respect for any/all administrators here, since I asked nicely. And I like how you "resolved" it by simply suggesting I go elsewhere. — WylieCoyote (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC) So why don't you get off your ass and do it yourself? This board is still not where you request these things.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC) And if you still wish to get more input, WP:Requested moves is the venue for which you should go to. I was in error in not pointing that out to you earlier.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Kindly observe that you told WylieCoyote to go to the place he'd already gone — in his first comment, he noted that he'd already gone to the talk page. You may also find this page of use. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Yep, I learned my lesson by coming to ask for help! And my OP has been remedied. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Resolved  – I figured it out on my own — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've been doing some work on my CSD exercises - I did a load a while back, but as I want to get more involved with RFA than I have been, I thought I would create a few more. Back when I created these, I did my best to ensure that none of the user names that supposedly created these articles actually existed (although I did have to change one name when it turned out it actually did!).

I put a disclaimer on the main page to say

At the time of creating these exercises, the usernames I selected have not been used. If they do get created, I'll change them to something else. In the possible event that they do get created and I don't realise, please let me know on my talk page. Or change the username and then let me know. Either's fine!

However, thinking about it now, I would prefer not to have that as a possibility - might lead to all sorts of confusion. So, I was wondering if it is likely to be acceptable to create the user accounts? I would probably also tailor the talk pages to make it appear like the descriptions in the exercises. I would also make it clear on the User page (and the talkpage if necessary) that these are alternative accounts owned by me, and will not be used for any purpose other than this CSD exercise.

So, is that an acceptable approach to take? Stephen! ^Coming... 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you declare an alternate account as such on the relevant user page, it's not a sock puppet. The term "sock puppet" implies deception; if you're open about the relationship of the accounts, there's no deception. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's any objection, I'd create them and then indef block them so they can't be used. That'd solve the problem! Obviously, I'd have no objection, just for the record -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 14:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarity (I must remember to get a coffee between waking up and editing…) if it were me, I'd create them - in this case, obviously you can do it yourself! As mentioned above, it'd not be sock puppeting. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 14:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. User:Gadget851 is a non-admin account I use for testing, since admins get some different display experiences. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created 6 of the accounts so far (need to wait till tomorrow to finish as I have reached the limit!). Here's an example of one user page: User:MeeeeeeeLOLOLOL. The others are identical, but the last one is an account that is supposedly tagging articles and writing messages on user pages (my own!). I might vary the text on that one so it doesn't look odd when the contributions show some edits on another alt-account talk page. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You're an administrator, so you can create as many accounts as you like, since the rate limit won't affect you. Go to Special:UserLogin/signup. However, why on earth do you need that many fake accounts? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL forgot I could do that! Cheers for reminding me! As for the alternative accounts, I want to make these CSD exercises as realistic as possible, and I don't like the idea of someone accidentally creating a username in the future that matches these usernames, and have them accidentally inheriting problems which are not their fault. I'm probably overcautious, but better safe than sorry! Stephen! ^Coming... 15:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My only concern is that you be fully public and forthwith about your "CSD exercises" and claim all alternative accounts as your own in a very conspicuous way, making clear their purpose and raison d'etre. So-called "breaching experiments" where users attempt to vandalize or otherwise violate Wikipedia policies in a covert manner, even if they claim it to be for "the greater good" have, in the past, been seen as clear WP:POINT violations and have been looked down upon. So yeah, I wouldn't see any problem with your "exercises", so long as your purpose and methodology in doing so, and in creating accounts to do so, is transparent. --Jayron32 15:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry - not going to do any "faked" vandalism (or real, for that matter). I was thinking more of getting one of these alternative accounts to drop a welcome note and a deletion note on one of the talk pages, so that the talk page would match the description on the exercise page. The exercise articles themselves have been created so that nothing on there could be taken as libellous, even if they involve real people. And where necessary, I have made up names/places. Feel free to have a look at the exercises, and let me know if I have overstepped the mark anywhere. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Best practice would be to create the accounts while logged in to your main account so that they all show up here. As long as you do that I can't imagine any objections unless you take a really cool username that someone might want. 28bytes (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that this is what you're doing, but a review of the fallout from WP:NEWT might be of academic interest. Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Could someone close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quincy Miller so that Template:Did you know nominations/Quincy Miller‎ can move forward. It's been 5 days and all respondents have said Keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that a user here created at least one and possibly many articles in his namespace which are considerably better than the corresponding articles actually in article space (which he has also worked on). Having created them, the user has now requested the pages be deleted, and this has been done. My question is whether it is proper to delete useful content, which has been written and donated under the relevant licence? If not, should the request to delete have been refused, or the pages transferred elsewhere? It struck me that the correct thing to do would have been to place them somewhere to be merged into the official articles. Is he entitled to withdraw the content? From his website elsewhere, I understand it is his intention to publish a book. Sandpiper (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not much into forcing people to do things. WP:CSD#U1 allows users to request deletion of their own userpage and user subpages. If you wish to improve the articles at Wikipedia so they are as good as what was deleted in that user's namespace, I don't think anyone here would dream of stopping you. --Jayron32 00:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of G9, G10, and G12, it says admins may delete, not must delete. Even if it meets the U1 criterion, it doesn't mean you have to delete it; you could, if you so desire, find someplace else to hold it while you work on incorporating it into the mainspace articles, then do a histmerge or whatever attribution technique you're inclined to use. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. We are not forced to delete anything. No admin is required to use their tools anymore than any human is required to edit Wikipedia. This is a volunteer website. --Jayron32 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There were a few times when I, using my admin judgement, declined speedy deletions which were technically according to policy. However, I wouldn't extend this to U1 unless the material is either talk page history, or it is clear and significant evidence about a user's behavior. However, if you want a copy of these pages e-mailed to you, just ask any of these admins. You may subsequently incorperate it into any relevant Wikipedia article assuming you follow all other policies and give this user credit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only may you improve the articles, you may request undeletion of the material, in order to merge it yourself with the proper attribution. The licensing under CC-BY is irrevocable, and applies to everything written here. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The site mag4you.com linksearch is used 86 times as an external link. At meta there is a request to blacklist the site due to browser/security warnings. At this point this is only an issue affecting enWP, so it would seem appropriate that the action is taken here, rather than globally. Someone who is clueful about security warnings should recommend on the severity of the incident and whether we need to blacklist the site and remove/nullify all local external links. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Hope this is the correct place.

I've edited the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_prerendered_backgrounds

In order to add a missing Playstation (PS1) title which is called Hard Edge (Japanese title) (or T.R.A.G. - american title): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Edge

Tried to link the page with redirect, but page is blocked from vandalism.

Could the two pages be linked please; from above game title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chojin1980 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, there's a bit of a backlog at WP:RPP, can somebody take a look please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Before any edit war starts, that can get me banned, I wish to seek involvement of administrators in what I see as a serious issue of bias and double standards on such an unacceptable level, by a user named Plot Spoiler, who, BTW, is in violation of the 3RR with this edit. The dispute evolves around a raid carried out by Iraqi security forces against the Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorist group. Referring to a raid by American, British, French, or Israeli forces against a group such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban or Hamas, in which only members of this terrorist organisation were killed, as a "massacre" or a "mass-muder" would be completely unacceptable (and I there is not one example of such labeling in Wikipedia) and thus the same standards should be applied to a terrorist group that targets Iranians and Iraqis. He also insists on removing the sourced fact that the group is designated as a terrorist organisation by Iran, Iraq and the United States from the beginning of the article, and as I said, he is in violantion of the 3RR. Looking at the category page "Category:Mass murder in 2011" you can also see that the articles listed are soley terrorist attacks/bombings or random civilian shootings, not a single article about a government raid against a militant/insurgent group is listed in there and if we look at "Category:Massacres in Iraq," we can see the Iraqi security forces raid against the terrorist camp is equally out of place. It is clear the user in question will not compromise or let necessary edits be done and therefore I will not touch the article as to prevent and edit war, and instead call on administrators need to intervene.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert", PS has only did 3 reverts (if even that many) in the past 24 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OP is forum shopping. GiantSnowman 20:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if so (and I don't recall seeing that exception ont he 3rr page), the problem still remains.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I have notified the user about these threads. GiantSnowman 20:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says that the Chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee called the incident a "massacre". So it is hard to characterise Plot Spoiler's edits as outrageous POV pushing. Nor has there been a 3RR violation. So this one will need to be worked out through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms, and there appears to be no case for administrator intervention at this stage. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a very disputed claim, and as we see it does not fit into the massacres category article if compared to any of the massacres listed there.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So work out the dispute. Adding the article to the massacres category is not something in respect of which an admin can take action: it's not plainly wrong and there's been no revert-rule violation. Unfortunately admins can't give content rulings one way or the other. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case mediation is definetly needed, otherwise this will turn into an edit war. He is going to continue reverting and then I'll get banned for edit warring, that's why I reported before hand to see some usefull intervention so the issue can be resolved.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a sort of a backlog at WP:RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Abdelhamidelsayed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Abdelhamidelsayed is a single purpose account who pushes a very particular point of view in all his edits. This is not speculation on my part, the editor declares as much on his user page:

Abd Elhamid Elsayed or exactly Abd Elhamid Mahmoud Abd Elhamid Elsayed Habsa is an egyptian citizen born the 13 july 1952 in the village of Kafr Elbagour - Menoufia - Egypt , and living in USA. My main mission is to show the whole world that Halayeb (Hala'ib) triangle is egyptian. All the maps circulating worldwide showing Halayeb triangle as disputed territory should be disposed. A true researcher has in the world wide web an enormous source of information and could find by himself all the historic facts about the egyptian claims to the triangle to be true. A lot of historic maps do show the triangle to be egyptian , none of them has showed it to be not egyptian.

To further his "mission" the editor has been editing the article Hala'ib Triangle, and other, related, articles, for several years now. Practically every edit made has been in furtherance of this mission to show that the Triangle (which is disputed between Egypt and Sudan) is Egyptian. Conversations have been ongoing with the editor for a long time, pointing out that because he has a declared point of view, his edits are subject to particular scrutiny, and that if wants to edit the article (which he actually probably shouldn't be doing at all), he must use the best possible reliable sources, which must be in English so that other editors can evaluate them. On this particular subject, he cannot be afforded the normal good faith shown to other editors, because of his declared POV mission. [153][154][155][156][157][158]

Despite this long-running conversation, the editor continues to edit without citing source, or cites sources which do not support the facts they are intended to, or cites sources in Arabic which cannot be evaluated by the vast majority of Wikipedia's editors. Over the years, I have tried to be as patient as possible with this editor, but it's just gone on too long now -- clearly User:Abdelhamidelsayed has little interest in following our policies, and wishes to edit in furtherance of his "main mission" regardless.

I would like to propose a topic ban:

User:Abdelhamidelsayed is indefinitely topic banned from editing any Wikipedia article about or related to the Hala'ib Triangle, broadly construed. He may, however, suggest edits on the talk pages of those articles.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, when I told the editor that if he continued I would bring his behavior to the attention of the notice boards, his response was:

do what you want to do , i am ready to fight - happy new year - and hala'ib is still under the egyptian army control and whatever you write here in wikipedia will not change one sand on the soil

indicating not only his willingness to see Wikipedia as a battleground, but also his attachment to the Egyptian claim over the Triangle. (I have no dog in that fight, never having heard of the Hala'ib Triangle before this editor's behavior drew me in to it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• please see NameIn arabic Wikipedia the name is حلايب not حلائب (notice the hamza).--ZealousGnome (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs)
• i provided a SUDANESE GOVERNMENTAL WEBSITE in arabic to show my claims of the correct name in arabic which is حلايب because the user beyond my ken thinks of wikipedia to be an unreliable source which he wrote in the page of the revision history of hala'ib triangle , how can anyone find a english page that corrects an arabic name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • <sigh> The last comment was made not in reference to BMK's proposal here but in reference to an editing dispute. Please see BMK's talk page for details and for my assessment. Let me add that the editor has a limited grasp of English, which is readily apparent, and something of a battleground mentality. I do believe, however, that what may have prompted the note here may be a misunderstanding over the editing of a word in the article, حلايب. Again, see BMK's talk page. I have suggested to BMK, who notified me a few days ago, that they see how it goes with this editor and that they seek something like this here if trouble continues. I am not sure, though, if this here is really trouble. My apologies to BMK, who is a longtime friend by now, if it seems that I'm advocating for the often querulous editor--I am probably doing so because their English is not really great. Please let it be clear also that I have no opinion on the content of the article; I know very little about the subject matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • NOTE to Abdel: It seems you do not realize what is going on here. You are not asked to defend this edit--your capability to be a neutral editor on this topic is in question. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: The final straw doesn't have to weigh all that much. Dealing with the editor for years has been like Chinese water torture for me. If you haven't done so already, a read of his talk page is instructive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, I've seen it, and I have seen the article history. If I were you, I'd stop looking at it and watch the fourth quarter of the Fiesta Bowl--much less headache-inducing. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
        • As usual, you are right -- it's on right in front of me, and I've been ignoring it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The current version of his userpage contained a street address and phone numbers. Just to be on the safe side I revdeleted those edits and reverted the page to the last version without them. We can't be 100% certain that he is the person with that address and those numbers. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed a couple things on the Thomas Edsall article. First the editor making changes appears to be the individual and there may be some Conflict of Interest issues. Second, the User name they are using contains an EMAIL address against our policy. --Kumioko (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've flat out reverted the edits he made.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks, I woulda done it myself but as a non admin reverting 15 edits might seem a little wrong to some folks. --Kumioko (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. However, you did not notify the editor of this thread, so I would suggest doing that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy too. I would have done that but since the username also violates our Username policy I didn't know if it would be deleted. I'll leave a message there momentarily. --Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given him a softblock so he can create a new account, and I've also advised him to read our COI guidelines. We'll see what happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Grey and Maria Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has revisions that were re-creations of portions of the deleted article per WP:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous All My Children couples. The first version was created by the sockpuppet of Dane97, Blue Dog97. I don't know how older revisions contain a deletion portion, but I tried speedy deletion proposal and Redirect for discussion. I hope this works. --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure which revisions you want redacted; obviously the first one, but the two after that before it was directed as well? I guess that would fall under RD5 (G4 covers this), so I'm not unwilling to do it, but I want to make sure I'm getting all the right revisions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I have to give you specific ones? Obviously, the first because of sockpuppetry. The ones with each more than 10,000 bytes fall under RD5; hopefully, no need to tell you which. The rest you can leave alone. --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There's one more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmund_Grey_and_Maria_Santos&oldid=469165301. --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I just rangeblocked 109.249.0.0/16 (ouch!) for 31 hours for carrying on a massive harassment campaign against multiple editors and anyone who reverts him. If any admins/checkusers think it was inappropriate, feel free to lift or shorten the block, but be prepared to semiprotect a great many users' talk pages if you lift it right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And he has come back using 89.194.0.0/16, which has now also been blocked by Favonian. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As one of the multiple editors targeted by this guy, you have my gratitude. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you've blocked them anon-only then I don't see a problem with it. However on a purely technical level, a whois shows that better ranges to block would be 109.249.0.0/17 and 89.194.0.0/18. Those blocks should be equally as effective but reduce the collateral damage by 62.5%. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and shortened the ranges to the two Deskana mentioned above. That should be a bit better. --MuZemike 19:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

...except that he's using the full bitmask for the first range. (See 109.249.221.136 (talk · contribs) and 109.249.113.133 (talk · contribs).) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the data from the range contribs tool, 109.249.96.0/19 and 109.249.192.0/18 look to be better. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change the blocks, cause he came back with the shortening of the block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've placed a second block. Also, the latest IP is a from /11 I think (definitely not a /16 or smaller). Elockid ^(Talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess that explains why he is now on a 92.18 IP. :P I guess RBI is the only workable solution now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I want to move 2011 Los Angeles arson spree to 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks but the latter already exists. So after a discussion, I redirected the latter so I could move the first page because I thought I could move over redirects. Is that ability reserved for admins or do I just have to nominate the other page for A10 and then move? Thanks, BCS (Talk) 22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oyyyy, it looks like we have a cut&paste move done here by YummyDonutsmmm (talk · contribs), so we are now going to need an admin to do a history merge I believe. Looks like the cut was here and the paste was here. Can an admin look into this? --64.85.221.234 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I followed the instructions at WP:C&P and requested a {{histmerge}}. (My stupid dynamic IP changed already, sorry) --64.85.214.156 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't already you may need to take a look at the talkpage Talk:2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks where this is/was being discussed. - 220 of ^Borg 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The {{histmerge}} was declined due to parallel histories. I think that that leaves us with my proposal—but I'd like to get some more eyeballs/admin help on that, as it would require that a page be deleted. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) I tagged both talk pages with {{copied}} as per instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I believe that meets the attribution requirements, so unless someone wiser than I sees something I missed I believe this can be marked resolved. ...And lordy I hope this page doesn't get deleted or I just wasted a boatload of time. --64.85.220.69 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the tags look good. I added edit summaries using their data. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There's once again a backlog at WP:RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleared now.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did a count earlier today, and we have a grand total of 35,613 create-protected (salted) pages across all namespaces on the English Wikipedia. Does anyone aside from myself seem that this number is a big high as far as openness is concerned?

Not to say that we should unsalt all of them, as quite a few of them are justified. However, we could likely do without quite a few of them at this point. --MuZemike 22:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could rank them by protection start date? Also, we should focus on the article namespace, really. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how start date is going to be particularly relevant in a lot of cases. Obscene or attacking page names will never be appropriate, while by the same token something that was aalted lad week because someone was recreating it could have become more notable in the meantime. I definitely agree that namespace should be used in prioritizing any review. Articles of potentially notable topics are a more pressing matter than WP space pages that wee salted for whatever reason. Any guess what the number of actual salted articles is? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the number seems a bit high to me also. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of mechanism for periodically reviewing salted pages. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, WP:BAMBI, I'd forgotten about that. There should be some fun trips down memory lane looking through Special:ProtectedTitles. Tarc (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's reassuring to note that MASSIVE C*CK is fully protected. 86.148.65.105 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

List created

I've created a list of ~450 articles as a test. I'm sure there were good reasons for protecting these at the time, but I can't see how keeping these "whack a mole" protections protected is really useful today (I filtered out the obviously bad titles). If no-one objects, I'll unprotect them, and then we can monitor Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Jarry1250/unprotect (I take full responsibility for this). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to unprotect them I suggest you do it on a case-by-case basis. Unprotecting titles of non-notable people repeatedly created years ago won't do any harm and might help, but no good can possibly come from unprotecting List of faggots. Hut 8.5 15:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, missed that one. Please remove any you notice from the list, I've already removed quite a few. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite see what the point of this exercise is. If time has moved on, and it's now appropriate that an article be created under a salted name, someone is going to try to create it and get the error message and they're going to come here and ask for the create-protection to be removed. If an admin agrees, they'll open it for creation, and all is well with the world. What is the need for going through the list now, when the reasons they were salted at the time may not be intuitively obvious to someone just walking through a list? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wander how nice you feel to make some Xmas gifts to some stalker, impostors, vandals etc. You unprotected today e.g. Jan Koukal (Infomat) and Jan Koukal (reconcilee) - obviously without thinking about it, without asking at the admin who protected it time ago for the reasons. Shit, just by a chance I saw it. This is my real name which was vandalized hundred times in the past by some guys from another project. There are some dozens of other pages with my name protected by Mike Rosoft. One of the guys who has been renamed several times is still editing somewhere in wikipedia and I have no time to check such pages every day. Please protect again and make some survey next time. Thanks. All the best for 2012. -jkb- (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any damage caused. I'm slightly concerned, however, that we're relying on create protection for anything. If you look down the list, it's one long survey of why create protection doesn't work: the vandal just moves onto a different title. And then another, and then another. And then ten more. When it comes to determined abuse, unfortunately, salting simply doesn't work.

To answer BMK, the point of this exercise is that having pages in the article namespace that were temporarily the subject of repeated creation indefinitely fully-protected hurts the encyclopedia. Many of these titles could be perfectly good redirects or stubs, and yet we're preventing people from creating them. And at the same time, it makes me deeply unhappy that the encyclopedia that anyone can supposedly edit, people can't edit for 22,000 pages.

I will say though, mea culpa, I had not considered the "stalker" and "impostor" angles here, and for that I am sorry. I hope we can work to reprotect those where the potential damage is higher than I had considered. I did, however, watchlist every single one of my unprotections, and would have (and will) reprotected them at sight had anyone take advantage of an unprotection. I have also not moved to unprotect and pages outside the main namespace, or those who by virtue of their title alone would cause offence. Of those remaining, I still feel that unprotection is the best step in 99%+ of cases; of course, having read what you write, however, I shall not move to unprotect any more in the immediate future so we can discuss this. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, another thought: instead of unprotecting further articles, we could merely commute their protection down to, say, 2 weeks. That would potentially allow editors more time to correct errors before unprotection cuts in. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jarry, indead, sometimes I really wonder what's on with the en.wiki. Does it hurt somebody when a page is protected? Is it worth the energy to search for the pages and to discus it and to unprotect them? If somebody wants to edit the page, so - see Beyond My Ken above - he/she will be able toask here for the unprotection. But mostly the protections had a sense and a reason. So let it be. We really do not have such problems on dewiki. Regards, -jkb- (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

And, please, protect the two mentioned pages. Thanks. -jkb- (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jarry1250: This is a solution in search of a problem. You are setting the evalauation of a single admin or a small group of admins above the decisions made over the years by hundreds of other admins in response to specific problems that you have no information about. Please just leave well enough alone, the project is in no respect harmed by having these pages create-protected, as I have explained. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's your perspective. Needless to say, good-faith newbies seeking to create articles under protected titles will be unaware of WP:RFUP and likely driven away as a result. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded (and jkb, reprotected). Also, I respectfully disagree with your analysis BMK. Indefinite salt protection was only desired by the protecting admin here in a very, very small number of cases (and should be reapplied where appropriate). Most just wanted the repeated creation to go away, and that would have been equally served by a short protection. Note that of my unprotections so far, most were originally listed in the old form, which, as I recall, had no option *for expiry* at all. So it's hardly fair to say that admins intended indefinite semi- [EDIT: create-]protection. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC) edited 10:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thx for reprotection. All the best for 2012, -jkb- (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BMK that this is a solution in search of a problem, although periodically reviewing some of these salts might be a good idea. Pages that needed to be salted in 2005 might not have the same problems today. And I think reviewing it by protect date makes the most sense. A little common sense should be sufficient in 99% of these cases (as for the old pages). Perhaps any admin that unprotects a page can pledge to keep that page on their watch list for a year, to ensure no abuse (or perhaps compile a list so that others can check it for abuse). Shadowjams (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How about we compile a list and unprotect the lot of them. I'll write a bot that checks the list daily for any recreates and notifies the protecting admin. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 00:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support that. Maybe we do it on a small portion first as a test? And obviously it wouldn't include the obvious vandalism targets (there are some choice examples linked above) Shadowjams (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record - as of now, only 1 of the unSALTed titles has been created - Awkward Turtle, as a redirect to Awkward turtle. I think that this shows 2 things - that recreated pages can eventually be appropriate to create (and a new usr may be scared away if the first article (s)he tries to create happens to be a SALTed article where the only reason is "deprecating protected titles"); and that SALTing one title doesn't scare off anyone who really insists on creating the article - there are too many variations on an article title, and a bad-faith user will take adfvantage of these. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts: firstly, I would resuggest a preference for a protection commutation to say, two weeks, over outright unprotection. Secondly, I would also consider filtering by reason, where the reason was one from the dropdown. Repeated recreation vs harassment, as above. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Filtering by reason is fine, although I don't think that's easy to do. But 2 weeks of unprotection serves almost no purpose. The odds of a legitimate article being created within that window are minuscule, and the odds that a popular vandalism target gets recreated are much higher. Unprotecting of long stale pages with no obvious abuse potential is fine so long as they're monitored, imho. As a bit of an aside, this notion that new users are turned off by protected pages is an overblown concern... more of a foil for unprotecting. Concerns about "biting" new users is an argument that gets trotted out a lot in these discussions without any real analysis or thought about whether or not it actually turns users off (not to mention a lack of discussion about all the readers that are turned off by vandalism/poorly written pages, etc.). Shadowjams (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think you misunderstood my suggestion, which was to reduced the protection length from indefinite to two weeks, not (as you mention) unprotecting for two weeks (quite the reverse, indeed). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• - Some article titles are salted as a result of consensus at AFD discussions and I don't think these should be unprotected without very good reason. I also think this is a waste of time. Leave them protected, users will request unprotected it they want to . Discussion has only been going on for a few days and attack titles have already been unprotected. There is not even a consensus here in this discussion that it is a worthwhile or good idea. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I would say that it is entirely unclear to me that inexperienced users would apply for unprotection especially for example merely to create a useful redirect; and, secondly, I did try to avoid attack titles (I think only 2 have been pointed out so far?), and, as highlighted above, if I did any more I would allow two weeks for protection to be reapplied if need be. I do agree, however, that there does not seem to be an overwhelming consensus at this moment in time for further mass unprotections without further discussion; and I also agreedd above that filtering by reason might be an idea for new protections. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Frankly, even experienced users might not consider it worth the hassle. Take Yarf for example. It was a long-published title in furry fandom. Its name just happens to have been targeted by someone trying to push an unrelated neogloism. There is nothing on the salted page that indicates clearly that it has been salted, or that there is any route to de-salting - the creation tools have just been taken away. Only manually creating an edit link shows the protection. And even this does not link to the protection log, so as they've just been reprotected, the actual reason is not clearly available. GreenReaper (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re. Fastily and scaring away new users, could we not just edit e.g. MediaWiki:Protectedtitles-summary, MediaWiki:Cantmove-titleprotected, MediaWiki:Protectedpagemovewarning or MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning to include a link to WP:RFUP? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 09:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But WP:RFUP is bound to be scary to newcomers. Editing any page to request anything is going to put them off contributing at all IMHO, certainly to create useful redirects, etc. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, dare I say editors who are that new and unaware of the ways of Wikipedia probably shouldn't be starting articles in the first place. I think we're bending over backwards here to accommodate something that we would be better off allowing to be a bit difficult. There is definitely a learning curve to Wikipedia, and we really shouldn't be making it easier for people to drive a car when they're still learning how to walk. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't necessarily mean "The encyclopedia where anyone can create a new article without knowing what they're doing." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I wasn't referring to complete newbies - if you recall, the community is keen to try effectively semi-salting all titles - but part-timers, semi-active editors and basically everyone else who could write a decent article can't cba going through and unfamiliar RFUP - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that any admin unilaterally unprotecting hundreds/thousands of article needs to beblocked immediately and summarily considered for de-adminship. This is one admin literally saying that they can unilaterally undo the edits of another admin without first consulting them, without asking the community...without even doing research into finding out why the problem existed in the first place. This is no different than saying "I see about 10000 editors indefinitely blocked back in 2005...let's try unblocking them and see what's the worst that could happen." And saying that RFUP is hard is no different than saying that emailing the unblock email address is hard. Now, if Jarry1250 wants to contact all of the protecting admins, and, if those admins aren't around, bring each individual article to RFUP for a second/third opinion, then maybe, fine. This hasn't actually been started yet, has it? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian. A quite significant number of the apparently "whack-a-mole" protections are either attempts to prevent abusive edits, or there to prevent indefatigable article-spammers from recreating repeatedly deleted articles under other names. A link to RFUP from the protection notice is the way to go. If these articles are to be unprotected, you should attempt to contact the blocking admins first, and at the very least read the blocking admin's comments before unprotecting. I also agree with Qwyrxian about blocking and possible de-sysopping if this carries on without first gaining community consensus. As a first measure to prevent this, could you please re-protect all the pages that you have de-protected? -- The Anome (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree also. If any articles I've salted are going to be unprotected I expect to be asked. Please reprotect anything that was unprotected and let's get a consensus as to what to do. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just wanted to leave a note here before I create a new section that I have reprotected all articles with immediate effect. (If any have managed to escape, please let me know or go ahead and reprotect.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to pick on Beyond my Ken for a moment (who doesn't really deserve it). The statement "Actually, dare I say editors who are that new and unaware of the ways of Wikipedia probably shouldn't be starting articles in the first place." is used to justify an obscene number of barriers to content creation and editing that we as experienced editors don't even notice anymore. I agree that competence matters but please understand that asking someone to be able to navigate RFUP before creating a new article is as arbitrary and uninformative a filter that could be imagined. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have absolutely no objection to making the un-salting request process easier for inexperienced editors, I'm not a big fan of bureaucracy for its own sake, and if an editor (of whatever amount of experience) can make a good case for unprotecting a salted title, that's fine. Perhaps the process could also point them to the Article Wizard. I am glad, though, that Jarry1250 has reprotected the titles he unprotected, that seems to me the right thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to recent comments

(I apologise if the following is a little difficult to follow; mentions of the words de-adminship and particularly blocking in context with myself make me feel physically ill.) As I see it, there are now two threads running in the present discussion, which I feel should be considered separately:

• Firstly, a discussion of whether or not any of these titles should be unprotected, and if so which, when, and how. Where I believed there to be a consensus which I could boldly act upon, there now only seems conflicting viewpoints. With the consent of those that have commented above, I would like to start a full RFC on this topic, so that the various viewpoints can be explored in full. (I disagreee with some of the points mentioned by Qxyrian above for example but for the sake of brevity I would like to leave them to said RFC.)
• Secondly, a discussion of whether or not the community feels I act improperly, primarily on grounds that procedurally I should have notified the protecting administrator of each article, and perhaps on secondary grounds that mass unprotecting necessarily required consensus, and that therefore effectively my actions demonstrated a negligent lack of clue (presumably refering to the "ithout good reason" clause of admin policy with regard to reversing other administrators' decisions). I feel that exploring this issue could either be dealt with here, or in a RFC/U, whichever the community preferred.

To summarise my response to the comments above, I would highlight the differences between the circumstances here, and those dealt with usually by protecting admins for whom I have nothing but respect. To wit: (i) the pages unprotected by me were conversions from the old WP:PT format; this means that invariably information on the original "protecting" admin and true protection reason are now buried in the page history of that page (ii) this also means that contrary to modern standards, in no sense can the protecting admin be said to have expressly chosen indefinite protection of these articles (iii) I feel as though the threat of a block is unreasonable thing to have on the table when I have already agreed to not do any more (and indeed would not want to, given the obvious difference between the consensus as I had judged it and the consensus emerging above) (iv) that absolutely no damage has been done or will be done through my actions in this regard, and indeed some good has already been done (v) in light of (iv), I feel that I was justified in believing that few admins would object to unprotection with watchlisting, as I have done. That is to say, I was and remain entirely committed to single-handedly correcting any damage done. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Jarry1250, your actions here have to be the single dumbest misuse of admin tools I've seen in my seven years here on Wikipedia, and in that reasoning I'm including any number of actions for which admins have been desysopped and even banned in the past. The pages you unprotected include numerous personal attack pages against BLP subjects, which is grotesquely out of sync with the continued legal viability of the Wikipedia project. I am of the opinion that an admin who behaves in this manner should not only not be an admin anymore, but should not be editing at all whatsoever. You should at a minimum agree to stay well away from controversial unprotections of any sort. In lieu of further, more formal sanctions, would you agree to an informal agreement by which you would not unprotect any protected title without (a) getting approval from the protecting admin and (b) having or seeing in userspace a workable draft of the page in question, with at least one reliable source? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa... apparently I walked away for a day and now this has morphed into... idk what... can you please explain exactly what actions have been done? I can gather some of it from the below, but this really needs to be explained first in any complaint... I'm tangentially involved in this discussion and your above post comes out of left field. I'm assuming a bunch of pages were unprotected... Fastily suggested some small version of that, I suggested a trial version of that. Certainly not a consensus, but I'm not calling for heads yet either... please explain the full context of objections on here first. If someone previously involved in discussions has no idea what your'e talking about then I can't imagine how an objective party would understand it. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • @Jarry: This is also a likely violation of WP:ADMINBOT by using an adminbot to mass-protect/unprotect pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Andrew, as I have expressed above, I am yet to be convinced of the merits of using create protection to defend against BLP attacks, but that can wait. Yes, I would be more than happy to not go anywhere near unprotections or protections of any sort. This was an experiment which I felt had a consensus behind it that could support trial unprotections for these very long-protected articles. Clearly the comments since this debacle began indicate that not everyone feels the same way and happy to leave it at that. I'm not on a mission (except to improve the encyclopedia), there's nothing personal about this, so I'm more than happy to disengage, as I voluntarily did further up.
        • Not only is protection a valuable tool against BLP abuses, it's often one of our first lines of defense. The following exchange has happened countless times in Wikipedia: (Angry BLP Subject): "You bastards have a page up saying I'm a murderer/pedo/rapist/telemarketer! I'll sue you into the stone age!" (admin/OTRS volunteer): "Sorry sir, I deleted the attack page and made sure it's protected so it can't ever be created again." (Calmed-down former BLP subject): "Oh. Ok. Well, thanks, I guess I won't sue if it's really gone for good." By mass unprotecting indiscriminantly, you've made liars out of dozens or hundreds of admins and left Wikipedia wide open to legal attacks. There's a good reason things like this are simply not done. But anyway, I'm taking you at your word to stay away from unprotections in the future and if that is true I don't think further actions are necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Reaper, for the record I used Twinkle to semi-automate these unprotections (not in violation of said policy, although, as it notes, I am responsible for the consequences of my actions). From my long history with bots, I can say that the community expectation is one that bad edits and actions will be reversed, as I have already done here. I hope that clarifies. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• May I suggest if the thought of not being an admin makes you physically ill, that you stop being an admin for your own good? Having said that, there is no way that you should be desysopped for this. Ultimately, you engaged with the community and listened to consensus. If this deliciously dysfunctional community of "famously grumpy senior editors", as The Economist recently put it, continues to asks for more from its administrators, it is going to end up with less. Egg Centric 19:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, Jarry1250. Please be assured that I don't want you either blocked or de-sysopped -- the measures would have only been sought if there was no other alternative from stopping you continuing on a path which, although you took it in good faith, seemed to me, and several others, to be contrary to both policy and the goals of keeping the encyclopedia going. I just wanted you to stop, reconsider what you were doing, and roll back your changes until we had community consensus as to what to do. Since you've done exactly that, I don't see any reason to seek either remedy -- we need all the admins we can get, and I know that we all make mistakes -- believe me, I've made enough of them myself. -- The Anome (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• It saddens me to see calls for your head in a case like this, Jarry1250. To my eyes, you made a mistake (basically, misreading a consensus to support something contentious), but you've very quickly a) fixed it, b) listened to the community, and c) committed to not continuing to make the same mistake, with regard to either consensus or unprotection. Sounds to me like what we want our admins to do (well, short of them being paragons of humanity who never make mistakes to begin with, but we're still working on finding those people). I would encourage Jarry to start an RfC on the unprotection issue if he'd like to see it discussed, but I see absolutely no need to impose sanctions or restrictions on a good-faith admin who made an error, was told it was wrong, and hastened to make things right again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Hastened" is a pretty strange word considering Jarry1250 only "made things right" after FIVE DAYS and after it was painfully clear he wasn't going to get away with it. That said, it does appear this is winding down with no lasting harm done and no likelihood of a repeat, and that's a good thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • • I think you need to explain more succinctly what the issues is. I don't think there was consensus to mass unprotect lots of pages (which I guess is what happened? idk... i haven't dug into it yet)... but the least you could do is explain why you're raising such a fuss. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, although I was one of the first to raise an objection to his actions, I see no reason that Jarry1250 should be desysopped or restricted in any way because of this incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just pile-on-support: Jarry1250's actions are an example of "what we want our admins to do". - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's all re-read Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page and Wikipedia:Village stocks before accusing someone of the biggest mistake ever. Peaceful New Year, everyone. Rmhermen (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How about we all chill out for a sec. I don't see any even attempt at explanation here... and while I'm sure I could dig into some logs and figure it out, that kinda thing needs to be brought up here before the torches get lit... let's have some full disclosure please... might go a long way towards making AN and ANI more accessible. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

{{unprotect}}To be clear, I made my calls for blocking before I realized that Jarry1250 had already been doing the unprotections. I was trying to be clear, through perhaps an unnecessary bit of histrionics, exactly how bad and how against current practice and even policy this move would be. So long as Jarry1250 is aware that any sort of radical process that undoes the action of dozens (hundreds?) of other admins, is bad. Doing it as a semi-automatic process made it worse. Doing it without even considering how very bad the unsalting of some of those pages could be (as the examples with jkb show) just adds on more and more to the problem. To me, this action was actually much worse than deleting the main page. But if it's stopped, and undone, and this is not regular behavior for Jarry, then no need to go to the effort of seeking sanctions, especially if there's no more disruption to prevent. I think an RfC would be a great next step (or even just an informal discussion at VP), with no mass action to be taken without a clear, wide-reaching consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Some people here seem to be reacting to what didn't happen as opposed to what did happen. Shouldn't we take into account the number unprotected articles were actually recreated? How many of the tens of thousands of articles were recreated before they were protected again? I think if there was no harm done then there shouldn't be any serious consequences. Also note how none of the people who responded to the suggestion expressed any serious reservations before the act was taken. I can totally see any other reasonable person could have come to the same conclusions as Jarry1250 did. For An Angel (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll: A Bot Watchman

I'd like to propose that we compile a list of titles to be unprotected that we all agree on. I'll write a bot that checks this list daily for recreations and notifies the respective unprotecting admin in the event of recreation. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to notify all protecting admins and suggest as a part of a, say, month-long process, they may like to unprotect titles that they protected - considering whether create protection reamins appropriate. Then further actions can be considered after. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My recent suggestion for a topic ban on User:Abdelhamidelsayed has scrolled off the board due to lack of interest, however I'd like to ask some admins to add Hala'ib Triangle to their watchlists as I am no longer watching it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)