Hosta

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6

There's an unclosed DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6. It's a long one with a lot said, and I imagine the reason it's not been closed yet might be because many of the regular DRV closers have already expressed a view there, and it's perhaps a bit of a pig to close. Therefore, I'm offering a barnstar to whoever closes this DRV, irrespective of which way it goes. Thanks!—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Several instances of banned editors making seemingly good deletion nominations, guidance please?

I was just wondering if an administrator could advise about what to do about deletion nominations that appear to be good faith nominations but were made by socks of banned users? The issue is basically that taking these on their own merits they're not bad noms, some even have an emerging deletion consensus, but there are people nonetheless saying speedy keep based on WP:RBI policy of not acknowledging contributions from banned editors, be they good-faith, bad-faith or ugly-faith. My concern is that these might be some kind of back-door disruption too, by poisoning the nomination of an article worthy of deletion any subsequent nomination is less likely to succeed because of a not insubstantial contingent of editors that believe repeat nominations are inappropriate (myself normally included). My goal bringing this here is twofold: first is to notify administrators that might end up closing these nominations that this appears to be a pattern, and two, to ask what I as an editor can do especially when before the nominator was revealed as a sock I was already engaged in a good-faith discussion on the article's merits. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC) anything that can be done?

WP:BAN and WP:SOCK are likely the pages you would be best served by. In short however, a project banned user is not allowed to contribute in any fashion to the project. A "topic" banned user is allowed to contribute to areas not related to the topic he or she is banned from. In general, if you suspect a specific violation, perhaps a note at WP:ANI or WP:SPI would be the place you would want to place your concerns. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:KEEP#Applicability, item 3: "If subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." Speedy keep is not the correct option in cases such as you describe in your second sentence, no matter what people may say. In cases where the AfD has been closed by an admin and you think the article worthy of deletion, you can renominate it yourself. Few reasonable editors will oppose such a renomination (though you might mention the circumstance to clarify why the second nomination is appearing so soon). Deor (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I treat this like I do any contribution by a banned user: if it's been followed up by substantive contributions, it gets kept. In the case of an AFD, I treat "substantive" as meaning that a good-faith editor that doesn't appear to have been canvassed or improperly influenced in any way by the banned user has also voted to delete. If all that is sitting out there is "keep" or really suspicious looking deletes, I close it as a procedural close. If it hasn't been followed up on at all, G5 can be applied.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kww - this is the approach I use when responding to contributions by block/ban evaders and I think (and hope!) that it's pretty standard. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy is a policy and the specific response to your question appears to be Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad.  WP:BAN goes on to say, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban."  There is a technical problem in that the first edit on a new page of an AfD (the nomination) cannot be reverted, so it must be blanked or stricken instead.  Of course, if it is the only edit on the page, an administrator can delete the page.  WP:KEEP#Applicability point 3 is a guideline.  It was added by one editor without talk page discussion at the time that it was added, and is sometimes interpreted, especially by those seeking to protect delete !votes, to mean that AfDs do not require a nomination to proceed.  However, once a deletion discussion has begun, an applicable guideline to support policy at WP:BAN is Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure, which is "a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed" where it should be made clear that such a closure is without prejudice to an immediate AfD nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation was rebutted (by others and myself) at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 21 and rejected by the DRV closer. Please discuss at a relevant Wikipedia talk: page such as WT:Deletion process. I'll draft an RfC if you'd like. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the place for discussion, how about you give your "guidance" as requested by the author of this section?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Deor, and Kww's approach seems reasonable. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The key thing to remember about this is that you are always responsible for any edits you make, even if you are reverting an edit made by a banned user (or reinstating it). To take a simple example, if a banned user (socking to evade their ban) reverts a piece of vandalism, that is not something that should itself be automatically re-reverted, as you would then be restoring vandalism. In other words, you always need to look at what you are reverting, not just who you are reverting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience in this matter is that if you appear to support a banned or blocked user, you find yourself being discussed behind your back as a probable sockpuppet of that user. So my advice, is don't touch it with a bargepole. Do I sound bitter? I hope not, but I am definitely miffed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unban of Christianrocker90

Self requested block?

I nominated Temple Rodef Shalom (Falls Church, Virginia) for deletion a few minutes ago and got an error that the creator's talk page is fully protected. Crzrussian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is the editor in question. The message on his talk page indicated he was indef blocked by self-request. I didn't think we did that? See the block log. Thought I'd make a note of it here if anyone gets upset that I never attempted to notify the editor in question. Basket of Puppies 08:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFBLOCK says that we can, although don't often do. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked, albeit of their own accord, for four and a half years. I think you're probably safe from any assumptions of bad faith for notifying them. There's nothing wrong with self-requested blocks (it's something that come up every now and a gain, and there's a category of admins willing to consider requests), but we're not supposed to fully protect user talk pages if we can help it. Still, there's no point unprotecting it, because after so long, there's next to no chance they'd be keeping track of their talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Propper tag

I proposed split of the article Abkhazia on Talk:Abkhazia#Split_article on 10 June 2011. None objected and 3 more agreed. Can i now split this article, as per discussion above my proposal i see that even more people proposed this split, and agreed, and absolutely none disagreed? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 25.3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cleanup

This TFD discussion has been open for 9 days with no new !votes in the past 2 days. At this point, I think it's obvious that the consensus is to deprecate the template — even though Twinkle has been amended to add a "rationale" field by default, this still doesn't fix the long-standing problem of eleventy zillion existing cleanup templates without reasons. Most of the "keep" !votes are WP:ITSUSEFUL or otherwise not based in policy, and many of the arguments for deprecation are very similar to those presented when {{expand}} was deprecated; i.e., that the template is vague and almost exclusively drive-by tagged. Obviously, deprecation will require people with AWB and/or too much time on their hands to remove it, but as the instigator of the TFD I'll help clean up {{cleanup}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

An arbitration case regarding Racepacket has closed and the final decision is now viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Racepacket (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for one year
2. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) is admonished for blocking editors with whom he has had recent editorial disputes
3. LauraHale (talk · contribs) and Racepacket are prohibited from interacting with one another
4. Hawkeye7 is prohibited from taking administrative action "with regards to, or at the behest of LauraHale".

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer

Would an uninvolved editor close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer? Over 30 days have passed since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer was initiated. Two participants believe that someone uninvolved should close the RfC. Please take into consideration Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer#Proposed solutions and the other threads on the RfC talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on this one. It's not a quick close, as there's been a lot of reading to do! --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Orlady, for taking on this difficult RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's closed now. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Orlady, thank you for the time you've spent reading the discussion and writing a detailed closure. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, fellow Wikipedians

At Talk:2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis, I suggested that Second Ivorian Civil War be merged into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis because those articles are the same and it wasn't a civil war. Not all internal conflicts are civil wars. When's the next time I can propose another merger? B-Machine (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

... and while you're thinking of that, drop by the 5th requested move for Cote d'Ivoire in the past year. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a very neutral note, BWilkins (and not correct either, considering there have only been three previous RMs in the article's history...). Jenks24 (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reusing content from another user's sandbox

I want to reuse a lot of the content from user weblogan's sandbox here - User:Weblogan/Sandbox in this article - Singaravelu Chettiar. Weblogan has done a great job in rewriting the article, but he is currently inactive (since june 2010) and has not moved the content to article space. My question is can another editor copy content from a user's userspace and paste it into the article (crediting the original author in the edit summary)? Is it allowed?. If not are there other ways to move the content to article space? I was going to drop a note in the user talk page, as we now have mail notifications enabled, but wanted to ask if it can be done without waiting for the user to come back and do it himself. --Sodabottle (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine, yep. Content on Wikipedia is released under a free copyright license, and improving articles is what it's all about! ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest simply moving the page to maintain article history. Do drop him a talk page note though. NW (Talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The sandbox contains work for Shaukat Usmani (oldid) and Shripat Amrit Dange (oldid), and possibly more. History splitting and merging may not be worth the trouble. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors, a credit in the edit summary is sufficient. I like to include a link to the source page for future editors, even when it's not required. Please do contact Weblogan and wait a while (I would wait a month, personally) before proceeding. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI question

Has WP:SPI really been cleared of all open cases, or has something gone awry? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems so. And I wasn't around to clear it, either :) –MuZemike 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Given Category:Open SPI cases, I think it's a bot problem. T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The bot gone messed up things. –MuZemike 10:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Shadowboxers

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the right place; but I wanted to ask for administrator help. I tagged the article with WP:CSD#A7 last night. It's an unsigned band, just out of college, with an upcoming release. It's bread and butter {{db-band}}. The talk page is attracting a lot of attention from single purpose accounts. The justification for keeping the article is that they have a growing fan base, they are really good, and that this page will help the band become recognised. It's driving me up the wall having to repeat myself over and over, quote the same policy pages over and over. Could someone take a look and put me out of my misery. Please. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's likely the band will soon be notable, but they do not yet meet WP:BAND. Delete, but do not salt the article; allow for recreation. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What about userfication with a fully protected redirect? Would that work? Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean a redirect from mainspace to userspace? That's not allowed, for a number of good reasons. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The CSD was declined, the article is now PRODded with a PROD2 in place as well. Still seeing SPA/IP commentary to the same effect as noted above, but the PROD headers are still in place. If the PROD headers go away, the next logical step is to AfD the article. I don't see any admin action needed here, other than perhaps keeping a weather eye on the Talk page for socks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for two times indefinitely blocked user Stubes99 (Celebration1981)

Father Kit Cunningham

I just deleted Father Kit Cunningham as an attack page in good faith because of BLP concerns, it was referenced to a fairly normal obituary at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8199757/Father-Kit-Cunningham.html but contained mainly claims of child abuse from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jun/19/kit-cunningham-child-abuse, can somebody just review it please and revert deletion or endorse as necessary, thanks (also some content at St Etheldreda's Church). MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the uncited comment at the St Etheldreda's Church article, the descriptor as if fact when he appears to never have been found guilty of such a crime or even charged seems undue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the BLP concerns? He's dead. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

note - its been replaced diff by User:Philadelphia 2009 it seems to be cited to that guardian is free external. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bit more in The Tablet Rosminians sued for abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I deleted as it appeared to be an attack on Cunningham based on one Guardian opinion piece, I was perhaps hasty hence brought it up here for a sanity check. Although they may be dead they may have relatives. Hence my request to revert my deletion if others thought that appropriate and I would be happy to make an apology to Philadelphia 2009, just looking for other views. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say it would as a minimum require a lot of care. Although there seems to have been no legal charges its the subject of a current civil action and three or the people involved are living. It also sounds like all the available details have been leaked by an alleged victim and a party to the civil action. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fr Kit would be charged if he were alive, but agreed about the other three living priests. Also there in a TV prog on the BBC on Tuesday, which may have more info. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it is that (as recorded in the Guardian) Fr Kit Cunningham did not deny the abuse allegations and wrote a letter of appology and handed back his OBE. The article was by no means the finished article, and I was planning to include more info re Fr Kit's good work in London. Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Tablet says that Cunningham wrote a letter admitting the abuse. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Philadelphia 2009, He does seem from the obituary to notable-ish (although no one has written an article about him prior to this added issue} perhaps you would like to write a well rounded BLP for the father in your userspace prior to publishing in article space? Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is done - and I suggest caution here, particularly as other living people are involved in the civil suit - please ensure that the page is marked with the NO_INDEX template to reduce the likelihood that it is ranked highly in search engine results. Risker (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this article in the Irish Independent there is a documentary being screened tomorrow about this. Fences&Windows 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding sockpuppetry

This is a general question, not an accusation of sockpuppetry or a request for action.

If a user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, along with his various IPs etc, and he almost immediately reappears with a new account, is he immediately liable for a further block on the new account, or do we wait until his behaviour warrants a block? I'm asking because I've just found a case of this, but the new account hasn't really done anything wrong yet. Do I give him a chance or shop him straight away? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's block evasion and warrants an immediate block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Major League Baseball Draft

Forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, and direct me to the right place if this is the wrong place, but I would like some intervention.

At WP:BASEBALL, we have a consensus to list the first round of the amateur drafts (including the compensation round) and no others, because it is an excessive list of 50 rounds and most individuals drafted will never meet GNG. In fact, many first round picks never meet GNG. One editor, User:Carthage44, insists on adding all 50 rounds to 2011 Major League Baseball Draft and refuses to engage in polite discussion, as you can see from his most recent edit summary. He's not quite vandalizing, not quite edit warring, but his editing is disruptive as he is not seeking consensus on talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dunno if this was ever WP:AN-appropriate, but while we're here, someone may want to peek in on the situation. Carathage is just reverting as a pointy game now, with edit summaries of BAM! and BAM!. I had a run-in with this user a few months back when an similar sports draft AfD didn't go his way. He's not really handling himself well when dealing with contrary points of view, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User shows no desire to discuss the edits per those edit summaries, so he's blocked. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I thank you both. As I said when I started out, I wasn't sure it was quite AN material either, but didn't know where else to turn. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check

I'm on my way out the door, but I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the exchange at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Austrian lake substubs and let me know if I've completely lost my marbles. (I'm not seeking any admin action, as I have no intention of wasting any more time improving "articles" that took no time or thought to create; I just need to know if I'm capable of making sense any longer.) Deor (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've told this admin time waster to pursue this at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). AN is for situations which require admin intervention. I would be more concerned about this editors responses.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• This thread seems like a good candidate for the newly-minted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. –xeno^talk 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The response that you say you are more concerned about is aggressive but understandable. It's pretty obvious that anyone who thinks they have a reason to post an issue to an admin noticeboard will object to that post being removed by the only other involved editor. --Onorem♠Dil 15:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

But I am still right that this is not the right place to post about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree, but it's not unreasonable to think that the user wants input on a subject that they consider a matter of general administrator interest. It seems to me that it's not a matter that they want admin intervention on, but a matter that they want admin input on. --Onorem♠Dil 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Blofeld has removed the exchange from his talk page, here is a link to what I was referring to. Let me make myself clear: I'd simply like to know whether I am utterly wrong in my reading of the documentation of {{Expand German}} and, secondarily, whether what I considered two reasonable requests (in my original post) constituted so misguided a message as to merit the response I received? Deor (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody knows more about Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki than I do. I set the entire project up and also created and organized the current translation templating system we have in place with Calliopejen include "Expand German". So asking an admin who undoubtedly has less experience in this project translating field than I do when I'm telling you straight you are misinterpreting what has been the convention for a good two years now is unlikely to yield the results you are looking for. If you are looking for somebody to vouch that you are not insane to have been misguided then I am your man, not AN. You appear to have stumbled across temporary modifications which were made without consensus by User:SilkTork which is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Translation, which is where this conversation should end.. This is why you must have read that the convention is to place in talk pages when it most certinaly is NOT. He amended the the templates 10 days ago without any real conversation. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 10#List of fastest-selling albums in the United States and List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 10#List of fastest-selling albums in the United States and List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

SNOW-close requested

Hi, would an admin mind SNOW-closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lol@souffs – it's a very clear-cut case being swamped by single-purpose accounts/socks with unimaginative usernames. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 07:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Inactivity and security

There has been some drama this past week about inactive admins who have retained their tools. I have mentioned the following proposal at the RfArb request on Nabla. A register is set up where admins may request that their tools are withdrawn should they be inactive for a certain period of time (of the admin's choosing), without any penalty or shame for the admin concerned, who would be free to request their return at any time. I've put my money where my mouth is and added a notice on my talk page to the effect that I am to be desysopped after three months inactivity. I believe that by doing this, it helps to prevent possible damage to Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins. –xeno^talk 12:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really glad this is finally going to happen. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch. Judging by the comments in the linked discussion, I'm still not seeing any consensus for suspending the sysop privileges of inactive admins that have been perpetually dogging this perennial proposal. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see consensus galore... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we see things differently I suppose... :-) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ACC has a similar program. The account creation interface which is run on toolserver.org has a page accessible only to tool Admins which is updated by script or bot, not sure which, any user or Admin who does not login to the interface for 45 days is posted on that page as inactive with a link to suspend the user. The edit summary informs the user that their account has been suspended for inactivity and if the user wishes to return their account to active status just contact a tool Admin and the account is re-activated. This program works very well. The returning user is un-suspended and the inactive user who decides that ACC was not a good idea or is no longer interested remains suspended. Mlpearc Public (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Range block query/request

• 60.52.45.143 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
• 60.52.43.139 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
• 60.52.124.83 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
• 60.52.45.53 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
• 60.52.127.164 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
• 60.52.121.13 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)
• 60.52.127.67 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)

I don't do rangeblocks. Can someone who does please see if a range block would be practical in this situation, and make it happen if it would be useful? Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

While I cannot actually help mak the block, the fact that the IPs belong to a Malaysian ISP makes this difficult as the are almost always dynamic IP assignment, so you will probably end up blocking a good portion of the ISP's customers. However, there see to be many ISPs in Malaysia to begin with so I don't know if a block such as one on 60.52.0.0/16 would affect a large portion of the nation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the range is rather big. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done: 60.52.40.0/21 and 60.52.120.0/21 both rangeblocked for 3 days. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

possible vandal on sowiki

Please take note of this IP user. After blanking page twice, now he created an article and two talk pages. I can't read the language so please take a look. Thank you.--Ben.MQ (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that this was left on my wall a few minutes ago, and I too cannot read Somali. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ben MQ seems to have notified a few so.wiki admins/editors too [16] Bob House 884 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP has not edited on the English Wikipedia, and we have no authority over the Somali Wikipedia. If it's urgent, consider asking for assistance at meta:Steward requests/Global. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins, feel free to vandalise if...

WP:BEANS, or not a helpful thread. Either way, that's enough for now, thanks. BencherliteTalk 00:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good news, admins! According to a significant portion our our Arbitration Committee, as long as you do so while logged out and with a reasonable goal and point to make in mind, and come clean about it on this board later, "the punishment (desysopping) does not fit the crime"! I suppose we'd better be on the lookout for subtle vandalism from admins, as now accepted by at least six arbs (as of this writing) as a non-de-adminnable offence. Have fun! StrPby (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC) StrPby, thank you for personally endeavoring to make a bad situation worse. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) - I don't belive this, This is the first time I have ever agreed with Sven. Str please We don't need another eruption of drama, I to was amazed at the whole incident but, there is no need to keep feeding the bonfire Mlpearc Public (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

IP claiming to be both an admin and a vandal

Fresh start request

User: Jimmyson1991 (talk • • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))

Short story:

• Sockmaster blocked for warring and emphasizing article subjects' religion/ethnicity/nationality.
• Socked and blocked several times for similar stuff, and for socking.
• All tolled, many edits were fine.
• I welcomed latest sock not knowing. He got blocked. I talked to him.
• He wants a fresh start and promises to avoid old patterns.

• Discussions with subject
• Discussion with last blocking admin
• Sock investigation

My comments: I don't vouch for him, but I will keep an eye on his edits. It seems logical to allow a fresh start because if it goes pear-shaped it would be no different from the current situation. Plus, with one username, we can watch, and after all, he does make some good contribs. End of story. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockmaster was blocked just a month ago with the most recent sock blocked on the 17th... I'd feel better if he waited 6 months and requested unblock. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is similar to the thread above, but as Burpelson AFB pointed out it's far too soon to make a request like this. -- Atama頭 17:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks

This article has been around for some months now. I just renamed it from its problematic former title "China Stock Frauds." Though toned down a little, I'm still concerned about sourcing and possibly painting these companies with too broad a "fraud" brush. I have the same concern with P Chips Frauds, created by the same editor. It's good to see articles in this subject area but I think we need to be careful when using the word "fraud." A perusal of the article by an administrator would be appreciated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:POVN is probably a much better place to ask for help. What you're asking for isn't anything that requires an administrator, and the POV noticeboard was created specifically for a situation like this one. -- Atama頭 20:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll post there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 10#List of fastest-selling albums in the United States and List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 10#List of fastest-selling albums in the United States and List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom? My previous request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 10#List of fastest-selling albums in the United States and List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom was archived. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Fram (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram, for closing this difficult debate. Would you delete as housekeeping List of fastest-selling albums in the United States and List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom, which have deletion review tags on them? In the deletion log, please include a link to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 10. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that they were temp-created for the DRV, I have deleted them now. Fram (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal?

Generaal klei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems suspicious, half the edits seem like some variety of sneaky vandalism, and half are inconsequential edits that could be done to build up edit history. Somebody may want to review that account and tag it with some flag, or whatever is being done in such cases. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

These edits don't seem malicious enough to qualify as "vandalism". They are not particularly helpful either, but it is more likely that this is a new user testing out the editing functions of the encyclopedia. A reprimand and introduction the the sandbox should be sufficient. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jeff dean and possible return to edit

Last November, I indefinitely blocked Jeff dean (talk · contribs) and a bunch of others for socking. He just came back as Whoami 24 (talk · contribs), but he has posted a message basically apologizing for his actions here; moreover, he hasn't socked in over 7 months, technically meeting WP:OFFER. Should we allow him to edit and with this current account, given that he has basically owned up to the socking and has not done so in quite a while? –MuZemike 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, next time I'll look a little more closely. The account was created on 1 January, with exactly 3 edits between now and then. –MuZemike 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as those three edits in March is the only activity this person (not this account, but this person) has done at Wikipedia, I would think the spirit of WP:OFFER has been met, and would support a probationary unblock, we can always reblock should shenanigans resume. --Jayron32 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I support what Jayron32 said.--SPhilbrickT 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There would be no more "shenanigans." Whoami 24 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose He WP:EVADED a valid block in order to come back to ask? No way, reset the clock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What clock? What do you add to indefinite to make it indefinite? Is the purpose of the block to punish or prevent? If it's to prevent, and he isn't harming anyone by returning, then is there a problem? --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Saying that this is block evasion is simply bureaucracy: there's no reason to believe that this request is in any better or worse faith than if it had been made with the original account, and no reason to treat it differently. I have no opinion about unblocking, but as Whoami 24 and Jeff dean are the same person, this should be treated as if Jeff dean had made the request. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Jayron32, and the promise of no more "shenanigans", this seems worth a go. Bencherlite^Talk 08:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per the above. We can always reblock if need be. — Ched :  ?  10:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good faith. I assure you I make this request in good faith. I do not know how it gets resolved given the distributed administration of Wikipedia, but I assume that will be made clear to me. Moreover, I wish no longer to bathe myself in anonymity, as I am now. If possible, I would like my user name to be either "Jeff Dean" (capital "D"), "JDean," or "Jeffrey Dean." Thank you all for your comments, support, and opposition. Whoami 24 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming we do reach a consensus to continue editing here, we could also unblock the "Jeff dean" account and, if you like, rename it if you wanted capital letters. –MuZemike 19:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I'm not an admin so take my opinion for what it is worth, but as someone who has come up against this person a number of times I am still happy to assume good faith / good intentions and welcome back a fellow (prodigal) motorcyclist with open arms. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support with very specific conditions: Jeff must report what username he uses to a coordinating administrator, absolutely no socking (occasional WP:RFCU would be helpful), and Jeff knows he'll be watched even more closely, especially with COI edits (promoting his website, original research, civility). tedder (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Tedder - if you are an administrator, could you be my coordinating administrator? Whoami 24 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I would like to use one of the three non-anonymous user names above. Who would be my "coordinating administrator?" As soon as I am informed -- however that happens -- I will create one and cease using the one here: Whoami 24 (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock - He appears to have learned from past mistakes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because, and only because, of the sheer chuzpah of creating an alternate account to participate in their own unblock discussion. Had they not done this, I would support per WP:OFFER. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question It's hard for me to have an opinion here because I don't see any clear evidence that Jeff Dean understands why he was banned. "I promise to be good" is rather vague, and easy for anyone to say. He claims the six or so accounts he made were all innocent mistakes, without explaining how that "just happens". The self-serving benefit of the deception is obvious, and common sense would tell you that those being deceived would not appreciate it. Aside from the fact that Wikipedia's policies on sockpuppetry are not a secret. And then there's the question of ownership of files. As far as I can tell he doesn't understand what it means to license a photo CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia:Standard offer doesn't include apologies and contrition as a condition. But is it possible to "promise to avoid the behavior" and have a "willingness to move forward productively" if you don't know what that means? Is the idea that we unblock first and then let them try to figure out how to behave after?

  If these questions are beyond the scope, then go ahead and unblock and wait and see how it turns out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - First, an admission... I really dislike sockpuppets. I've had some very bad experiences on Wikipedia due to the deception brought about by people abusing alternate accounts. Frankly, they give me a headache. While I try to do everything I can on Wikipedia with an appeal to calm, neutrality, and reasoning (as well as a big dose of WP:DGAF) sockpuppetry sometimes rubs me the wrong way personally. So it's not often I entertain forgiving anyone who engages in that behavior. But I'd support this; I see honest contrition, the editor has done a reasonable job of behaving over a long period of time (if inactivity can be considered good behavior), and as long as the account is given extra scrutiny I think it's safe to allow them back into the project. -- Atama頭 17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment to user:Jeff dean. Anyone can make mistakes, and those can often be forgiven with ease. We like to resolve issues :) But you should have this fair warning -- users who get that second chance and then show they can't or won't keep their word tend to hit a much harder brick wall if they want to be unblocked following a future issue. You have said there'll be "no more shenanigans". That would be great. But if there were, fair warning, many users would see that as evidence of a deeper issue, so please if you are unblocked as a result of this thread, take the point to heart and really take care to avoid issues in future. For the same reason, if there are any future problems, please ask for help rather than just reacting. Hope this helps you, and good luck! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Polls are evil, but by the summary, it sounds like an editor who deserves a second chance. He's done his time. --causa sui (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I take that as a support, then ;) –MuZemike 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Administrative note. I'll post semi-formal editing restrictions within two days. Jeff has already implicitly agreed to most of them, but they should be reviewed here. tedder (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user removing block notice from talk page

Very Velvet Violet Vest (talk · contribs) removed the notice I left on their talk page after I blocked them for vandalism. Do notices for in-effect blocks fall under "sanctions that are currently in effect", as per WP:BLANKING? Larry V (talk | email) 20:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. I've reverted and left them a note not to remove active block templates. Should it happen again, revoke talk page access. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING. Only declined unblock requests may not be removed from talk pages; block notices are allowed to be removed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an indefinite VOA block anyway, so why worry? --Taelus (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not really worrying. A man alone brought it up on my talk page, and it piqued my curiousity. Larry V (talk | email) 00:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Theoretically speaking, Eagles is right. Practically speaking, Taelus is right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if Eagles is right, though. WP:BLANKING does not explicitly say anything about removing block notices. It says "Sanctions that are currently in effect, including [emphasis mine] declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices". Maybe I am wikilawyering here, but I do not see anything there that indicates that those which are listed are the only ones that are unacceptable to remove. "Including" means "containing as part of the whole being considered", which would indicate that there are more sanction notices which are unacceptable to remove as well. I see no reason why a notice for a block, especially one that is in effect, falls outside the boundaries of "sanctions". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But you notice that it does not mention removing block notices (which are required by admins to provide), but explicitly mentions declined unblock requests. Methinks this is not an oversight. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but that which is discussed in the first paragraph makes mention of "warnings and discussions" as being acceptable for removal. I personally do not believe that a block notice falls under either of those categories, but I do believe that it does fall under the category of "sanctions". At any rate, I think this is a matter worth discussing on a larger scale, as there is clearly a divergence of interpretation on this not unimportant question. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the essay WP:SANCTIONS does include a block as a kind of sanction. I realise that this essay is opinion, not policy, but it does speak for something. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I go to leave a block notice on a user's talk page, Twinkle forces me to click "Warn" and use the dropdown to go to "Blocking." Twinkle categorizes block notices as warnings. Anyway, there's a thread at WT:UP (here) about this issue, so it should be discussed there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a link in that thread to an old discussion that came out with a pretty clear consensus that users should not be allowed to remove block notices that are in effect. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Which I totally agree with, so why isn't that reflected in the wording of WP:UP? Anyway I've commented at the guideline's talkpage about the need to change the wording. -- Atama頭 23:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the listed items are listed for clarity, because one could otherwise argue, for example, that declining an unblock request is not itself a sanction. A block is clearly a sanction, and needed no special clarification or explanation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the debate here, apparently it does. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that bans are frequently called "sanctions", for example Wikipedia:General sanctions primarily lists bans of one kind or another, yet the guideline explicitly mentioned that ban notices are included. So why would we mention ban notices but not block notices? -- Atama頭 00:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Would it be better if the various templates explicitly stated on them that they must not be removed whilst the block is active? Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• What I don't get is why this is such a big deal. If the user removes it, so what? I see no harmful consequences to Wikipedia from that removal. If the user were to apply for any user rights after the block expired, the admin would obviously check the block log, and if there was ever need to block them again the admin would likewise see the log in the block interface. I see this as a non-issue; if they want to remove the template, let them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices. This isn't really an admin noticeboard issue in the long term. --Onorem♠Dil 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems

A while ago on this board, ErrantX suggested writing a document to help users understand why their non-free images were removed, with tips on how to fix FUR problems. Ched Davis and I have written such a document at Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems. Interested editors are invited to help fine-tune the document, and to add their names to the list of editors willing to help answer questions. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Image request

I am topic banned from uploading images about myself to WP (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#2._Topic_ban_of_TonyTheTiger_from_uploading_images_about_himself.2C_broadly_construed). One of the images that I have been allowed to use in my user space bio somehow got on commons. Maybe I inadvertently put an image on commons. Now at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Tigre PokerStars T-shirt.jpg the file is up for deletion. Can an admin move a copy back to WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a better idea to just let it go? What about also deleting the images showing the different ways you write a "t" on your signature? --damiens.rf 01:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And your biography page has to be illustrated with a photograph of a black T-shirt with your name on because...? I don't think you've explained that yet, and a good explanation might persuade people that it is appropriate to waive your topic ban just days after it was started. Bencherlite^Talk 01:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation)You know Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site so why the need for more pictures Of Yourself ?
Mlpearc powwow 01:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD closures

For the second time this week I've just been through and closed about 20 AfDs that were 3 or more days overdue (the only one I've left open is this one as there's a discussion going on at the AfD talk page - feel free to chip in!). Quite a few of them obviously fell into the "not sure how to close that one" category. Whilst I don't mind the inevitable being-dragged-off-to-DRV issues of closing contentious AfDs, more WP:BOLD admin eyes would be good :) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Histmerge

Not really sure this is the proper place to raise this, but is it possible to do a histmerge of

• Book:New York and New Jersey campaign
• Book:The New York and New Jersey campaign <-- Good version, but should be located at Book:New York and New Jersey campaign

If it's not possible, then could you do a db-move on Book:New York and New Jersey campaign and move Book:The New York and New Jersey campaign in its place? Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should the existing version be replaced with the new one? They look exactly alike. — Edokter (talk) — 20:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Book:New York and New Jersey campaign is the original, it was created 2010-04-23. Book:The New York and New Jersey campaign was created 2011-02-03, apparently as an editing test. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Book:The New York and New Jersey campaign redirected to Book:New York and New Jersey campaign. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure this is the proper place... See WP:REPAIR —DoRD (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban for Basket of Puppies

WP:SNOW, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Please see the ongoing thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals I propose that this editor is banned, for a period of three months, from initiating attempts to have articles on synagogues and/or other Jewish communal organisations deleted. This includes adding speedy-deletion tags and listing at AfD and DRV, but not participating in discussions started by other editors. My rationale is as follows: BoP has, in the last few days (I've not calculated the exact timescale, but it's very, very short) nominated 17 Reform synagogues' articles for deletion, via CSD and/or AfD, on the grounds of being non-notable. To the best of my knowledge, every single one of these articles has been kept. Many of the AfDs were SNOW-closed with unanimous 'keep' arguments other than the nominator's (example 1, example 2). Numerous editors have asked him to slow down. See, for example, the very polite messages that JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) left on Wednesday; and see the unduly nasty response which they received. Earlier today, I think I've established the basis for all this activity. As I suspected, it's not intentional disruption but a misunderstanding of the notability policy: BoP has stated that he nominated one particular page for deletion (very much like all the others) because "it might be a notable congregation, but in the current form it [...] does not overcome the notability threshold." So he nominated a page which, he acknowledges, might be notable – and a very quick Google enabled me to pull up a plethora of sources showing that it was – because its current state did not reflect that. This betrays a very basic lack of competence which ordinarily wouldn't be a huge problem, but is in this case because BoP is refusing to accept many editors' advice on the point: for evidence of this, one has to read the (I thought) very clear explanation of the fact that an article's current state is completely detached from the concept of notability, followed by the response BoP gave it: recourse to a non-policy essay, and repetition of the point that the article should be deleted because its "current form" does not demonstrate notability. Therefore, I unfortunately see no way forward other than to topic-ban him from creating such time-wasting discussions. I would, however, be prepared to consider a compromise (eg. a limit of no more than one AfD creation per week). Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Support as proposer. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I think a limit of no more than one AfD per week is very reasonable. I would oppose topic-banning. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. I think that's a very reasonable option so will start sub-headings for separate discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Proposal 1: Basket of Puppies may not nominate synagogue articles for deletion – discussion Support as proposer. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Several of the articles I have nominated have already been deleted demonstrating that I am not a loose cannon and do understand deletion policy. I am human and realize that I might accidently nominate something for deletion that might notable. For that I am sincerely sorry. I believe that this proposed topic ban is an inappropriate reaction to differences of opinion and ask that it be speedily closed. Basket of Puppies 13:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose on the basis that no evidence has been provided that BoP has contravened policy, or in any way acted other than in good faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Well, he does seem to have failed to grasp two important facts: WP:Deletion is not clean up, and WP:Notability requires only that the sources exist, somewhere out in the world. The "current form" of an article has nothing to do with whether the subject meets the notability standard. I'm not sure that I'd call it a "policy" violation, but it does suggest that he shouldn't be nomming these pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Are you suggesting that policy dictates that an AfD shouldn't be proposed unless the proposer has already determined that evidence for notability doesn't exist somewhere? On that basis, no AfD could ever be proposed on notability grounds - how do you prove the non-existence of evidence for notability? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, what policy dictates is that articles should not be nominated for deletion until the nominator has personally established that "appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them," or that's what WP:FAILN says. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 17:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC) For one this, WP:FAILN says "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline", so it's not "what policy dictates". For another, it does not say what you say it says.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Ah, you here again? Well, I directly quoted from WP:FAILN so I think it does say what I say it says. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 18:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Per BoP's clear and reasonable explanations, and per Griswaldo, below. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, AndyTheGrump said it quite well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Ah, I thought you'd be along. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Right, because I never post on AN when you're not involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose While I see problems, some are valid, so this is not the right approach. --SPhilbrickT 14:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose as more than is warranted at this time. TreasuryTag has a point insofar as BoP appears to be routinely ignoring WP:BEFORE, in particular item 4, "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." This should be emphatically brought to his attention, and the issue should be revisited if he continues doing so. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose in principle. Noticeboards are not the place to make these decisions. We have Arbcom for this. --causa sui (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) If you think that only ArbCom can impose editing restrictions then you are sadly mistaken. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 17:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Sadly, indeed. --causa sui (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Proposal 2: Basket of Puppies may not list more than one synagogue at AfD in any 7-day period – discussion Content as proposer. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose as per my explanation in proposal 1.Basket of Puppies 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, as per my comments above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Per BoP's clear and reasonable explanations, and per Griswaldo, below. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose, AndyTheGrump said it quite well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Support in principle but could be persuaded to tweak the details. For example, I think any proposed throttle should include CSD, it would be counter-productive to create an AfD throttle that simply diverts nominations to CSD. I'd also be inclined to accept more than one per week, but I'm in support of some limitation so the community can address them thoughtfully. In fact, if I were BoP, I would be concerned that proposing too many will produce a knee-jerk Keep reaction, whereas a more moderate flow would allow more considered responses.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose. No rate limit is necessary if BoP begins following WP:BEFORE. If WP:BEFORE is brought to his attention and he continues to ignore it, then more severe measures than rate limits become appropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose in principle. Noticeboards are not the place to make these decisions. We have Arbcom for this. --causa sui (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC) This is getting out of control I suggest that those who are so worked up about BoP's nominations get a handle on themselves and consider no further WP:FORUMSHOPPING regarding this matter. There is an open AN/I already and no sign that the community finds BoP's nominations problematic. I certainly don't. The articles he nominated were poorly sourced and did not establish notability. The correct response is to fix the articles, and to recognize that having a bunch of poorly sourced articles around is itself a problem. Anyway, can we please stop with the overreactions now. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) ...It's this notion of "not establishing notability" that's misleading. Whether or not a subject is notable is completely independent of whether or not its Wikipedia article is in good shape, or indeed whether or not its Wikipedia article exists at all. That seems to be where BoP is getting confused, and it seems that the confusion is wider-spread than that! ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 13:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I don't follow. Every article must establish the notability of its subject matter. Doing so requires sources independent of the subject matter displaying significant coverage of the topic. Please see WP:N. Also, please consider that when a slew of editors disagree with you, it is more than possible that they are not the ones who are confused. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I think we basically agree but are at cross-purposes. Yes, every article must express its notability. However, just because an article doesn't do that does not mean that the topic is not notable. It is quite possible that sources could be found and added. Therefore, deleting articles solely on the basis that they don't currently list sources, without looking for those sources, is inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 13:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC) BoP has not deleted any articles, and that fact is the crux of the problem with your arguments. Until such time that the community agrees that his nominations were disruptive a request like yours is spurious. You have to get that. Right? It's like you're asking for sentencing before the verdict is in, and indeed you're asking for sentencing at a time when the verdict looks like its going the other way.Griswaldo (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Because of how notability works on WP, if you have zero evidence of notability in your article (whether through the GNG or SNGs), it is a completely valid target for deletion, even if the notability is easy to demonstrate by someone familiar with the topic. We're not requiring perfection from the onset but if you're creating a new article, include just a few sources to establish why the topic's notable, and then you'll likely not have its notability immediately questioned even if the article is in a bad state. That's even advice on new page creation. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC) No, an unref'd article is not automatically a valid target for deletion. Cancer will never be a valid target for deletion, even if some misguided person strips all the citations out of it. However, an unref'd article (on a less obviously notable subject) is a likely target for a deletion discussion—a discussion that validly ends as "keep", if the subject is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Incorrect. Every article subject must be notable. The existence or non-existence of appropriate sources is the matter of concern--not their presence in the article. For instance, if we have an article on "Thing XYZ" and there are a dozen reliable sources covering thing XYZ but none linked in the article, we should not delete it. All of this gets confused because we often do delete articles which are poorly written (often they are poorly written and cover a non-notable subject) and there is a non-trivial number of editors who believe that the minimum level of sourcing in an article is connected to the inclusion criteria. But the deletion policy and notability guidelines are relatively clear. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Close this thread and warn TT for violating WP:FORUMSHOPPING. There is an active ANI thread and this is an inappropriate overreaction. Basket of Puppies 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I've not violated FORUMSHOPPING. Topic-ban discussions customarily take place at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. I also thought it would be good for everyone (including you) to have this discussion away from the heat of the ongoing debacle on the other page. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 13:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Agree - close this thread. Enough, already...AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Basket of Puppies—I don't know how you can be so sure that an article is deserving of deletion. I nominated one article for deletion recently and I still have slightly mixed feelings about having caused some usable information to go down the drain. I know it had to be deleted, and others agreed, but in many instances such a decision is not clearcut. And even when deciding to delete, I think there is oftentimes the loss of some good material. This should not be done in a rushed manner. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Bus stop, I will have to refrain from answering here as there is a current ANI thread on this very issue. You may be enlightened by this discussion on an in-progress AfD. Basket of Puppies 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC) This is the high schools debate all over again. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Please explain, and provide links if you can. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, five/six years ago there was a rash of nominations like this that begged for arbitrary deletion as "NN". That back-and-forth went on until its culmination in Wikipedia:Notability (schools), which then failed and spawned a few essays like Wikipedia:High Schools. Point is, everybody argues the issue and there's no simple solution. Rather than contribute to the drama it's better to conscientiously consider each nomination and develop a clear but flexible guide regarding notability. There isn't an easy solution, so we might as well not spend time arguing, slap frivolous mass nominators with a mighty trout, and go on in giving each nominated subject its due. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I closed this per WP:SNOW but TreasuryTag reverted me because I also opposed the proposal. Anyone else want to step up and put an end to this? --causa sui (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

Thanks guys. GiantSnowman 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Immutability of AN archives

Tjprochazka inadvertently makes a good point at User talk:Ncmvocalist#Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive703. The AN(I) archives don't make it clear that they are not to be edited, except to move a discussion back to the active forum. Would it be a good idea to add some kind of banner at the top of each archive saying so? Larry V (talk | email) 17:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If the archives are not to be edited, full protection would prevent them being edited, but the source code would be available to copy. Banner or page notice or both are other possible solutions. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

When a discussion is moved back it should presumably be removed from the archive, not just copied. Otherwise the archive will end up having duplicate sections for the same thread. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No talk page archives are to be edited except in rare cases. 99% of the time they aren't. And most of the remainder nobody cares. If you want to add a notice or protect all of them I don't see a reason against doing so, but neither can I find a compelling reason to bother. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, I'm against the pre-emptive protection of archives. There are many reasons why you would want to edit them like updating a template, links to discussions, etc... Automatic protection makes this a bigger hassle than it has to be. One might argue that the AN stuff has special considered, but I don't really see a need for protection, other than the occasional edit that has to be reverted. The notices at the top of the archives are sufficient IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You should never need an explicit protection - an archive is just that, an archive. Tampering with an archive would be rather procedurally and ethically wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A template at the top or an WP:Edit notice would be appropriate. Someone might arrive at the page from a piped link and not pay attention to the name of the page.

I wouldn't pre-emptively protect them. We occasionally have legitimate reasons to make changes, and we don't have a significant history of that ability being abused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How many editors have the archives watchlisted? Who will respond to random vandalism on the archive pages? The only reason I noticed an archive being vandalized here is that I was chasing down the other entries in that vandal's edit history. If the vandalism had been aimed at only the archives I never would have noticed it. I think archives should be fully protected as a matter of course. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This might be a case where a bot could come in handy. Have it occasionally scan the archives to see if they've been modified by an account other than the archiving bot, and if so, post a note on WT:AN or WT:ANI mentioning it. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Of course, manually, one can always click 'Related changes' from the archive-list, eg. to view Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchives. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 21:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Per motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor (talk · contribs) by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) on 2009-12-10[17] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Passed 10-0 on 24 June, 2011.

On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Block review noticeboard?

Ok, I know, I know, another drama board, right? Just what we need. Just hang in there a second :)

AN/I sees a ton of traffic. I think on that much we can all agree. Searching the archives, I find 369 hits for "block review" on AN boards. A small portion look to be false positives. But, we're still looking at in excess of 350 block review threads, or 1 for about every 2 archives in AN/I. That's a lot of traffic. So I'm thinking it might be a good idea to split off a block review noticeboard of some sort, like WP:AN/BR.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, block reviews are too important -- they belong on the primary boards, where anyone can notice them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SarekOfVulcan - it's in the interests of both blocked editors and the blocking admin that blocks are reviewed in prominent locations, as this makes the discussions more transparent harder to game (though disruptive editors ganging up on admins at ANI has been a problem at times). Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that IS embarrassing...

I tagged Shyam Lal College as a copyvio 6 hours ago and it still hasn't been deleted? Where the hell have all the admins been to LOL? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Current CSD wait time is 46:44:21. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

PS see tools:~betacommand/reports/CATCSD.html for full queue details. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering we have 138 candidates for speedy deletion, at the moment, it's a bit hard to delete everything that needs to be deleted in a timely fashion... Sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum article undergoing massive rewrite, requesting more lax edit rules temporarily

Editor and administrator SarekOfVulcan earlier today dropped a congenial reminder on my page about the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article and how I had come up against the strictly interpreted 3RR rule. My request here is really just a pre-emptive request that admins look carefully at the tone of editing for the time being, more than the strict number of edits with regard to this specific article.

As reported in the Signpost, this article has gotten a massive amount of attention lately, and overall I would say that most of us are working to improve this article.

Simply going by a strict 3RR would most likely interfere with natural give and take and flow. Also most editors are frequently checking in at the Talk page and discussing edits in line with a vibrant Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. So all in all, I think we have a good flow going and I would hate to see it ruined by a zealous admin enforcing process for sake of process. To be clear, I'm not saying that edit warring be ignored, or that 3RR be ignored, just an understanding that LOTS of edits are occuring and people are moving forward and improving the article, and judicious enforcement will most likely work best for now. -- Avanu (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Haha, is that what the page is called now? Which dysfunctional committee came up with that? Worst article title evah. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not to mention that the page has the funniest talk page evah. I don't agree, though, that loosening the rules would be helpful. In fact, a 1RR rule might encourage actual content discussion on the talk page, and make it less likely that some web crawler or another would pick up anything especially awkward. It might slow things down a bit, but everything doesn't have to be fixed by tomorrow. PhGustaf (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Pretty sure it wasn't a "committee" that came up with the title, but meh. Not really gonna worry about it. — Ched :  ?  09:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Couldn't you keep Santorum where it is, and have Campaign for "Santorum" Neologism as a separate article? The former would describe the word, the latter would describe the campaign to have the word accepted. You could also have a Controversy Over the "Santorum" Neologism article - self-explanatory, with coverage of the coverage of the controversy - and of course a separate "Santorum" Neologism in Popular Culture page that lists its appearances in popular culture. Perhaps also an article about the politician himself. You know, a few years from now this will amount to a couple of short sentences buried away in a couple of articles. "In YEAR, as a protest against the senator's policies, Y attempted to dominate Google's search rankings with an obscene redefinition of the senator's surname - loosely given as QUOTE. This was extensively covered in the media BBC NYT GUARDIAN". There, solved that problem for you, next problem. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That would make sense, Ashley. But this is Wikipedia :) -- Avanu (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not. We do not need more articles on this topic. Santorum-Googlebomb/neologism/campaign/whatever-it-is-called-today is already a possibly unnecessary fork of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. Fences&Windows 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it isn't actually a word, no, an article on such would be pointless. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there has been enough wikilawyering and other endruns around consensus on this article in the past couple of weeks. Oppose any relaxing of our normal rules on this or any other article as a matter of principle. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

That so-called "word" is a built-in BLP violation. At most, it belongs only on the page of the guy who invented it (assuming he's even notable enough to exist on wikipedia). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP doesn't say we can't say anything bad about anyone, it only says that what we say has to be sourced. As long as there are sources for it, there is no BLP violation.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

BB - I totally agree! It is a BLP vio. It needs to be yanked right out of the 'pedia!

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic Banned User:Prunesqualer

I was recently going through my watchlist when I came across a revert Prunesqualer (talk · contribs) performed, I had not seen this user engaged with the article before so decided to look at their talk page. I noted the user was topic banned from anything to do with the Israeli-Palestianian conflict. I noticed a number of YouTube links on the users talk page and found them to be rather odd with headings that implied users should click on the link, I myself did not view any of the YouTube videos. I removed the links and replaced them with a standard warning instructing User:Prunesqualer that they were not allowed [18]. The user contacted me about why I removed them and I answered the user on my talk page, at first I suggested if they wished to keep/use the links they should create a user sub-page and clearly state what the links are and what videos they displayed. I received an email on the 25th of June (Australian time) from User:Prunesqualer the user stated the following

"Hi ZooPro

I am currently on an indefinite ban from editing in the Arab/Israeli field, and have been recently made aware that this ban even extends to talk pages (hence this e mail). Since most of the videos linked to are connected to that field, your advised course of action is no longer an option, so I will leave my page as is (until such time as the great and the good see fit to allow me back into the field). Anyway thanks for your time-

Prunesqualer".

I of course was rather alarmed as by the users own admission they have seem to have breached the topic ban. I have come here to report this incident and to ask for admin assistance as to what the best course of action is. Kind regards ZooPro 13:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a concerted effort to breach the topic ban. Would suggest that as long as Prunescaler confirms that they are now aware that the ban includes talk pages and agrees to stay clear, then we don't need to act unless there are further breaches. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ZooPro 23:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm back!

No doubt that this is an auspicious and long-awaited return. Please, hold off on the applause until I finish my speech. After a recent family illness which necessitated my full and immediate attention, I've come to rejoin your loving embrace, Wikipedians. I have arrived at an inopportune time for the committee - and I'll be holding off on the advanced tools for a little while until I get back into the spirit of things - but I will now be replying to my email messages. Slowly. All 3,000 of them. It's good to be back. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, you've been missed. Hope the family situation is now better; sorry to note that you've returned to a challenge but it looks like you know that.--SPhilbrickT 23:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*

I also hope the family illness resolved positively. Those are always a test.

Now back to work! 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla closed

An arbitration request regarding User:Nabla has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following motion has been enacted:

(A) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms its, and the community's, expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.

(B) Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Arbitration Committee joins in disapproving of this behavior, but accepts Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.

(C) Nabla is aware from the ANI discussion and this request for arbitration that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective administrator has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an administrator, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies, and we recommend that he focus initially on less controversial administrator tasks. To an extent, these recommendations apply to any administrator who returns after a long period of inactivity.

(D) Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined. Passed 13-1 with 1 abstention on June 27, 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Admins needed for info-en OTRS queue

The info-en OTRS queue has been chronically backlogged for the last few months. A lot of the former admins that kept an eye on the queue have left, leaving a void. Admins with a focus on BLP article are the most needed but any can help, the permissions and general help queues are also suffering from a lack of attention. You can sign up at meta:OTRS/volunteering. Brandon (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, please do. This is an urgent problem. In my personal experience (as User:Moonriddengirl), what you most need to be able to do there is patiently explain to people how Wikipedia works. Sometimes I edit articles directly based on OTRS tickets, but often I just have to tell people how to handle things themselves...or why what they want done can't be done. A useful skill, in my opinion, is the ability to overlook irritation and focus on the heart of the issue. The people who write OTRS have often had bad experiences trying to resolve problems themselves. Sometimes, just talking to them like human beings can help them feel more positively about their experiences here, even if they don't get everything they want. It's really important work, and we need more people helping out with it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We have tickets going all the way to May, April, and before. It's dreadful that our private customer service is worse than our public one. Many issues can be solved with a simple (often boilerplate :P) explanation or a quick edit. I third Brandon's request. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Having had the dubious honour of being turned down twice when I've volunteered for this in the past, I would like to suggest that you make it clearer on the meta page what you are actually looking for. Assuming (as I do, hopefully correctly!) that I was not personally disliked by the people making the decision at the time of applying, I had, and still have, every belief that from what I read I would have been able to help out in a useful/non-damaging way. As you clearly didn't believe that was the case I think you should make it far clearer what standards you use to decide who to accept into the mysterious elite group of admins that get 'OTRS permission'. Peter 21:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The decision is made by the OTRS admins. I'm afraid that all I know about what they're looking for is what is written on that page. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the info-en team technically, but I haven't contributed much lately. I'll try to do some more but one does sort of burn out after explaining for the zillionth time that no we will not do a link exchange with you and no we will not restore your deleted spam article. It might help if the boilerplate responses were more wiki-like instantly editable; some I think are rather poor and require too much manual improvement.  Sandstein  19:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are the easy ones. :D The boilerplate responses are not instantly editable, but you probably know that they are editable at the OTRS wiki? Changes (if agreed upon) are usually implemented pretty quickly. :) (I've also created one kind of "template" of my own, a modified "sofixit", on my OTRS wiki userpage which I can just paste in.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Somewhat off-topic comment) Your sofixit template is great, it cobbles together the pertinent points of several separate templates. I've spent an inordinate amount of time doing this as well, perhaps we could add it to the main template page? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it. :) I put it on the OTRS Wiki Cafe, since I'm not sure how to propose a new boilerplate. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Response:Portal space, create Response:en-foobar page and use {{ Response header |title = foobar |id = |lang = en |status = created }} text {{ Response footer }} and we'll review with a poke at the admin requests page. Keegan (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Signed up. Happy to help. --causa sui (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Ignoring the fact that I'm not an admin, I would join up (and thought of applying for permissions-en a while ago), but I refuse to self identify. From my conversations, I know that's a hangup for other people as well. The easiest way to self identify is to scan a driver's license in, but that would mean giving strangers my full name, home address, and other personal information that I don't trust in the hands of others. It's one thing to give that information to a company providing me a service, in which case legal protections come into play, but it's another thing when I'm a volunteer and the WMF has made it very clear that they are under no obligation to have my back or look out for my interests if my work here creates the potential for harm to my reputation or my person. The WMF claims that they don't store the information, that only one person looks at it, and then it's deleted, but that dosen't make giving the information out any less comfortable. Self identification as a requirement for OTRS access will cause OTRS consistent personnel issues. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • When I signed up, one only had to be willing to self-identify, not actually identify at that time. But I'm not sure if that policy has changed due to the sort-of-recent discussion over a new ID policy (also, what's the status on that, anyone?). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Today's events will make it even harder for OTRS/WMF to convince people to self identify. Perhaps something else needs to be done in place of self identification? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
    • At this time the policy remains that users are willing to but not required upon volunteering to supply identification should the need arise. Users are expected to supply the OTRS admins, upon acceptance, their real names. This will not appear publicly. OTRS agents answer with their real names or pseudonymous. We do not notate if the name used is true or not. Keegan (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Err... that's not how the OTRS volunteering page reads at all. Also, did I just read you say 'You have to give us your real name, but we don't care if it's real or not?' That seems... odd. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You have to give the OTRS admins your real name, but the name that appears when you are browsing the ticket interface or replying to queries may be a realistic-sounding pseudonym. NW (Talk) 05:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
          • And do the OTRS admins save the real name somewhere or just look at it and toss it? I don't find the idea of a great list of accounts with their real names attached to be particularly appealing. I can understand the need for accountability, but privacy is a bigger issue for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• I can confirm that the WMF does not currently require identification for OTRS agents. You must be willing to identify on demand, but we are not currently requesting that. If you do identify voluntarily (as some do) and say that it's for OTRS, I will offer you the choice of having me identify you in the usual fashion (the information goes to a secure box, it is reviewed, and then destroyed, saving you the trouble of identifying later) or having me destroy the ID unseen. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Dean returning to edit: editing restrictions

Context: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#User:Jeff_dean_and_possible_return_to_edit

There's been enough consensus for Jeff Dean to return to editing. He's chosen the following username:

• User:Jeffrey M Dean (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Based on the discussion above (which got archived a little faster than I hoped it would), I'll be acting as what I call the "coordinating administrator". In other words, I'll be watching his contributions regularly and watching his talk page to see if any problems arise. The following are very loose editing restrictions based on areas of concern:

• Absolutely no additional accounts.
• Avoid COI: no links or references to content or websites authored by Jeff Dean, no original research to circumvent this.
• Follow the spirit of WP:CIVIL.
• Avoid any ownership behavior over content and images. (past example)

I'd like the input of administrators and the rest of the community; my apologies for not getting to this before the thread was archived. tedder (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ditto. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A definite . Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. However the user page full of links to his personal website might not be the best way to return to editing.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why is there no notice of this discussion on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jeff dean which I checked before starting a sockpuppet investigation at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff dean? That is what I checked first. Suspend or delete the investigation as appropriate. In my opinion, and agreeing with Will Beback, there is already too much self promotion in his user and user talk pages. I'll AGF but even a single transgression should mean another immediate indefinite block. ww2censor (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I had blocked this account per an SPI case, but I've unblocked now that I see what's going on. Sorry about that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend and abuse of administrator priviledges

Hello. I am writing to inform of the actions of an administrator, Nyttend, and his actions on the pages Template:Cobb County, Georgia and Buford Highway International Community. I am a resident of Atlanta, and an editor specializing in improving pages associated with Atlanta and its environs, especially through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/Atlanta task force. I focus mostly on geography, yet I have run into problems with this editor when it comes to the status of East Cobb, Georgia as an unincorporated community in Cobb County, Georgia. It can be confusing, as East Cobb's name is derived from its location in the eastern part of Cobb County. But, as I have documented on the community's page, it is actually the name of a defined community. If you notice, the multiple references I have included all refer to the community as East Cobb, with both words capitalized, as a proper place. If it was only a region, the references would refer to it as east Cobb. The community is considering becoming a city, and the city would be styles as "East Cobb, Georgia." However, Nyttend refuses to allow it on the template because it is not listed in the register of Populated place's compiled by the U.S. government.

This is very unfair. Even if consensus says that East Cobb cannot be included because it is not contained in the register, an exception should be made. It simply has an awkward name. In addition, the register of populated places is always changing and being updated; thus, it cannot be inclusive of all unincorporated communities. In any case, Nyttend has strongarmed the whole process and refuses to debate it. Other Atlanta editors have weighed in on behalf of the community's legitimacy, but Nyttend continues to dictate. Now, he is labeling me as a vandal in order to prevent me from making my case for East Cobb's inclusion on the template.

In regards to Buford Highway International Community, Nyttend has moved the page and protected the page to prevent any more edits. The international community is not synonomous with Georgia State Route 13, yet he keeps redirecting it to that page. Again, he did not engage anyone on the talk page before he made his decision, and prevented it from being challenged by protecting it.

I do not know how else to fix this. I feel this is an abuse of power that is simply skirted by the editor avoiding 3 reverts. --Mmann1988 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of stuff you just know vs what can be verified. Mmann1, I "just know" much of what you "just know" about these topics. As a matter of fact I live in the Buford Highway International Community though I've never heard it called that before and according to google, neither has anybody else. (23 hits most to WP mirrors). A better name for that article might have been Buford highway corridor but you would need reliable sources that discuss my "home" as a distinct community (this is a good website but probably not a reliable source). Ditto for "East Cobb" "West Cobb" etc. You need sources that describe them as distinct communities, not just directions on a map. Just having them capitalized is not going to cut it. As a side note this was pointy and completely uncalled for. Nytend, your description of "Mmann1" as an SPA might not be completely fair. You should consider that he's just interested in topics related to Atlanta.

BTW Wikia has an Atlanta Wiki that hasn't seen much activity for a while. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmann1988 originally posted this at User talk:Redux, failing to observe that he hadn't edited or performed any logged actions in two years. Everything after this sentence and before my first signature is copied from that talk page. Mmann is essentially an SPA who's constantly been fighting for these two articles, along with making frivolous AFDs. Besides Mmann and a meatpuppet, the only user involved in this issue is Student7, who has also tried without success to stop Mmann, who continues to revert claiming (as you see in the second paragraph above) that s/he is permitted to make a unilateral exception to consensus. Contrary to what these two editors have said, the sources on the latter article make it plain that this is a content fork, so I've protected in an attempt to enforce that policy. I've become quite sick of these two users, who have violated tons of policies and only continue to claim that they're entitled to ignore them whenever they feel like it. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Please change the final sentence of the original comment to "...feel like it and expect me to observe their exceptions religiously." I can't remember where I've seen it, but I know that it's often said that cries of "administrator abuse" are generally correct in that they're cases of abusing administrators; this is no different. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an abuse of administrator privileges. The proper place to deal with content disputes is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. There should be some precedent elsewhere in other populated place articles in regard to naming an area that isn't part of an incorporated area. I don't know what that would mean for Georgia, though. In New York, for example, Administrative divisions of New York points out that every part of a county is divided into towns, and then there are villages that are usually subdivisions of a town but that can straddle towns. On the other hand, across the St. Croix River from where I live, Political subdivisions of Wisconsin says that there are counties, and that cities and villages are autonomous incorporated areas that can span one or more counties. Any part of a county that isn't incorporated is part of a township. Minnesota is similar, except that there's no such thing as a village any more, and some sparsely populated county areas in the north part of the state aren't even organized as townships. Now, if someone wrote Administrative divisions of Georgia (U.S. state), that might provide a clue, but there's no article on that. In any case, this sort of thing isn't an administrative manner unless someone is misusing administrator privileges. Instead of going to the admin noticeboard, try an RFC, or ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) how to name things. Or, if all else fails, sit down for lunch at the Big Chicken in Marietta and talk it out. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not neutral, having taken a position before in this matter. It seems like a content dispute. This is a metropolitan area that is tending to all run together. Chewing off part and saying it is "West Cobb" or "North Cobb" seemed arbitrary to me. Most people there regard such adjectives as "directional," having nothing to do with "places" per se.

Summing up for this page, it seems like a content disagreement. Student7 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It may have started as a content disagreement, but Nyttend's actions have taken it far beyond that. He has refused to compromise. It is one template out of thousands across the U.S., yet he refuses to let it go. Elkman, he is not even from Georgia, so how would he know anything of East Cobb or geographical divisions in that state? All of the page sources refer to East Cobb as a proper place (WITH BOTH WORDS CAPITALIZED), yet Nyttend refuses to acknowledge this. The same cannot be said for references to "North Cobb" or "West Cobb" or any other directional name in Metro Atlanta, so that argument, made by Student7, is moot. Nyttend has engaged in what is an abuse of administrator privileges; he purposely avoids editing 3 times to avoid an edit war, and he doesn't listen to what any other editors have to say. The same can be said for his actions in protecting Buford Highway International Community to prevent it from being a separate article.

Furthermore, it is OK for an administrator to refer to another editor as a "meat puppet"?

Lastly, I am not convinced that Student7 and Nyttend are in fact two different people; IP check, anyone?--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to look at my RFA and see the names and links in the "oppose" section as a response. Observers, note this as yet another example of Mmann simply turning my words on their head and saying that I'm doing what I accuse him/her of doing, without a shred of evidence. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think best practice would have been for Nyttend to request an uninvolved admin protect the page rather then doing it personally, that said, it was not an abuse of administrator privileges as the protection was justified. Mmann1988 needs to let the issue die and try to come up with a consensus to make the changes rather then make it personal. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Protection was justified" doesn't excuse an involved admin protecting the page to his preferred version after engaging in the dispute, whether he was right or wrong. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend is not a red link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 13 is a 50-mile-long highway, yet only 3-4 miles of it retains a status as an international community. Through this stretch, it has been designated by DeKalb County as an "international corridor community." Here is a source--see page 15 (notice the name of the source is "Atlanta neighborhood guide", and it includes the neighborhood known as "Buford Highway"): http://clatl.com/neighborhood_guide/CL_neighborhoodGuide1.pdf --Mmann1988 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not a meat puppet. Nyttend, should simply look at my list of hundreds of contributions to articles about Metro Atlanta. I have shown through multiple references that both Buford Highway Corridor and East Cobb are unincoporated communities. Nyttend refuses to provide any criterion for what defines an unincorporated community that these two places do not possess. I believe Nyttend is not credible (a) for not substantiating his point of view on content and (b) throwing around insults such as "meat puppet".Keizers (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘A bit of a judgment call on Nyttend's part, I think. The difference between protecting against vandalism and unsourced edits on the one hand, and using your admin tools for your own benefit in a content dispute is slight and may be in the eye of the beholder. That being said, Nyttend is just asking for it if he edits through full protection while the article has that status. The article should not be edited again, especially by Nyttend, until full protection is removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firefox_7

Could someone close this AfD please? It's a day late. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone will get to it in due time; please be patient. --Rschen7754 07:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have closed it as merge all three to History of Firefox. Dcoetzee 08:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for evaluating the arguments. Not an easy close. Thankfully people have gone wiser with time and there's no article for, say, Fedora 15. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested unprotection for Yaprak

hi!

i hope one of the admins may allocate time for my request. i'm currently working on Turkish given names. i want to create Yaprak. but it is deletted in 2007 and protected. it was -i think- first created about a journal. i want to create it as a Turkish given name. i will be glad if one of admins unprotect it. thank you in advance. --Polysynaptic (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_79_(UK_series)

Could an admin possibly revdel the reference link that I removed from this article? It's a link to what amounts to an illegal download site, and we just can't have it laying around the history.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the old reference being used abusively? There's no harm in having it in the history; if we revdeled every single instance of a bad link we'd be busy admins indeed. What is unique about this bad link that makes it so that it cannot stay in the history? --Jayron32 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that point, and in addition this link was added to the article early in its history. To eliminate it we would have to revdel almost every edit. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the link amounts to a piracy link (where someone could illegally download the album), and I thought having such a link visible in this history would not be a good thing as some could take that to mean that WP is condoning music piracy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the history isn't something that the average reader digs through. They read the current version of the article only. So unless someone is disruptively using the history (it happens, though rarely) it isn't often useful to delete revisions out of the history for common, run-of-the-mill violations of Wikipedia policy. Simply editing the article and removing the offending text is enough in well over 99.9% of cases. Rev Delete exists solely for the less than 1 in 1000 times when normal editing isn't enough, and there's no evidence here that this is anything which would normally require any measures above and beyond what you have already done. --Jayron32 02:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, guess I was calling wolf when there weren't any sheep around.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Very old rangeblocks

It appears that we have about 800 rangeblocks currently. All of the rangeblocks from 2005 and 2006 are indefs that will never expire and most from 2007 are too. A quick count of the ranges shows that it's several million IP addresses in total, which is much more than I thought. Many of these are blocked as open proxies. Zzuuzz mentioned recently that many of the blocked proxies are most likely not proxies any longer. Our blocking policy also says that open proxies usually shouldn't be indeffed without careful thought. I'm wondering if some of the admins that set these blocks may have forgotten about them. Does anybody think it would be worth while to review some of the really old ones? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Let us know when you are finished. :) Prodego ^talk 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, but I agree. Indef blocking a range is usually a dumb thing to do, since even the most static IPs change after a few years. With single IPs that have been heavily abused it doesn't hurt us to keep them indef blocked until it prevents a good user from editing, but ranges, some of which with upwards of 1,000 IPs? No thanks. I am more than willing to help evaluate the IPs for proxies as well by doing port checks and testing them out (mwahahahah... er...) Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that what prompted this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As a toolserver Admin at ACC I support. The re-evaluation of potentially millions of IP's could save our processes a lot of time and help new users receive their accounts quicker. All request for new accounts submitted to account creations that have a range block, is usually required to be deferred to a CheckUser for clearance, checked for known vandals and sockpuppet IP's ranges, before the account can be created. This could take up to a couple days to clear. If stagnate range blocks could be removed, no doubt this would speed up these processes at ACC. Mlpearc powwow 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a full count and it's even more than I thought. This is a table with the ranges, the size of each range, the count of how many in that range and the totals.

Range	Size of range	Count	Total
/16	65,536	63	4,128,768
/17	32,768	34	1,114,112
/18	16,384	52	851,968
/19	8,192	81	663,552
/20	4,096	89	364,544
/21	2,048	42	86,016
/22	1,024	41	41,984
/23	512	35	17,920
/24	256	199	50,944
/25	128	23	2,944
/26	64	20	1,280
/27	32	34	1,088
/28	16	32	512
/29	8	44	352
/30	4	5	20
/31	2	3	6
Totals		797	7,326,010

I have to say I like the idea of running port scans on 7.3 million computers. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have I ever mentioned how port scans are not an accurate method of checking for open proxies? My comment mentioned above was specifically about the individual IPs in CAT:OP, many of which are not even blocked, many are no longer open, around a third are known to be in dynamic ranges. Probably the best way to initially deal with those is with a bot checking whether they are blocked, and whether they are in dynamic ranges. The range blocks are a different kettle of fish, and I agree that they should be reviewed. However as someone who uses the proxies occasionally to confirm them, I can confirm that many of the older range blocks are still valid. Seeing a block notice from Freakofnurture or Ryūlóng is not uncommon, in fact Ryūlóng's blocks are notably still common. I wouldn't do anything rash to unblock them. Range blocks are best dealt with the same way they are blocked - check who they belong to and whether a sample are used for hosting. If they belong to a hosting company they are often fair game for a continuing block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are also most often placed in response to abusive sockpuppetry, often by checkusers. In many of these cases there won't be any publicly viewable reason for why a range was blocked; the reason is instead checkuser data linking a bunch of accounts to a single range. When reviewing these, the blocking admin should always be consulted before taking any action, and failing that, at least one checkuser. (Edit dated 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC): Ok, I hadn't actually looked at the list yet, and so somewhat stand corrected. A lot more of these than I'd expected are directed towards proxies and Scientology ranges. My bad. Either way, my advice still holds; if you're looking at something and it looks perfectly fine to you, still have someone take a look to confirm that.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the CoS IPs and ranges already be tagged as such? –MuZemike 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the bulk of my rangeblocks in the above listed page are based on the fact that an IP being dealt with at the time was being utilized by a either a long-term abusive editor and the WHOIS on the IP revealed that the range belonged to a web host rather than an internet service provider. If the range is no longer owned by this web host, then it should be unblocked. But it clearly helps keep these unwanted editors at bay because this individual somehow bounced off of a Beijing rail station wifi signal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just unblocked the AOL rangeblocks as they are no longer open proxy, since AOL has given us XFF headers since 2007. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I volunteer to go through and check the existing long term and indefinite blocks, to see if WHOIS tells us anything useful about them and whom they are registered to currently. It will be slow going right now since I am at work, but I can definitely check a lot of them when I return home. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alison C. for stepping up, now all that is needed is a/some CheckUser(s) to team up with. Mlpearc powwow 14:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] I see that a lot of these are web hosting / dedicated server / VPS ranges; do we have an official policy on blocking these. Maybe this is high time to come up with an official policy; I know that I often ssh through my VPSes to circumvent censorware at public terminals and I assume that several users and maybe anons do the same. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we move this to it's own project page ? I f this is whats normally done. I'm kinda new to noticeboards Mlpearc powwow 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's only done when we want to quell useful input ;) Alison, the policy at WP:PROXY is fairly clear about these hosting ranges: "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked". They generally get blocked after they've been abused, but some providers also have a considerable reputation for hosting open proxies and spewing out crap. If you find any questionable open proxy range blocks you can list them at WP:OP for review. I wouldn't bother with the recent ones, and the ones I've blocked I'll be happy to review myself when I get back from wikibreak next month, if you like. These types of blocks are usually self-clearing, if admins patrolling CAT:UNBLOCK get them reviewed when they turn up. Almost all the requests I've seen have been from people using avoidable anonymising proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave the hosting range blocks since they're dealt with at RFU, a category which I'm not really familiar with. 204.232.90.150 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Signing after login ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Individual blocks

This section will be updated as I review more blocks, anyone else is welcome to post blocks here too ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4.247.128.128/25 Blocked as CoS IP, but rDNS suggests it's dialup addreses in tampa. Notified blocking admin ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• 12.146.202.16/28 Blocked as CoS IP, but WHOIS shows nothing more specific than the AT&T 12.0.0.0/8 block. rDNS fails with SERVFAIL. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  12.149.223.160/28

  12.153.64.80/28

• 64.60.234.160/29 blocked as CoS, but WHOIS shows "R S Vasan MD R-S-VASAN-MD (NET-64-60-234-160-1) 64.60.234.160 - 64.60.234.167" an oncologist in California. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't take the WHOIS information all that seriously; often they give only very narrow or limited information. For CoS rangeblocks, please have a checkuser verify each of them. Those that are webhosts or VPS ranges, please do not unblock without a checkuser to verify; these are almost invariably used by banned editors and other sockmasters. Don't undo checkuser blocks, please refer them back to the checkuser who applied them or to an active checkuser if the blocking CU has retired; consultation with the checkuser before unblocking is standard practice. Risker (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Okay,I wasnt going to mess with blocks without notifying the blocking admin first anyway.I forgot to do this with AOL range blocks; I'll go back and do this now, mea culpa. And no way was I going to mess with checkuser blocks. 204.232.90.150 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Signing after login ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The AOL ones are probably just fine, I don't think any of them were checkuser blocks, and they dated back to the days before AOL provided XFF headers. I forgot to say the most important thing: Thanks, Alison C., for pitching in on this task. Your work to limit the number that have to be reviewed by checkusers is really helpful. Risker (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Echoing Risker, thanks for reviewing the rangeblocks, Alison. I've been looking through some of them myself and have found that many are still hosting sites and the like. When I run across one that isn't, I'll bring it up. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Arghness. I'm busier than I thought I would be this weekend, so I might not get to review these until Sunday night or Monday. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OH come on, real life gets in the way yet again.... *rends garments* Okay, this weekend at latest >.> ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting through them slowly but doggedly in the little free time that I Have, this weekend has been absolutely crazy for me. Also see the below, section, we should codify a policy for blocking hosting ranges ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 03:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy on blocking hosting ranges

There appears to be no concrete policy on blocking hosting ranges, Standard practise appears to be block them long term with a note to that effect, I have no issues with this, it's just not written down anywhere. So I propose an addendum to WP:BLOCK or WP:IPBLOCK that says something like:

IP ranges belong to a hosting company can be blocked long term (up to 5 years) if abused. A note to this effect should be in the block reason so legitimate users can request a leniency of the block (allow logged in users to edit), or ipblock-exempt permissions on their account.

comments below:

• I support this adendum, seeing as I proposed it ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 03:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Search WP:LTA before unblocking an IP, example: Special:Search/203.56.233.122+prefix:Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse (finding an entry does not mean the IP cannot be unblocked of course, but it might give an indication of possible side effects). Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• This looks OK, but I oppose explicitly stating a block length. I've dealt extensively with hosting ranges and 5 years isn't a long time considering the amount of traffic from legit users vs open proxies. I remember blocking many individual IPs whose range had been blocked since 2005-06. For many hosting companies, those times when someone legitimately edits from their personal server is exceedingly rare when compared to open proxy traffic - see User talk:67.159.0.0/18, User talk:208.53.128.0/18, and User talk:72.46.128.0/19 for a few examples. So if there's a legit user, it's better to leave the range blocked and grant either ipblock-exempt or simply softblock the IP. Spellcast (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved administrator to close expired RfC

I would like to request the help of an uninvolved administrator to close a merger discussion and determine consensus as the 30 days of the RfC have passed. I believe that the consensus is pretty clear in favor of the merge and I am prepared to proceed with it. As I was the editor that requested the RfC, I think it would not be appropriate to close it myself and, per point IV of Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger, I believe that an uninvolved administrator closing this RfC is the best course of action. The RfC is this one. Jfgslo (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  09:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting brave admin to close contentious RfC

We could use an uninvolved admin to close a contentious RfC at September 11 attacks about whether there's consensus to re-add a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories to the article. The discussion is in two places. It begins here[19] and then resumes in a new thread here.[20] I know we don't need an admin to close an RfC but considering how contentious the issue is, I think it's best that an admin do it. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a closeable RfC here. There's no {{rfctag}} and (at least in the second part) no real structure, just the usual pointless tangled thread of people not listening to each other and digressing at length. There's also no obvious consensus. I recommend starting over with a standard RfC tag and some structure to help find consensus.  Sandstein  21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: there is something resembling structured discussion here, but it hasn't run for 30 days yet. Maybe put an RfC tag on that, improve the header to make it more understable to people who are new to the discussion, and wait 30 days?  Sandstein  21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a {rfctag} but a bot removed it after the RfC expired.[21] I'm sorry about the tangled web of text. Like I said, the issue is contentious. I'd rather not open another RfC because that would make it our third one on the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realized that this page get archived every 2 days. I am re-adding this because the RfC hasn't been closed yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of the more easily read discussion at Talk:September 11 attacks#Moving on to a general consensus, I'm inclined to close the RfC with a consensus for option 1, but it may be better to wait until opinions stop being added, so as not to cut an active discussion short.  Sandstein  06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that option 1 is clearly what the general consensus is at this time. I don't see that anything will change because of the amount of people involed thus far. Moxy (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Can we have an admin (or experienced editor) close this RfC? Option 1 has already been implemented about a week ago and there's been no further edit-warring or even objections against option 1 since then. The main opponent of option 1 has seemed to have accepted that consensus has not gone his way. This RfC isn't as contentious as it was when I first posted this. Can someone please close it? I'm heavily involved so I don't want to do it myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

UAA severely backlogged

There are 11 user reports waiting and God knows how many bot reports. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 09:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion lead sentence - straw poll consensus

Article: Abortion (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A straw poll was recently conducted on abortion, after a quick tally of a simple majority, several editors believe it's an enforceable consensus that changes the lead sentence from "death" to "viable":

• Jmh649 (talk · contribs) diff
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs) diff
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) diff

Other users are involved with this:

• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)
• JJL (talk · contribs)
• Michael C Price (talk · contribs)
• DMSBel (talk · contribs)

I believe this is incorrect as it asserts Wikipedia is a democracy, that can override well established consensus and a hard won compromise. - RoyBoy 22:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not meant to be binding for the rest of time: sometimes consensus changes. Well-established consensuses occasionally need to be re-established. I'm not sure this needs administrator assistance, but I've offered my opinion and invite other experienced users to do the same. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So am I to understand a simple majority can alter any consensus? - RoyBoy 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reality has shown that yes, they can. That's wikipedia for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussing content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's pro-abortion weasel-wording, and is also redundant. "Viable" essentially means "born". Hence, "killing the unborn before they're born". Yeh, that's useful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Viable/viability is medical, scientific terminology. Anti-women supporters are often confused by it. And this is not the appropiate venue for this discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I'm very aware of what "viable" means. Define what "anti-women supporters" means. As a phrase, it doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC) (non-admin note) In any case, this is a content dispute on a page already under constant admin eye. I see nothing to do here. Bugs, if you have problems with the content, bring them up (with sources) on the article's talk page. Ranting here serves no purpose. PhGustaf (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC) It's a bit like a lawyer issuing a dire warning to his client that if he dies without having made out a will, then he will die intestate! Oh, the horror! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Bugs, old wikibuddy, I was just saying that your comments here, clever though they might be, are unhelpful. PhGustaf (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Helpful to me, at least, to try and figure out what the issue is. And I'm still wondering what "anti-women supporter" is supposed to mean, as "anti" and "supporter" seem to be opposites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Long ago I was in charge of tech support for a small, long-vanished, company, and almost got to publish a journal called "The Technical Supporter". You would have enjoyed the logo I designed. But that's off-topic here; we're supposed to be talking about compliance with policy, and content has nothing to do with it. PhGustaf (talk) Is there a policy concerning a small group essentially taking ownership of an article for whatever purpose, e.g. to impose a particular PC wording? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Whatever is happening, pace admin-worthy abuse, should be resolved on the article's talk page. And dismissing an argument as "PC" is, to repeat myself, not helpful. PhGustaf (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Fine. Now tell me, what does "anti-women supporter" translate to, in English? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC) It's been challenging getting those who were involved in building a consensus in 2005-06 to engage the new sources that overwhelmingly favor 'viability' and consider a possible change in wording. The straw poll was meant to show, and did show, that the majority of editors now posting there favor a change, in an attempt to end what some (myself included) perceived as stonewalling to prevent a discussion. This feels like just another tactic in the long attempt to prevent discussion that might eliminate the word 'death' from the first sentence. JJL (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC) There is NO new information. None. The extensive archives prove that the consensus that has been in place since 2006 factored in every single point now being made. This is a rehash of the same old arguments that never win consensus support. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, this is what I was referring to. JJL (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) You have approached the talk page falsely assuming that you were offering new ideas that were not already considered in 2006. And you also approached the talk page closed to learning anything about abortion. There is WP:MEDRS for every single word in the 2006 lede. None of the material that has been discussed recently refutes content in the 2006 lede (this 2006 lede continues to be verified by multiple WP:MEDRS and other WP:RS). None of the recently discussed sources actually contains new information. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC) This is still a content issue, and doesn't belong here absent specifically documented policy violations. Which should be at AN/I anyway. 71 should note that many editors take grouses from IP SPA canvassers quite lightly. PhGustaf (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I agree with PhGustaf that this doesn't belong here. Open a Request for Comment for the proposed change and let the discussion flow for at least a week (up to 30 days if there are ongoing comments). Then you can come to this noticeboard looking for someone to close the RfC. If there is edit-warring or other editor misbehavior in the meantime, take to WP:ANI. Neither there nor here is a place to have a debate about the merits of the wording itself. --RL0919 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I invite further comments on Wikipedia being a democracy, rather than pot shots on a content dispute I've spent years on. Thanks. - RoyBoy 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in the material that was hatted: open a Request for Comment. There is no administrator action needed here, and this is not the place for general "comments on Wikipedia being a democracy". If the regular talk page participants can't reach a consensus (and a narrow majority in a straw poll is not a consensus), or if you think the editors participating on the talk page aren't representative of the wider community, then either way the best approach is the same: get a wider selection of editors to comment. That's what RfCs do. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to move it. But I'd say that quite clearly Wikipedia does not in principle determine content through a process of voting, but through discussion and consensus based on reliable sources. The underlying issue is not quite about whether wikipedia is a democracy though that is related to it, but about consensus establishment and the manner in and grounds on which new consensus is advanced when there is already a consensus. In particular at what point is no consensus is reached after a previous consensus based on considerable discussion and examination of options. It can't simply be asserted that because an editor disagrees with an aspect of an article we have moved to no-consensus. I take the view that any new consensus needs to convince some but not all editors involved in the previous consensus first that there is some new information or reasoning not already considered in a sufficient manner. I believe the onus lies squarely on the shoulders of any editors seeking to advance a new consensus to present new information or reasoning and to not try to force through a change simply because we have a new set of editors here now. The use of polls may be appropriate at particular points, but that those not be set up by those engaged in advancing the new consensus. In using a poll a duration needs to be clearly articulated in advance, it should not be assumed to be known by editors how long the poll is open for. But in contentious issues an RFC is better. With the goal consensus any poll needs to studiously avoid re-polarising the discussion. DMSBel (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, I will certainly seek a larger audience before modifying Wikipedia's policies, but I was specifically curious if fellow Administrator's were bold enough to have a firm position on this or not. - RoyBoy 04:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see this is a noticeboard for issues affecting Administrator's generally...and other matters of general administrator interest, though I am unsure of how much Admin time is spent on disputes in which content seems to be decided by simple voting, I cannot imagine it is inconsiderable. So I guess it does belong here, at least I cannot see how it would fall outside the scope. DMSBel (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into abortion politics, this kind of consensus shouldn't really last more than a year or two without reviewing the consensus and examining if it's still valid, even if it's just an open-and-shut case. Most of the people who supported my RfA in January 2006 have fallen off the project, for example. Content shouldn't stagnate; it should update with new sources and evidence. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, presuming new sources and evidence is actually put forward. Reviewing is fine, pushing it aside (twice) is not. - RoyBoy 04:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tag-team threats from user:TreasuryTag and admin:Fastily

As anyone reading this is probably aware, user:TreasuryTag has recently submitted himself (commendably) to editor review. Comments have often been less than favourable (and for clarity, mine was one of the first). It would have been nice if he'd toned down his abrasive nature during the review, but evidently not (comments are in the ER).

After one of the latest, he responded by posting this against user:Basket of Puppies very shortly afterwards to his own talk page. These accusations were made to his own talk page, not to any community forum. So what's the point, other than a thinly-veiled attack on another editor? This isn't RFC/U, WQA or even the talk: of the user complained of. Now I don't much like this (and for Fastily's benefit, I don't intend to start liking it). It's not an up-front comment seeking some resolution by one of our threadbare methods, it's just belly-aching. He even has a point about BoP's "stay off my talk page" request, but this isn't the way to go about it.

My comment here drew attention to the strange coincidence in these two events. It was in turn removed moments later, with the camouflaged edit summary "fix". Removing comments is every editor's right, but a most strange choice of summary - more an attempt to hide anything interesting from those watching the page than any honest comment.

The funny thing is that another editor, user:SarekOfVulcan had gone through a very similar cycle shortly beforehand. Only his was removed as a reversion of vandalism. Should I take this as some sort of compliment?

The next episode is that I'm then warned by user:Fastily at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Careful with "Careful. Don't do it again." Or what? Summary blocking by Fastily? After all, Fastily clearly has great regard for Treasury Tag, and he found his support very helpful just beforehand at User_talk:Fastily#File:Dalekhybrid.jpg So impressed in fact that after three other editors had been so unimpressed with him, he felt motivated to join in the editor review.

If my behaviour is so out of line that it deserves censure, then I'm sure some other admin will point that out. However I do not appreciate being threatened by admin Fastily, just because his ally at a file deletion was the one criticised, and he has the buttons to make threats with. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell me, where the hell did say I was going to block you? Sure, TT may be in the wrong for posting that message, but that does not grant you the right to violate WP:CIVIL in return. Last I checked, two wrongs never made a right. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What does "Careful" mean? Surely that I should take care to protect myself from some future risk, or indeed threat?

You could have said "You are a bad editor" or "Don't do this, it's immoral / illegal / fattening." You didn't you said, "Take care". Take care of what? Just what bogeyman does lie in wait for me, if it's not you, a previously unmentioned and uninvolved admin, threatening a block? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to politely ask that you calm down, and refrain from exaggerating/drawing unintended meanings from my words. Then we'll talk. Capisce? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You ask someone to not perceive unintended threats from your messages by quoting the Mafia? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about the mafia? "Capisce" == "understand?". I'm using it to emphasize my point. Capisce? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This just feels like a whole bunch of people sticking their noses into places they shouldn't have. Andy Dingley, you probably should have left TreasuryTag's talk page alone. Fastily, you probably didn't need to jump to Treasury Tag's defense. In any case, it's all really minor stuff, not violating any policy, and we shouldn't be fighting and starting AN threads over it. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

Everyone involved here gets a good trouting. Beyond that, move on. elektrikSHOOS 00:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I must (respectfully) disagree with Elektrik Shoos. I do find the comment on Treasuries talk page to be provocative, but it's far far below the level we should be "warning" people over, and particularly in that sort of amorphous manner. It's easily perceived as threatening. I also find the warning by Fastily at #Careful to be more like a threat that a warning. define:warning, define:threat We use the passive voice when we are "being administrators" because it lends both a sense of authority to the words and disassociates the "warn-er" from the action. But let's not mince words afterwards and put on our mack-the-knife white gloves. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by a non-admin. I'm not intereted in the squabbles described here but am concerned that an admin feels in a position to issue orders -- "Don't do it again". Do admins get to do that now? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh what a waste of time for all involved. Andy's comment on my talkpage was childish, assumed bad faith and was actually incorrect (since BoP's comment on my Editor Review came eleven minutes after I accused him of violating WP:POINT over a separate dispute at AfD, one might say that he was the one being vindictive – as it happens, I wouldn't, but Andy is clearly looking for a motive within everything...) and shouldn't have been made. Whatever. I'm not wasting any more time on this nonsense, although would note that the allegation of a tag-team is so ludicrous as to be laughable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 07:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Trout for OP: Seriously... All Fastily did was offer advice that you should be more careful. That's it. No implied threat. Move on, nothing to see. Hasteur (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• Adding lemon to the trout - I've given similar notices to editors. I don't see anything wrong with it. As to Sergeant Cribb, can an admin tell someone to follow policy? Of course we can. And if an admin is performing some violation, a non-admin can tell them to follow policy also. We even have templates that "threaten" people for going overboard in the way they treat other editors (which are far more aggressive than what Fastily said). I don't think Fastily said anything extraordinary. -- Atama頭 17:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'll just add that it's a lot more productive to speak of an editor's "abrasive behavior" than their "abrasive nature". —chaos5023 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Need to reverse a pagemove

My Little Pony Friendship is Magic needs to be moved back to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. It was moved against consensus and without discussion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done, but you could have made the move yourself (before you posted the {{db-move}}). Non-admins can move over redirects if the only edit was the creation of a redirect. Other admins—correct me if I'm wrong please. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Usually, yes. –xeno^talk 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the page move spam, can we get the page MoveProtected? Looking at the article's history it looks like there's a consensus to have it live at the semicolon location and people playing with the title and history... Hasteur (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File restoration request

On December 8th, 2009, I was advised to place a request here to have this file restored, which at the time was in a userspace draft. Since then, I have worked on the draft and it is now in mainspace. After all this time, is this still possible?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 28!   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft (2nd nomination)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft (2nd nomination)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I closed them both as no consensus (eventually, after finding the closing instructions and wondering why they were not linked from the MfD main page, and then finding the link 'hidden' in the top right-hand corner). I also pointed those participating in the discussions to the guidance provided at the MfD page, namely:

WikiProjects and their subpages - It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.

But then I took a look at the other discussions in progress at MfD, and noticed a lot of WikiProject pages that had been nominated and people don't seem to be aware that other options are available. Is the guidance out-of-date, or are people just not seeing/reading the guidance? It seems to be a bit of a waste of time to be having all those deletion discussions for WikiProject pages, when the guidance makes clear that deletion is generally avoided in favour of other options. Or is this one of those guidelines that are generally ignored, and if so, does it need to be modified? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth, for researching how to close MfDs and for closing the discussions. Most editors at MfD believe the guidance is worthy of following. The nominators, I think, do not believe that their nominations violate the guideline. See the related discussions at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Questioning the good faith of the nominator and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Scope-creep in MfD with unimportant non-applicable busywork. Cunard (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Need One Brave Victim Admin

Can we have a brave admin step forth to close the following discussions?

• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_15#File:NY_Times_Best_Seller_List_May_25_1980.jpg
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_21#File:Sussecoatofarms.jpg

Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nearly deleted the NYTimes one, because I wanted to give the keep arguments negative weight: I would have been more inclined to keep the file if I hadn't read them. Anyone think I'd be risking anything serious for actually daring to only give weight to the arguments that showed an understanding of policy?—Kww(talk) 04:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the NYTBSL image as it clearly violates WP:NFCC#8. I haven't looked at the other, and I'm going to sleep now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Kww, I think you'd be violating the policy for not giving substantially more weight to policy-oriented !votes. It's not a vote. The decision is supposed to be based on the strength of arguments. A policy-related reason is a much, much, much stronger argument than any number of non-policy (and non-common sense) votes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia actually operated that way in practice :) NW (Talk) 16:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Be the change you wish to see in the 'pedia? :) Danger (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:Requests for adminship/Kww, WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 2, and WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3, and I think you will see why I am reluctant to close AFDs as delete, WhatamIdoing. Too many people were of the belief that I would go on a deletion spree, and I suspect some are still just waiting for it to start.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If they are clearly to be decided as "delete", then there are plenty of people who will back you up (including me). Just be sure they are clearly "delete" first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter for WikiLove

Is there a reason for the edit filter on WikiLove? It already says a "new WikiLove message" in the edit summary.Typically an Edit filter is a problem indicator and I am not sure why its "on" WikiLove. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Eloquence set it to tag for some reason, but the tagging is now turned off. 28bytes (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My Little Pony

Can someone keep an eye on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and all of its subpages? They keep getting moved against consensus — someone keeps removing the colon and making the I lowercase, which is against all the naming conventions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved by Stifle, protected by Dabomb87. 28bytes (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd still like some extra sets of eyes on it and its subpages to make sure they stay at the proper capitalization. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What subpages are there? I see List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes, anything else? 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh derp, that's it. I thought MLP:FIM had its own character list but apparently not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's all just be thankful it's a colon, and not a hyphen or a dash. Although an ArbCom case over punctuating a My Little Pony series would not be without entertainment value. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering how the show's swept the internet like wildfire, it's bound to happen soon enough. Ten Pound Brony, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, a barnstar to the first person to sync up an ArbCom case with a MLP clip. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, someone will figure out a way. (Rarity and AJ at Twilight's slumber party, to start....) --MASEM (t) 22:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, why is a capital I following MOS when it fails US capitalization standards? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Is" is a verb. Verbs are capitalized: "capitalize: [...] all forms of the verb to be (be, am, is, are, was, were, been);". 28bytes (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like my understanding is wrong, I've double checked a couple of grammar sites and 28bytes is correct. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning: pedantic comment--it's not grammar, it's style (per a style guide). Drmies (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

... The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

MTVN HD is now MTV Live HD

I was just wondering if you could move MTVNHD to MTV Live HD as the channel changed its name this morning--Superlightoftruth (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It has not. The change has failed to happen. At the minute its still called MTVN HD although I am sure it will change eventully. But it should not be moved until its changed its name (Ruth-2013 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC))

History at MFD for Wikibombing

I'm sorry if this is not the appropriate venue. We're debating an essay for deletion at MFD, and some editors have expressed concern that the essay is an attack on a particular editor. A suggestion has been made that the the history of the essay and of the MFD discussion be purged of any references to said editor and anything attackish. Is that an appropriate action, and assuming it is, can an uninvolved admin take on the task? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I would oppose that. Revdelete is for "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" or "purely disruptive material"; see the criteria here. The material you're referring to (here) was an accurate description of the editing that triggered the recent "wikibombing" concerns. It doesn't name the editor, and although it would be easy to see who it was, there was no outing or anything improper. The material has now been removed anyway, because it failed to gain consensus, but that's a matter for regular editing, rather than use of the tools. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SV on this. The typical approach for XFDs that mention attack material is to courtesy blank them once they are closed, not revision deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Three points:

• I've got an issue with one of the folks most responsible for this essay having been an attack on a user weighing in as if she were uninvolved. In fact she is currently continuing to argue and revert to keep a external link that I see as an obvious continuation of that attack.
• The section SV links to didn't "fail to get consensus", it was removed because it was perceived as an attack [22].
• I personally don't think there is a need to even discuss the deletion history deletion in the essay unless the target of said attack requests it.

In any case, I'm involved here as the initiator of the MfD in question and generally being upset about what I see as people using an essay to launch an attack on a user... Hobit (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully disclose that I'm involved in the manner that I expressed deletion sentiments on the "essay", did a significant userspace rewrite/fork, and encouraged the author of this essay to consider moving it to their userspace for the exact reasons listed above. Because there's a significant history that allows people to see it during it's hostile essay phase, I still think revdeleting is the best answer. Hasteur (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And I'm involved to the extent that my comment at the MfD was the one that first suggested deleting the material (later proposed for RevDel here), as a condition for keeping, and that approach ending up being cited by the closing administrator as the consensus decision. I think that the consensus at the MfD discussion was that the deleted material amounted to a personal attack (on a user who is now the subject of an RfC/U). My suggestion here would be in favor of RevDel, and against being too picky about whether or not this is a typical use of the procedure. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I oppose rev deleting the material as I feel it better serves as a permanent source of embarrassment for the editors involved. Anyone willing to tar a wikipedian in complete ignorance of a real life story ought to be ashamed of that lapse. Let me be clear. The editors writing WP:BOMB are great people. They are prolific content editors, guardians of the wiki, and generally class acts. But their collective lapse in writing this essay and fomenting the misguided discussions on AN/jimbo's talk page/mailing list/etc. should be a reminder to us all. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, good enough that I'm inclined to change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my thought. But I'd say if the target of the attack requests this, it should be removed (as I stated above). Holding it out for a good example shouldn't outweigh such a request. No such request has yet arrived, so I'd prefer to keep it around. Hobit (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

+1, makes sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RFD backlog

Please could someone with a few moments attend to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 20 which contains several discussions that have been open for nearly a fortnight. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 14:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Judge orders ISP to release names of Wikipedia posters who slammed Facconable

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

They haven't proved real damages or even that the comments were untrue, which are critical to proving libel. It will be tossed out on review. Night Ranger (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Plus the ISP doesn't know who the poster was, just what account. Plus, I think that they need to show knowingly untrue, not just untrue. If it were the latter, nearly all media would be out of business. Thanks for telling us this interesting info. North8000 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Of more interest to Wikipedia is whether those claims were cited to reliable sources, or were OR/opinion. If cited to sources then there is no issue in regard to the ip's quoting a third party; which is why it is interesting that the purportedly injured party is approaching the ISP rather than the WMF. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a copy of what the article looked like before. Obviously not appropriate, however, I don't think you can really prove that there were any damages at all from it. I've seen sources before discussing possible links between the owners of Faconnable and Hezbollah. They are likely not true, but the IPs that added the information weren't just making it up out of nowhere. I'm sure they had an agenda, but they were still basing their info on these sources (though they don't appear to be cited). Seriously, all the company had to do was ask us to fix the article and we would have gladly done so. Doing this whole court thing is just causing a Streisand Effect on them, when they could have fixed it quietly with us. Silverseren^C 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

All of the revision history around the time (March 1, 2011) of the allegedly defamatory posts has been deleted, so I can't tell whether the IPs cited anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What Say You?

Can someone reopen the merge discussion at Second Ivorian Civil War? The article should be merged into 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis because they're the same articles with different names. B-Machine (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move/rename

Apparently I'm not auto-confirmed yet so I can't do this myself, which is why I'm here. I'm asking for the article Jonathan Marks, Baron Marks of Henley-on-Thames be renamed to "Johnathan Marks (Baron)", as I believe the current title is way too long and not very wiki-like.

Cheers!

Who.was.phone (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this case is start a requested move discussion as described at WP:RM. Also, if you want to know what "wiki-like" titles are, please read Wikipedia:Article titles. --Jayron32 17:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wordy though the title may be, it follows the general naming convention for such people. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting a page

Two years ago an editor redirected Robert Vernon Spears to {Richard Spears. Unfortunately the redirect is wrong. Robert Vernon Spears is the correct name. Here is a obituary for him.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690503&id=GP0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yHsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5150,1886847

How do we redirect the current Richard Spears article over the one that is at Robert Vernon Spears right now? I tried redirects as you will notice- William 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What you need is a history merge. I'll take care of it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

History purge. Am I doing this correctly?

I am not an admin, but what I tried to do was to remove the old history (which had copyrighted content) and replace it with a fresh one. What I did first was to move the page from Synechron to Synechron*, then I copied and pasted the non-infringing content from Synechron* to Synechron, thus replacing the redirect with the content. Finally, I requested Synechron* to be deleted because of a history purge (using Twinkle). I hope this makes sense and that I did this correctly, but the main request is, I would like the old history (Which is in Synechron*) to be deleted. Minima© (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of individual revisions is now done using WP:Revision deletion. One can request deletion of specific revisions using {{copyvio-revdel}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion should be preferred whenever possible. Minimac, I'm afraid that your approach (even in those cases where rev deletion is not feasible) strips attribution. You can't copy & paste non-infringing content from one page to another unless you give full attribution in the edit summary when you do so. (For instance, if all the content was placed by one user, you could write, "All content in this edit created by User:Example" in the edit summary.) Alternatively, you can make a full list of contributors and store it in a safe location.

I only use selective deletion now when rev deletion is rendered effectively impossible by the number of edits that would be affected. For a recent example, the article at Richard Ramirez had a massive copyvio inserted in 2007. Subsequently, the article had 1,283 edits. Rev deleting 1,283 edits is pretty impractical. I used the old technique of splitting the history, placing the deleted revisions (as per Wikipedia:Selective deletion) at Richard Ramirez/deleted revisions. (I did not use a date for the deleted revisions, as rev deletion makes it unlikely that this will happen multiple times.) Standardizing the title to which you move the content is a good idea, since it makes it easier to find in the future.

But, again, revision deletion is preferred and {{copyvio-revdel}} is the way to request this, as Flatscan says. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I realise that my approach wasn't a very good idea, because not only this removes the content, but it also removes the edit summaries and their usernames. I have used the copyvio-revdel template before, but I was just trying a different method to remove that copyvio. I'll stick with my old method the next time I remove a copyvio, as that is easier than the method I've described here. Minima© (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on User:CharlieJS13

Requesting deletion of article on my user page

The article User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Jaffa (1917) should be deleted as the information in it has been incorporated into the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article. Can you please tell me how to do this or arrange for it to be done? Thanking you :) --Rskp (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done — Ched :  ?  09:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In the future you can add {{db-userreq}} to the top of any page in your usespace (except talk page) and an admin will stop by and delete it. GB fan (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yisroel Friedlander creator not informed of deletion by nominator

The creator of Yisroel Friedlander has not been informed of its pending deletion?! Someone isn't following the guidelines. Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, a nominator is not required to inform creators that an article is up for deletion if they don't want to, and besides, the creator, User:Srulyf has not edited since Nov 2008. See this: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, so it was just discourteous. Well what can we expect these days!? Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems likely to be an informed decision based upon a review of the creators edit history - an example of due diligence; however, your response is discourteous and perhaps you should attempt to practice at which you preach. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, how about you stay away from User:Debresser for a while, OK? (given the tumultuous history between you two) –MuZemike 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned editor using WP's email system to discuss topic

LevenBoy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
LevenBoy was topic banned in May 2011 from all discussion and editting about naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, and the British Isles naming topics, widely construed[23] (see WP:GS/BI). Since I implemented that ban LevenBoy has made 1 edit not relating to the topic[24] and 1 seemingly joking coment (on the topic) to another sysop's page[25].
About a week ago I recieved an email through wikipedia's email system from User:LevenBoy raising the topic (in partiuclar his view that another editor is in systematically removing the term British Isles from articles), I did not reply. Today I recieved a second.
It is clear that although LevenBoy is not editting wikipedia he is following edits in the area from which he is topic-banned. And I am concerned that this user is attempting to game the system with their use wikipedia's email system. I realize that emails themselves are beyond the scope of the our control but it is becoming clear that LevenBoy is not getting the message vis-a-vis being a single-purpose account or about pointy behaviour relating to wikipedia. I'm not sure how to proceed, input on the matter would be helpful--Cailil ^talk 17:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Alas - since you were the one implementing the ban, contact with you is fairly proper as long as you assume good faith. Were you not the one implementing the ban, you might have a point, but I suggest you simply allow that contacting the person who made the ban is about as proper as one can get (as it appears he is trying to draw your attention to a user who is making, in his opinion, improper edits). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from Collect, but up to a point. The reason that LevenBoy was topic banned (& placed under civility parole) is his repeated unsourced reversions and incivility towards users who in his opinion are editing improperly, in short violating WP:BATTLE. Hence my problem, as the emails (through the WP system) are displaying the same mentality from LevenBoy towards other users--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Collect on this matter. Definitely worth keeping an eye out for breaches of the topic ban though. The comment at my talk was silly but it was a while ago and not blockworthy, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No the comment (or joke) on your page John was silly and definitely not blockable, however I'm worried LevenBoy hasn't got the message. Anyway, fair enough - I'll respond to his email with a comment on his talk page--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Table is getting out of hand, they won't let me delete anything unrelated

The "Smartphone OS Comparison" table on Mobile operating system (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is getting out hand filled with doubtfully relevant topics such as "Keeps browser state on shutdown or crash" or "Videoconference front video camera". I've tried to delete them with an in-depth explanation but numerous non-member IP-addresses keep reverting my edits(see discussion page and cleaning the table) . My two prime reasons for removing these categories are: 1. They are not that relevant to the actual OS and 2. it is impossible to keep up with that many feature since people tend to find a difference between Android and iOS and add a category for it leaving the rest of the OSs empty; thus lowering the over all quality of the article. What are the administrators opinions of this query?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit to that page was back on February 19th, so your posting here seems to be a bit moot. But I don't believe this is the correct noticeboard for this type of deal as it does not involve an admin. WP:ANI is better suited for this kind of issue, or the content noticeboard perhaps.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about the huge time leap but the situation hasn't become any better since I left it. I posted on content noticeboard but I don't know what other users can do here.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:3O, WP:RFC. I see there was a spat of edit warring a mere three months back (not involving you) which might have warranted administrative action at the time, but even that's long stale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked from blocking

I'm trying to block 74.88.5.96 for 31 hours for vandalism, but keep getting a database error:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Block::purgeExpired". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.46)".

Embarrassingly, the block notice went through without a hitch. Anybody know what's going on? I'm trying it again but I have to run in a minute--maybe the notice alone will scare them straight, haha. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the problem for you was caused by, but my block of the IP was successful. —DoRD (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The database errors happens all the time. I've been noticing more of them in the past couple of months. It usually takes a couple of minutes, then everything's fine after. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. I wish editors at the Content noticeboard were as eager as you lot! (us lot?) Drmies (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop offensive bot

Fixed

Can somebody tell this moronic bot to stop tagging my article and my talk page with deletion/bot warnings? I've created over a 1000 notable articles, and the bot annoyance is preventing me from working on my latest one. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not your article; it is the community's article, and once you hit the "Save page" button, it can be edited by others within our policies and guidelines and common sense. Having created "over 1000 notable articles", you should be well aware of that. –MuZemike 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess he realises that it is not his article. It's just a turn of phrase - you know, like you say our policies and guidelines; which could be taken as not yours. LevenBoy (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter how many articles you have created. There is a community consensus that users cannot remove CSD tags from articles they created. Period. This has been discussed multiple times, and the consensus remains unchanged. This bot was merely carrying out the community consensus. If you thought the tag was placed incorrectly, you could follow up with the editor who placed it, or ask another experienced editor to remove it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a wider issue with the article in question, related to WP:NOENG for the sources. What route should be taken to resolve this? I am hitting similar problems with several India-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using non-English sources, it's just that English sources are preferred. Google translation is quickly and easily available to all, so really, NOENG should probably be remaindered or revised to reflect this. Night Ranger (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for drifting OT here but, for example, GTrans does not handle Malayalam and this is a frequently used language in cited sources for India articles. I have not checked but would be surprised if it does not handle Polish. I am not an admin, btw, but rather a watcher here. My suspicion is that this is the wrong venue but if someone could point me to the correct one then I would be grateful. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think a part of the problem with India-related articles is that NPPers like myself get tired of seeing page after page of unsourced puffery written in horrendously mangled English, which is frankly what a lot of new India-related articles look like (not yours, Sitush, I've seen your work before and it's quite exemplary); I've actually seen the local taxi driver being glorified at least twice in articles about Tamil villages. There was a thread about this on Jimbo's talkpage in February. That being said, I also have seen the problem you've run across, and I think other NPPers would do well to run a Google translate; it's not particularly good, but in my experience it's enough to at least get an idea of whether it matches up with the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Praise at AN ? Glad I am sitting down. <g> GTrans barfs at Malayalam entirely - it is not yet a recognised language. Doubtless it will get there, eventually, and then I will be able to decipher the (apparently) numerous insults/threats of violence etc that are aimed in my direction. Then again, I may not bother ... - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the same issue with Burmese and Karen, I know the feeling. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just a thought here, but why don't people regularly write articles in their userspace and move them to main space only when they're ready to "hatch"? That would minimize conflicts of the CSD-tagging nature like in this situation. --87.78.22.233 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Especially in this case, where Piotrus took it from 300 bytes to 6k within 2 hours. Had he simply waited two hours to click 'save' there would have been no problem. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I tend to use {{inuse}} when I am actively creating a new article. {{Under construction}} works, too, but {{inuse}} suggests more immediate efforts. I've only had one article tagged for issues with the {{inuse}} tag, that I recall. (Wasn't tagged for speedy deletion.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Underconstruction isn't ideal for new articles. As the template doc states, "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content. Instead, the sandbox should be used to develop the article so that it has reasonable content when it is copied into namespace."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Imho, it should be policy for editors to start articles in a sandbox (WP:SB, or one in their userspace) and move them to main space only when they meet the bare minimum standards. That would also solve the problem of "placeholder" articles which is rampant in some areas. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
          • IMO it should be—and actually is—our editing policy that we don't put up pointless or bureaucratic barriers to article creation, like "you can only create new articles if the page name begins with 'User:Example/...'". The problem here is that NPPers (a group that includes a few wonderful people, and unfortunately a bunch of newbies and admin wannabes that make so many mistakes the whole group gets a bad reputation) shouldn't be tagging such articles within minutes of their creation, as we have said in multiple places and on multiple occasions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that no one on this thread has mentioned is that this "offensive bot" was only doing what it was programmed to do. It was warning the original author of an article that they were not supposed to remove a speedy deletion tag from an article they created along with readding the tag per policy. All Piotrus had to do is click on the contest button or even just edit the article with the speedy delete tag in place. The offensive part here is that the article was tagged for speedy deletion 2 minutes after creation. The tagger is who Piotrus should have been upset at, not the bot doing its job. GB fan (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Singularity did sort of mention that. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your right, I missed that comment. GB fan (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe he preferred venting his anger by ranting about the bot rather than a fellow fallible human editor? Maybe he's even a bit angry at himself for not doing what Mdennis' suggested above: Piotrus could at least have tagged the article as being under construction. (However, you're still right that the tagger was overeager and Piotrus is also right in that the tagger could have checked Piotrus' record and made an educated guess about the development of the article.) --87.79.225.139 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kalarimaster

This might get interesting. Anyone who might have been involved in the past might want to chip in a bit. I'm not sure if we don't want to get into some kind of community unban discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked quite a few socks in the past (including three today in addition to one that Tnxman blocked). His modus operandi is to remove a lot of sourced content and add his own and cry foul if anyone reverts. Every sock of his has indulged in disruptive behavior, the three most recent (excluding few edit socks) are Wangond (talk · contribs), David Fraudly (talk · contribs) and Malaikaran (talk · contribs). He's had a longer socking career on wiki than I've been around. As David Fraudly (talk · contribs) he was given an NLT block and subsequently upgraded to a block evasion block and he immediately created the next one. —SpacemanSpiff 09:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This serial socker has now lost talk page access. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse

good job folks — Ched :  ?  00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More community input is needed with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse, as the debate is currently getting out of hand very quickly. From what I gather, some community consensus is needed to determine whether or not sockpuppetry has occurred, absent positive technical evidence saying so. I currently have no opinion on the matter, as I have not looked into the case much at all, aside from two suspect IP edits today, which look fairly unrelated. –MuZemike 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I have reverted the last few blatantly disruptive attempts to re-open this closed case and protected the page. I have directed editors to open a user RFC on BarkingMoon if they feel that his status as a returning vanished user making a clean start in accordance with policy is inappropriate. SPI is no longer the proper forum for this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To add to what Hersfold has said, if the community wants a block, then we need to reach a consensus for a block. In my opinion, anything less than that would be considered "unilateral" and hence "admin abuse", not to mention a failure of WP:AGF. –MuZemike 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a violation of "Right to Vanish" by a former Arb (if i'm reading it right)? Not sure if a sockpuppet investigation is either here nor there (it seems pretty clear who it is). The former arb in question left under a bit of a cloud (major concerns about plagiarism, particularly over at DYK, that were never addressed at the time out of respect to the "vanishing" editor}. Isn't a "vanished" user who returns simply linked to their old account with a redirect or something, and the history moved to the new account? That seems the best course, particularly as there's a chance similar problems will arise.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever comes of this, it would appear that WP:VANISH may need some review, as it states that (bolding included) "The Right to vanish (RtV) means the right of any user, upon leaving Wikipedia finally and forever, to request renaming of their account and deletion or blanking of pages in their userspace....The right to vanish is not a temporary leave or a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction, is not a "fresh start...". This may not be reflective in policy and may need to be tightened to avoid future confusion if necessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment I just left Off2riorob on my talk page has some relevance here; I'll copy it below:

If you ask me, I'm fairly certain BarkingMoon is the user everyone thinks they are. However, if they are, they seem to be making a perfectly valid WP:CLEANSTART. In the absence of evidence that they are being disruptive, which presumably is what the AN discussion is for, they can neither be blocked for sockpuppetry nor any other reason, as their actions are in accordance with policy. From what I've heard from the Arbitration Committee, there is some evidence that my convictions may be wrong, in which case we have no idea who BarkingMoon is. Either way, in the absence of any normal reason to block, [...] BarkingMoon is not obligated to reveal their original identity and any effort to force them to do so is a violation of their privacy, as per policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, now that I read WP:VANISH, it does include that little nuance. In which case I'm not sure what to do here; from the SPI it's quite clear that Rlevse's "vanishing" didn't go terribly well, since everyone knows what the account was renamed to, so does it still count as a vanishing or not? And if so, what is the "penalty" for trying to return? The policy doesn't make that clear. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking why his latest manifestation was spotted in the first place[26] [27]. Attacking me on a page on which I was (at the time) completely uninvolved is a gross violation of "right to vanish." While I am grateful to "BarkingMoon" for attracting my attention to the arbcom leaks, I don't think a former Arb can be excuse behaviour which would not be overlooked in others. The checkusers and the Arbitration committee all know this - so what it the problem? I have no wish to see him blocked, I just like to know thine enemy as he has clearly shown himself to be in order to know who is who Giacomo Returned 22:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Since it's about avoiding scrutiny, treat the BarkingMoon account as if it were renamed (merge the histories there) and put a redirect at the rlevse userpage with some boilerplate that "this count was renamed to BarkingMoon." If people want to bring up the earlier problems at an RFC/U or something. That's up to them. At the time, there was some sentiment that he needed editing restrictions/or mentorship. That sentiment may or may not remain (and it may not be sufficient to see it carried out if so) but that would simply be up to an editor that wanted to get the ball rolling.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially the recommended protocol at WP:VANISH; restore the old account's history and link it to the new account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's a no-brainer. I have the feeling that it might not be treated that way though.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Treat it as "Oh. You meant 'Clean start' nor 'WP:VANISH'." and go from there?

Somehow I think that is an end run around purpose of "Vanish" and the situation that precipitated the editor to chose that option.

"Vanish" seems pretty clear that by choosing that option the editor intends to never return as an editor. Now while situations change and a vanished editor may have a reason to come back, I would think that would require contacting a bureaucrat or similar, asking to "unvanish" and outlining why it should be allowed. Then I can see treating it as a clean start or wikibreak. If that contact and approval is missing here though...

- J Greb (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is (and I don't know if all the CUs share my view) at I know that I don't have any information at all that links BarkingMoon to the former arbitrator, and hence I do not have anything to check against (not to mention I had no stake in the original incident, and I'm not an ArbCom member). I suppose what is being asked here is that all CheckUsers are obligated to make a cursory check on a vanished user to be used for future purposes, but then we risk violating one's privacy in doing so (though I'm sure others are going to say it's nothing compared to the massive ArbCom leak going on), assuming that is not a very good reason in doing so. It feels like there are people on one side screaming "AGF! AGF! Don't BITE!" while the other side is screaming "DUCK! DUCK! QUACK!". I get the feeling of being caught between a rock and a hard place, especially in situations like this.

My concern right now is how are we, the community, going to rectify this? Should someone draft some "findings of fact" and "proposals" and vote on them community-style? Failing that, what else? –MuZemike 22:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

When a returning user takes verbal shots at someone he's had a history with, that is NOT a so-called "clean start". The admins had their chance with the SPI, and they royally F'd it up. They are unwilling to do their jobs, and should resign their adminships immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: I guess there's some wiggle room that it isn't Rlevse. But it's clearly a returned user who's carrying old conflicts about with them (who's refused to name the former account on his talk page and said that's "his final word). If they won't come clean on who they are, then just block as a sock. If they do come clean, reconsider. They could clear this all up by addressing the past accounts identity in a straightforward manner.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Who gives a flying freak who they were? They violated "clean start", and should be sent packing immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So, let's see...

• It's not a comeback from "right to vanish", nor is it a "rename", because in those cases the history has to come along.
• It's not a valid "clean start", because an editor is not allowed to go back to previous disputes, and BarkingMoon did just that.
• Admins know what happened, they know what to do, and they refuse to take action. (Other than locking the SPI page because they didn't want to hear about it; and passing the buck to this page where they're hoping it will fizzle.)
• I'm sure the folks at Wide Receiver are getting a lot of yucks out of the gross incompetence displayed by some members of the admin corps in this case.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Admins know what to do" – they do? I don't think we enforce vanishing. Possibly undo the vanishing. Which can't be completed by crats (let alone admins) since the account has too many edits. Amalthea 23:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not RTV at all, it's a bogus "clean start", and the "privacy" issue is totally bogus. The editor has been deceptive from day one (May 1, specifically). Sockpuppet-like behavior. What do admins do with socks? Hang them out to dry, is what. Or at least they used to. Now it looks like they palm the cases off to someplace where they hope they'll just "go away". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys who think I'm Rlevse are wrong, and I've told you that, but you won't let it go. Nor am I a sock. You keep looking for things that aren't there, just like at the Salem witch trials. I try to edit peacefully, but you keep at and don't even have the common decency to tell me about this thread, which I found by viewing a user talk page. Then you wonder why users, especially new ones, leave in droves. Well, count another new one gone. You condone far more disruptive users than for years because they're in one of your cliques, but me, you abuse and hang out to dry before getting all the info. This place is so full of meanness, prima donnas, and the powerhungry. You guyes deserve each other, good riddance and goodbye. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Just to add that two people who knew him did ask the vanished arb if BarkingMoon was him, and he is apparently insistent that it is not. Your view on this will obviously vary depending on your view of the individual concerned, but it does explain why there was no immediate move to take any action against BarkingMoon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly the IP address was related or we wouldn't be here - the push back and blame directed at contributors that see violations of guidelines is the problem. After being called out on it the user rather get blocked quietly than fess up. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone now needs to go mark that wonderful "AGF" guideline as "historical and obsolete". And just for your information. NO, BarkingMoon was NOT Rlevse. But this case is now closed .. time to go search for your next victim to hang. Absolutely wonderful times we've evolved into when we can just go "get community consensus" to block a user that hasn't violated a single solitary policy that we have here. Gee .. I am just SOOOO damned proud to be a member of this community at one of our finest hours here. /sarcasm. — Ched :  ?  00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was only told that twice the past week on two previous SPI cases in which I apparently didn't – that was why none of the admins involved here, including myself, decided to take no action. But I supposed you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't". –MuZemike 00:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ched appears to support any policy violating previous user that has abused RTV returning and we all kiss his feet because they make some beneficial contributions - even if they return to attack users they were in dispute with previously. Whoever he was he brought it on himself. Perhaps the user learnt something and they will move froward from a different perspective - if not then the wikipedia will get written fast enough without them, whoever they were. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Really Rob? .. you wanna come after me now? .. I'm one of the few that actually DOES know what's going on here. If I for a second thought there was a policy violation, then yea .. I'd stand up for our project. But the fact of the matter is there was absolutely NO policy violation .. not even close. So stick it in your .... (deep breath) ... ear. — Ched :  ?  01:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• And by the way ... the next time someone starts complaining about "transparency" vs. "Privacy" ... please do point them to this thread .. k? — Ched :  ?  01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is Ched, so many admins have lied so many times to protect their friends that some of us have a very hard time indeed believing any admin when he says "trust me, it's OK but I can't tell you why". DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ched, I am not coming after you at all. The best result for the project has occurred and lets all move on - we have not banished the user to oblivion - I imagine if they were to go down their local library or web-cafe and create an account and make a few contributions without going back to the noticeboard attacks they would easily slip under the radar without issue at all. The user attracted attention to themselves with their actions - there was some clear issue with the account from previous historic, the account said so themselves , please don't take it personally as a reflection on you, its not at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The best result? It looks from over here like it was a disaster in terms of procedure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original SPI should have been closed down once it was clear that it wasn't Matisse. A separate case then filed to see if Barking was a returned RTV. If so, the RTV account should be identified and the history transferred. If its not an RTV, then everybody is happy. --HighKing (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted article

Ellen Kennedy has been recreated. Obviously I can't see deleted revs; could some admin compare the re-creation to the previously-deleted version, and act if necessary? Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's about the same person as the first creation of the article, but this one is much longer. The second creation was about a writer of the same name. The current instance doesn't look like A7 material. Favonian (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin intervention to allow an RfC to run its course

I just undid Jechochman's premature closure of a user conduct RfC and warned him on his talk page. RfC's normally run for 30 days. He openly stated in his closure that he was closing the RfC because he disagreed with it, and used a pending RfAR request as further justification. Because he is openly biased about the RfC, I placed his comments in the RfC itself as a "view". I ask for admin help protect the RfC and allow it to run for its full time period and block any editors who try to close it before it runs its alloted time period. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a bad thing to do, because an uninvolved admin had already endorsed the closure. And you are very clearly not involved; you are very clearly deeply partisan and should neither be closing nor unclosing such things. Fortunately your meddling has already been reverted [28]. Back off; if you feel action is needed, get someone uninvolved to do it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[29]? --JN466 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See-also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FCirt William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper thing to do would have been for Jechochman to announce on the RfC talk page that because of the RfAR, they were considering closing the RfC before the standard 30 days. Then, they should have allowed comment for a day or so. Then, if there was consensus, they could have closed it early. We're supposed to do things in an orderly way for a reason, one being so that the dispute resolution process will have credibility and rule of order. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper thing to do would have been for a partisan like you to have stayed well clear of the closure. Anyway, RA is now bouncing back and forth like a yo-yo [30] so who knows what state it will be in by the time you read this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember, there is currently no ArbCom case, so the RfC needs to at least remain open until a case formally opens, if one opens. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest (personally, with my editor hat on, and not my Arb hat on), that I think everyone would best be served with commenting on the Arb request (if you have something to say that will be useful), especially with the questions that are being answered there. That is my suggestion, not an order, not what have you, but it would be best in my eyes to move this through DR. THanks. SirFozzie (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, you're using the wrong set of rules. Content RFCs have a 30-day default timer (solely because the bot can't figure out when a dispute is resolved). User RFCs have no timer at all: "All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved."

I have updated the docs to be even clearer about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your change was reverted (not by me). If content RfCs are 30-days, then it implies that user conduct RfCs are the same, since the page doesn't say differently. I'll start a discussion on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Creation of Húsareyn article

I'm unable to create this article as permission has been denied for some reason. I assume it may have been vandalised in the past?

I'm requesting permission for an administrator to allow me to create this article on the Húsareyn mountain in the Faoreo Islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 000peter (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it was vandalised. The problem seems to be that the article title contains the string "sarey", which is filtered because of Sarey Savy.—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess there's no way of bypassing the filter?000peter (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Y Done I have created the article for you. If you need any more help, let me know. --Jayron32 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request re temporary page

Following a content dispute at 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision, some drama at ANI, and discussion at talk:2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision, I've created a new version of the article at 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision/temp, which now needs to be commented upon by those involved in the discussion. I hope that there will be consensus for the /temp article to replace the current mainspace article.

So far, I'm the only editor to the /temp page. I attributed it on creation to the version of the article it was taken from. For reasons of copyright, I'd like to remain the only editor of the /temp page. Therefore, I would ask that the page be fully protected, and that an edit notice is created requesting that nobody else apart from myself edits the article. If the article can remain with myself as the only editor, it can be copy-pasted to replace the current mainspace article without any attribution needed. Should another editor edit the /temp article, then we get into merge problems, and the necessity to retain the /temp article as a permanent redirect, rather than being able to delete it.

This is the situation as I understand it, but if I'm wrong on this, please say why this is so. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the temp article for 1 week on the basis of Mjroots' analysis above. If I'm misunderstanding licensing/attribution requirements here, feel free to unprotect without consulting me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek. I've added a prominent {{Pp-protected}} template to the article, and placed the request that no other editors edit the article there, rather than creating an edit notice which will need to be deleted once the /temp page is deleted. I envisage that consensus will be reached soon and that the content dispute will then be resolved. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, subpages are not allowed in the mainspace, please move it to the talk namespace instead (without a redirect). Fram (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fram, the subpage was created to avoid accusations of edit warring and to allow the article to be rewritten taking into account issues raised and the fact that certain sources had changed what they stated over the course of time. As we've now reached broad agreement on the article and what it should say, the text from the temp page has been c&p'd into the original article, thus maintaining history. As I was the only person to edit the /temp page, I was at liberty to do this without any attribution problems. As you will see, the /temp page has been deleted as it had served its purpose. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good WP:IAR solution to the conflict, even though it's a bit unorthodox, I think it worked out just fine. I agree that a copy and paste isn't a problem since attribution is still accurate. I don't think I'd ever think to do anything like this. -- Atama頭 18:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, but subpaging is turned off in the mainspace. So for about a day and a half, we had an article titled "2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision/temp". Working draft articles should ideally be in userspace or subpage of talk namespace. –xeno^talk 18:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what I meant. Nothing against the solution for this article, but the temp page could just as easily have been created in e.g. article talk space, where it was allowed, instead of violating the "no subpages" rule. There was no need to IAR in this case. Fram (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request exemption of restrictions

Ongoing conversation at subpage

• To contribute to this conversation, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for exemption

Given the amount of drama that has risen over my NFCC 10c removals I have come up with two solutions that should assist in reducing the amount of drama.

1. A bot that fixes non-free rationales where the file is only used once and the existing rationale points to a Disambig.
2. A talk page notification bot that will leave a message on article talk pages where files are being used that do not meet WP:NFCC#10c requirements, which will be coupled with a dated tagging system to monitor and keep track of the articles that fix the issue.

However due to current editing restrictions I cannot do anything about either issue. My proposal is to get both of these systems in place, and to start to notify and educate users about these issues. If this is implemented I will stop my mass removals for six months to let this program work and hopefully let us get a handle on the issue. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support both of these, absolutely. 28bytes (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Two tasks that should be low-controversy, as the proposed bot would not be editing articles themselves, and should help article editors fix NFCC problems themselves. Courcelles 02:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Delta templating users with bots has never been low controversy.--Crossmr (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  'templating users'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Both of these tasks seem to clearly be aimed at reducing (rather than contributing to) the drama that surrounds Delta. These are sensible solutions to the very problems that creep up all the time, and seems like a wonderful idea to me. --Jayron32 03:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support but also would suggest if the second action could drop a templated message on the image page to put it into a category so that we can a central cleanup category people can work from? --MASEM (t) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The plan is to leave that information in the talk page message (affected files/categorization) since this a per use, not a per file issue most of the time. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• As long as we are filling a category with affected pages, that's important to getting the community to help clean up. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was planning on a system of dated categories and paced system of tagging to get things under control and not overwhelm it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a category and notification system for these problems would allow for people to find and fix them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose primarily due to the implied threat that the mass removals won't stop unless this gets agreed to. Perhaps more sensibly, I oppose as there is no reason that Betacommand's restrictions need to be lifted for these tasks: Make the source available, and let someone else run it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If I haven't read too quickly, it seems there is nothing in the proposal that will not let another user run such a bot/process. In fact, that's what I thought he was implying when he said "due to current editing restrictions I cannot do anything about either issue" and that he wanted to get the processes in place. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Fetchcomms, my proposal is for me to write and run the bots that do this, it is just too much headache to have someone else run the code, because I do not have control of it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Would it be safe to assume that the code would be available to review by selected editors and/or open for this? (just thinking 2 steps ahead here ...) --MASEM (t) 03:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I have always had a simi open policy with my code, If a trusted (who I define as trusted) requests to review the code I am always willing to do so under specific conditions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hm, OK, then I'd like to see a trial procedure (like during the BRFA) before definitely supporting this, but the idea seems good in principle right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Ive already done some manual edits using the information from the Disambig code see [31] for a bunch. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support (with comment / procedure clarification). Good idea! #1 should also fix cases where the rationale points to a redirect. #2 should leave a record of all images removed (by adding a category to the article / article talk page or updating a log), so that concerned editors can inspect each removal and decide whether to add an appropriate rationale and re-add the image, or else conclude that the use cannot be justified so the image should not be re-added. When finished inspecting an instance of image removal users would mark that instance as resolved by changing the category / log. The image would not be deletable as an orphan pending inspection. While you're making bots, how about one that detects non-free use rationales that point to articles that don't actually contain the image, or does that exist already? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC) but... I don't intend my support in principle for this as a stand-alone idea to be read as supporting overturning editing restrictions, approving the ongoing actions that began the administrative complaints, or this thread as a possible process fork in conflict with consensus elsewhere (see comments below). -- Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  If you can get a working bot that does image removal without fucking up more than 1% my hat goes off to you. Right now Ive got my removal rate down to between 5-10% way way too high for a bot, and that has take a good part of three years to get it that low. This proposal is just for talk page notification NOT removals. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • For clarity, I don't think that Delta was saying that #2 would remove images, only tag pages. I would expect that we could come up with a community process to remove images after a period of time (2-3 months to start, 1-2 weeks afterwards). Delta could clarify this though...--MASEM (t) 04:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks for the clarification. Frankly, I don't think it's all that important to have a community process before the images are removed so long as there's a good central record of them and people can come back and review them in an orderly way. It only becomes a mess when the only way to figure out which articles had images removed is to look through contribution records of people known to be removing images. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Anything to make sure that the community knows what is going on and can lend a hand to clear the backlog as fast as possible (as it's not an admin task), the better off we all are. That's why if we don't remove images until after a certain period of being tagged, emptying out the category as we go, there's a lot less mess at the end of the day that no one gets upset when removal actually occurs. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support both proposals. Good ideas! JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Views such as this ("I have always had a simi open policy with my code, If a trusted (who I define as trusted) requests to review the code I am always willing to do so under specific conditions.") are bad practice for any programmer, and totally unacceptable for an editor working on Wikipedia articles, especially when they're already subject to strict restrictions concerning their (mis)use of bots and making rude comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sharing of code is not a requirement for a bot operator on WP; that said, Delta has been asked to open his code before to trusted editors for review as part of Arbcom (IIRC), and thus why I believe making sure this is a requirement here for these bots is a necessary and logical extension to that. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • In all my time operating bots I think I have had two cases where someone asked to review my code, I gave it to one person, and the other I knew was unable to review it due to their lack of technical ability, and thus I denied their request. The reason I keep my code under wraps is Ive see what good code in the wrong hands can do, just ask those who remember the squidward vandal or willy (WoW). Both of those used code to a very effective manner to disrupt the encyclopedia. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • So, almost no-one is qualified to understand what it is that you're doing? Sounds like a good reason for you not to use any bots. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good solution to the ongoing issue. Monty₈₄₅ 04:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Past experience demonstrates clearly that Betacommand is not qualified to write a reliable 'bot. --John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Past experience also has shown that Delta is very capable of writing bots that are reliable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, behaviour should improve before any restrictions are lifted. —Kusma (t·c) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  This is not about lifting restrictions, this is a temporary exemption from it for 2 specific tasks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, then I oppose the temporary relaxing of restrictions before I see an improvement in communication with people who use non-free media. While the suggested task may be a good idea, there was considerable support to have Delta stop any non-free content work (in a different forum). —Kusma (t·c) 09:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It sounds like this might be useful to at least trial, to see how it would work in practice. I'm curious, though: how many files are believed to have 10c problems in practice? Masem talks about a "backlog", though the list Delta previously seemed to be working through seemed to be quite short. Is there in fact a huge backlog? (In which case the bot might have to be throttled, to work through at a managed rate the community can keep up with). Or are we primarily talking about new files uploaded each month, plus a few that have their rationale links accidentally broken by page moves?

Finally, given Delta's chequered history and current restrictions, if this does go forward, we should perhaps insist on it only doing so under close probation -- i.e. under the supervision of an experienced and trusted mentor, who if necessary could stop the bot at will; or require any aspect of the bot's running to be changed, messages to be made friendlier, Delta to be more responsive, or anything else that might lead to a generally happier environment. Jheald (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• • One other suggestion. When files are identified as having a 10c problem, it may be of value to add a category corresponding to their copyright tag, so eg a category "logos with a 10c problem" or "album covers with a 10c problem". This would make it easier for editors to work through and review particular types of file using eg FurMe. Jheald (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - May I suggest that we have a bot-readable tag in the talkpage notices, or maybe even a template which has the 'violating' images as a parameter (image1=, image2=, image3= ..) so that it can be bot-updated when the 'violations' are cleared. Then also the categories can be easily emptied when violations are sorted out and chances of multiple editors going to pages where the first editor arriving already solved the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with caveats.
  1. The bot must have a working stop button. (Not necessarily specifically a problem with Δ, but I've seen bots with a nice, big, red, stop button which didn't work.)
  2. As noted by Jheald, this should be under close supervision and on probation.

     What Jheald called "probation", I call "supervision". By "probation", I mean that it should be easy for a few Admins (not necessarily one, but not only the supervisor) to shut down the bot until problems can be resolved; if Δ doesn't make it possible to do without shutting down his other bots, those might need to be shut down, as well. On the other hand, Δ should be able to appeal "supervision" change demands. (In other words, Δ need not be a slave of his supervisor.)

  3. If the bot makes one serious mistake, it must be shut down until someone vets the code. (See, I don't demand, this time, that the code be approved before running, only after a mistake.)

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  I would like to add that, if there is a clear consensus is established that Δ should not be doing mass removals (and I believe such a consensus has been established), then he will "stop my mass removals", regardless of the results of this request. It might be considered to override, in this instance, his running mass operations, as long as they are not "removals". I'm also concerned by his File: space edits around 00:00, July 3, 2011, in which he removed something which claimed to be a rationale, and then tagged the file as having no rationale. Someone without Δ's baggage could justify doing that, but Δ should not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Oppose for now (in light of 3RR violations.[32][33][34][35][36] I just don't think we can count on Delta right now avoid flaunting whatever rules and constraints we may insist on to avoid errors and disruption. Whether we ever can remains to be seen, but I'm not prepared to make a leap of faith that this won't be disruptive when the current reality is disruption. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as I do not feel Delta is, alone, capable of operating a bot dealing with images without causing mass disruption. I think we should first advertise to see if any other user would be willing and able to create and operate such a bot. I may lean towards support if Delta were to operate it under the conditions suggested by Arthur Rubin, however. Strict supervision, easy shut-off and zero tolerance for serious errors are all a must. Delta should not be free to pick and choose (if you will) how the community deals with him. --Dorsal Axe 08:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  note: see [here for a slow test run of this]. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• oppose and Delta should be blocked for forum shopping. There is a current active proposal where the majority of participants support his being topic banned from NFCC work. This is nothing more than an attempt to do an end run around that.--Crossmr (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How is this forum shopping? There is exactly one place where this request is posted, and exactly the one place where this request should be posted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How is it not forum shopping? All of Delta's topics were moved to the subpage. Rather than continue there he brought it to another noticeboard so that it was separate from existing proposals to try and get a different result than what is currently there.--Crossmr (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That was an ANI discussion, this is something that belongs on AN. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is something that belongs with all current Delta discussions, and it's an irrelevant proposal in the face of an existing supported proposal which would preclude him from doing this work. it's disruptive to post a completely contrary proposal in an entirely different venue.--Crossmr (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - But implement a throttle so that the number of file-prods are manageable. Agathoclea (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with caveat: in addition to the usual WP:BRFA, Delta should develop and test the bot (including code sharing) under the supervision of a user who is sufficiently technically competent to be able to give effective support and supervision. (I think DirkBeetstra might be suitable.) Testing should involve appropriate caution about throttling and error-checking (which is to say, given past controversies, very great caution). I'd also have concerns about throttling beyond the testing stage (i.e. not to overwhelm the community's ability to keep up), but that's a matter for the BRFA, not here. Rd232 public ^talk 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  Though I am certainly willing to have a look as well, I would suggest that also another editor looks into it. Note, many 'mistakes' that a bot makes are not visible in the code, but show up during a run, and I find it unlikely that things are really going to break due to these edits (there may be some mis-tagging or wrong disambig repairs, but not on a massive scale). Response to real mistakes is important, if disambigs are wrongly repaired but it could be caught, then that should also be important, but otherwise - better having a talkpage tag for an article with a minor 'problem' in the rationale then the other way around (and I have seen that Delta's checks are pretty forgiving, more than mine). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support but suggest some consultation on the wording of the message left on talk pages. Thparkth (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with particularly strong support for both a trial phase and a commitment to a working stop button.--SPhilbrickT 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• support— Ched :  ?  11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This sounds like a reasonable exemption to perform an uncontroversial (and very beneficial) task that is well within the skills Delta has evinced in the past. WP:BRFA should be able to handle this through their normal processes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I have serious reservations, because of Delta's history, but if these bots are successful, and Delta can keep cool and minimize his personal interactions with endusers, they should take some of the strain off the philosophical conflicts that underly the fair-use divide. The proposal is in the spirit of fixing as preferable to deleting, which I believe is a good thing. My concern is that Delta needs to approach this task with a much less confrontational attitude, and I would urge that if and when ArbCom approves an exemption for these projects, that it is linked to a very strict civility parole, so that Delta understands that if he goes off the rails, the projects will be shut down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support ... —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. Delta currently runs a bot (User:Δbot) at WP:SPI to update case summary and I have yet to hear a single complaint about the bot went amok or ticked off any editors. It is evident to me that if a clear goal with clear instructions are listed, his bots are good at handling repetitive tasks which are too tedious and unappreciated to be handled by humans. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, SPIbot is not a good exemplar, since its "customers" are clerks, admins and checkusers, not rank-and-file editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose even though they seem like reasonable tasks, for three reasons: first, the implication of some sort of deal that Beta will stop making mass removals if he gets to have a bot, especially when there is an active proposal to topic ban, which would stop the problem of Beta making mass removals anyway; second, refusal to release source code or let anyone other than Beta run the bot. As I recall, the problem is not that it's a pain to givr someone else code, it's that Beta has built his software on top of a proprietary framework he's not allowed to release anyway. History shows that Beta ties his bots together so that individual tasks cannot be stopped, it's all or nothing, and I see no different proposal here, and no provision for oversight that I can trust, just whatever Beta thinks is right; third, I see no great need for a bot here, at least right at the moment. Beta is already allowed and capable to run whatever software they want and put the results onto a single page for others to view. Why not do that first? That would be a lot better way to verify the error rate, and other people are free to pick up the list in AWB and do the templating work if they wish to. If this software will be so good, why not write it and work from a log page to prove it, instead of insisting on the price being lifting of the bot restriction? More broadly too, it seems a little worrying that when many reasonable people are saying that Beta needs to slow down and develop his communication skills, Beta's counter-proposal is to instead be allowed to make edits more quickly and in a way where they will need to communicate with others even less. Both the tasks look pretty reasonable on the surface, especially if the second one used project categorization - but we should be able to see what will happen before getting back into the Beta-bots issue. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And BTW, if a bot can fix FURs as described in task 1, then those FURs are by definition "machine-readable" and thus already fully compliant with the WMF resolution. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fran I dont think you are following my post. I never stated that I would stop mass removing at all. Rather I stated I would stop for 6 months, to give a good window for things to be identified and fixed. If things are not fixed (or there is no real progress being made) after a given time mass removal will be the only option left. Hopefully the tagging and notification will negate the need for that, but I really dont have my hopes that high. But I can at least have a pipe dream even if I dont think the success rate will be that high. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So can you implement your bot idea as I've outlined, where you deposit your results onto a (AWB-compatible) page so the results can be examined and acted on? You cvan do that today, there's no need to let this discussion reach a conclusion. Write your bot without the editing bits, let's get it running and start fixing the wiki-problems. Franamax (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

AWB is useless for the most part and would be ineffective for this task. Ive had a list up at tools:~betacommand/nfcc/rationale_missing.log.old for quite a while. (that list is a little stale and needs updating) to do the notification and cleanups AWB just really isnt suited for that kind of ask. As for the disambig repair its not really machine readable, its using several guess algorithms to check and try to repair rationales. Thus it still fails 10c. If we are going to get a system of tagging that actually works and is maintainable AWB is not the software to start the process with. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

AWB is useful for things that people other than yourself might find it useful for. My mention was soely that the text in the page be plain, so that it could be copied as a list of AWB targets for other people. I'm sure you have other means of producing such lists, and I'm equally sure that many other people are competent to use that output. Can you produce the page of "task 1" targets, where there is one unlinked FUR on the image page and one article-image which doesn't have a matching FUR? Yuo could have that done before dawn, right? It seems a fairly simple task, given the framework you've developed over the years. Then we could get on with fixing stuff, using humans. Franamax (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I havent run task 1 logging let, Ive still got a few kinks to work out and I really dont have time to do any real coding for probably the next six days (I may get some time Friday but Im unsure about that). Once I get some time to really review and get the code out of the alpha stage I can start to post the results of that. But again AWB is not the right tool, we do not want to see someone using AWB to add mass generic templates to files. AWB has several good qualities but Ive looked into using it for similar tasks and Ive come up far short of what is needed. If you want just save the log file and open it in a spread sheet application, its a tab delimited file with ARTICLE\tFILENAME\tCHECKSUM ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can pump out that task-1 list to a log page, alpha-guesses or not, I think we are a huge way to ironing out these problems. Let's knock down the easy shit first. Yes, there will be human interpretation required on a lot of these one-versus-one FUR mismatches, and that's where you can really help by spewing out a list for others to look at. Don't put too much credence on my mentions of AWB, I'm only vaguely familiar with it and my impression is that it is good for doing things with lists of article targets. Each editor is still responsible for their own use of same, so as long as that editor is not yourself and is willing to answer for it, I don't see a huge problem. What interests me more is that you may be able to do up some software that lets us address the (relatively) simple problems with NFC compliance without all the buraucracy of a BRFA. It would be nice to get the trivial(er) stuff out of the way so we could see where the actual problems are. Franamax (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support -N^oformation ^Talk 08:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support for #1, no opinion for #2 - this task is clearly well defined; I can't see any mistakes likely to be made. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• oppose exemption from restrictions --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Subpaging

I attempted to subpage this to the existing central discussion area, as per the heading currently at the top of ANI. Please note that when I objected to that subpaging (given the ongoing debate on the topic band and the trend towards accepting it) I was told "everything should stay in one place." I'm curious then why Beta chose to revert this subpaging? It appears on the face of it that proposals to strengthen sanctions must be hidden away, but those to ease restrictions must stay here. Beta says on my talk that he'll continue to revert "because it shouldnt be moved." Can we either have the topic ban discussion back, or put this discussion there, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My vote is to leave the AN/I threads at their subpage, and leave this thread where it is. As long as this thread continues to proceed in an orderly fashion, there's no reason to move it. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a brief explanation of how this proposal relates the the huge quantity of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 which it is claimed by Beta/Delta to be the solution to? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because there is the common element of Beta. Note that not only does this proposal lift restriction without any good reason to do so, he's explicitly said he'll edit war to keep it here and won't do the simple steps (open code) to get the job done without lifting the restriction. It's ludicrous. And the proposal to keep him away totally from all things NFC was trending towards a topic ban before it was subpaged. How is not obvious that there is "vote supression" in these actions? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaron please stop you mis reporting of facts, it was 60/40 which is a no consensus finding. As for releasing the code, its my work so I can do whatever I want with it, I choose to respect WP:BEANS. Ive seen my code reach 5,000 edits an hour before, I would really rather not see that type of code in the hands of vandals. and writing debugging code that one cannot run makes the process about a 100 times more difficult. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It was more than 60.40, and getting more so over time. But we digress: It's a totally transparent excuse that you need to run the code here in "production" rather than in "development." Build a local wikimedia copy on your machine. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's misrepresenting the discussion. While there was a small edge in people seeking a ban on Delta, it was clearly a no consensus result. The resulting discussion pointed out that people just didn't like Delta removing images with edit summaries and not helping to fix the easily-repaired ones. Delta's solution here addresses the machine-identifyable cases of disamb pages (and presumable redirect pages too), and also removes the act of "removing", and instead tagging so they can be fixed. Get the bots in place, and this is no longer a function Delta has to perform, and thus the concerns of that discussion are 75% quelched. There's other issues in the longer run, but this solves the bulk of the problem. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, this is simply another example of two-edged justice: When images are non-compliant on a "technicality" the NFC zealots get out the banhammer, but when Beta "technicaly" exceeds his restrictions multiple times it's all love and kittens. When a discussion is trending towards supporting a topic ban (which it was, it's pretty clear) it's off to the sub-page with you, but when yet-another-distraction appears we'll edit war to keep it there.

Five days ago I was only mildy interested in seeing some clarity on this issue. The closer I look at this the more I see thuggish and unrepentant behaviour. Congrats on converting another person from "reasonable" to probably percieved as "frothing-anti-Beta." At some stage I'd hope that you enablers would notice that this change is not restricted to me, and begin to think about what the common denominator is.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, and that's a misrepresentation of the discussion. There is a clear majority in favor his topic ban, and if you want to talk about the quality of arguments the vast majority of people opposing it are making irrelevant arguments and in any normal debate would have their opinion discarded for doing so. Bots are not the solution, the solution is to remove the source of disruption from the area it's disrupting--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny because when someone wanted to make a new complaint about Delta above it was forced off to a subpage, now that delta wants to make a proposal we suddenly allow it on the main page? No double standard at all.--Crossmr (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically I was mass removing files that did not meet our non-free content policy specifically WP:NFCC#10c. Some of these where caused by rationales pointing to the wrong pages, and there where complaints about people not being notified (which is not required). I developed both of these approaches to assist in reducing the drama levels. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 04:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• This thread should be subpaged so it gets put into its proper context. —Kusma (t·c) 09:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be here, and I believe that also the sub-paged topic-ban discussions should be on the noticeboard, clearly where everyone can see it, not not hidden away where only a few will find it. These are things that the whole community has to decide about.

Aaron, "When images are non-compliant on a "technicality" the NFC zealots get out the banhammer, but when Beta "technicaly" exceeds his restrictions multiple times it's all love and kittens." - or in other words - "When Beta does something like "technically" exceeding his restrictions while actually doing nothing wrong, the selected lot do take out the banhammer, but when images are "technically" non-compliant (or even, simply non-compliant) with NFC all is love and kittens.". Yes, Aaron, I agree that there are double standards here, that is what I have been saying all along, and maybe they are there on both sides. Nonetheless, many of the images that are non-compliant with NFC are not just 'technically' non-compliant - a lot of them do not have a rationale for the use written down at all (though some could be created but that is what many editors ignore), a lot of them will never be compliant (but they are there anyway, and editors knowingly and willingly ignore it), there are simply plain violations out there which are there for years without anyone trying to repair them, despite all the requests to do so. And similarly, when there are open discussions which are nice and friendly, no-one is talking about Delta, but as soon as Delta gives one unsatisfactory answer, it is all fire and hell, and all good remarks and discussions get ignored. And when Delta does bring things in line with the policy (following one of the ways to Rome), it is all fire and hell, while all editors should be doing just that: editing in line with policy, bringing pages in line with policy, and keeping pages in line with policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if you haven't realized it yet, it's because of the WAY that Delta tries to bring them into compliance that we have this discussion. It is not about the fact that he's bringing them into compliance that is the problem, it is how he does it. That is what the currently supported ban is based on. I noticed in your list of "non-compliance" you conveniently left out the kind where rationales are broken by page moves or typos. These are "technicalities". Images that are otherwise fine, or even had been fine, but currently have a small error. From my random sampling of images I've been working on, this seems to be a great majority of them, and frankly I'm beginning to wonder how things really break down, because it seems that the often used argument to defend him just doesn't really ring true on any level. There is a double standard and it's mostly perpetrated by those supporting Delta. People are right to hold him to account for his actions. He is under sanctions. It means his actions are going to be scrutinized and reacted to more than a normal editor. That is the point of a sanction. He was supposed to show an improved behaviour and then at some point the sanctions could have been lifted and things would have gone back to normal. An editor on a 1RR sanction isn't allowed to go to 3RR because everyone else is. An editor under civility, rate limits, and editing care restrictions is held to higher standards of good editing in regards to those things because of past issues. He's repeatedly failed to meet those sanctions. Yet, people will trip all over themselves to claim it's not really a big deal and we should just let him be. They'll try and defend him to "the letter of the law" as an excuse for his behaviour, but the moment it's applied in the context of his sanctions..well. you know...he's Delta..he's very valuable...he's right! if he doesn't do it one of us will step in and start acting like that so you might as well let him continue, you people just don't like NFCC, etc.etc.etc. No Aaron is dead on. And the foundations directive is being used as a club to try and silence anyone who disagrees with Delta, but no where in the foundation's directive nor the policy is there any direct support for what Delta is doing, nor is there community support. You simply cannot deny that we have a majority supporting his ban from NFCC and until that proposal is closed this proposal is nothing more than an attempt to get around it. The community was actually on the cusp of finally having this problem dealt with once again, but we've had someone come in and improperly close the discussion, then had it tucked away on a subpage, and while it's hidden out of site we have Delta himself coming onto a main noticeboard to make a completely contrary proposal.--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not ignore typo's and page-moves. By far most of the page-moves get detected, and hence you do not see them in the list, typo's are another point, easy to repair, indeed - the page-moves that subsequently result in a disambig are there (and if I look through your repairs, I don't think there are many where you repaired move-broken rationales other than disambig ones). And if I go through your last edits in File-space, I do see quite a lot of 'add fur' (though not the majority - but I am not counting the ones where you did not add a fur because you could not (but notified an editor or a talkpage about it, and not the ones that you removed). All in all, difficult to count (I am at the moment working on writing a script to honestly count this).

All in all, Crossmr, there is a lot of clubbing either way. And either way there are arguments being sifted, selected, either read to the law, or things ignored. And as maybe I am selecting that NFC should be enforced, and that I have the opinion that everything has been tried and nothing worked, a lot of others select that Delta is a rude and uncivil person - while for both stances there are a lot of counter examples available as well. I don't think that anything is getting anywhere, we are not getting anywhere with having Delta removing all images, we are not getting anywhere with banning Delta, we are not getting anywhere if Delta does not get banned but does not remove images, we are not getting anywhere. The only place we are getting is to a lot of bashing back and forth, people yelling at each other (or at Delta) .. People are so preoccupied with shooting Delta, that all positive is ignored, and others are so preoccupied to finally do something about enforcing NFC that maybe all is ignored as well.

Regarding this: yes, people are moaning that Delta is not trying to work with the community to solve a problem, and when he is then suggesting yet another approach you say "we have Delta himself coming onto a main noticeboard to make a completely contrary proposal" ... what do we want here, do we want Delta banned, or do we want to fix NFC? (let me guess, 'we want to fix NFC, but without Delta' ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are two separate things. We can fix NFCC without Delta and delta has had years to fix his approach. Again: The ban proposal is about his behaviour, not about NFCC. NFCC will continue to be enforced by editors who are capable of working with the community. In fact both of those things should go forward, Delta should be banned from NFCC as having exhausted the community's patience over the years over his method of dealing with it, and NFCC should be given a better image by users actually contributing in a community positive manner. Delta has shown repeatedly that he doesn't want to do that. If he did, then 3 or 4 years ago would have been a great time to do it. But it's just continued relentlessly. By banning Delta from NFCC we are removing his ability to cause repeated disruption by his minimum effort (per image) approach. What NFCC needs is not what Delta is selling. NFCC needs is users to go out and hit the streets and interact with users on a personal level to repair the damage that has been done it to it by this kind of editing. You simply cannot deny that NFCC has a very poor image on wikipedia. Many people are not fond of it and that's a direct result of these kinds of problems for which Delta is chiefly responsible. So once again, two issues: 1 - Delta's chosen behaviour for enforcing NFCC 2 - NFCC needs a better image and handling to improve the project, articles, and image compliance. Both completely separate and not reliant on each other. While Delta is not technically violating the NFCC or 3RR policy with his behaviour, his chosen actions, which are NOT mandated by NFCC policy are the issue with number 1 and why it's proposed he's banned from it. I can't really say that any other way.--Crossmr (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think this conversation is inappropriate, as it should have been begun at the point of the ongoing topic from WP:ANI. Just because a page has been subpaged does not mean it is no longer an active incident; that's why we put "unresolved" at the top and eliminate the timestamp. Opening multiple conversations at different boards on the same subject is frowned upon. Since efforts to join this conversation with the rest have evidently already been undone, I am instead transcluding linking ETA: As with ANI, the conversation overwhelms loadtimes. I received an e-mail request about this. the ongoing conversation above. That said, Crossmr, if you are implying a "double standard" here (as you seem to be doing above), you are assuming bad faith of me, as I'm the one who "forced it off to a subpage." If you believe I am exhibiting a double standard, please provide evidence; otherwise, please remember that WP:AGF is required. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't read that as pointing to you at all, the double standard bit? You've been consistent, and I can totally respect that. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe you're right, I owe Crossmr an apology, if when he wrote "Funny because when someone wanted to make a new complaint about Delta above it was forced off to a subpage", he literally meant "above" on this page and not my subpaging. There's been a lot of activity on this in the last day, and it's hard to trace. Unless it was the same person who subpaged, though, and resisted subpaging, I don't know that the "double standard" bit is fair.
      
      Given that Xeno notes below that this conversation should not be here to begin with (but at VPR), I think subpaging this as well would be appropriate. What is not appropriate is divorcing the conversation from context. I am uneasy at not having them together. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The original subpaging was fine and appropriate - it was descending into the same arguments over and over with no clear resolution. And while I appreciate the need to keep everything in context, I think Delta's proposal here is sufficiently important (not only because of his restrictions but also to put a major resolve to the entire matter) that it needs more eyes, which subpaging simply would not allow for; even pointers can get lost in the noise of multitopic talk pages. Yes, it needs to be prefaced with the pointer to the subpage to understand where that was heading, but even then, Delta's proposals can be understood without that. Everything could have been better handled, yes, but we're here now, there's a solution on the table, we should focus if that is the right one. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • This proposal is nothing shot of disruptive in the face of the other current supported proposal. Putting it here adds to that disruption. I can't see how that is "important". We've got a discussion that has been open for 5 days where over 60% of editors support Delta being banned from doing this work. Having this competing proposal here on a main page is only going to create further disruption when they both have to be closed. As soon as we actually get an admin on the subpage who is uninvolved who can close it, it immediately makes this one moot.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Regarding this, I am totally uncomfortable with having banning discussions subpaged. I believe that these should be fully in the open, on a page which many editors have watchlisted, to encourage especially those who are previously uninvolved with Delta to participate and give their view - except for editors with an interest in Delta few will find out that there is an active banning discussion going on there. I do agree that the two c/should be in the same place, though (although, this request technically belongs on the Village Pump (proposals) page, and not on AN, AN/I or a subpage of them, which would preclude that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thats the biggest problem I have with subpaging too. The only editors that will see it are those that are inimately involved in teh ongoing discussions so subpageing the discussion almost assures that no new editors (or at least very few)will get involved and it heavily stacks the deck in favor of one side of the argument. At this point I feel we have invested too many hours in the discussions anyway and someone needs to jsut make a command decision and we can all move on. Either way, no matter what happens, someone is going to get their feelings hurt but these discussions have gone on long enough IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Interestingly we've still had a fair number (8 or 9 I think) of people come by the subpage and give their opinion on the ban since it's been subpaged, and it would appear the majority is even clearer now that that has happened.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Two comments

First, this really belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I understand the desire to have it here, or combined with the ongoing subpage, but it needs to be at VPR per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions #1. Second, as a reminder, if consensus is developed for these two proposed tasks, another amendment will need to be made to the Arbitration Committee's provisional suspension of the community ban placed on Betacommand (now Δ), similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ. And successful BRFA(s), of course. –xeno^talk 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive posted a note on VPP, and an arbcom request is not needed, just community support. (take a look at their last exemption, gave approval for all BAG approved tasks.) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate; I've now linked it. –xeno^talk 13:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Xeno is correct, a single bot project - the SPI bot - was permitted by ArbCom. Other automated editing projects will need additional ArbCom exemptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, should have double checked it, vs going from memory. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have ArbCom to settle disputes that can't be solved by the community? And if so, can't the community decide to grant exceptions from ArbCom? Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom is the "court of last resort" for those who have been sanctioned by the community, but the community cannot override ArbCom sanctions, or else arbitration would not provide the finality it's supposed to provide to disputes that the community hasn't been able to resolve. However, historically, when the community displays clear consensus to lift sanctions, ArbCom does not stand in the way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cross posting from Edit warring noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 Sorry for the crossposting, but this discussion is everywhere... I've placed a notice at the edit warring noticeboard concerning Delta. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Invisible deletion template

Hello, I have an issue that's been bugging me all day. I've been keeping the speedy deletion queues clear and there is one page that persists in showing as a user-requested deletion that doesn't have a tag on it. The page in question is at User:Go for it!/Teleportation chamber.

Just a bit of background, from what I have gathered, this is a user sub-page that was deleted 5 years ago by the request of the page creator. It was deleted on April 2, 2006. Yesterday it was restored per user request (even though the editor has been inactive for 5 years, maybe they now edit under another account, beats me, but that's not really important). Of course, when it was restored it still had the deletion template request, but that was removed shortly after restoration. Yet, I can see that it still belongs to the CSD and DB-User categories, and it keeps showing up on the admin dashboard as a deletion request. I've dissected that complicated page numerous times and can't find anything in it that would still put it in those categories. The deletion template was removed almost 24 hours ago so it shouldn't be a database lag issue or anything.

Can anyone with better wikininja skills figure out what's up? It's really vexing to me, and I'd like to know what I'm missing here. Thanks! -- Atama頭 00:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the CSD request appears on some transcluded template or other sort of transclusion; the CSD request can be categorized "downstream" if the deletion request appears on a page which is later transcluded onto other pages. I have occasionally run into this myself. --Jayron32 00:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, somebody fixed it shortly after I posted this because it no longer belongs to those categories. I thought it might be a transclusion issue but I wasn't sure how to figure out where. Either way, it's fixed now, thanks for the reply. -- Atama頭 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. The whole thing was a mess of transclusions and also somehow it didn't occur to me that after restoration the speedy templates would still be there. I'll stand still for the trout. --Danger (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, this is a technical question of why a page is in a category and/or how to remove it, which requires technical knowledge in the software - and not a question for administrators. It should have been posted in the technical section of Wikipedia:Village pump. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed this was one of those numerous things that most admins know about that I'm ignorant of. I'll consider asking in a more specific place next time. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags

Does Kumioko (talk · contribs) have (or need) approval to add WikiProject United States tags to hundreds of articles at a time? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add the related question "Is it really conducive to a project's value to the encyclopedia to cast such a wide net?" It looks as if Kumioko is marking each and every article that's in any way related to the United States as being under the project's purview, which would result in a huge number of articles being the responsibility of the project, many, many more than could reasonably be dealt with by a WikiProject. I would think it would be better for WikiProject United States to deal only with those articles which are specificly important to the entire country, and leave other articles to be dealt with by more tightly focused WikiProjects. The model here would be the relationship between WikiProject New York City and WikiProject New York (state). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Kumioko is an active member of the WPUS project. In the end, it should be up to the project what criteria they want to use for tagging their articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not questioning the right of the members of the project to decide what the project's scope is, I was questioning the wisdom of their decision (or their apparent decision, as indicated by Kumioko's actions). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there have been internal(?) disagreements about the project's scope in the past; see especially, most of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States/Archive_6. As an FYI, Kumioko's AWB access was recently restored after being removed for cause; partially related to WikiProject tagging without adequate consensus. I have not reviewed this situation in detail so cannot comment on whether this is a regression to past problematic tagging. However, as the administrator who both removed and then restored his access, I will say in advance (as I will probably not have an opportunity to review this thread again) that I do not object if an administrator feels his AWB access should be removed again following this discussion. –xeno^talk 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to comment here at another ANI. Was busy in real life. To answer the first question I have no bot approval and IMO I do not need it either but if its required for me to do this then let me know and I can support that but I would have done this long ago if it didn't take months for bot tasks to be reviewed. I would request that I not need to do it for every task though if possible. I could create a list of the articles I plan to tag currently for review.

To answer the next question/comment I have not tagged all articles relating to the US but I have tagged content relating to the projects being supported by WPUS, I have also been tagging content that contains United States, US, U.S. or in some cases American in the title (there are still more to b tagged that fit this criteria). I have no intention to tag all the articles in all the states or most articles relating to US Roads, NRHP, and a number of others. There has been some overlap of tagging as I add projects to the supported projects list though.

I understand that some people have a problem with the scope of the project and that's ok but part of the reason I restarted the project was to help to cover some of the inactive and defunct United States related projects. Also speaking of scope for a moment, WPUS has just over 100, 000 pieces of content, of that about 41000 are actual articles. For from the massive project that its being made out to be. Especially not when we compare it to the mammoth WikiProject Biography with 930, 000 pieces of content, most of which are articles. Yet no one is screaming that project is too massive and unwieldy nor are they complaining about WikiProject Military history and its 114, 000 articles. The large scope is contentious I grant you but not unmanageable and not the scourge of the pedia.

The last issues mentioned by Xeno relates to the projects debates about scope. That was not an internal debate, That debate was mostly by people outside the project, specifically one user, having a problem with our projects scope. The other issue mentioned relates to my access of AWB. My access was briefly revoked true but that issue was resolved and was also due in part to hurt feelings about the scope of the project, the rate of my tagging and the types of edits. All have been resolved.

The end goal of this project is to improve articles relating to the United States. If you are not interested or you have a problem with the scope thats ok. There is no requirement for you to join the project nor help with it if you are not interested. We are all volunteers and we all choose the topics that interest us. I would submit to you however that with over 130 current members, not counting the members of the additional projects that WPUS supports, that the scope has consensus with the project members. So you will excuse me if it does not bother me as much if editors outside the project don't like the scope.

With that said, there are currently 8 more projects on my list that could be added to WPUS in the next few months including a couple states. I am only adding them to the supported projects list after I contact each member of that project, start a discussion on the projects page and if the project members want it. Some projects are very active (like California and Oregon), some are not and need help (like South Carolina and West Virginia).

Now aside from arguments of scope and mass tagging, we are doing a lot of good work in the project and more editors are always encouraged to join and help out if you are interested.

I am also growing a bit tired of this project bashing, constant complaints about scope and bickering, etc. we should be here to improve the articles not argue about this foolishness. I would also encourage you to not revoke my AWB access unless you are willing to take on the burden of the tasks I perform using it including but not limited too: Sending out the newsletter (which I need to automate via a bot I agree), tagging articles for WPUS, performing maintenance on articles in the scope of the project (AWB general tasks, cleanup citations, add infoboxes and portals, add persondata and categories, reorder sections to meet WP:MOS such as See also before references and External links after references. revoking my access would effectively kill WikiProject United States if that is your goal all it will take is one stroke of your admin powers and the project will be effectively dead andn all the article improvements, newsletter, collaboration, portal, noticeboard, etc. right along with it. I would suggest that you make your decision carefully and wisely.--Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this conversation bears directly on the scope of the project I included a discussion string there for the members of the project to comment. This will hopefully clarify to all, including me, what the other members of the project wish the scope to be and avoid others outside dictating what they feel our scope should be. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is consensus within the WikiProject itself that your tagging is appropriate, I agree and support the ability of WikiProjects to set their scope or narrow or wide as they wish. Though, having it done from a bot account would be ideal - to reduce impact on watchlists and recent changes. –xeno^talk 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to tag any articles until this AN is completed! This includes the 2 projects that were just added to the support list of projects supported by WPUS in the last couple days nor the 2 more that I have pending. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO (and speaking as a listed member of this WikiProject), I think this WikiProject (or at least Kumioko) has cast much too wide of a net, and I don't agree with a lot of the tagging. Automated tagging also is problematic. Back in January I started a conversation about the related topic of bot-like article assessment for this WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Assessment#Importance ratings are out of whack after I discovered that many of the bot-like importance ratings were obviously nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for what the scope should be? --Kumioko (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Internal project discussions about scope should be held at WT:WPUSA, with a view to achieving an active consensus. –xeno^talk 03:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That was one of the things I commented on back in January. Racepacket added extensive additional comments. IMO, the project would do well to focus on topics of U.S. national scope or that span state borders (such as Midwestern United States) and that are intrinsically related to the United States. There's an enormous potential scope there for a single WikiProject to address without distractions from articles about TV shows, popular songs, archaeological sites, neighborhoods, individual Medal of Honor winners, sports, and other topics that may be related to the United States but can be more effectively addressed by existing "supported" WikiProjects that have narrower scope. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Folks, seriously step back and try to take in the lameness of this issue. This is exactly a WP:BIKESHED issue; there's absolutely no need at all to raise an objection to somebody adding a tag to a talk page which identifies the article as dealing with topics related to the United States if, in fact, the article does deal with topics related to the United States. It has absolutely, and unequivocally, and with no inkling of a doubt, absolutely no bearing on the quality of article text whether the tag exists on the talk pages or not. None whatsoever. So, at worst Kumioko is silly for adding it, which makes people who object to his adding it an additional layer of silly (raising objections over an inconsequential action is at least doubly as inconsequential as the first action) and if Kumioko finds the template to be useful, why do we wish to stop him? Seriously, this is the biggest non-issue I have seen here in a long time. --Jayron32 03:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a proud tradition on Wikipedia of objecting to mass actions done via AWB. Why stop now! :)

Anyway, I didn't think that United States Academic Decathlon had to be tagged. Why was it? NW (Talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because maybe Kumioko found it useful to tag it. Let me flip the question back to you: Why is it so important that it NOT be tagged that you would find it necessary to remove the tag from the article? --Jayron32 04:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If K's actions are silly, and my inquiry about them is sillier, then perhaps silliest is a meta-discussion such as yours, Jayron. Issues were raised, questions were asked, answers were received ... all well and good. There's really no need to denegrate such good faith discussion by belittling the participants and unnecessarily extending the discussion in a totally different direction. Better, I think, just to chill a bit and allow the conversation to die down naturally, or get redirected to another venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you say about the inherent silliness of my level of contributions to this issue is in any way inaccurate. --Jayron32 06:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nuke, because it has the term "United States" in its title. Ergo, it should be tagged! ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Most (all?) American states have their own WPs. IMHO, like categorisation, articles tagged for WPs should go as far down the root system as they can. Articles under WP:US should therefore be those which are about the country as a whole, whereas those specific to one or a few states should be tagged with the relevant state WPs. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We should all be dropping barnstars on Kumioko's talkpage instead of starting an AN thread. He has resurrected an important project, updated the portal, and fought off a nasty troll at the project. With his inter-coordination of the US child projects IMO he epitomizes esprit de corps. This "issue" is really an internal US-thing. And believe it or not, I have a bone to pick with with K: he keeps breaking the wikiprojectbannershell. Anyway this guy is making a difference: let's try stay out of his way, ok? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Kumioko erroneously tag articles that shouldn't be tagged under WPUS on quite a few occasions. I wouldn't attribute this to using AWB necessarily, but pausing to think of whether an article should actually be tagged before hitting "Save" would be quite beneficial. --Rschen7754 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Mjroots - The problem is that there is no problem with multiple projects tagging the same article. For example, Take the Barrack Obama article. Which of the 20 or so banners do we tell they don't rate to be on the article because another project tagged it. WP Hawaii maybe, or WP United States? There is more benefit to multiple projects tagging an article than having 1 or none. Also in regards to the state projects, some are active, some are not, some city projects are more active than they state project they fall under. So should we really be adding a banner to an article of a project that is inactive or should we be adding the banner of a project that is active and has intent on working on the article?

Reply to Rschen - The statement of erroneous tagging is again an issue of Symantics. Is the Declaration of Independance out of the projects scope because it predates the 1783 creation of the United States? Should it only be in the United States History WikiProject?

Reply to Multiple - The larger issue here aside from my mass tagging iis should WikiProject United States act as an overarching project to help support the other US related projects that are Defunct, inactive or struggling? Should we simply let dormant projects die rather than pull them into a larger project like WPUS and give them support to keep them going? Why are we even making such an issue out of projects? Whats the purpose of them? Is it to generate discussions about scope, on how one project is stepping out of bounds and how this article shouldn't fall into that projects scope because this other project already has it? I would argue the answer is no and the important thing is the articles! The articles are what we are working ot build, not the projects, the projects, portals, newsletters, collaborations, noticeboards, etc. are all just tools to help us manage, maintain and construct articles! Not to burden our users with unnecessary and meaningless aggrivation. We should be encouraging people to participate not discouraging them. Regardless of the intent of this discussion it is a huge waste of time because it has been said time and time again in multiple discussions by multiple people that projects are free to set thier own scope, they are free to tag the articles they feel are in that scope and contribute how they wish too within the bounds of the guidelines of WP. If a user feels I am wasting my time then thats fine they are free to think so and its my time to waste. --Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like this discussion is pretty much over and all interested parties have had a chance to speak their piece. Can someone close this out so I can finish tagging the articles in the two projects that were recently added to the supported projects list for WPUS. I also may be adding 2 more small projects based on some discussions in MFD for WP:Franco-Americans and WP:Asian-Americans. I will be out of town a lot of over the next month with limited or no internet so if I don't get them tagged in the next few days they will have to wait till august when I return and have internet again. --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with multiple parties: it seems to me that Kumioko is casting too wide of a net, but it's not really something I'm interested in, and I see no good reason to object to someone biting off more than he may be able to chew. However, Lionelt's comment is perhaps that with which I agree the most: it seems like we're always castigating Kumioko for allegedly problematic things and never praising him for what is undisputedly a lot of great work. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The why of tagging

It seems to me that the issue boils down to 'why' articles need to be tagged, and that there are two competing, and unfortunately contrary, influences at work.

1. If the purpose is to direct editors to a place where they can ask questions before they make a change, then it is better to have as few tags as possible and make them as specific as possible so that the editor can easily select the right venue.
2. If the purpose is to attract the attention of editors to the page and help improve articles, then, perhaps, more tags are better than less tags because they broaden the population of editors being made aware of the article.

So, which is it? If it is both, then we'll just have to leave it to individual article talk pages and projects to pull and tug their tags this way or that. --rgpk (comment) 16:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO There is a little more to it as well. The project tags also allow the article to fall into the scope of the project for things like Popular pages, recent changes, recognized content, article alerts and others allowing the project to have visibility of the article. This helps with Maintenance, it helps with identifying what the good content is and what could be improved, and others. By removing the banners, these articles disappear from these various different tasks thereby less maintenance is done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. On the face of it I can see that it is better to publicize something like an AfD to a wider audience, albeit one that has some interest in the subject matter. But, wouldn't a bot that posts a deletion notice on the New York City project automatically also do so on the New York State project. Or, to put it another way, is there an inbuilt notion of sub-projects similar to categories? --rgpk (comment) 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, different tags for different projects so if the article has the NYC tag but not the state tag the state wouldn't know about the AFD. --Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You can have "sub-projects" (see WP:TASKFORCE), but you can't actually force one group of editors (say, WikiProject Texas) to merge with another group of editors (say, WikiProject United States). A WikiProject is a social group of editors who like working together, not a subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The many reasons to tag articles are summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. Multiple bots depend on these tags for everything from deletion notifications to WP:1.0 statistics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On a practical note: The importance and quality assements that are part of the banners allow editors to select articles to work on. E.g. an article marked of High or Top importance but only of Stub or Start class will need attention. (The importance rating is relative to the project, an article might be of high importance for one project but on the lower end of the scale for another.) Agathoclea (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help with a disagreement

I am currently having some trouble with a user reverting my edits when I add teh WikiProject Banner to various articles they feel are out of the proejcts scope. The user in question is User:Markvs88 and he/she insists that articles prior to the 1783 establishement of the United States are not in the scope or interest of WikiProject United States (eventhough he concedes that they might be for WikiProject United States History) because the United States did not exist yet. Therefore, in his opinion, articles like the Mayflower, American Revolutionary War and things that happened prior to 1783 shouldn't be tagged. He is not even a member of the WPUS project (although he does appear to be a member of WikiProject US Government which WPUS supports). He has already tried to gather support for his opinion here but knowone else agrees and he continues to persist in his arguments. He has even pointed to this discussion in his arguments saying that there was consensus and agreements with him there and there clearly wasn't. One user even came back to say that he was misinterpreted and wanted to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried some of the steps noted at WP:DR, such as RFC, request for third opinion, WQA, or any of the other noticeboards or processes designed for this exact thing? There's two issues I see: 1) There are currently at least 3-4 discussions about the scope of WPUS spread out across multiple noticeboards, and/or the behavior of individual people involved in the debate over said scope of said project. Its becoming a bit like WP:FORUMSHOP, and as the discussion bifurcates over and over, it gets harder to follow. 2) Unless an administrator is needed to use an administrator tool right now to fix a problem (i.e. block someone, protect an article, delete something) or act as an impartial judge in closing an existing discussion (i.e. admins usually are needed to close RFC or AFD discussions, though many processes do not explicity require an admin to close them), the admin noticeboards are not normally the correct place to raise issues such as this. If you have a problem with another user, seek outside opinion from other editors using the non-administrator aspects of WP:DR such as mediation, or WQA, or whatever process works. Admins can be used to step in and enforce the conclusions reached through dispute resolution processes, but admins have no special power to act as "judge and jury" when deciding who is right and who is wrong in a dispute. --Jayron32 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I have User talk:Markvs88 on my watchlist, I have been following this disagreement (with dismay over its pettiness). I wish to point out that the focus of your disagreement with Markvs88 is not on Mayflower and American Revolutionary War, but rather on some less iconic topics like King Philip's War and List of Colonial Colleges. I also see that there has been some battling over whether Connecticut-specific articles including Blue Laws (Connecticut), Connecticut General Assembly, and Charter Oak deserve to be tagged as part of the U.S. WikiProject. Honestly, I'd have more respect for the U.S. WikiProject if it focused on improving encyclopedia content regarding the United States, instead of marking territory by adding templates to articles that do not have broad relevance to the topic "United States" and are already included in multiple WikiProjects that are listed as being supported by WPUS. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Jayron - Well yes, Markvs88 submitted an RFC where knowone agreed with him so he just started his little crusade to undo my edits. I agree there are different discussions but they are all different topics because a couple of people, most of which aren't members of the project and some rarely edit articles don't like the scope of WPUS. IMO the AN above started by Sarek about my edits was a direct result of Marks activities as evidenced on his talk page.

Frankly Dispute resolution is a joke and a waste of time and nearly everyone knows it. Arbitration is just the same but takes even more time. So basically what your telling me is I just need to deal with his harrassment, and continue to edit war with him? I'm not sure what else I can do besides that. I have tried to explain things to him but he refuses to listen arguing his fringe theories about project scope and reverting my edits. The policy clearly states that any project can determine its own scope and that project may tag articles they feel are in that scope. It does not say that other editors who disagree should feel free to revert the edits (which are also undoing other improvements to the page BTW). But I guess thats not a policy that is enforceable maybe. Or not enforcable today?

What I am about to say is no reflection on you but I think its kinda funny that when I do something an admin will immediately revoke my AWB rights, submit me to an ANI or block me out right. But if I come with a problem with another user I am told to deal with it and suck it up (this is not the first time I have been told this). All I am trying to do is grow the project and improve the pedia and the articles in it and I have to deal with time wasting discussions and clowns who want to revoke my access, revert my edits and bicker about project scope. Its really a shame and makes me wonder why we act so surprised when we see that our editors are walking away at an increasing rate...A couple more years and Jimmy will be the only one left.

Reply to Orlady - Your right in one respect and that is that knowone seems to care much for WPUS. Maybe its me, maybe its the discussions, maybe its the scope. I don't know. What I do know is that knowone helps with the Newsletter, only a couple help on the portal, only a couple help with the collaboration and only a couple help with various other daily tasks. So if I am doing such a poor job then I recommend some other editors (such as yourself perhaps) step up and help out so I don't feel like I am making all the decisions. When I leave comments on the talk page of the project they go unanswered, so I assume that I am doing ok and knowone has a problem. If they have a problem, speak up, thats why the discussion is there, not to hold it over my head in discussions like this. On the points that you bring up about articles, if you give a mouse a cookie hell ask for a glass of milk. Either these articles are in scope or they are not, if they are not, thats fine, but the arguments given for the reasons they are not would exclude a vaste number of extremely important articles like the American Revolution and Declaration of Independance. So if I agree to Marks that yes the WPUS project should not go beyond 1783 then all these get thrown out because regardless of importance they are out of scope. Also, what happens if WikiProject US History gets added to the supprted projects list in the future. Sorry WPUSHistory but we can't support you because the articles in your project are out of our scope. Many of the connecticut articles Marks had a problem with were added because they were in the US Government or US Governors when we added them tot he supported projects list. The same will happen when we add a couple of the states. Do we then tell these projects that in order to support them they have to agree to drop any articles in their scope prior to 1783 when the US was formed. Of course not, who would agree to that. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't a joke and a waste of time to go through the proper escalation process. If all you have is "I say so-and-so is wrong" and so-and-so only says "I say you are wrong", what do we have? What you need is a collection of otherwise uninvolved people, that is people who don't have a stake in one side of the arguement or the other, and those people need to give an impartial opinion over who is right and who is wrong. That is called dispute resolution. There are literally half a dozen possible outlets where that exact process can go on, and this noticeboard isn't necessarily one of them. There's nothing in any of that which requires an administrator, it just requires you caring enough about being correct in your opinions to gather support for your opinions from otherwise impartial editors. All you are saying here is "I can't be bothered to prove that my opponent needs a block by getting some impartial judgement on the matter. I still want admins to take action." Quite simply: No. Admins are not going to take action simply because you were the first of the two parties to complain to the admins. If you had, prior to coming here, gone through the trouble to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everyone thinks you opponent is behaving badly, and then your opponent continues the same behavior, we'd be able to act. Right now, however, all we have is your singular opinion that he is behaving badly. Seriously: What action do you want admins to do to help relieve your situation? None of the three admin tools I have availible to use (blocking, protection, deletion) seem to be justified in this case, so I seriously have no idea why this discussion is at this noticeboard rather than at a more appropriate one... --Jayron32 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but let me counter that with how do those tools apply to the "Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags" discussion above? Would the argument you present also be valid for that discussion as well since those tools would also seem innappropriate for that topic as well? Perhaps my lack of administrative tools is the reason theh discussion is not warranted. Perhaps simply warning the editor that edit warring is not ok. Perhaps telling them that WikiProjects are free to set their own scope and tag the articles in that scope as policy doctates? Or perhaps asking the editor to open a discussion at the appropriate forum and discussing the matter (as I have done, although granted perhaps in the wrong place) rather than simply continuing to revert a good faith edit? I believe those are the things I would do if I were an admin. But since I am not I will leave it up to those that are to decide on the best course of action they feel is appropriate, which may in fact be, to close this AN as unwarranted, uninterested or undesired. I apologize for my tone but as I mentioned before, I have been vlocked and had rights stripped away on the sheer whim of an admin but when I take the time to lodge a complaint its dismissed so its got me in a fairly foul opinion of the process. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I once offer the opinion that you were doing anything worthy of sanction in the above thread you cite? I think if you read closely, I clearly said that there was nothing for us to do regarding your actions, and that you shouldn't be bothered. I don't see how my position there is inconsistent with my position here in any way... --Jayron32 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies my rant wasn't directed at you at all but the situation. You have been very consistent and fair I would say. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies back atcha as well, I was ranting a bit too, though at a different situation. Wikipedia's admin boards (this one and ANI) have become the place where other editors "run to get mommy" when things don't go their way. If the dispute resolution process doesn't work, its only because people refuse to use it, and instead jump straight to "tattling" on people at the admin boards, expecting summary punishment to rain down from the admins. Admins don't hand down punishment, and, I don't know how often I can say this, the role of an administrator is not to be a "supereditor" whose opinions matter more than non-administrators. Let me bold that. The opinions of administrators do not carry any more weight than the opinions of any other editor at Wikipedia. If all you want is confirmation that you are correct, and the person who is opposing you is wrong, administrators don't carry any special powers which can do that for you. For that reason, the admin boards are not the place to take a dispute like this. Admins can only do 3 things: We can block, we can protect, and we can delete, and unless one of those three things needs to happen now, there's not really a need to have a discussion on the admin notice boards about a dispute. Sorry, I guess I ranted a bit more there, but this is an all-too-common misconception about what it means to be an administrator around here. We aren't your parents, we're just your colleagues. --Jayron32 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a WP:Guideline that directly addresses this issue. You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. It says that if a WikiProject chooses to support an article (e.g., by wishing the bot to notify them if it's put up for deletion), then someone outside it may not remove their banner. You may not remove the WikiProject LGBT banner from Eleanor Roosevelt, you may not declare that Alternative cancer treatment is outside of WPMED's scope, you may not declare that folks at MILHIST are not welcome to take an interest in the biography of Archduke Ferdinand. The basic rule is very simple: You don't get to decide what they are interested in.

The only question that needs to be answered here is "Is Markvs88 actually a member of this particular social group?" If the answer is "no", then Markvs88 is being disruptive, violating the guidelines, and needs to stop. If the answer is "yes", then the group needs to continue its conversation about what is within the scope—and if they decide that these articles are within its scope, then Markvs88 either needs to go along with the consensus, or to leave the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it says "Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." This is not equivalent to "you may not remove their banner".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It wouldn't make much sense for a rule to disallow "outsiders" from removing a tag, since anyone can join any WikiProject at any time, and, as far as I know, there's no way the Project can force them to leave. Since that is the case, it's trivially easy for any "outsider" to become a Project member and therefore be authorized to remove a Project tag. If there's a dispute about a Project tag on a specific article, the question should be settled by an open consensus discussion, just as every other conflict is supposed to be settled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the objecting editor could join the group, although that effort at gaming the system basically never happens. Even if s/he declared himself a member, the one editor is still only one editor, not the WP:OWNer of the group (or the article). If the other members say that Example is an article they want to support, then they are allowed to tag it—even over the objections of a newly joined "member", or the objections of the regular editors at the article. Nobody except ArbCom or the community as a whole has the right to tell a group of editors that they may not take an interest in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is Markvs88's view of the situation

• A wikiproject is a group focused on improving the articles of a *particular* subject. The Wikiproject: United States History is a seperate project that works in the area of history. I have no problem with it tagging articles on United States history, nor do I mind WPUS overlapping on any articles AFTER the US existed. Note, that the WPUSH's mission is to "To serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to the history of the United States in Wikipedia." as opposed to The "mission statement" of (see Wikiproject United States) they describe themselves as: "We are a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance". Which means something must be "United Statesian" to be considered a part of the project.
• The United States did not exist before 1783, (or, as I've said many times: I'll grant 1776 as valid date too). Either way, the United States has a START DATE as a nation, and therefore the WPUS cannot go around tagging articles from before 1776, nor tag articles that don't have a regional/national significance.
• For months, Kumioko has been tagging articles that do not relate to the United States. I reverted them, such as Talk:George Wyllys (CT colonial governor, died in 1645, was never an American) and the 14 others from Talk:List of colonial governors of Connecticut. Note that I taken pains to ONLY revert tags of articles that are definitively NOT within the scope of the WPUS -- that is, stuff before 1776.
• Now, why are they not relevant to WPUS? You can see my debate points at these locations: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States governors, User talk:Markvs88 and a few others, but to sum up: Governors of Florida that were installed by various Kings of Spain for 250 years and were not citizens of the United States, much less US Governors. The United States did NOT fight in King Phillip's War, and at that time Connecticut, Rhode Island & Mass WERE all colonies loyal to the King of England. Christopher Columbus discovered Hispanola, Ch uba et al for Spain, and never set foot on what would become United States soil, and even if he'd had... he would have been dead for 270 years. May as well tag Clovis Culture for WPUS at that point, as far as I'm concerned. And hey, if Columbus is, then I guess Juan Ponce de León was an US explorer too? Needless to say, none of these topics are the least bit "American" in nature.
• In the regional/national significance mileu: I'm sorry, but the Connecticut Senate and its elections are NOT a national issue -- you must be a CT resident to vote in them or be a candidate!
• Please note that I have no problem with WPUS per se, and that I routinely remove other inappropriate project tags on articles when I see them. As a member of the WikiProject Connecticut, I had a stake in every article I reverted.
• In my view, Kumioko is blindly tagging anything that ever was, occurred, or is on US soil as a WPUS article, and sometimes other articles such as Talk:U.S.S.R. national rugby union team as well. He does not seem to stop and consider (given he tags hundreds of articles at a time) IF an article should really be included, he just assumes everything is inherently "United Statesian". I wonder how many other Soviet articles got tagged?

I am happy to discuss this with anyone, either here on informally on my talk. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, well and good. Could you address one more point: How does Kumioko's tagging of the article talk pages in question have a negative effect on the quality of the article text the reader sees when they come to read the article? --Jayron32 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Jayron - Thank you. Quite simply: the wide majority of readers on Wikipedia are novices. Some of these become editors. If an editor goes to a project and asks for help on an article, will the get it? In the case of articles that are in scope, sure. I doubt many WPUS editors are going to jump at the chance to do research on Connecticut Senatorial Elections or obscure Governors of Florida. I'll ask you a similar question: how does it benefit? The tagging of articles not within scope of a project also runs afowl of Wikipedia:No original research as well: there aren't any possible citations that can be made in ANY of the articles I un-tagged WPUS from that the Unites States was ever remotely invovled in them. It's a total lack of WP:Verifiability.

If Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico started tagging every article invovling the areas of California, Nevada, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas & Colorado, would there be no complaints? How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia for every article in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California? Is there an end? Can Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia & Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic tag every article on the Moon because Eugene Cernan was of Czechoslovak parentage? I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here: that a project must have some reasonable association with a topic to tag an article. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the stuff you mention is still just a behind-the-scense political pissing contest with no bearing on article content. I never said that I found there personally myself to be a benefit to the tag. However, if Kumioko finds for himself personally there to be a benefit to the tag, why do I have the right to tell him he doesn't find the benefit in the tag. That makes no sense. If it doesn't harm the article text (and you, so far, have still not stated how it harms the article text) and if Kumioko himself finds it helpful for him to help in maintaining the article, where is the harm? How is the article text itself worse because the tag exists? And if someone from Wikiproject Mexico was going to start maintaining articles about California, why would it matter if they tagged the article's talk page or not? If they are taking responsibility for the article, how does that make the text at the California article worse? --Jayron32 17:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron: You've made this point a number of times, and, of course, you are correct: tagging does not have any immediate appreciable effect on article content, it is indeed a "behind the scenes" kind of thing. But, of course, what happens behind the scenes can have an significant impact on the quality of the Wikipedia experience for the editors. In that respect every argument between editors, every incivility, every snipe and snap and arcastic remark doesn't directly effect article content, but is still (possibly) appropriate subject matter for AN or AN/I when things reach a certain point. For that reason, I would say that it's not particularly helpful to continue making that point repeatedly, since the noticeboards deal with many things which don't have anything to do with article content -- in fact, content disputes, per se, are routinely deflected.

But in any case, I should explain that, yes, the question is silly, but no, it matters. Kumioko is given credit for revitalizing a moribund project, and that's great, but it seems to me that his unbridled tagging is probably not the best way to go about it, as it is as likely to bog down the project as it is to get it going again. Military History can handle their very large number of articles because they've got a very large number of editors, which is not the case with WPUS. Better, I think, to be a little more controlled in throwing the net, and getting better quality in a smaller number of articles, that mediocre quality in a much larger number.

That's my opinion -- as I said above, I wasn't questioning the project's ability to decide how broad their mandate was, just questioning the wisdom of the choice made. After seeing on my watchlist any number of quite silly tags placed by Kumioko, and laughing it off, I simply took the opportunity of SOV's "bot" comment to broach a comment of my own. I wouldn't have opened an AN thread on it, but I took advantage of an opportunity. I trout myself for opening a can of worms, but it also seems to have uncovered a possible dispute/behavioral problem, so there you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • @Markvs88: The argument that events before 1783 which were seminal in the formation of the United States are not part of "United States history" is a remarkably silly one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply to Beyond My Ken - Thanks for such an erudite opinion! So... do you care to share WHY you think so? However, if you wish to discuss individual examples, I'm all for it. What I'm against is a blanket "everything that has ever happened is American". Again, is Clovis Culture WPUS? If yes, then I may as well start tagging everything Wikiproject Milky Way Galaxy. If not, thanks for seeing a bit of rationality, now how about we come up with a workable solution? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Since Clovis Culture wouldn't qualify as being "seminal in the formation of the United States", I would agree that it is not appropriate to tag it for the Project. However, all of Colonial history, the French and Indian War, the voyage of the Mayflower, etc., all of which occured before 1783, are very pertinent to American history and are appropriate to be tagged for the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • @Markvs88. I think you need to reread the projects mission statment. It says "topics related to...and with an emphasis on. I don't believe that means articles prior to 1776 can't be tagged nor does it mean that articles with regional/national significance can't be tagged either. Some articles prior to the formation of the US would certainly have relevance to the US. The tagging of Juan Ponce de León or Clovis Culture would have some relationship to the US, as would Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis, Mayflower Steps and Runnymede. The tagging of Juan Ponce de León or Charles Cornwallis by the US Project would in no way indicate that either of the two were citizens of the US. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Reply to CambridgeBayWeather - And I think that "related to" means "RELATED TO". Why do you think that? Of what possible relation is Talk:George Wyllys, a colonial Governor whom was dead 130 years before the Declaration of Independence to the US? How can you possible defend tagging Clovis Culture? If you're willing to do that, what isn't WPUS? Magna Carta and thousands of other (unrelated) articles are all closer to WPUS than that. On the flip side, you're saying that you're for tagging United States for WP:WikiProject Greece because the founders took their ideals of Democracy from ancient Athens. Where does it all end? I think some sense of scale is necessary here... how thin a relationship is enough? Because for these articles, the relationships are non-existant. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • On the specific points of the articles mentioned before by Markvs88 I would like to say that the specific reason I tagged Talk:George Wyllys and Talk:List of colonial governors of Connecticut are because they fall under WikiProject United States Governors which is now directly supported by WikiProject United States. This is true of a number of others as well when projects such as United States Government was added and will be true if others are added. On the specific issue of the Talk:U.S.S.R. national rugby union team articles. This was an error due to tagging articles that contained US and U.S. (I remove the roads related ones and have spoken with them about tagging the roads related articles and redirects as their project), United States or in some cases American (but I scrub a lot out of this list as not related). Its true I have tagged a few like this and normally I return and fix those. I run through every piece of content associated to WikiProject United States every single month so if I don't catch them on the initial tagging I will almost always catch them when I do the updates. They should be rare but there are a couple I am sure. I have also tagged a number of articles as relating to various states and to Milhist. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply to Kumioko - And they're still not US Governors... they didn't send taxes to the US government as there was no federal structure at all. And that's what I keep getting at. I'm not against inclusion of *some* events before 1776 if they are of direct relation to the project (ie: Boston Tea Party or Intolerable Acts. But there is obviously a limit. Not everything that ever happened on what is now United States soil is of a national, US interest. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • They were colonial governors in territories that would become the original states of the United States. I think the association to the scope of the project is pretty obvious and warranted. Were not tagging the King of England during the Colonial era, were not tagging the British people or ships that participated in the American Revolutionary War (although a couple of the people and ships might be warranted due to their role in certain key battles but they would be by exception and not rule). I still think your making this into too much of a black and white situation when its more gray. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"A wikiproject is a group focused on improving the articles of a *particular* subject. "

No, that's actually wrong. A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. They do not have to focus on "a particular subject". Most of them do, but "WikiProject Our favorite articles" or "WikiProject Articles we found through Special:Random" is perfectly fine. The scope doesn't have to make sense to anyone else. We encourage logical scopes, but it's simply not required. (Additionally, many WikiProjects focus on particular kinds of editing, regardless of the subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... What about Wikipedia:WikiProject: "A WikiProject is a project to manage a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia." ? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With all of the work that needs to be done on this wiki it boggles the imagination that Markvs88 is expending so much effort over such a trivial issue as project tagging. So the justification for engaging in what appears to be a slow edit war over numerous articles is that an editor may ask for assistance at the project talk page and that query could go unanswered? Don't you have anything better to do? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you're weighing in, you obviously don't either. It boggles the mind that someone would take the time to ask such as silly question if they actually READ everything the poster (me) has written about this. (So: Just because you think it's trivial, it doesn't mean everyone else does.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, except that pretty much everyone does think its stilly as can bee seen by the responses above! --Kumioko (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This seems to be going beyond the scope of AN, and focusing on minutiae. From what has already been discussed, this dispute probably needs to go through WP:DR, but I don't see anything that really needs admin tools to fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's because there were three distinctly different discussions that were all merged into one because they all pertained to WikiProject United States. I don't have the time nor desire to move this huge discussion to another venue nor do I desire to restart it from scratch.

Since the discussion has verified the questions submitted I am going to go ahead and continue to tag the articles and if someone feels that I am moving too quickly or whatever then just let me know. As I mentioned above though I will be gone for the large part of the next month so I don't have the time or desire to discuss again the symantics of whether a project does or does not have the right to tag an article. Especially since that has been repeatedly verified in multiple venues by multiple different editors.

As for bot like edits. I use AWB to do a lot of tedious tasks faster rather than relying on manual edits so if there is a solid number of articles that should not be exceeded by an AWB user per day (100 is ridiculous, I would suggest something like 1000 as long as they are meaningful and meet the other criteria) then let me know and enforce that across the board for all users, not just when the mood strikes. This is especially true if you want to slow the growth and development of articles in WP so it takes longer to build them up! (Sorry for the slightly sarcastic tone there). --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And I will continue reverting those tags on articles clearly out of the national scope that you so tag. That you came into this with no desire to even contemplate a compromise shows bad faith. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing for RfC

Moved to WP:ANI#User:Marine 69-71 since this is an incident and discussion is spread over several fora. Not notifying individual users under the assumption that whoever watches AN also watches ANI. Hans Adler 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Two RfCs for allowing bureaucrats to remove the admin bit

Two related Requests for Comment are now open to discuss giving bureaucrats the ability to remove administrator user permissions under specific circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag proposes enabling the technical ability for bureaucrats to do this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy proposes the specific policy conditions under which they would be allowed to use that ability. Please visit both RfCs to give your input. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Rage against News Corp

In my opinion this account has been set up to vandalize. User has only had a few edits but clue bot has identified at least one as vandalism. This user has targeted the main News Corp page. Can I suggest an admin looks into this account and ban this user if they reach the same conclusion as myself. I would also recommend a semi protection on the news corporation indefinitely because we don't know how long the fallout will last on the news of the world closure and the events that led upto it. That way only auto confirmed users can edit the article. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

Blocked indef. --Golbez (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Insults made by user Zeddi30

I would like to report insults by user Zeddi30 which he made against another user on Bernard Tomic talk page at the 07:50, on 7 July 2011 (UTC).--Bbrezic (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a formal warning. -- Atama頭 04:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Audit subcommittee summary report, October 2010- June 2011

Cross posted and expanded from the Audit subcommittee report.

From late October, 2010, through June, 2011, the Audit Subcommittee on the use of suppression and CheckUser reviewed a total of eleven cases.

• Three cases were not within the scope of the AUSC.
• Two cases did not involve the use of CheckUser or suppression by a user with advanced permissions.
• Two requests were denied.
• Two requests alleging abuse resulted in endorsement of CheckUser and/or Oversight.
• One case was overturned, and a best practices notice sent to the oversight mailing list and to the oversighter in question.
• One case was closed and sent with a recommendation to the Arbitration Committee.

For the AUSC, Keegan (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Pic for ITV night time thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Network

I have to highlight this, the page does not some pic, there provided and enhance the article. Simple: picture can tell a thousand words. I have notice the user that started this own mess off has been highlighted by someone above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%94#User:.CE.94_and_unnecessarily_impolite_measures_to_make_a_point

I expect it may have went a bit over broad, but it did fully highlight and also made it alot clearer, to readers. But to get rid of the whole lot is well going over broad, I would like to ask that a bit of middle ground can be made?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs)

There is a discussion on the way on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

News of the World discontinued

Just a heads up, it looks like News of the World will be discontinued after the next issue, and it's likely that the website will be taken down, too. As we have quite a few links to the site, some cleanup will be needed. I'm kinda surprised we ever used that site as a source in the first place, actually. It's not exactly BLP source-material. Oh, well, we gotta get rid of those links either way now. --Conti|✉ 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, its a low quality source and should never have been used for any content support here and goodbye to it. Can we get a bot to go remove it and replace it with a citation required template? Perhaps a list of BLP articles it is used in can be created for editors to go and assess the supporting content.Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely tabloid newspapers are BLP sources, precisely because of their focus? Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This tabloid newspaper has a reputation of printing things that are not entirely true... There might be a few sensible uses of it as a source, but a fair amount will be poor sourcing. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Screw NPOV, I'm glad to see the back of it... Frankly, anything sourced from the NoW is likely to either be trivia that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, or in need of better sourcing anyway, so we might even see an improvement when we lose the sources. No doubt it will be possible to find the website archived somewhere, for those that are desperate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh great, now how am I supposed to source my BLP article about Bat Boy and the other one about the Loch Ness Monster marrying Bigfoot? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Weekly World News still has a web site, take heart! -- Atama頭 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because its clearly not a reliable source may not necessary mean that the use of it as a reference is wrong - particularly if it is a story published by a tabloid that is covered (that is, the coverage of the story by the tabloid, not the story itself) by reliable sources. Eg: "In 2005, NotW published an article that said comedian John Smith had married an alien.(ref to NotW article here) Though false, Smith latter incorporate the legend of this story into his comedy routine.(ref to an RS that discusses this facet)". That said, I would not be surprised if 90% or more of tabloid sources are lurking as facts in BLPs...--MASEM (t) 19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of our non-UK readers: the problem with the NotW is not accuracy (it isn't a WWN-style peddler of abject nonsense), but rather that it sells exclusively on "scandals" which may or may not have any actual impact on the world (mostly celebrities sleeping with other peoples' wives), occasionally resorting to entrapment, bribes or various other outright illegal activities to get its scoops. In general the NotW is a reliable source and prided itself on the quality of its investigative work, discounting its general moral and ethical bankruptcy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I will note in passing that the mere fact that a particular periodical is no longer in print does not automatically render it invalid as a reference for a Wikipedia article. (As a general rule, we need to be very cautious of that sort of creeping recentism and if-it's-not-free-and-online-it-never-happened revisionism.) Conti's original post to this thread is quite correct that we should be aware that News of the World is shutting its doors and that this may effect the URLs we use (or not) in our references—but this does not mean that we must strip all references to NotW from our articles. If a NotW citation was being used as a genuinely valid article reference before the paper shut down, in principle it almost certainly remains a valid reference (even without a convenience URL) afterward.

That said, I have a strong suspicion that the vast bulk of references to NotW in our articles are inappropriate—at best, they tend to be far from the most suitable references for the statements they support, at worst, they are used to bring in material that has no place in Wikipedia. A thorough and dispassionate review of all tabloid sources in our articles would probably be a very good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades. The website and the paper disappearing has no impact on the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the references as such, although a bot run might be needed to remove the hyperlinks or change them to point at an archive should the site go down. Independently of this I agree that a periodic review of tabloid sources is a good idea; they should essentially only be used as primary sources (i.e., to verify that a certain tabloid did print a certain story).  Sandstein  15:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment by TenOfAllTrades that cessation of operations is not a reason to remove any references. I accept that many here posting are not making that point, the announcement is merely triggering the notion that some of the references might not be good. I agree it would make sense to review the reference—it is not implausible that they may disappear, so any viewed as valid should be fodder for WebCite, and those that are not, should be removed and/or replaced with better refs.--SPhilbrickT 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth I just fired an email off to the website asking what what will become of it after this weekend. If I get a response back I'll let folks know what it is... Tabercil (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Front page

Not sure exactly where to make such comments (the WP bureaucracy seems so labyrinthine these days), but the front page "In the news" regarding the phone hacking scandal fails to mention News International are also alleged to have bribed police officers to the tune of some £100,000, which, by most estimations, is equally as shocking as the hacking claims as it embroils yet another tranche of the establishment in the scandal (press, politicians, police). Perhaps someone might choose to edit accordingly? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

for instance, perhaps:

"The closure of News of the World is announced amid allegations that the British newspaper engaged in phone hacking."

might be amended to:

"The closure of News of the World is announced amid allegations that the British newspaper engaged in phone hacking, police bribery and a cover up".

--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You want WP:ERRORS. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What? there's no WP:OMISSIONS? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, on the basis that too much WP:OMISSIONS will adversely effect Climate change... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! (/useful comment) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Images lacking permissions

I rarely work with images, so I'm hoping a more knowledgeable admin could review Noormohammed satya's whack of recent images uploads. All of them appear to be non-free screen caps and are all lacking permissions. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All tagged with CSD F11. — Edokter (talk) — 14:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures

Not an administrator noticeboard issue. Obtain consensus on the talk page and request a move in the usual way.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The promotor, the french department of sports and the ASN use the name Circuit des 24 Heures, more Wikipedia:Verifiability is not possible. As discussed at Talk:Circuit_de_la_Sarthe#Name_of_the_track, please move Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures. Thanks and Regards, --Pitlane02 talk 15:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I was considering this, but apparently, "Circuit des 24 Heures" has never been the title of the circuit, instead being the name for the entire facility. Circuit de la Sarthe is the long circuit, Bugatti Circuit is the short circuit. Are you sure you want it moved? The Cavalry (Message me) 11:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Some people repeat this argument every time, but until now there is NO official or serious sources for this view. And when the "Circuit des 24 Heures" is the entire facility, the lemma is also wrong (IMHO), because the article describes the long AND the short distance. BTW: The french article presents the same position, and nobody gainsays that the track was named "Circuit de la Sarthe" in the history. Thanks and regards --Pitlane02 talk 12:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps, I've forgot the magic four words: Yes, I'm sure! Because at moment we've only facts for the renaming! Thanks and Regards --Pitlane02 talk 07:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Revdel link

MER-C (talk · contribs) posted a link this morning to an edit page on strategywiki, inviting people to... misbehave. It'd be great if someone could revdel that edit. Thanks.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing how that falls under the revdelete policy. Brandon (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction #3 Purely disruptive material.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? In what way was that "inviting people to misbehave"? I cannot even find anything relevant on that other page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the link is to demonstrate that editing of others' comments is possible. The link is not substantially different than, say, the edit links on this page. That said, I understand Ohm's law's point and have revised my comment. MER-C 14:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Ohms law, do you still think it needs deleting? Because I certainly don't, and also don't see why it would have needed deleting in the first place. WP:AGF anyone? Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectator, Nick Cohen & Wikipedia

[37] - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a thread about this at the COI noticeboard, seen here. -- Atama頭 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• A topic ban of David r from meth productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is unquestionably in order; this is not the first journalist biography where his POV editing has led to issues, see Richard Littlejohn (|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Guy (Help!) 18:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Hari is overused as a source on Wikipedia... Sceptre ^(talk) 18:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes. I like his writing but there is usually a strong feel of opinion about it. I suspect that being gay, Jewish and subject to attack from militant Zionists for daring to criticise Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories has contributed to a lack of critical appraisal form people who would normally be more circumspect. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Physics Nobel Prize templates

Move request

Requested move

Please assist Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people affected by bipolar disorder needs to be moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people with bipolar disorder per a page move. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have an adminbot to do such moves automaticly - any time a page with an edit notice is moved, move the edit notice along with it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki should be smart enough to do that automatically. There should probably be a bug filed for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like a major complication - this would mean that users who aren't permitted to move it would do so in some situations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. The editnotices implementation is already a bit of a hack. Can't really hurt to ask for one more hack to be layered on top of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please cancel my erroneous page move to Raknno. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved Raknno back to Raknno, per naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge account

Hello, I try to merge my account with other wiki but my pseudo is already used on en wiki. Who can help me? --82.234.134.207 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you start with Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#Handling_SUL_conflicts --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Harry Potter

There is some problem with Template:Harry Potter. The template has 7 groups/lists, but only 6 of them are displayed. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter requiring administrative attention. However, the problem is that {{Navbox with columns}} only supports a maximum of 6 groups. Bencherlite^Talk 06:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue at Template talk:Navbox with columns, and (if applicable) consider making an {{editprotected}} request there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Wali Karzai

Ahmad Wali Karzai the half-brother of Afghan president Hamid Karzai has just been assassinated. Therefore please remove the semi-protection of the article as there will be a large onslaught of editing in the coming hours on this article. thanks, noclador (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can make suggestions for edits at the article talkpage, providing citations, this is somewhat standard practice for events like this. It stops the flood of edits with little or no verification from swamping the article. Also, we are WP:NOTNEWS, so it is not vital that we update this the second infomations comes to light. Heiro 07:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ah, ok - I thought we should remove the semi-pro as it was already put in place on June 28th and it seemed to me inappropriate now as things have changed so dramatically. noclador (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why it was semi'ed then, but I have seen plenty of other articles with recently deceased subjects get locked down to stem the tide of specualtive edits. When there is a firm story, info c an be added. I'm not an admin, so I cant do anything anyway, just letting you know what I've seen happen before in similar circumstances. Heiro 08:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave the semi protection because there is this one individual who decides to use anon IP and constantly vandalizes the page. [38] He/she appears to have a personal vendetta against the Karzais so instead of constantly patrolling the pages we just leave the semi protection and I was the one who requested the protection. Thanks.--AlimNaz (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Incoming links to deleted articles

I have been trying to remove the incoming links to two deleted articles: African Swim (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Quilombo (album) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs). While the corresponding incoming link pages suggest that there are several articles that still link to these deleted articles, I cannot find where those incoming links are coming from. Any help in clearing up this issue would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it may be a caching issue: the "what links here" hasn't caught up to the fact that African Swim was removed from Template:Williams Street. 28bytes (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 30#User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 30#User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 1#Gargoyle Router Firmware? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I closed Gargoyle Router Firmware, but I decided to !vote on the other one, after looking at the situation and seeing another way we can handle this. –MuZemike 18:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the second one. Cunard (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Protonk, for closing the first DRV. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for bringing up the backlog here. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Help request: Billings Montana Wikipedia Facebook page

Every time I try to go to the Billings Montana Wikipedia Facebook page it is redirected to the Missoula Montana Wikipedia Facebook page. When I try to go to The Billings Wikipedia page from Facebook I am again redirected to the Missoula Wikipedia page. I do not know what to do. Thank you Linda Rider (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia— such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. Here at Wikipedia itself, we do have separate Billings, Montana and Missoula, Montana pages. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why http://www.facebook.com/pages/Billings-Montana/112454482100538?sk=wiki redirects to a page about Missoula but http://www.facebook.com/pages/Billings-MT/114672308545089?sk=wiki works for me. As the above reply says, Wikipedia has no control over this. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Help request: Diacritics in surnames

Hi. I've noted that an user has moved some titles of sportsmen to a version without diacritics per WP:AT. Due to the fact that the old titles have not only one edit i've started a requested move on 3 pages (1st, 2nd, 3rd), but they are more than 3. So i request, if possible, the move of this titles to their original name (with diacritics): Eero Vare to Eero Väre; Toni Kiren to Toni Kirén; Stepan Kores to Štěpán Koreš; Juha-Pekka Pietila to Juha-Pekka Pietilä; Timo Lindstrom to Timo Lindström; Jiri Hunkes to Jiří Hunkes; Rastislav Spirko to Rastislav Špirko and lots more... The reason of this reguest is that the usage of usage of diacritics, in names (and not only), seems to be the standard adopted on enwiki (see for example: Category:Finnish ice hockey players, Category:Czech footballers, Category:Polish footballers, Category:Spanish footballers etc...). Also in the name of famous people as Lech Wałęsa or Alexander Dubček. Thanks a lot. Sorry if it's not the right page to add this request. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, DerBorg. The place where you can separate and post these requests is at requested moves. The page provides simple instructions on how to request a move discussion on the article page and on the RM page. Hope this helps! Keegan (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I noted in the last AN/I thread on Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) that the user games the system by intentionally creating page histories for his redirects to block non-admins from moving the target articles. Another user noted inappropriate speedy tagging that was also related to the user's crusade regarding diacritical marks. He ignored the complaints but did stop while the discussion was ongoing. Now he is back to his old tricks, and has even started making contentious moves and blocking the reversion of his moves as well. It's quite obvious by now that Dolovis simply will not conform to community norms and practice, so a ban from any kind of gaming of the system (through page moves, redirects or speedy tags) is necessary, with escalating blocks. Prolog (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of this disruption, lvl4 warning issued. Will ask for a ban on Dolovis moving articles at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:ANI#Page move ban for Dolovis. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Per consensus of the community, Dolovis is now banned from moving any pages. This has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandoncrabtree

See their talk page. Either some personal problems or a prank. NVO (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that the individual may be a US veteran who has a cochlear implant and a mental health problem (which would be a sad eventuality), based on the fact that the name he uses (Brandon Miles Crabtree) is a conflation of two of the advisors to the Veterans program - Brandon Miles Tourtilot and Mike Crabtree (see [39]). Commons are going to delete the images as the uploader does not have copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing happens every few months. Unfortunately I can't explain what is going on without violating policies. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Email me privately if it would help. In the meantime, I will delete the page/block the user if this is a recurring problem and you think it would help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you send the userpage to WP:MFD. Hut 8.5 12:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Category:Australian football (soccer) players and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, as well as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 1#Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings established in the 14th century? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that it may be best not to close the Australian football (soccer) player CfD until the requested move at Talk:Association football in Australia is closed. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please created protected talk page

Talk:Januar Add {{album}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please create a redirect

Y Done
From ᴀ (IPA) to Open central unrounded vowel. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As it is written, so shall it be done. TNXMan 13:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw delete request

I started a delete request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stars_in_astrology

From the responses it is clear that the issues that initially concerned me are being addressed and the page has already been developed past the point where deletion can legitimately occur, so I was advised to come here to ask an admin to close it. Thanks and sorry for putting folks to any trouble. Zac Δ talk 12:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. --Jayron32 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Aron

Would an admin review my redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Aron and close the discussion? Cunard (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Good call --Errant ^(chat!) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Cunard (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

Resolved by motion:
Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Admin to close a few discussions please

It has been requested at WP:AE that an admin "close" a few discussions, to help determine what the consensus is. The relevant discussions are:

• Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#The_conclusion_of_the_Ernst_2007_review_is_not_being_represented
• Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#QG.27s_proposal_to_change_the_article
• Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_33#Changes_needed_in_the_LEAD
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Pseudoscience
• Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_14#RfC_-_problematic_paragraph
• Talk:Pseudoscience/Archive_14#Poll_for_consensus_on_use_of_Matute_et_al._source
• Talk:Chiropractic#Are_we_dropping_the_Ernst_review_too_soon.3F

I hope this noticeboard is an appropriate place to request this, and that if it is not, that someone will notify me on my talk page. If the request is completed, I would also appreciate being notified. Thanks, DigitalC (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a history of deleting sourced text against policy. You replaced sourced text with OR. I suggest you can use the talk page to resolve disputes more peacefully next time.

There a more relevant discussions. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Mass_original_research. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_complaint_source.

pseudoscience: I am offering a cmt by DreamGuy which is still relevant to the current personal disgreement with reliable sources. Do you accept the text is sourced from a reliable peer-reviewed source. See this diff. See diff. See diff. See diff. These diffs show I did explain the text is relevant to other editors. Do you accept that with certain articles editors are unable to justify their edit. For example, an editor wrote The source does not support the claim(s).. But I did provide V on the talk page. Does anyone agree the edit did not match the edit summary. I think this is a serious matter of WP:WEIGHT and I propose the dispute be taken the the NPOV noticeboard where uninvolved editors could participate and determine the WP:CON based on Wikipedia policy and not a disagreement with mainstream research.

If you take a look at the article history there are other editors that do support the inclusion of the public health matters. There were comments in favor of using the source too.

chiropractic: I did not delete the report from chiropractic article and the source is still in the body. I removed the text that failed verification, however.

vertebral artery dissection: Ernst E (July 2007). "Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review". J R Soc Med 100 (7): 330–8. DOI:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. PMC 1905885. PMID 17606755. http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/100/7/330.  This source is not relevant to VAD (WP:COATRACK) while editors are unable to provide V for the text that is OR.

I might have convinced editors that the text is closer to NPOV version and possibly better.

Ernst E (2010). "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?". Int J Clin Pract 64 (6): 673–7. DOI:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02237.x. PMID 20518945.  I propose to replace the coatrack source with the relevant source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose a possible compromise that might resolve the dispute over the public healh issues at pseudoscience.

This part of the proposal is for the WP:LEAD to summarise the body: The British journal of psychology stated "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

This part of the proposal is for the Pseudoscience#Health and education implications. The British journal of psychology stated "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

No editor can claim anymore that the text is unsourced when we quote the source. The quote was streamlined and rewritten but the text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil and borderline wikistalking admin

Second opinion for a RM closure

I closed the move discussion at Talk:Andrej Tavzelj#Requested move, where it was proposed to move six Slovenian ice hockey player articles from diacriticless names to ones with diacritics. My evaluation was that there was no consensus in the discussion for the proposed names, but since two people have questioned the closure on my talk page I'd appreciate it if someone uninvolved could take a look at the discussion and provide a second opinion. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't WP:HOCKEY want articles at titles with diacritics when they occur in the persons name? Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they do, and I think they have a pretty good argument, actually. In fact, I might have closed it differently myself. But I can't bring myself to say that Jafeluv's close was unreasonable or improper; his weighing of both sides' arguments looks fair, even if I might have weighed them differently. 28bytes (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The RFC regarding diacritics likely will be closed as "no consensus". If and when it closes as "no consensus", should we be following the WP:Hockey#Wikiproject notice compromise? HeyMid (contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus that already exists in the Hockey project in many ways already trumps other RM's ... unless one changes the consensus in the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS seems to disagree with that premise... Jenks24 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It only disagrees when there is a wider community consensus (in otherwords a local consensus can not override an overall consensus), but as the current discussion goes to show there is almost an exact 50/50 split on the issue which shows there is no global consensus which was why that compromise was created in the first place, to stop the back and forth edit wars and move wars that were happening. If the wiki ever truly comes to a global consensus on the issue then certainly the project would change to reflect that I am sure. -DJSasso (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Depleted Uranium talk page being used to advocate positions not accepted for the article.

Could an admin please look at the Depleted Uranium talk page. This looks like an effort to place information that has been found to be inappropriate for the article, by consensus, into the talk page instead. There really isn't any suggestion to edit the article as there is a bulk placement of fringe links and information. PRONIZ (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PRONIZ (talk • contribs)

Why did the bot think this was unsigned? Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Because PRONIZ's signature doesn't have a required link to their user page, user talk page, or contributions. I'll be dropping them a note about it shortly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Are we still supposed to locally upload and protect pictures that appear on the Main Page? --Jayron32 02:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends if they get protected on commons first. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not appear that that has been done. See [40]. Someone should probably get on that. For the record, I know I am an admin, and could feasibly do it, at least locally, but I have almost no experience in this task, so someone with a bit more experience should prolly get on it. --Jayron32 02:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Its cascade protected via commons:User:Krinkle/enwiki mainpage otherwise there would be a trout being handed out. (I wrote and gave Krinkle that bot because I got tired of handing trouts out) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is? Because it isn't listed on that page... --Jayron32 03:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Try editing the file discription page, you will get a notice about it being protected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. --Jayron32 03:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Move request

The move request at Talk:Goody's_Family_Clothing has been open for 8 days with one support. I doubt anyone's going to oppose it at this point, so should it be carried out? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hello? Anyone here? All I hear is crickets... crickets... crickets... (listens to own voice echo). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • WHERE IS EVERYONE?!?!?!?!! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Busy waiting to see how long it would take before you lose your mind and throw a coniption. --Jayron32 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It's seemingly the only thing that successfully stirs admins from their slumber. I've seen sloths move faster. After drinking a gallon of freaking NYQUIL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, really? Can you get more uncivil? Wikipedia has no time limit, and calling admins a bunch of meth-affected sloths pretty much undoes so much of the good work you actually do. Seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of order. meth is a stimulant (aka "speed") and tends to make people work faster (albeit with horrific side effects). NyQuil is a depressant and tends to make people sleepy and lethargic. Know your drugs! --Jayron32 12:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• If I'm reading things right, this was just relisted on the 12th, and there was one oppose that was made after your request, but before your "crickets" comment. So I don't think it's a slam dunk anymore, and discussion should continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it didn't continue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Interesting close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd non-article in article space

I came across Resources for WEP Region 9 faculty & students a short while ago. It clearly doesn't belong in article space, but the author has removed a proposed deletion and I'm unable to move it into his user space where I think it belongs. I don't think it's caught by the criteria for speedy deletion either. Any suggestions? Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Jafeluv (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess so, but it's an awfully bureaucratic way of dealing with the problem. Could some admin just move this thing into the author's user space? Prioryman (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Userfication was probably the best thing here, but it looked like an attempt to correspond with a group of people, which would be covered under A3. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title"? I wasn't aware of that criterion. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll bear that in mind in future. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bambifan101 new ip

Hi, i am an admin in Tamil wikipedia. I just blocked 74.230.35.178 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) as a bambifan101 sock there. I see this is a new ip address that doesnt have any edits outside ta wiki. This ip geolocates to Mobile, Alabama and tried to recreate the same article another known bambifan ip 69.254.169.123 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Thought i would let admins know here as this ip is new.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You could try adding the info to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 if you think it represents a new development. --Jayron32 21:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The first ip address has no contribs to the English language Wikipedia, and the other one is already CheckUser blocked after a couple of typical Bambifan101 edits a couple of months back. Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

Would an admin (or admins) close:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement
2. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

For the second RfC, the creator wrote:

I want to add here that I'd like the RfC to remain open for 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved admin, not one involved in previous discussions about fair-use images please. I'm requesting this because this issue is affecting several content contributors, and it's likely to continue being contentious unless it's sorted out by clear consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 3 on that list closed. NW (Talk) 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare, for closing that RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No point to attempting to close #1 on that list. A brief review of that RfC shows that it is nothing more than a collection of ideas & thoughts on the matter. In other words, any conclusion a closing Admin would make must be no consensus, even though I feel it has reached the point of trench warfare, with furious sallies that gain a meager few yards at best. (Anyone else reminded of Passchendaele?) Better to allow the RfC to continue, if only to allow the various parties to vent away from the usual places. -- llywrch (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have stricken the RfC from the list. Thank you for taking a look at it. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, The ed17 (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:KnowIG

Post archiving comment

I looked quickly at the sockpuppet investigations regarding the above, and wonder if anyone has checked the findings against Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tennis expert/Archive - another tennis SPA who resorted to socking to enable their subject ownership ambitions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

From my initial check, there doesn't look like a relation, at least they're from separate continents. It is possible that Tennis expert could have moved to the UK, but I would still doubt that. –MuZemike 04:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If somebody wants to start a SPI

It seems to me like a noobie in need of help and explaining that two accounts are a no-no, but I don't have time or will to go through the full bureaucracy. Check Jan.steinbach (talk · contribs) and And.jacki (talk · contribs): same date of account creation, nearly the same (tiny) pattern of (non-disruptive) edits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like students given an assignment at the same time, and properly using independent accounts to edit. One of them edited Wikipedia:School and university projects/University of Applied Sciences, Mainz, Germany - LLM English Project which is why I think they are students. The timing pattern of the edits does not make the accounts look like they are socks. Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And.jaki states as much on his/her user page. As there's no disruption, there's no need to do anything here. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion

I've been slowly going through the RfD backlog for a while now, and have two days I would appreciate some help on as I have commented in discussions and thus cannot close.

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 28 All done, thanks to Ruslik0 and DeltaQuad
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 24 All closed now, thanks to DeltaQuad

Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two closed, one left that I don't know how to deal with, so if one more admin could step in that would be great. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just the one to go. --Taelus (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Attribution

If an editor copy and pastes another editor's User page to their own, should it be deleted as a copyvio? The history is not intact and there is no attribution made. There is also the additional issue that none of the information on the page actually pertains to the editor in question (GAs, article creations, image uploads, barnstars...). Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Attribution can be made after-the-fact; see WP:CWW (without comment on the additional issue). –xeno^talk 15:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So, policy-wise, they can add attribution after the fact. Now how to address the additional problems (claiming another individual's articles, GAs and barnstars as their own)? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's easy, just delete the patently false claims, and counsel the editor as to acceptable userpage content per WP:UP. I presume it's a new(ish) editor we are discussing here? Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They have 8 edits under this particular account, one of which was redacted as a BLP violation from a talk page. The cut and pasted user page belongs to CutOffTies, so the amount of misinformation is...vast.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Update: The userpage has since been blanked and a note has been left explaining why. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/Duck-family tree and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/The Comic Books

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/Duck-family tree and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Forum User/The Comic Books? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, RL0919, for closing the discussions. Cunard (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Selena

I need an admin to merge Todos Mis Exitos (to All My Hits Vol.1) and Todos Mis Exitos, Volume 2 (to All My Hits Vol. 2) as they are relevant of each other. And these too?

• No me queda más to No Me Queda Más
• Donde quiera que estés to Donde Quiera Que Estés
• Tú sólo tú to Tú Sólo Tú
• Enamorada de Tí to Enamorada de Ti (song) (as it isn't spelled like that on the album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJona1992 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless these are controversial merges (and I see no evidence of this) you can do it yourself and there's no need for an administrator to be involved. Please see WP:MERGE for instructions. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do the first two, however, the others (except Enamorada de Ti) cannot be moved for some reason. That's why I was sent here to ask help. AJona1992 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I was able to move Enamorada De Ti. All the others I am having difficulties moving them. AJona1992 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD backlog

Since some of the main TFD closers are on vacation, there appears to be a backlog at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Not only are 12 July discussions not closed, but nor are 11 July, 10 July and some even earlier Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Quick! Now's your chance to delete a bunch of crap while "the cat's away"!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request review of my actions

I closed a move request at Talk:Jakub Petružálek a few weeks ago. Today User:Pmanderson posted to my talk page[41], saying that it was inappropriate. Therefore, I'm posting here to request review of my actions.

Pmanderson says that I'm involved in the issue, and I'm not sure what he means exactly. For the record, I've closed very, very many move requests, and I've sometimes added diacritics and sometimes removed them, as I've gauged the consensus will of the community. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see Pmanderson's point re the "wave of the future" comment, although I have no doubt that you intended it as more of an observation about a trend you noticed than an endorsement of it. That said, I don't see any reason presented by Pmanderson that you shouldn't have closed it, and a "no consensus" close was certainly appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Partly my fault. Sorry.

I wasn't expecting GTBacchus to take this here; as we both know, he has been to some extent involved with the current discussion whether to use diacritics. On reviewing the discussions, he has been more invoked than directly involved, so I would be satisfied if he agreed to tone down the rhetoric, and to take care not to close an undue proportion of the diacritic requests. (It looked like he was doing so; the same close has been discussed several times, without connection, and so I thought there were more than there have been.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Every time someone questions a close of mine, I bring it here. I don't know what you're talking about when you say I've been involved (or invoked) in the current discussion over whether to use diacritics. If you think I'm involved, tell me which side you imagine I'm on, and I'll provide 20 diffs to prove the opposite. Do you think I'm pro-diacritic, or anti-diacritic? Either way, you're wrong.

I close as many moves as I do, and no more. If I have a stance in the diacritic debate, I'd like to know what it is before I recuse myself from closing requests in that area. Am I for them, or against them? As far as I know, there is no rhetoric to tone down. I have no opinion on diacritics, full stop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the close nor with continued closing. I think PMA means by you being "invoked" that your closes are being referenced, in particular in support of keeping diacritics, though I don't know exactly where this has occurred. I suspect PMA is concerned that the comments on changes to the broader community consensus and the words "this has been a long time coming" suggest that you are 1) ruling on the broader community consensus having actually changed and 2) possibly relieved we've "finally gotten there". I don't see this myself and I may be completely off on what PMA means; hopefully clarification will be forthcoming.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

By invocation, I mean the reliance on Bacchus' authority as an admin evidenced, for example, in this section of a current RfC. An opinion is clearly being read into his words, which is why I think them unfortunate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with this. Thank you, Pmanderson. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to join in here in insisting that something be changed. "No consensus" is acceptable, but the rational given in the closure is clearly inappropriate. For example, "the practice of removing diacritics does not seem to enjoy the consensus support that it once did" is a controversial, and basically incorrect, statement, on multiple levels. Additionally, "support for diacritics has grown steadily" clearly demonstrates "involvement" here, as this is the central question of the debate.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, people are "insisting." That usually doesn't work, at least in my experience. GTBacchus' close seems fairly no-nonsense to me. Don't go changin'... to try and please me... - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, he's the one asking for opinions. My only point is that his closure rational in this particular case stakes out a position on the issue at hand rather than detailing a neutral interpretation of the issues. For "no consensus" closures, saying nothing is often better than trying to push editor opinions in one direction or another. I've seen this sort of supposedly neutral "no consensus" closure tactic used before, and it's kind of an asshole move to make.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't mean to push anyone in any direction. Saying that support has been steadily growing is an observation, not involvement. I didn't say I'm happy about it, or sad about it. I just noticed that it's grown. When I close move requests, I see more support for diacritics than I used to. How does that make me "involved"? I truly don't get it. Do you have any idea how many moves I've carried out removing diacritics? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, I remember ya! I know how many of these things you've closed. My only point is that the rational, as stated, leaves you open to this criticism. The statement "use of diacritics is more acceptable now" (to paraphrase slightly) is the dispute. I don't blame you, since you're main involvement with all of this has been somewhat limited to closing the RM's, but there's a political process occurring here which you've (apparently inadvertently) inserted yourself into the middle of. Increased awareness of the issue is what's really going on, and several parties are digging their heels in and polarizing the (so to speak) "electorate". Your closure here is being used as justification, in and of itself, for a proposed change in policy to make using diacritics wherever possible mandatory. Is that what you intended?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I never intend to feed the superstition around here that what's written on policy pages somehow determines rules for our behavior. Wikipedia is bottom-up, not top-down, our policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and the lawyers are wrong. Policy is determined in the field, and not on pages in the "Talk:Wikipedia:" namespace.

I'm glad someone pointed me to that discussion you mention, and I'll be contributing there. I would have preferred being told about it in some words other than "you're wrong, and I disagree with the barnstar someone just gave you", but whatever. You can't please 'em all.

Just for the record, I don't give half a drop of stale bugshit whether we use diacritics or not. I simply don't care. I do care about accurately reading and following consensus determinations on Wikipedia. Anyone who thinks I've got a personal agenda in this, or in any issue that I touch on Wikipedia, they're sorely mistaken. Things that I care about on a personal level, I stay away from here, because my neutrality would be compromised. I wish everyone would do the same. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no issues with the close result itself (and I think Pmanderson intended for his concern to be as general feedback for proceeding in the future rather than as pursuing this further). I think the moral of the story here is to take care when making observations in such closures, as they can sometimes be unnecessary, and can sometimes carry unintended (counterproductive) implications. In this case, I think the prediction in the second sentence of the close isn't quite right because the close result itself was not the controversial or disputed part; rather, it was the way in which was done. This was just a simple case where there was room for improvement in how it was closed (be it as a one-off, or generally). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I actually thought the "This has been a long time coming" was probably the part that would cause more concern than the other parts. 18:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Apparently that phrase makes it sound like I've been eagerly awaiting its arrival, and that I'm all happy to see it or something. I just meant I've been watching the wind gradually change direction, and it seems to be blowing from the diacritic side now. That was simply intended as an observation, but I can see how and why it appears inappropriate. I agree that it is better to avoid such language when closing discussions.

All of that said, I'm glad the issue is coming to a head now in a central location, and I hope to see you all there. There's nothing more to talk about here on AN, I think. Thanks all for weighing in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging "New Super Mario Bros. Mii"

New Super Mario Bros. Mii has passed a unanimous merging discussion. Can an admin go ahead and merge it with New Super Mario Bros. Wii? --Nathan2055^talk 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't merge pages. Editors do because it requires absolutely no administrative tools.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've merged it, noting {{copied}} etc. on talks of both. Marking 'resolved'.  Chzz  ►  02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know editors can do it, but I actually don't know how. --Nathan2055^talk 16:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You move the content off of one page and put it on another.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Merging. You can ask me directly if you have any questions. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

By motion of the Arbitration Committee voted on at requests for amendment,

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need check on file moved to Commons

File:Erie County, NY Map.png was moved to Commons some time ago, but it started out here. Could I trouble an admin to check the deleted version of that file from here and see what the original source was? Was it Own Work, or did it come from some other source? Powers ^T 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no explicit source. The description page said. == Licensing == {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}. --Courcelles 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Impending deployment of MoodBar extension

The Foundation plans to deploy the "MoodBar" extension to the English Wikipedia some time in the near future. For more information, see WP:VPT#Quick Feedback on Editing Experience: New Editors, the extension and discussion pages on MediaWiki and the test deployment on the prototype wiki. MER-C 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Chaosname

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names

Could an uninvolved administrator please close the two open RFC's? They have been open for almost a month each and have both had plenty of discussion.--v/r - TP 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I closed the easy one. That's the closest I recall ever having gotten to actually citing IAR! I tried really hard to close the second one Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Cranialsodomy but the comments of 22 experienced editors were of no help and they were evenly split. The closest any got to referencing policy was to say that it was or was not obscene. I was going to be left with my own interpretation of policy, so I ended up commenting. I highly encourage others to comment to; hopefully with what you think the actual language in the policy means and why the username should or should not be allowed rather than the "I don't like it" and "It doesn't bother me" comments that I found.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• And actually, this one has been open for 34 days now.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"CranialSodomy" is editing an encyclopedia of knowledge; his mother must be proud. And, we've now thrown -bot ending usernames to the wind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Asher Heimermann

Asher Heimermann, a user blocked since 2007, has asked to be unblocked. As far as I can tell, there are no issues of sockpuppetry since August 2008 (nearly 3 years ago - the latest I found is SheboyganTeen). I'm inclined to grant him an unblock. Any one else have any opinions? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

An unblock seems reasonable. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

After nearly four and a half years a second chance seems reasonable. I will unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I highly suggest if they are unblocked that they have a mentor. This user has not had apparent sockpuppet activity which is visible on the account, but has added links to their promotional website for Sheboygan on and off the last couple years through IP's and cleverly named socks which have been maintained and pulled by editors like me based in eastern Wisconsin, and submitted this vanity article for creation under the account Asherheimermannissogreat (talk · contribs), which was rightfully turned down in February. There was also this IP claim that their LLC bought a school district radio station for a low price that I had to revert a couple months back. I can't even see the need for their newest article, George D. Warriner High School for Personalized Learning, which is a small charter school that currently has no need for an article. I am willing to give them one last chance, but with the caveat that if they pull this stuff again, they need to be gone. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a mentor. However, that user ({{user|Asherheimermannissogreat}) was not me. It was a person named Nick on Facebook who was harassing me and asking me repeatedly to accept his friend request, which I did not. As far as the Warriner High School article, there are other charter schools who have an article about the size of Warriner. I am open to ideas. I'm not here to play around anymore, I just want to be a meaningful community member. Any thoughts? Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked this account, as I indicated above. When I did so, I fully intended to check back from time to time to see what edits were being made, and was ready to block again if I saw anything unacceptable. This is what I always do when I unblock a user with past problems of this kind. I had warned Asher in my unblock notice "If you edit disruptively you may expect to be reblocked immediately", and I subsequently posted a message to his talk page telling him that I had been checking his edits, so that he was aware of the fact. When I looked at Asher's editing I did not see any problems.

The concerns raised by Mrschimpf (who signs as "Nate") are worth consideration.

The article for creation produced by Asherheimermannissogreat is strange. It looks like a ridiculous vanity article until the last paragraph, when it suddenly turns into a criticism of Asher for refusing to accept someone as a FaceBook friend. If it was by Asher then that last paragraph was very odd. If it was not by him then it was by someone who seemed to have a strange degree of fascination for him, possibly to the extent of an obsession. However, that last paragraph certainly does fit in with Asher's explanation given above, and there are people who develop just such obsessions.

I am not at all sure what the significance of the IP edit about the school district radio station is. The same IP address has been used by someone with a dislike of Asher, who has tried to keep a perfectly legitimate link to a web site off Wikipedia purely on the grounds that the web site was designed by Asher. (See the removal of the link and the user's comment on it. Is there any evidence that the edit referred to above from the same IP case was made by Asher? If so, what evidence? If not, is it relevant?

As for George D. Warriner High School for Personalized Learning, my personal view is that very few high schools are notable enough to justify having articles, but there is a very long-established consensus on English Wikipedia that all high schools are notable. There is no basis for criticising Asher for creating an article which is fully compliant with accepted standards, whatever I or Mrschimpf or anyone else may personally think about the school.

Finally we have "has added links to their promotional website for Sheboygan on and off the last couple years through IP's and cleverly named socks". Unfortunately no specific examples are given, so it is impossible to assess that claim at all. The only thing I have seen which could remotely be considered relevant to this is the case I mentioned above of removal of a link to a website purely because Asher was the designer. I hope this is not the sort of thing which was being referred to, as who designed a web site has no bearing whatever to its relevance or appropriateness to the article from which it was linked. Trying to remove it simply on those grounds is unacceptable. What is more, the link was placed in the article by Asher Heimermann on 21 January 2007, just over a month before he was blocked, and so it is not relevant to suggestions of sockpuppetry or other unacceptable editing during the block. The editor who tried to have the link removed used the section heading "Asher's at it again". However, the link in question had been placed nearly four and a half years before, suggesting that the anonymous editor was accusing Asher without taking much care to check their facts. Also "at it again" suggests that the same anonymous editor may have taken similar steps before.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that no evidence of the supposed sockpuppetry has been presented, nor has any been found by my searches. There is, however, evidence of an unreasonable campaign by at least one editor to suppress content related however indirectly to Asher. (In the case of the removed link I have referred to, the web page linked does not mention Asher. The only indication of a connection is a small note at the bottom of the page saying "Website Designed by Sheboygan Communications", and to make the connection one has to (a) know enough about Asher to know that that is his company, and (b) be searching for such connections, or for some other reason be looking at the small print at the bottoms of web pages.)

There may be evidence that Asher has been evading his block. However unless and until such evidence is presented we have to assume good faith. I shall keep up my periodic checks on his editing, as I always intended to do. If I find no problems with his editing then that will be fine. If I do find problems I will take whatever action seems necessary, anything from a friendly warning to an immediate indefinite block, as seems appropriate. Anyone else is, of course, free to keep an eye on his editing too. Unless and until problems arise I see no need for any other steps. Asher has said that he would be willing to accept a mentor, but the word "mentor" is very broad in scope, and can mean anything from someone who will generally keep an eye on his editing and give him advice and guidance as and when necessary, to someone who will conduct an organised course of lessons in how to edit. I really do not think that Asher needs the latter: he clearly already knows a good deal about how to edit Wikipedia, but if anyone else who disagrees wishes to volunteer to do it and Asher wants to accept then they are of course free to do so. However, as far as the more low-key kind of mentoring is concerned, I have undertaken that role before for an unblocked editor with a controversial history, and I am willing to do it again if Asher wants me to. In that case I would change my informal intention of keeping an eye on his editing for a little while into a commitment to doing so for a specified period (three months is the period I have specified in the past), with feedback, advice, and warnings if and when I think fit, and an offer to be available for Asher to approach for help if and when he wants it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock. Asher conduct back 4.5 years ago wasn't heinous, it was irritating to a bunch of editors with his youthful exuberance. He was young and it showed. I didn't have a big problem with him back then and I think it's worth our time to give him another chance because I'm optimistic that we have come across a good editor. He just asked me for help with an article so that's an improvement already. I'm too busy in real life to be a "mentor" but he can ask me questions like he did.

I would be more comfortable with his agreement to be a better editor if his userpage didn't have links to his websites and social media pages. I don't think they're forbidden but since this was the problem before I think removing them would show good faith to the community. Royalbroil 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'retired' admin userbox?

In light of the recent mass retirement of admins, is there a 'retired admin' userbox anywhere? I dug around but couldn't find one. Manning (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm often last last to know things, but: mass retirement? o_O? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure someone can find the link. There was a recent RFC which 'Voluntarily retired' any admin who had not edited for some time (12 months I believe). As it is 'voluntary', these admins can reapply for their bit without going through RFA. I am actually asking because I also recently surrendered my admin bit - I'd taken a year long break and since returning I was getting a lot of "You screwed this up" and "you have violated policy" messages, hence I thought taking some time to get thoroughly reacquainted was in order. Manning (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, I was looking for something more like an arbitration outcome, your pointer was enough for me to find it: Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins. With respect to getting flack upon re-appearance, and without looking at you actions yet, my $0.002 is that "you need a refresher" an easy stick with which to whack someone with whom you disagree. Are you intending to ask for it back in a suitable period? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No immediate intention of asking for it back, but having been an admin for nearly ten years I'd like something as a badge of my period of service. Manning (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

<-- Would that work for you? Jafeluv (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks very much :) Manning (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably should have a userbox for this, so {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} (includes Verify link). Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, but, if the editor (now former admin) is no longer active, when are they going to put the nice little userbox on their page? Nobody else can do it for them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to say "former", since "retired" suggests total inactivity. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "retired" because former might be more shocking to them when they return and it doesn't say they have retired from the project, only from being an admin. But that's just me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The userbox {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} does say "former". I've added an inactive parameter, which produces "whose administrator rights were suspended due to inactivity" Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

More or less shocking than seeing they've been forced into retirement? =) I think Rd232's inactive=yes parameter works. –xeno^talk 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Former' doesn't really suit my situation, as many might interpret it as "involuntary'. I retired in good standing and of my own choice (I wanted to take some time to get back up to speed on everything after a long wikibreak). As MRG comments, 'Retired' could get interpreted as 'complete editing inactivity', but a check of my contrib log would demonstrate otherwise (assuming anyone actually cared that much). Manning (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a adjective parameter in the userbox so you can customise the description. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why nobody else can do it for them. If they have retired, they shouldn't have an admin userbox, but if the retirement was involuntarily implemented via the referenced 1 year inactivity period and they aren't around, then obviously they aren't going to remove their own, now inappropriate, userbox. In such a case, there is no reason that someone can't replace their current userbox with this one. There is not an absolute prohibition on editing someone's userpage and a good faith edit to replace their userbox to reflect their current status would be no more problematic than simply removing the old one.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Particularly if there's any now-incorrect categorisation, but even if there's merely text or userbox on the userpage which could be misleading, this should be fixed. I've added a note to WP:INACTIVITY. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not long ago I was inactive for a long time (6 months in my case). If I had returned to find my bit removed, and saw the proposed userbox (the one with the "inactive" parameter and additional language included) I would not mind at all, and would have even appreciated it. I wholly support the suggestions in this thread. -- Atama頭 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Doug. has it absolutely right. It is incorrect for the "Admin" userbox to remain on display, and if the editor *does* return, then a new userbox which conveniently links them to pages which explain the situation is an easy and painless way for them to find out what happened. Manning (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"...for them to find out what happened." - well hopefully they would receive {{Inactive admin}} or something similar on their talk page at the time the bit is removed. But the WP:INACTIVITY link/explanation is useful for editors who might visit a userpage but not read through past user talk discussions. Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted page

Please could an admin send me the contents of this deleted page for some research I'm doing? Thanks :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Emailed you the content. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How does emailing effect attribution of the re-write if the article is restored? Or do we typically restore the history when a the re-written article passes deletion review and just make the re-write the most recent edit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the history is restored (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material) and history merged with the new draft. This is sometimes done even when the drafts are written independently, with no attribution dependency. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted in 2007; my assumption (based on the phrasing of the request) was that this request was not a pre-cursor to getting it undeleted :) otherwise I would have restored it to userspace. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Patient closer wanted

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 2#Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. This has been through an epic RFC, a DRV, and now an epic CFD that's been open more than two weeks. Someone needs to decide on a winner. I'm offering one barnstar to whoever has the patience to read it all and close it properly, barnstar payable irrespective of the way it goes.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting closure of merging request

Talk:HC Litvínov#Player Mergers has been opened for more than a month. Since the merging request has been inactive for a couple of weeks, could an uninvolved admin close the discussion and remove the relevant merge request template from the article? Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 09:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011

Discussion closed by Heymid. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

Taking into account Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers#Proposed solution, would an admin close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers? The RfC has been open since 9 June 2011. Cunard (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed due to inactivity. It's fairly clear that the subject has considered all of the allegations and proposals and has no further endorsements to add. RfC/Us by their nature are not binding, so if (1) problems persist and (2) users want a binding remedy, they need to either request the Community to impose something, or go to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that a summation by someone neutral will be helpful feedback for the participants in the RfC. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin Dashboard

Any one notice it just died for a few minutes - the content is getting too big for a template. It suddenly ended up being in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - a quick look at a failed page showed...

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 25296/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 116476/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 115/500
-->

It's quite hard to fix these Post-expand include size problems. The main drain is usually the large use of {{•w}} in Navboxes - ideally take them all out and replace with a fixed dot. I would look at it, but it's time I retired for the night.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a super-expert on how that template works, but couldn't we replace all instances of that with a non-breaking space   before each bullet? –MuZemike 01:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it before when some of the Chemistry Navboxes got out of hand. I'll have a look.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Done the three boxes, that has released 10864 bytes. I suspect the problem occurred as there were a lot of pages listed that day, hopefully the extra 10K will prevent any more problems.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do those templates have to use "no wrap". It's rather awkward to have them spilling off the page. DrKiernan (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone point me to this "Dashboard" so I can investigate. I doubt using {{•w}} is the source of the problem. — Edokter (talk) — 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Admin dashboard}} - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

{{•w}} and {{·w}} are not the cause; they increase Post-expand include size by only 20k. Some other template/page must have triggered it. — Edokter (talk) — 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Edokter - This is only peripherally related, in looking at the templates I was wondering, is there a performance issue with nested transclusions? If a template had transclusions 20 layers deep (template transcluded → another template transcluded → another...), would it create a performance issue? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was told or read somewhere that templates within templates are counted twice (I think it might have been Gimmetoo who said this). So, if there are more layers, then I guess it quadruples, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion depth does indeed come with a penalty, but translclusion count far less so. Transclusion depth is cumulative, not exponential, meaning added levels do not double level-count. — Edokter (talk) — 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

#Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

Would an admin close #Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka and log the editing restriction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change

Review of leaked emails

I happened to have seen the now redacted username in this posting. So, I suggest that the Admins who are involved on WR to review the leaked emails before they are posted by MaliceAforethought. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No WP admins are WR moderators as far as I know. Nor do moderators on WR pre-approve postings before their publication. If I were you, I'd ignore the leakings. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BAG candidacy

Since it looks like we need more active BAG members, I volunteered to help out; feel free to leave comments. On a related note, if any of you are experienced editors with good tech skills when it comes to bots + would like to make it a haunt, please feel free to open one up as well. --slakr^\ talk / 10:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring, original research etc.

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{resolved}} Removed resolved template due to discussion of TreasuryTag Egg Centric 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Can someone please caution Skylark2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – and revert their edits to International relations since I'm at 3RR – for edit-warring and persistent original research across multiple articles and multiple months? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 09:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Can someone please inform Treasury Tag that his tone is unduly rude and he is adopting particularly personal position and blocking constructive editing by vandalizing a given edit? Also,he is slandering a given editor on the basis of earlier edit-controversies.Given Wikipedia welcomes the establishment of a position through healthy conflict,any such name calling makes it a potentially hostile place for any editor not empowered like an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark2008 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Absolute nonsense. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 09:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC) TT has eight reversions to this article within a single day. Now that's edit-warring. Skylark's addition might be right or it might be wrong, but it's still within the remit of GF(elastically) editing and content issues, not the outright vandalism that might excuse a pass of 3RR. So why a 3RR block for Skylark (thoroughly deserved), but nothing for TT - not even a warning? TT's actions here should not have been to continue to edit war with one editor. 3RR is very clear on this. If the addition was so bad, other editors could have reverted it (I note that one did). If Skylark's additions were so inappropriate or tendentious, they would be (and indeed were) blocked for them. Nor is this a BLP with some terrible libel that we have to remove at all costs. TT was edit warring here, plain and bright-line simple. So why no block for it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I'm also puzzled by TT's edit summary here: Rvt vandalism – removal of valid information about the history of IR. In the Twinkle of an eye. This is the removal of Skylark's addition, not any reversion of another removal. There are three deletions like this, all labelled as the reversion of another's vandalism by deletion. Nor are these Twinkle messages, they're messages that TT must have entered manually. They seem most misleading, when they're removing another's addition during an edit war, but labelling it as reverting both a deletion (which editors often don't like) and vandalism (which editors really don't like). If that's not a misleading edit summary, what is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Because 8RR is definitely edit warring, I've blocked TT for 24 hours; he's quite sufficiently experienced to know that Skylark could have been reported to WP:AN3 instead of continuously reverting. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) One of you who really cares about this sort of thing ought to think about getting his Twinkle access revoked as well. If y'all look though his edit history you'll see that he abuses it fairly regularly. I'd say something myself, but... Skylark2008 is correct about TT's personality, and I've metaphorically gotten "in his face" about it in the past, so I'm concerned that me bringing this up in the appropriate place (somewhere on Wikipedia:Twinkle) will be seen in the wrong light. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) TreasuryTag has driven off countless editors from this project through extreme incivility, biting, etc. Not just new users but experienced editors as well. He makes Wikipedia a less pleasant place and is a nasty little bully. He's also extremely difficult to deal with as he is a wiki lawyer par excellence and is a genius at sticking to the letter of rules while blatantly breaking the spirit of them. A typical victim's choices seem like engaging him on his terms - virtually impossible without the mindset of a lawyer and an encyclopaedic knowledge of policy - or telling him where to go - and then they get blocked for NPA. The only thing that will sort him out is if he pisses off the wrong person (unlikely: he prefers to pick on less competent targets) who can lawyer like him and get him community banned; alternatively I am convinced that a look through his history can provide enough material to the sufficiently motivated user who really understands how to present a case Egg Centric 15:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. Did anyone notice his re-adding the block notice to Skylark's talk page [45] AND THEN IN HIS VERY NEXT EDIT ALTERING POLICY TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTION: [46]??? Egg Centric 16:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC) In all fairness, that's longstanding policy; if a discussion took place to support Camelbinky's preferred version, I've never seen it. I don't understand why you request removal of Twinkle, as it seems that everything going on here was done manually. Or are you talking about Twinkle usage at the userpage policy page? Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) How do you figure that everything was done manually? All of the edits in question here say "in the Twinkle of an eye.", and just glancing at his contribs I see a good dozen other Twinkle uses yesterday and earlier today, and I'm not even trying to search for them... — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Surely Twinkle isn't set up to create edit summaries such as "Rvt vandalism – removal of valid information about the history of IR"? Most of the edits in the recent history of International relations (e.g. 09:12 today) don't even mention Twinkle. Or are you talking about some other edits and I'm simply misunderstanding you? If so, my apologies for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I was speaking generally, not limited to the event/incident in question. but... <shrug> my level of caring about this is really minimal. I just thought it was worth mentioning, because I have seen TT really abuse Twinkle in the past. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, okay. I've not really paid attention to TT, so I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with his use of the tool in other situations. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Twinkle asks for an edit summary when reverting as simple "rollback": Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Revert_and_rollback. Can't comment at this point on whether there are issues of Twinkle abuse, but I've declined TT's unblock request. Rd232 talk 09:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I just visited TT's talk page for this first time since this started (in response to your [rd232's] note above), and it appears as though he's "retired". I can't pretend to actually be upset, but... I think we should back off, so I'm going to archive this discussion. No need to rub it in the guy's nose. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

eHarmony Video Bio

This page would be a redirect to Cara Hartmann, but it does not seem to be editable by the general public. If an admin could please redirect the eHarmony Video Bio page to Cara_Hartmann#eHarmony_Video_Bio that would be great.

Thanks for your time. --Drdak (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. What type of message did you get when you tried to create it? Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a second. How in the world does this one person meet the expectations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "eHarmony Video Bio"? You mean to tell me that, out of all possible people and uses, this one person is so famous for having a video bio that she(?) uses for eHarmony that the title should redirect to her page? (Not that the eHarmony Video Bio page should be protected, but still... that's sort of a different topic).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted the article's text as an indication that the title of the video was "eHarmony Video Bio". If that's correct, such a popular video title really should be redirected to the article about its creator, as long as that article is in existence. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading the section of the Cara Hartmann article... I don't see that. She's one person who's turned herself into a minor celebrity by self publishing to YouTube, and has happened to create a video (for, or about? That doesn't seem real clear, to me) eHarmony. Anyway, Looking at the eHarmony Video Bio page history and logs... it wasn't protected, or what? It's certainly not protected now, so it doesn't seem that this is an appropriate place to discuss this any longer. I'll just go and change the redirect to point to eHarmony. It'll probably get changed again, but... <shrug>
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a problem with the title blacklist. Graham87 05:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh... that makes sense. Thanks for the heads up, Graham.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the topic, she made a video proporting to be an eHarmony bio. In the video, she pretends to be an obsessively crazy cat person. It's good for a few laughs. Anyway, the video went viral a few weeks ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban from creating userspace pages for User:Nmatavka

User:Rohith goura and Twinkle

I have concerns about Rohith goura (talk · contribs) using Twinkle properly. The matter came to my attention when the above user warned me for not using edit summaries. Despite proof to the contrary that I used edit summaries, not reply was forthcoming on the issue. It was not a one-off incident, and MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) was incorrectly warned for vandalism for this edit. Rohith goura failed to engage with editors over either issue and simply archived the notices. Today it seems Rohith warned Dayewalker (talk · contribs) about marking edits as minor. All these notices were handed out using Twinkle. If Rohith can't use the tool properly, and doesn't seem inclined to discuss the issue, I don' think the user should have access to it. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I had just finished leaving a message on his talk page when I saw this thread. My edit was [47] actually with Rollback, as it was vandalism to a BLP. I left a polite message so as not to bite the newbs, but if he's not going to respond, something should probably be done to get his attention to prevent disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe those old warning were archived, they were simply deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted (or archived) warnings mean that they have been noted. If they continue, issue a final warning and then report to ANI if no effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

If someone's available, WP:RPP hasn't been cleared in seven hours. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:WCGSOldBoy

Closing the merger proposal on Myth of Skanderbeg

There was a merger proposal on the article Myth of Skanderbeg on March 24, 2011. Since after more than four months there was no consensus to support the proposal (on the contrary, majority of the participants in the discussion opposed the merging) and there is no discussion about it for some time (two and a half months), according to the Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger ("If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard") I invite an administrator to close the discussion and to make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need more input on this. Personally, I think there are too few opinions given for me to close it properly. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I closed it as "No consensus to merge", as the opinions were evenly split.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some RFCs that could do with closing

• Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Did_recent_currency_image_deletions_go_beyond_the_proper_aims_and_objectives_of_the_NFC_image_policy.3F
  • Launched 10 May 2011
• RfC on whether images of historical importance must themselves be the "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use for them
  • Listed 4 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• Poll to gain consensus on use of hyphens and dashes in relation to a request for arbitration
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• RfC on improving account security
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011

Not necessarily an admin job, but this seems the conventional place to ask for closures. Rd232 public ^talk 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The account security one has seen a few additional comments today, so perhaps hold off on closing that one for a couple or days more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The dash drafting poll says it is supposed to remain open until the 16th. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Several more recently archived RfCs:

• RfC on a proposed new exemption from the three-revert rule
  • Listed 8 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011
• Proposal to establish a minimum prep-time for main-page blurbs
  • Listed 22 June 2011, archived 7 July 2011

Cunard (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) for closing Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption

  Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs) for closing several of the proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security and filing bugzillas for them. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I closed the Main Page one. The one about currency images is archived and didn't reach any consensus. I'm not sure that editing the archive to add a "no consensus" box around it would add any benefit. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the Main Page RfC. I am uncertain about whether the currency images should be closed. On the one hand 30 June 2011, Jheald (talk · contribs) restored the RfC from the archives, writing "de-archived unclosed RfC", indicating that participants might want a closure. On the other, there is no consensus for any policy or guideline changes. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it was re-archived after Jheald de-archived it. If the RfC had anything approaching a consensus, I'd favor giving it a proper close, but as it is I'm not sure a general "no consensus for any of the stated opinions" close has any more finality to it than plain archiving does. --RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Plain archiving is acceptable, though if Jheald de-archives it a second time it probably should be given a proper close. Thank you for reviewing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting The Deletion Of List of African American women

This indicated that the page was to be turned into category and then deleted. Category:African_American_women was made by a now retired editor who I presume had no knowledge of List of African American women. Because the category has been made and even went thru a discussion, I am now requesting List of African American women to be deleted.Curb Chain (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Our policy seems so entirely inconsistent that I think it will be time for a RfC, on a proposal that every category should have a list and v.v. It should eliminate a lot of duplicative discussions. (where we will then hold the XfD is an interesting question, however). DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The AFD mentioned does not itself mention Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (shortcut wp:CLT) which explains clearly the usefulness of having both category and list. Just because inclusion criteria might be hard to define sharply, does not mean an important list should be deleted. This seems like an important list. "List_of_African_American_women" should be read as "List_of_NOTABLE_African_American_women" of course. The inclusion criteria could be something like "persons known for being African American women" as well as being notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. I don't know about where a general RfC should be held, but reviewing the AFD decision on this one list seems like a good idea. --doncram 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecking about 6 women on the list, I find not a single one included in any category of African-American women. So the list should not be deleted yet, no matter what. Creating the category is not enough, all these women need to be put into it! And, the list should be kept to ensure that the articles could be revisited later, to ensure they're all still in the category. --doncram 04:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What is v.v?Curb Chain (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed all the unsourced entries. Most of the entries on the list are actors. All "african american" women on wikipedia are notable. If we are to maintain such a list, that would be almost impossible and probably VERY very lengthy.Curb Chain (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, v.v. means vice versa. The rest of what Curb Chain says belongs at AfD or, possibly, DRV, rather than here.—S Marshall T/C 11:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The afd for List of African American women indicated that it should be turned into a category then deleted. It was turned into a category. All that is required is for the page to be deleted. Why should it need to go thru another afd when this page was not recreated? I've already asked the closing administrator of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_16#Category:African_American_women to delete List of African American women but he ignored me. Is this not the next step?Curb Chain (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that given what DGG says, the next step might be a deletion review of that AfD, because the outcome wasn't in accordance with WP:CLN, or perhaps an RFC.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that we can deal with even extremely lengthy lists by a variety of techniques, including an alphabetic index, or, if extreme, by dividing into several articles. WP is NOT PAPER.All that is necessary is for someone interested to maintain it.

And, CC, did you check that the items you removed didn't have sources in the articles on the people? DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If we don't use other articles as sources, then are you suggesting that we can in this case or that the source should have been copied over (after checking it of course, you can't just copy sources willy-nilly). Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Majority rule?

Not an issue for administrators. Have this discussion elsewhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This post shocks me; Mclay1 (talk · contribs), a would-be admin, has claimed, about a 15-14 !vote about a controversial guideline, that the minority should be ignored. Let me quote in full: If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. Why should opposition outweigh support? If the majority of users think that the guidelines are fine and think the opposition is wrong, then, sorry, but that's just tough luck. It's impossible to please everybody. You know, I thought we were not a democracy, and operated by consensus, precisely to avoid attitudes like this. Has our policy changed? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Why is this here? T. Canens (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

this is still not an issue for administrators. The OP has been advised of better venues for this discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then where? If this is not the place to find whether a substantial body of respected editors agree with this novel sentiment, where is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The user's talk page, the MoS talk page, and WP:RFA spring immediately to mind. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Also see and cite the policy at WP:Consensus. Later, one might ask for input at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) or through WP:RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Other places: WP:VPM, WP:RFC, Wikipedia talk:Consensus etc. General discussions about Wikipedia culture and standards are important discussions to have. This venue, however, is not a free-for-all, and there is no conceivable way one could consider this topic to be needing of administrators to commit some administrator action. Again: discussion good, here bad. Have it somewhere else. --Jayron32 20:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I've tried some of those; I will consider RfAr; I thought it might be useful to have a nice drama-free discussion of what policy was (if it isn't what our policy pages say) instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) From your previous comments at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Do_we_run_by_majority_vote.3F, I've assumed that your real question could be phrased, "Can I invoke NOTDEM prevent my losing the MOSDASH debate?" Sometimes we really do have to take a majority decision. We cannot simultaneously do "A" and "not-A", and (as in the MOSDASH debate) it is not always possible to do nothing. Given that nobody has yet showed any sympathy for this interpretation of NOTDEM, I do not think that trying yet another forum will produce the answer you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

An open letter about vandalism

Speaking as a confessed Wikipedia vandal...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Wikipedians, Speaking as a confessed Wikipedia vandal, I would like to clarify my rationale for abusing your website in the hope that it can help you to understand this problem and try to prevent it in the future. I would like to take the opportunity to state that I find your website to be a largely admirable venture, although it is not without problems at the very heart of how it works. As my acts of vandalism have proven, it is extremely easy for internet users to use Wikipedia as a tool for causing trouble either to make a point or for their own amusement. The policy of permitting virtually anyone to edit Wikipedia also has the downside of making it easy to add incorrect information to the website, which has done much to reduce the credibility of your website in the wider world. Of course, many users perform the admirable task of removing vandalism from your website and their actions should be commended, but subtler forms of vandalism have led Wikipedia to become rampant with factual inaccuracies which are much harder for legitimate users to spot and revert. They are also more likely to be believed by unassuming browsers who end up being misinformed by a website which is supposed to be a tool for discovering information. Speaking personally, I can say that, while my obvious acts of vandalism were almost all reverted immediately, some subtler errors which I introduced are still in place a long time after they were added. This highlights the problem of Wikipedia's openness allowing inaccuracies to creep in across the project, especially as it is unrealistic for such a huge website to be entirely 'policed' by users. The wide readership of Wikipedia has led me to decide it is an ideal website to pursue a personal grudge, which I have carried out via numerous accounts. My edits usually do not last long, but I still feel that they give my cause a publicity that would not be viable via other means. This idea has been further engendered by numerous discussions on talk and other pages which have mentioned or been critical of my actions. Aside from giving me great amusement, reading these discussions made me all the more determined to keep vandalising Wikipedia in the hope of gaining even more 'recognition' within the community. Therefore, the discussion of vandalism on your website, while necessary, just gives vandals more of an impetus to keep causing disruption so they can be discussed more and more. When I am 'in the zone' (that is, vandalising Wikipedia and laughing manically) my greatest desire is to have a special page constructed, detailing my vandalism and my numerous accounts. Many such pages do indeed exist, which is highly likely to provoke vandals into causing even more trouble. I believe it is one of your policies to 'deny recognition' to people like me by calmly reverting our edits and blocking us. Unfortunately, some editors appear to engage in too much discourse with and about vandals, contravening this policy and thus encouraging more disruption. When I read editors commenting on my actions, I get a rush that I get from few things other than intercourse. When a sock puppet investigation was opened to investigate my behaviour, I couldn't stop laughing and smiling. It is this rush that ensured I keep returning to Wikipedia to cause trouble. A more low-key (perhaps even private) means of discussing these affairs would prevent users like me from getting the recognition that we patently do not deserve. It is appalling that someone with my history of infantile, spiteful and offensive edits should be allowed to use Wikipedia, yet I have found it extremely easy to keep registering on the website again and again. Wikipedia is a factual website that could be of great value as a rare bastion of intelligent and impartial information on the internet, but your tolerance of anonymous editors and lack of screening of those who join is discrediting this. Allowing everyone to edit Wikipedia is certainly a nice idea but it is simply not a viable means of running an informative website. As an 'online encyclopaedia', the contributors to your website should be required to have some sort of credentials that asserts how they can speak from a position of expertise on certain matters. It is very admirable that you allow anonymous users to edit Wikipedia but sadly, it is hard to trust users who have nothing but an IP address to their name. I would also like to see some means of editing that prevents the possibility of disruptive edits finding it on to the website in the first place. Obviously, these steps would make Wikipedia a drastically different place and they may be difficult to enforce but I would like to see a Wikipedia that can be trusted as a reliable source for valid information and one that will not stand for vandals like me. One of my reasons for disrupting Wikipedia is to demonstrate how easy it is for troublesome users to spoil the hard work of decent, legitimate contributors on your website. Obviously, this is an inappropriate way to make a point but I hope I have proven that your website's openness has gone too far. Finally, I would like to apologise unreservedly for the disruption I have caused on Wikipedia. My actions have been unacceptable. The manner in which I placed my own petty amusements above the regards of your online community was selfish. In writing this letter, I am hoping that I can counteract the damage I caused by giving you some constructive criticism as to how to improve your website. Thank you, RiverSbank (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Only so you know, by far most anonymous IPs and editors with new accounts do not vandalize this website. One of Wikipedia's lasting strengths has been that it allows open editing. Thankfully there are so many volunteers willing to clean up the vandalism that does happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I believe (although it's impossible to be sure) that most of our admins had actually started out as anons, eventually deciding to create an account after several edits (or maybe even several hundred, although not likely that many). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My first edits here, more than seven years ago, were as an anon IP. I typed in the name of something I wanted to learn more about, found nothing there at all, clicked on a link and bingo, was writing the article myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated your article for deletion. J/K. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Busted! Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

<ahem> Deny recognition, please (good job so far, Gwen. )
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's healthy to think about the open editing/vandalism thing now and then. Guess I was in the mood to WP:DENY the above in this way, today. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

talk:China is looking for an impartial closer for a move request

At Talk:China a move request needs an impartial closer to decide whether or not a consensus has been reached on this proposal. It seems like time to close the discussion but I am a participant in that discussion so I cannot make that decision. any takers? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked if the discussion had died down already, but it seems to me it could do with a good number of people commenting who otherwise have no involvement in the China related articles. Agathoclea (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We discussed making a Request for Comment but it was decided that it made more sense to do things one step at a time, with so many having already participated, some felt that a consensus had in fact already been reached. If so there would be no point in requesting extra help. In general though. the issue does need outside help. No matter what the result of the move request is, the question of what should go under the title "china" will not be settled, to do so would require lots of outside help. The debate runs through the entire history of the page, all the way back to 2002. It's an extremely important topic and it needs to be settled, but not in a hasty fashion. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah a close would be definitely welcome :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the discussion dieing down, that is not likely to ever happen, although discussion of this particular proposal has slowed dramatically. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Would be nice to get this closed. I think its really poor if this needs escalating to get a move request closed appropriately. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW If a joint decision involving multiple admins is needed as its moderately controversial I'm perfectly happy with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are any interested Admins around waiting for discussion to die down, I would recommend they also consider Waiting for Godot. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Page move talk page problems

There has been problems getting the right content on the right talk pages at Greg Mathews and Greg Mathews (baseball). I think now the histories are somewhat messed up based on the content on the pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Done--Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of controversial move request?

GTB requested review of his close, it's been reviewed and found to be within policy, everything else is content dispute that requires no admin action; take it to the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I closed the move request (link added by NW (Talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)) at Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi after reading the whole thing and weighing arguments for about 2 days. Quite unsurprisingly, I'm getting complaints about it, so I'm bringing the close here for review by other administrators and other members of the community. Up front: I don't care one way or the other what the article is called. I have no preference of my own, and if I did, I would not have attempted to read a decision out of the discussion. Thanks in advance for any opinions, or other thoughts. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I haven't read the entire debate, but from what I see, it looks like a well-reasoned close. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Regardless of whether I would have closed it the same way as you would have (and I don't know if I would have), I think that your close was a well-reasoned one that clearly showed that you put a great deal of thought into determining which group had the strongest arguments. As someone must make the final call, I see no reason to overturn your closure. NW (Talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Looks like you did a good job analyzing the discussion. You didn't just go with "the ayes have it", you listed all the arguments and showed how you were weighting them. You came to the same conclusion I did, though, so take this with a grain of salt. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) There was no consensus to move, so you didn't move it. That was the correct decision.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Not seeing any problems here with your decision. MBisanz talk 18:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I !voted for the article to be moved (to Gandhi) and continue to believe that that's the right policy-based decision. However, I think it is important to recognize that an impartial administrator will see things differently from someone (like me!) who already has a strong opinion and that this 'impartial admin deciding consensus' is an important tool that allows most of us who care about the pedia to move on without rancor. Second guessing an impartial opinion is a mug's game that is bad for this encyclopedia in the long run. I suggest that, given this was clearly an uninvolved close, the thread be closed immediately and all participants be asked to move along. In the long run, the title of this article is less important than the process of decision making that we follow here. --rgpk (comment) 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC) That wouldn't bother me. I posted here because I always do that when I'm challenged on an RM decision. I'm satisfied by comments here so far — as I hope are my critics — that I haven't done anything grossly out-of-line. Thanks for your comments. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I want to point out here, as I did on the talk page, that I did not challenge you on the decision. I said I was bothered by one comment, no more than that. Scolaire (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I suspect that this sort of thing is going to pop up here more often until those criteria are better-clarified. Some people clearly hold a view that particular criterion (eg; common name) holds more weight than some of the other criteria, while others have a different view (be it that they treat another criterion with greater weight or they think all of the criteria should be given the same level of weight). In specific situations, there will always be two sides to a debate, but it becomes more complicated (and contentious) when people are not even on the same page about how the criteria should be applied in general situations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, this is an issue, and the reality (which may or may not bother any particular editor) is that the relative weights of the criteria vary from situation to situation. In this case, for example, the recognizability criterion was given less weight because the less recognizable option is still pretty darn recognizable. The weight of the recognizability criterion increases with the difference in recognizability between the options under consideration. Each criterion is complicated in this way, and trying to make the article naming process clear and deterministic and algorithmic is simply a bad case of jumping the gun. That's true until we are much, much clearer on just how article titling works. We can't just decide something and start enforcing it, because it has to come from the community, and this type of thing is difficult to read. It's not even clear that the 5 naming criteria we have listed at WP:AT are the only five factors to consider. They're just five things we wrote down one day, and we can't say with any degree of certainty that they present a complete picture, nor that there's a single correct way to apply them. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think you're talking about different contexts. Ncmvocalist is talking about how criteria is weighed in general, or, if you will, the basis used to decide how much to weigh each criterion relative to the others in specific conditions, and GTB is just noting that in each case we end up weighing the criteria differently. They seem like compatible views to me. I think we can say much more about how they're weighed than we currently do, but that's a discussion for another forum. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) What does "conciseness" mean? I did not participate in the discussion about this proposal, but I do request specific commentary on the interpretation of WP:CONCISE to mean merely "titles are not to be overly long". By using this interpretation, in the analysis of how the Principal Naming Criteria applied to this situation the closing admin found that the "conciseness" criterion did not prefer the shorter "Gandhi" to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", which is over four times longer. Does anyone else find this rather odd and unconventional (I know of no precedent for this interpretation)? Remember that WP:CRITERIA explicitly clarifies the meaning of "conciseness" in titles to mean, "titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer". I mean, what's the point of clearly specifying what these criterion mean if they are going to be ignored? I think it sets a bad precedent. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) This is what you get for closing difficult moves, see. And people wonder why the backlog at WP:RM gets out of control. I didn't "ignore" the criterion, Born2cycle, but I don't have time to reply to you right now. I'll be back in a few hours, and I'll take more shit for having taken on a decision nobody else was willing to do. Christ. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I basically gave up on the whole RM area a while back, largely due to the frustration that GTBacchus is expressing here. Article titles are tough, I think, because they are a rather "all or nothing" affair. There's a not-insignificant group of people who seem to feel that article titles are fairly insignificant, but the continual interest in them contradicts this view I think (and I think that sort of dismissive attitude creates more of a dispute here than there would otherwise be). Based on my experiences, I think that it's clear that we need better guidance on what we expect from our article titles. There's an ongoing issue with diacritics (although that dispute seems to have died down over the last few days), and there's always arguments about things such as "the person prefers to use <whatever> name" sort of thing, just to mention a couple of common problems that perpetually arise with RM's. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If you're referring to GTBacchus's comment in his sandbox, the full "interpretation" is: "The single-word name is shortest, and the two-word names are shorter than the two-word-plus-initial or three-word names, but none of the options really falls afoul of this criterion. A person's full name is concise, within any reasonable set of encyclopedia standards." This seems like a perfectly rational comment to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC) To Born2Cycle: If by "conciseness criterion" you understand that "Gandhi" is to be preferred to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi," simply because it has less letters, then the criterion becomes meaningless, for it (trivially) prefers the surname (or one name) on every Wikipedia biography page. However, except for Liberace and Morrisey and a few other stage names, and a few pseudonyms such as Nadar and Colette, there are no Wikpedia page names of people born in the last 150 years that consist only of surnames. What, for example, will be the value of your interpretation of conciseness in the page names of Waldo's friends or Goethe's peers or Gandhi's comrades? I believe GTB has made an eminently reasonable decision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", however "Gandhi" alone is not unambiguous and fails on other criteria. I think GTBacchus' analysis of the application of concision as quoted by Floquenbeam above is spot on. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Gandhi is unambiguous – look where Ghandi redirects. That said, I agree with the rest of your comments and with the general sentiment here that GTBacchus's closure was reasonable. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) No, "Gandhi" is ambiguous, but it is considered to have a primary topic that happens to be at a different title. older ≠ wiser 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, "Gandhi" is ambiguous, but since this topic is primary for "Gandhi" the fact that it is ambiguous is irrelevant to the title decision for this use of it (the ambiguity is highly relevant to the title decision for all the other uses of "Gandhi", of course). As I explained below, whether it fails on the other criteria is a separate issue from the topic of this subsection, which is exclusively about what is preferred per Concision alone, without regard to the other criteria. And on that point you and I agree (!) with each other, but disagree with GTB. You and I agree that "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". GTB's position is that Concision alone indicates no preference between the two; that "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" meets the Concision criterion just as well as "Gandhi" because "A person's full name is concise". --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I apologize for being unclear. I have no opinion on the overall decision and about whether it was justified. I also don't mean to take GTB to task. In fact, I applaud GTB for using this method of analysis - driven by the criteria - largely because it is so transparent. I must question, however, one particular aspect of the analysis upon which the decision was based, where he finds "No preference" for the Concise criterion because "A person's full name is concise". This is contrary to my understanding, because, as Bkonrad notes, "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Whether that title "fails under other criteria" is a separate matter (discussed above)... in this part of the analysis we are only asking which, if any, of the two titles is preferred by the Concision criterion alone, without regard to the other criteria. To address Fowler's point, it is not true that interpreting Concision to prefer Gandhi simply because it's shorter makes it meaningless. Concision also prefers Bush to George Bush, and prefers George Bush over George W. Bush but we go with the latter despite Concision (not because Concision has "no preference") because the others fail under Precision. If this president had been the only notable topic in the world referred to as "Bush" in reliable English sources, and was most commonly referred to as only "Bush", then we might very well choose Bush for the title of the article about him, for essentially the same reasons we have Liberace, which is largely because of Concision. To say that Concision is outweighed by other factors, as it definitely is in the case of "Bush" vs. "George W. Bush" and in the vast majority of all cases involving people, is one thing, and I have no issue with that (unless the other criteria don't outweigh it, which, again, is the issue being discussed above this subsection, not here). But to say that Concision has no preference in those cases, and in this one, because "A person's full name is concise" is, I believe, interpreting this criterion in a way I've never seen it interpreted. To say that Concision has no preference between Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Gandhi per GTB's "A person's full name is concise" interpretation of Concision is to say that Concision has no preference between Wladziu Valentino Liberace and Liberace, and doesn't even prefer George Herbert Walker Bush to George H. W. Bush. I suggest such reasoning reflects a truly meaningless interpretation of Concision, and I'm concerned about this decision setting a precedent for this interpretation of Concision, because it truly would make it meaningless. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC) In the English language, not often are middle names used, unless differentiation is needed, or the subject is much more well known with the middle name a part of the common name. With the usage of initials, I'm pretty sure that e. e. cummings would be a good example of this. We only need enough information to distinguish between different subjects, when possible. That's concise AND precise. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Exactly. But according to the Gandhi-is-no-more-concise-than-Mohandas-Karamchand-Gandhi interpretation of Concision used in this decision, E. E. Cummings is no more concise than Edward Estlin Cummings because "A person's full name is concise". Does anyone agree with that? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Let me try this again: Use the minimum information needed to distinguish people. And it's actually rare for people to use their full middle name in the US (now, if the full name were used as a custom in the US, then we probably would have the 2 Bushes under their full name and not just their middle initials). Same argument applies to e.e. cummings, to a certain degree. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Can you please explain how the point you're trying to make applies to the issue being discussed in this subsection? In other words, do you agree or disagree with the contention that "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is no less concise than "Gandhi"? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) It is probably better to have this discussion on the Article Title talk page; this page is really about whether he closed properly or not. The consensus here seems to be that he did. I have given you some single name examples such as Liberace and others, but they are all people who called themselves (and were called to their faces by others) by this one name. Come up with a few examples on Wikipedia of people (who are not royals or pseudo-royals, such as Napoleon) with normal 2-word or 3-word names, born in the last 200 years, whose Wikipedia pages consist of only their surnames. If you can with a few, we can talk on the Article Title talk page; if not, your interpretation of "conciseness" (to include as the first option the bare-boned surname) is unimplementable in practice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The dearth of just-surname examples (which I don't dispute) is not evidence that supports the interpretation of Concision to mean "A person's full name is concise", or that concision does not mean shorter titles are preferred. The dearth of just-surname examples is evidence of Concision being outweighed by other criteria, most notably Precision which probably accounts for most of it (surname alone is almost always ambiguous and rarely has a primary use) and Naturalness (what "readers are most likely to look for"). But Recognizability and Consistency (since Ronald Reagan is not at Reagan, Bill Clinton should not be at Clinton) play a role too. It's because Precision, Naturalness, Recognizabilty and Consistency all indicate the use of a full name that we almost exclusively use full names as titles in articles about people, not because full names are no less concise than surnames. I mean, newspaper articles use surnames alone throughout the body of articles precisely because surnames are more concise than full names. Isn't that obvious? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC) "Concise": wikt:concise:: "brief, yet including all important information" OED: "Expressed in few words; brief and comprehensive in statement; not diffuse." "concise" and "short" are not the same because it is possible to be "too short" but not "too concise". A lot of the interpretive flexibility is in whether "all important information" (wiktionary) is included, since what is important is arguable. Here, the question seems to be whether "comprehensive" (OED) for a title requires the title to be a unique identifier. But that opens up cans of worms about uniqueness. For example, there are plenty of cases of people where even using the full name as the title doesn't give you a unique title, and you have to disambiguate in various ways. So, for article titles, I'd say the only sensible way to interpret "concise" is as "the shortest title which is unique". That then combines with other criteria (we won't always use the shortest title which is unique). Rd232 talk 18:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The only sensible way to interpret "concise" is as "the shortest title which is unique". Hmm. I don't think Madonna (alone) is not suitable for being the title of the article about the entertainer because it is not concise, but because it is ambiguous (and not the primary use). Failure on uniqueness does not make it any less concise - it's still concise, and certainly more concise than "Madonna Louise Ciccone". It just needs to be more precise in order to be a title. Thus we have Madonna (entertainer), which is concise, but not as concise as "Madonna". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Put another way, concise means pithy. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Well, what conciseness means in general, in prose, is different from what it means in the specific context of titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think you've missed my point, by continuing to equate conciseness with brevity (shortness) alone, when concise is brief and comprehensive (which I argue in the context of the article title has to be interpreted in relation to uniqueness). I would argue precisely, to use your example, that "Madonna", whilst undoubtedly brief, is not "concise", because it isn't comprehensive (because it's not unique). By contrast "Madonna (entertainer)" is concise in the way that I've argued we should understand "concise" in the context of article titles, because it is both brief and unique (enough). You try to call this concept "precise", but what you really mean is uniqueness. And the point about "concise" is that it combines brevity and uniqueness. Example: Madonna Louise Ciccone (born xx, place bla, best known for blahdyblahblah) is increasingly precise, but it's getting away from brevity, whilst uniqueness is satisfied with rather less. Rd232 talk 22:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Okay, I'm with you now, but still, in the context of WP titles it's not really uniqueness but "unique (enough)", because being the primary use suffices, even if not unique. But even with that understanding of "concise", it still does not follow that "a person's full name is concise". The U.S. president's full name, for example, is "Barack Hussein Obama II", but we use Barack Obama, which is more concise, and Obama, which is even more concise, redirects to it, thus proving the surname alone is sufficient. That is, if we were to evaluate a proposal to move Barack Obama to Obama, Concision would prefer the shorter one (of course, the decision would not only be based on Concision). This is why I am asking whether anyone agrees with the part of the analysis that found Conciseness to not prefer Gandhi to the four times longer full name. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Shouldn't a debate over the meaning of "conciseness" in the WP:Article titles policy take place at that policy? Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Well, it's about an interpretation that was made in a particular RM decision. But I suppose we can move it and leave a link. Anyone object to moving this over to WT:TITLE and leaving a link here? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I see no reason to burden that talk page with this argument unless someone other than Born2Cycle also subscribes to this position. Is there a second? The actual policy is that there are five good things which the ideal title would have, and concision is only one of them; it may well have, in practice, less weight than the others. Another is precision; the title should be long enough to mean the article subject, not, say, Indira Gandhi; this establishes a de facto convention of using at least first names (with exceptions for odd cases, like Najibullah or Liberace). Exceptions should be made when there is consensus to do so; there wasn't. Another is consistency in following de facto conventions, when they exist. In this case, the use of a first name and not a title of respect is a de facto convention. Lastly, I find Mohandas less recognizable than Mohandas K. or Mohandas Karamchand; recognizability is yet another desirable quality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC) PMA, I don't understand why you're talking about all the other criteria in a discussion about the meaning of one of the criteria in particular. Anyway, when you say "unless someone other than Born2Cycle also subscribes to this position" (my bold emphasis), exactly what position are you referring to by this position? Please use quotes of whatever words of mine are necessary to show that whatever this position is, that it's mine. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC) P.S., my main position here is that Conciseness does not mean that full names are concise as was claimed in the analysis. And Bkonrad indicates agreement with this position when he says, "Gandhi" IS more concise than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Do you disagree with that? Do you actually disagree with anything I've said? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) That is to say: Does anybody else see any point to continuing this discussion at WT:TITLES or is this another pf B2C's one-man crusades? We've had those before; we had them under his last user-name. And I bring up the other points, because all five points are intended to be of the same form: in the case of conciseness: "Be brief, unless this causes too much trouble with the other points. " Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) What does "natural" mean? In the previous subsection we looked at how GTB interpreted and weighed the "conciseness" criterion in the criteria weighing section of his analysis such that he found "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" to be just as concise as "Gandhi". Since then I've read more of the analysis, and am now puzzled by his analysis with respect to the "natural" criterion as well. As he did with Conciseness, he quotes what is actually said at WP:TITLE, and then apparently completely ignores those words and uses a personal interpretation that is quite different from what those words mean, without telling us what that interpretation is, though here he gives some hints by saying "both WP:COMMONNAME and the principle of least astonishment come into play here". Even then, he says nothing about what is the most common name, or even how one might determine which of the candidates in this case is most common. The essence of the Natural criterion is stated by the policy to be, "names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article", but I see no evidence that GTB took this into account at all. If he did, he certainly didn't say anything about that. Apparently reducing "Natural" to mean only "does not astonish", he concludes that based on Natural there is "No Preference", as if readers are just as likely to search with "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as they are with "Gandhi" when looking for this article. GTB did not seem to consider that Google Scholar gives about 2,400 ghits[49] for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", and 409,000 for just Gandhi [50], and 46,400 if we add Mahatma to that last search [51]. I suggest it's untenable to contend that readers are just as likely to search with "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as they are with "Gandhi" when looking for this topic. That GTB found "No strong preference" here simply because he believes neither violates the principle of least astonishment is, well, astonishing. Now I am starting to question this decision, since it appears to be based on unreasonable interpretations and applications of at least two of the criteria: Conciseness and Natural. Reasonable interpretations of what the policy says coupled with the evidence indicates a strong preference for "Gandhi" over "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", not "no preference", at least per these criteria, which is all I've checked closely. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Consistent - analysis is reasonable Well, now my suspicions are raised, so off to examine his analysis in terms of the Consistent criterion we go. Here, his interpretation does seem to be consistent with what WP:TITLE says, Titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles.", because he makes statements indicating he was looking at similar articles. Other biographies, for example, mentioning Liberace and Morrissey, but not Christo, Mantovani, Shakira, Cher, Madonna or Teller (entertainer). But he notes that Gandhi "is peerless", that he hasn't seen a close precedent, nor does he expect there is one. In that case one might think on the basis of Consistent, since there are no peers or precedents, there would no preference, right? Wrong! Consistency prefers the full names because he compares to "most of our articles about very famous people" which mostly use full names (never mind that most of these people have ambiguous surnames and perhaps that's why we use full names). In the end, I would have found "no preference" here, but I really can't fault him for finding preference for use of full names since many famous people who are clearly the primary topic for their surnames, like Einstein and Shakespeare, are never-the-less found at their full names. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Precise, Recognizable, Summary I agree with GTB that Recognizable favors Gandhi over "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" (with reservations)[52]. I also agree that Precision favors " "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" over "Gandhi" for the reasons he states[53]. So in summary by my interpretation and reasoning of Natural and Concise (see above), and by our mutual agreement on the other criteria, we have Gandhi favored by Recognizable, Natural and Concise, and "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" favored by Precise and Consistent. If you weigh all factors equally, that favors Gandhi. Adjusting the weights can't change much since Precise can't be very important in a case where the topic in question is primary, and even GTB admitted the Consistent factor wasn't very strong. Again, I think this approach is to be lauded in general, but we really have to agree on what Natural and Concise mean and how they are to be applied -- and state that clearly at WP:CRITERIA -- or we're never going to get consensus on anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Improper move of articles (Spanish-language television shows: Capitalized or not?)

Content dispute that requires no admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Taran Wanderer has been the subject of wrongfully moving the article Caso Cerrado to Caso cerrado, as it is titled on the Spanish Wikipedia. I warned him multiple times not to move it & again he wilfully does so. He presented the argument saying that articles of Spanish-language television shows are to have only the first letter in the first word capitalized (which is the proper format on the Spanish Wikipedia) & I tell him we are not on the Spanish Wikipedia & that he should not argue over this. I however found out that he's the only one who argues over this, which seems pretty much embarrassing because nearly all articles of television shows (English or not) on the English Wikipedia have the first letter in ALL words (except the conjunctions, etc. of course) capitalized. This led to a dispute over the desicion & an administrator is needed to make the decision as to whether or not all articles of Spanish-language television shows on the English Wikipedia should have the title format as that of the Spanish Wikipedia. MegastarLV (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) My argument here is that regardless of this being the English-language Wikipedia, titles in foreign languages should abide to the rules set by their respective languages. English-language capitalization applies only to English-language titles, and foreign language-titles should be presented based on the standards of their specific languages. Caso cerrado, is an article for a Spanish-language television show and the capitalization of its title should abide by Spanish-language standards regardless of which Wikipedia it is presented in. My argument is not that we should abide by the Spanish Wikipedia (hundreds of titles are incorrectly formatted in it, but by rules, it does respect foreign language capitalization [54] (English, "Desperate Housewives" as opposed to "Desperate housewives"), [55], [56] ). I've corrected many article titles based on these same principles and have never come across anyone trying to defy capitalization rules, much less any sort of official Wikipedia policy stating that "foreign-language titles are to abide by English-language rules for capitalization." Many thanks. T.W. (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC) No, the rule is that do what reliable English sources do. Three are cited in the article; all three spell it Caso Cerrado; the titles, as given in the footnotes, are wrong. This should be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Too bad the most reliable sources disagree, since they abide by the rules. [57] Next thing you know we'll be moving 101 Dalmatians to 101 Dalmations, since the vast majority of sources, official and non-official, very often spell it wrong. T.W. (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) IMDB is mot a reliable source; and English has no such rules. Those who do wish to write English have a Spamnish Wikipedia to contribute to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) English DOES have such rules, as does every other language, I suggest you look them up and inform yourself. And IMDb.com is 100% reliable when it comes to the proper capitalization of titles in ALL languages; they have certain policies they follow for all of them and you can look up their guidelines on the subject (I know, I've been using a contributor to IMDb since 2003). "Those who do wish to write English have a Spamnish Wikipedia to contribute to." Not only is that sentence completely messed up, but it's also pretty rude and disrespectful, almost to the point that I could consider "Spamnish" a derogatory term. When writing titles in Spanish, English Wikipedia users are NOT writing in English, but in Spanish, a language that, just like every language, has rules that must be followed.T.W. (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Arguments so far are very weak: 1. "It's embarrassing." 2. "Most articles for Spanish-language television shows are improperly capitalized. 3. "If an official English title/name exists, it is to be used (WP:USEENGLISH)," which is not even applicable. 4. "Spamnish (English)-speakers belong in Spamnish Wikipedia." Claims that "all television shows regardless of language are to be capitalized according to English standards" and "even if incorrect, form most commonly used on "reliable" sources is to be adapted" have yet to be backed up by actual Wikipedia guidelines. I'd like imput from a person with actual knowledge on guidelines (specifically capitalization) and no foreign language prejudices. Thank you.T.W. (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me

I did not even know User:DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday, but just saw by chance that he has been instigating at least one other user (User:Aua) against me in a veritable pamphlet. The same he did on List of inventions in medieval Islam, where he suddenly came out of the blue, having to the best of my knowledge never shown an interest in the article in the past. This has clearly had an effect on User:Aua (who is new to me either) who ironically first seemed to regard me as Sinophile, but then promptly swung around to classify me as "equally critical of all non-Western lists. Whatever happened to honest contributing!" (1).

Given how elaborated and unprovoked DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me has been, I request a disciplinary block. By stirring up resentment against me he is bringing WP down to a low human level and there should be no excuse for that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: he has also been instigating other users against User:Aua. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

... you'll want to move this to WP:ANI and ensure you notify the user on their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy. I already moved this from Wikiquette. Sorry for the inconvenience. Now Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Admitted sock of blocked user.

Isabella Ranger Station

As an encyclopedia, do we tolerate guesswork like this edit in which Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) asserts that the Isabella Ranger Station was architected by the Architects of the United States Forest Service? (I believe he put that assertion into there because he's contesting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Forest Service Architecture Group.) I told him that I went to the Minnesota Historical Society's State Historic Preservation Office and worked directly off the form that's in their files. If there had been a specific architect listed, I think I would have mentioned it. And, if I really wanted to go to the State Historic Preservation Office to verify it, they aren't open until next Tuesday.

I don't get the accusation. Elkman's version of article, and his infobox generator report on the site, asserts that Forest Service architects are to be credited. He says that is unsubstantiated? It is what he wrote. I added a link for that. Also, I removed his assertion that the place was architected by the Civilian Conservation Corps, which seems false. --doncram 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm at WP:AN, though, the content dispute is secondary to Doncram's editing practices and inability to collaborate with other editors. I'm getting really tired of being accused of lying. And, as an encyclopedia, I thought we worked on verifiable information, not guesswork. His continued assertions that I don't know the difference between an architect, a builder, or an engineer are limitations of the source database, because they glop the architect, builder, and engineer into one field. I would have thought he'd clean up his act after coming off a three-week block, but that didn't happen.

Finally, I apologize in advance for the huge walls of text that this discussion is going to produce. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is about Elkman's unsubstantiated assertion in Isabella Ranger Station that a given building was architected by the Civilian Conservation Corps in addition to being designed by Forest Service architects. Discussed already at User talk:Elkman#Your unsubstantiated edits to Isabella Ranger Station and User talk:Doncram#Your unsubstantiated edits to Isabella Ranger Station. I don't see any wp:AN issue here. Elkman should not make unsubstantiated assertions. He, like many other users of his programming, should not be misled by its erroneous output. It is a documented error in his "Elkman nrhp infobox generator" that it mislabels, as architects, associated persons and organizations who were builders or engineers instead. Elkman, why don't you fix your generator? --doncram 16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In this edit Elkman now removes the probably false assertion that the CCC was an architect. Resolved? --doncram 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix in the generator because the field's purpose says, "Architect, builder, or engineer". I can't fix it. In fact, the source forms (like this one for the Cass County Court House, Jail, and Sheriff's House) have a line in Section 8, Significance, saying "Builder/Architect". That's what is transcribed into the database. I can't create information from a database that doesn't exist. Again, you are accusing me of lying and I don't appreciate it. This situation is not resolved. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, the NRIS database provides Architect, builder, or engineer. Your generator takes that and labels it "architect=", which is wrong in many cases, and which misleads editors, including, apparently in this case, yourself. As you are aware because it has been pointed out several times to you, an alternative mirror site of NRIS data, the private "NRHP.COM" site, avoids this error, correctly labelling as "Architect, builder, or engineer". For Isabella Ranger Station, see their page correctly labelling it. For one option, you could change your generator output to label the info correctly, perhaps "architect-builder-engineer= ____" (which {{infobox nrhp}} correctly would not display) and further add a hidden note to editors to obtain clarification from the NRHP document before splitting into "architect=" and "builder=" fields that would display. The builder= field was added to the infobox template upon my request recently. Improvements to your generator and to the nrhp infobox are probably best discussed elsewhere. There could be better ideas than this one i suggest now. At a minimum, I think you should include a warning note in your output that the asserted architect= information is wrong about five percent of the time, as has been shown, so it should not be relied upon.

Anyhow, you have acknowledged that the previous versions of the page, which asserted Architect included CCC, was wrong. You wrote both programmed it and wrote it into a Wikipedia article. It was wrong, and you agree that it was wrong. Is that what you mean when you say that I am accusing you of lying? I said the assertion in the article was false. You agree. What is "not resolved"? --doncram 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, I remind you that Elkman's generator is a tool, not a source. If you think Elkman's generator is so flawed... stop using it.

To move beyond the immediate content dispute... what concerns me is that Doncram seems to have learned nothing from his recent long term block. Looking at both this dispute and at his talk page, he appears to have gone right back to his combative editing behavior. And he still insists that it is all "someone else's fault". Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Time to issue a final warning (e.g. something on the level of {{uw-npa4im}}) and to levy a months-long block if the warning be ignored. Doncram very knows both our policies and the fact that Elkman's generator is a generator, but he continues to make "lies" or "lying" statements over and over again. Such statements plainly have the effect of disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. In an edit summary, I stated I was going to remove a probably false assertion from a Wikipedia article, and did so, and Elkman eventually agreed that it was probably incorrect information, actually in the edit before he opened this wp:AN thread. I did not assert that Elkman was lying. It is also true that the Elkman generator generates sometimes incorrect information, but it cannot be wrong to point that out, in a thread which he opened. And certainly if there is information in a wikipedia article which is inaccurate, that should be corrected. There is no issue of civility or personal attacks or anything like that here, unless by misinterpretation. Nyttend, I wish you would please acknowledge that. --doncram 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was called rude for plainly observing that he did not seem to understand that DodoBot is a bot not a human. He then reframed things as if he understood. --TimL (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram... What needs to change is the entire tone of how you interact with others. Being the subject of two unrelated ANI reports on the same day should tell you something (and the message isn't "they are ganging up on me")... it really is something you are doing. Think about it. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"I don't know what your problem is" is not an acceptable statement per WP:NPA. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i reacted poorly to TimL's comment with that phrase. Actually the phrasing i used was conditional: "If you are..., then I don't know what your problem is", and I also said "If I have misunderstood something and you are somehow not being deliberatly rude, please explain." YMMV about whether TimL's followup there and here clarified whether he was being deliberately rude. However, i was reacting on my own Talk page to TimL's commenting about what i "seem to grasp" or not, about which he knows little (FYI, TimL, I have quite a good understanding of what bots do, have obtained complicated bot requests that ran across many thousands of articles, and I am an authorized bot operator myself). I was surprised to see him commenting possibly dismissively about me that way on my own page, as if it is now okay for anyone to talk dismissively about me because he observes others have posted negatively about me, and I reacted to his statement but I also qualified my response. Also, I spoke to TimL in similar tone to Elkman's comment to me just before, "What the hell were you thinking with your edits to Isabella Ranger Station ....? I know you're desperately trying to preserve United States Forest Service Architecture Group from deletion, but in this edit, you're accusing me (yet AGAIN) of lying in an infobox." Is that acceptable?

Anyhow, I think I perceived TimL as picking up on negativity expressed in others' comments on my Talk page, and joining in, as if he thought i was a weak target to bash on. I apologize to TimL if that was not correct. --doncram 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, you're responsible for your own reactions, and those of others are not the topic here. Rather, the topic here is your longtime pattern of disruptive behavior, which is not something by which Elkman is characterised. I'm not going to do it myself, but if you don't cease this disruption, I suspect that someone will try arbitration before long, and you are not likely to go through that without significant problems. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Doncram, you should be glad I didn't reply with the kind of four-letter words that I'd really like to deliver. I'm reaching a point of extreme frustration with you, your edits, and your interactions with everyone else here. The difference between "architect" and "builder" is a known issue in my infobox generator, in the National Register database, and even on the National Register nomination forms. Your characterization that I'm lying, your assertion that the United States Forest Service Architecture Group designed the building (based on no source whatsoever), and your insistence that I fix my generator are the issues that are currently driving me to frustration. And yeah, there's probably a Request for Arbitration likely in the near future if you don't get a clue about your behavior real soon now. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)I have not characterized Elkman as lying, ever, as far as I know. A lie is a deliberate untruth. Elkman's assertions that I have characterized him as lying, at my Talk page and repeated here, are false however. I think Elkman conceived the idea that I was calling him such during one previous wp:AN episode, when he described a Minnesota article he had developed in a way that I understood as him saying that he had misidentified a person as being an architect in that article. I do perceive the Isabella Ranger Station article as one where he was misled by ambiguous information in NRIS, i.e. that he put CCC into the article in the infobox= field, which I removed, as probably false. He agrees that was probably false, so I don't see why he should take offense. Nyttend seems to have accepted Elkman's assertion that I have characterized Elkman as lying. I believe I have not. Show diffs, or please stop repeating this, both of you.

(2) My assertion in the article that the USFS architects designed the buildings was and is my good faith understanding of who designed the buildings. Elkman's developed article already included "architect=USDA Forest Service; CCC" and I believed that the CCC was wrong but the USDA Forest Service was correct. This is based on my detailed reading of many other similar ranger station cases in Oregon and elsewhere where Elkman's NRIS generator report would produce the same ambiguous listing of both the USFS and the CCC as architects and/or builders and/or engineers and where full documentation available clarifies that the USFS architects designed while the CCC built. I emphasized this interpretation by adding it to the text and linking it; Elkman interprets that as incorrect to do and labels that as "guesswork". I accept that another editor can judge the interpretation is not adequately supported, and prefer to remove both USFS and CCC, rather than just remove CCC. That is subjective though, and I repeat my judgment was in good faith.

(3) I am taken aback about Elkman objecting to my asking him to fix his generator. I was driven to point out that error by others' criticism of my own accurately ambiguous statements of what was known in some articles (i.e. my saying that a person was a builder and/or an architect). This is where his generator too-confidently suggests that all NRIS-listed persons are architects, which is accepted by many other editors and written into many articles when in fact sometimes the persons are builders and in rare cases where the persons are engineers. It is a fact that Elkman's generator does mislabel builders and engineers, in the 5% or so of cases that list those, as architects. I am really sorry, but why not fix that? Why not label them correctly as architect-builder-engineer= and require editors to determine which is true? You don't have to, you are a volunteer operating an off-wiki generator that other editors use at their peril, but I really don't understand why you don't fix that and why you should be frustrated about the suggestion.

This is just going in circles, so I will try not to reply further. --doncram 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To address just point #3 of the above: For the last time, I can't generate information that isn't there. I'll characterize it in SQL:

Tell me where the time zone is supposed to come from that. Or, to add another column:

Looks fine until you cross the Mississippi River and realize that a good chunk of St. Cloud, Minnesota is in Benton County, Minnesota and Sherburne County, Minnesota. Oops.

So, for the last time, stop asking me to generate information that isn't in the database. It's there in the nomination forms. And stop accusing me of lying. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Doncram, I mentioned this before, but it is worth repeating... if you think that Elkman's info box generator is flawed, (and from your comment that "editors use it at their peril", it seems obvious that you do)... why do you keep using it? Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the venue for a content dispute, so extensive comments about why the generator is flawed and things like that aren't germane. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Widespread misuse of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A5

From my experience many administrators have misapplied Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A5 to articles that contain the {{wi}} instruction. I have clarified the text on A5 in Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A5. Please can an admin scan through all old A5 deletions as I suspect that many articles have been wrongly deleted for this reason.--Penbat (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• No. Rklawton (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are creating a lot of articles that are nothing but a definition, others you are redirecting to wiktionary. Read WP:NOT.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your "clarification" was reverted at WP:CSD, you may want to discuss that on |the talk page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, deletions aren't searchable by criterion, so I don't know how your request could possibly be fulfilled from a technical point of view. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be possible to write a bot script that goes through Special:Log/delete and checks for deletion log summaries like "A5". However, my personal opinion is that these {{wi}} links to Wiktionary are a waste since Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and thus they should be deleted. (Redacted IP address) Sorry, I somehow got logged out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Forget the whole "scan through all old A5 deletions" thing (even if someone had the wherewithal to do that... I mean, whatever). What's the problem with soft redirecting our readers to wiktionary? How is leading people who are looking for our content to a sister site turning us into a "linkfarm"? It's Wiktionary... !
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Like Ohms, I also thought that A5 was for articles that said things like "Foo is a verb that means 'to screw up on Wikipedia'", not for soft-redirects to Wiktionary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Convention (and consensus somewhere a long time ago) was that those Wiktionary redirects should not be used on every page that would only have a definition. People can search Wiktionary if they need to, we don't need thousands of essentially useless pages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add a link to MediaWiki:Newarticletext to direct users to Wictionary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)