Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see

Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.

User:Flameviper needs a coach

Flameviper (talk · contribs): I'm not going to take the time to provide a bunch of diffs; a quick glance through this user's contribs or talk page archives will give you the gist. Flameviper is highly disruptive and doesn't take constructive criticism or even conduct warnings seriously. I'm not entirely sure that mentoring him won't be a waste of time, but maybe some intrepid admin or experienced editor wants to take Flameviper under their wing. Perhaps if he is treated like a grown-up he will act like one. He's assented to mentorship (more or less) on his talk page. I honestly don't have the time right now, or I'd give it a go myself. A Train ^{take the} 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If no-one else wants to can I take him on? I've seen him around lately and do believe that he means well but just needs someone to tame his temperament RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

More power to you. I came across him in his extremely ill-advised RfA and an MfD for his personal wiki's Main Page; I heartily agree that he needs some sort of guidance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope he agrees to it, Ryan. You're absolutely right; he's a very good editor when he wants to be, but as it stands right now he's just headed for a long block. A Train ^{take the} 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully someone can get through to him. He's teetering on the edge of a block with one more disruption from about 5 different admins. Metros232 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually away tonight, but come tomorrow I will try and get through to him, I just hope he doesn't do anything stupid tonight. I really do believe he has potential to be a useful contributor (possibly not admin though like he seams to think!) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That guy is hilarious! I especially like his user page. I'd give him a userpage barnstar, but I'm too tired right now.--Abs Like Jesus 19:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have now blocked Flameviper for one monthh. He's had this coming for awhile. This edit was the final straw. It's edit summary "Let's hope (for both our sakes) you don't piss me off" and threatening to be disruptive is totally inappropriate. If anyone disagrees with this, let me know, but too much has gone on in the last couple of weeks from this account to justify allowing him to continue to edit Wikipedia for the time being, Metros232 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly endorse • I would even go so far as to want a strong community ban. Behaviour exhibited on Elaragirl and Jpgordon's talk pages is so clearly unacceptable we may even want to use it as bad examples in WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  I was reluctant to do a full ban because many people above believe he can be a good editor. However, if the community wants to investigate his actions further towards a full ban, I have no problem with that. Metros232 20:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse I've protected the talk page, this is rather agitating and might warrant a possible WP:RfAr. Yanksox 21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I think this is a bit much. Flameviper is by no means perfect but he should be given a final chance to become a more productive contributor, possibly through mentorship. As for that post on Elara's talk...I have seen worse. There is a sort of implied threat but the edit summary is certainly honest and - am I allow to say this? - sort of accurate as well. I have faith that Flameviper can improve his conduct here. I agree that 24 hours of enforced wikibreak would do no harm, but a month is a bit much. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on that one. This was enough for me to see that he really doesn't have anything positive planned for us and is acting a tad bit psychotic and will need to take a long break to just chill out. One day would fuel the fire, a month will let him burn out and start anew. Yanksox 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought a month seemed harsh (not knowing the history here) but the link above basically shows stated intention to troll. Either an indefinite block or the one-month as a last chance seem appropriate to me. Friday (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, a 1 month block coincides nicely with his recently announced 1 month vacation from Wikipedia, so I don't really see a problem here.--Isotope23 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the "1 month vacation" is really him unwilling to admit he was blocked and try to make it seem like he's not going to be editing because he doesn't want to (note how he replaced my block notice with that announcement). Metros232 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know... I always forget that irony doesn't always translate well in written communications.--Isotope23 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no drum to bang for the guy, but it looks to my eyes that we gave him the provokation he was seeking, then, when he responded, we provoked him again. He responded again, and then we blocked him.

I'm always happy to block on a threat, but we could be accused of using it as a pretext here. This guy isn't the best contributor in the world - by a long chalk - but we've talked ourselves up from some minor disruption to indef blocking being on the cards in a matter of hours. We block disruptive sockfarmers for less time than this guy has got and with more provokation.

Some coolheadedness would not go amiss here. (Not that I'm advocating unblocking him or anything... just a sense of perspective, maybe?) 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in general, but in this one particular case, he came right out and said he wanted to stir up trouble. Trolls come in (at least) 2 flavors: people who sit down at the computer and say "today I will troll Wikipedia", and immature editors who get into conflicts, are unable to let it go, and start trolling by accident, still convinced they're "fighting the good fight". This guy may have been unfortunately and needlessly provoked, I don't know, but we still got to see his reaction to provocation. He reacted by stating his intention to troll. Trolls of any kind are unwelcome here. Friday (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue though is that it's this pattern with the user. Many people were looking for him to be blocked a week+ ago when he was disruptive during his RFA. He was given many, many last chances in the last few weeks. Metros232 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse: However maybe reduce the block :/, this stuff needs to stop though. ~ Arjun 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't hold your breath on that, user has had previous accounts such as Son_of_a_Peach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked multiple times until an indefblock in September last year. This is an ongoing problem. --pgk 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This user's attitude seems to have seriously worsened since his most recent unsuccessful RfA a couple of weeks ago. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is one of the reasons I went with a month. This isn't Flameviper's first travels into the realm of incivility blocks. He's been blocked on several other accounts indefinitely, see User:Flameviper/socks. Metros232 23:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Block I think a ban is a little extreme (...for now...). I think a two-week "cool the hell down" period would work just fine before we permanently shuffle him off the wiki coil. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks pgk, I previously didn't know that he had socks and all that jazz. I support EVula's idea. A two-weaker. ~ Arjun 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse block given the user's history. However, I would also like to see it shortened to two weeks, perhaps. A month is too long at this point. --Coredesat 02:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • But the user's history IS the reason for the longer block. See User:Flameviper/socks. This isn't his first "go around the block" so to speak (no pun intended). He clearly should know what behavior is unacceptable based on the indefinite blocks of his former accounts. If this was a user with no past, sure, a few weeks is okay, but a longer block is necessary to prevent further disruption (because so far this user seems to only cause disruption no matter what account he uses). Metros232 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose he just began his mentorship, so why is he now being blocked? You missed the edit until after he was picked up by a mentor, so you lost your chances of a ban. Crud3w4re 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • His threats came 20 minutes after he refused mentorship. I don't think we "lost" a chance as you put it. Metros232 02:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

24 hour ban

I can totally understand everyones concerns, but please could this be reduced to a 24 hour ban? I am more than happy to work with this user and try and point him in the right way. In my opinion, a month will stop him editing completely and as I've already said, flameviper means well and has much to give to wikipedia. I promise that with any further major disruption I will immediatly request that he is blocked. I really would like a chance to turn this user around into a good editor as he has the potential. (I do believe a 24 hour band is in order as a cooling off period) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I've emailed Flameviper as his talkpage is protected. I've asked what he actually wants to get out of editing wikipedia and what his interests are, If anyones interested, I'll let them know his responses RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose reducing it to a 24 hour ban block. This user's recent behaviour certainly merits a block, and his past record merits making it a long one. I support EVula's idea above to reduce it to two weeks, but not just 1 day - that will get nothing into his head. – Chacor 02:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand this, but could you give him one last chance? fair enough, a longer ban than 24 hours, how about 4days? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose reduction - brief contact with this user has convinced me that he's essentially a good kid at heart, but doesn't have the maturity to be consistently constructive in his contributions yet. He needs a good long time-out (ideally the original month, certainly longer than 24 hours). I don't think mentorship will be a productive use of anyone's time, because fundamentally what Flameviper needs is time to mature. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  For the record, I'm not going to cry if he never returns, given his rather hostile attitude. However, I would like to at least give him the rope to hang himself. How about we reduce the block with the condition that this is the last chance he gets? Worst case scenario is that we have a mild bit of extra work and then he's gone; best case scenario, we get a more mature, productive, and civil editor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose reduction per Opabinia regalis. Much as I would like to assume good faith and believe in second chances, this user has continued to be disruptive over a long period of time, so I don't think a 24 hour block will be a sufficient "cool down" period. I haven't interacted directly with Flameviper, but I did observe his behaviour surrounding another user's RfA and his taunting remarks on the user's talk page, as well as on User talk:Bumm13. It should also be noted that Flameviper has at least one admitted sock (according to User:Flameviper/socks) that hasn't been blocked, namely User:Flameviper in Exile. The sock account may not have done anything wrong, but a block on one account is ineffective if a user can potentially use another account to dodge the block. I do feel bad for him, but this was a result of his own actions. --Kyoko 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  That was a concern I had as well (the open sock). The contribs have been quite on that, though; I'm willing to leave it that way to, as I said earlier, give him his own noose.

  I think it's pretty clear that a reduction to 24 hours is just plain out, but what about my suggestion of whittling it down to just two weeks? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think that a reduction to a two week block plus the condition that any further violations would lead to an indefinite block would be acceptable. Hopefully Flameviper will take this opportunity to think more about how he might contribute to the encyclopedia rather than dwell on his disputes with others. --Kyoko 07:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some #wikipedia chanops and I have recently had an unproductive run-in with this user. Maybe give him a couple of years to mature a little bit, then he can start contributing ... Cyde Weys 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this guy is a failed /b/tard. He's spitting out 4chan memes like a total newbie. I don't have an issue with this guy's being a 4channer, but his actual contribution to the encyclopedic aspect of this site has been minimal and barely marginal at best. Most of the time, he's just testing our patience. I'm really leaning towards a permaban. Yanksox 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth in that regard, Flameviper is a proud Uncyclopedian (not that there's anything wrong with that), but his contributions to Wikipedia are uncyclopedic in nature. Teke ^(talk) 02:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Endorse I saw no good argument for a permanent ban. Why the mob stack? He deserves atleast a second chance. I saw many violations of Assume Good Faith in here. Crud3w4re 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's all well and good, but I don't think you're actually acknowledging the pure facts of this incident. He's alreadly been blocked several times, others indef. on other accounts. This is a text book example of trying our patience. Yanksox 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Email conversation with User:Flameviper

I'm not sure if anyone is interested, but I've emailed flameviper and his responses can be found in my userspace here, I'm not sure what to make of it, especially the last few lines so comments would be appreciated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. And he is on a very tight rope. – Chacor 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother spending time trying to reform him. If he wants to edit usefully when his block expires, he will do so. If he does otherwise, he'll find himself running out of chances soon. Not much you can do about it either way. The bit about him enjoying being an attention-seeker does not bode well. The minute he shows signs of putting his desire for attention ahead of the interests of the project, it's time to show him the door. Until then we should ignore him as much as possible- feeding his desire for attention can accomplish nothing useful. Friday (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still on board with my "reduced block/last chance" idea, though the email doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about his reformation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• No way. WP:DENY. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, and I no longer think that a two week block would be sufficient, based upon the revelation of another sock account (User:HUNGY MAN) that was used recently used in an attempt to evade the block. The HUNGY MAN account recently edited User:Flameviper's userpage as shown in this diff, and he implicitly admits that this is a sock of Flameviper here. --Kyoko 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• After seeing that email (the last two lines) I would probably suggest extending it to a permanent ban. This guy's had 2 RFA's, both stating he's a "reformed vandal", and then openly admits in the email that he "loves people talking about him" and has a troll wanting to get out. And all that crap about writing articles is just a little hard to believe. This is a serial unproductive/disruptive editor. -- Renesis (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hmm...very interesting; I don't know about a permanent ban but then again...Those last two lines are very bothering. ~ Arjun 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think the majority of the email suggest that he is trying his hardest to make good faith edits, just the last 2 lines are very worrying and suggest he is more than likely to blow again at any point. I also don't feel it is good for an editor to have a major interest in other editors disgussing him. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has gone too bloody far, we can't afford to bicker about this and wait for him to create enough socks. I've indefinitely blocked him for his actions. The threshold has most certainly been passed here. Yanksox 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• He seems to think somehow that threatening Wikipedia with vandalism and sockpuppeting increases the likelihood of getting reinstated. A reasonable person would understand that just the opposite is true. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm certainly not going to argue against Yanksox's decision. --Cyde Weys 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any major complaints about his indef block, but I do feel it is a bit of a sneaky way to get rid of an editor, especially when he has done quite a few good faith edits. He should have been given a final chance after his 1 month block with any further disruption resulting in an indef RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How many chances should he get? I remember him as one of the first persons I've had to deal with after becoming an admin, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive71#User:Flameviper12. Back then, the user was already troublesome. He hasn't changed a bit in well over a year. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, its just that he was originally given a 1 month block, if he had disrupted after this block, it would have given a far great weight to a perma ban and this could have been done directly after just one further disruption RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse indefblock. He can go feed his inner troll somewhere else while he grows up. Since we all pretty much agree that he's going to be disruptive after the month runs out, why let him get that last whack in? (Also, archive this thread; WP:DENY.) Opabinia regalis 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse indefblock - Everyones right, he did have it coming and wikipedia doesn't need disruptive users like him. Maybe he can mature for a few years and then create a new account RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just curious about the policy here. I saw him on IRC only a few minutes ago. Is someone still allowed to participate there if they are banned here? Or are the encyclopedia and the IRC channels like seperate jurisdictions. I know that Arbcom declined to rule on an IRC case because of something like that. — MichaelLinnear 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I thought he was (completely and totally unrelated to this block) banned from the IRC? And yes, it is separate. Blocks here don't necessarily apply there (unless the chan ops think it should). Metros232 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we initiate a new noticeboard?

A comment here on the increasing number of community ban discussions: although this noticeboard is open to everyone, its title does tend to scare away the unmopified crowd (it certainly had that effect on me before I assumed janitorial responsibilities). So since community bans - and potentially community enforced mediation as well - are in principle for the entire community, perhaps we should initiate a new noticeboard for community-specific action. I'm thinking something parallel to this and listed in the same places rather than the Village Pump (which handles more new user and general questions). Call it Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Thoughts, anyone? Durova^Charge! 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it for the very reasons you put forth. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Support the idea of the page. Not sure about the name. 'noticeboard' seems to imply that it is for posting notices, rather for seeking consensus on things. Does Village 'Ting' sound more like what we want? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean the Village Ðing/ðing? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect so. But I'd prefer something I can type.

Endorse ;), great idea. ~ Arjun 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. It'll make things easier. Acalamari 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pile-on endorse :) Aecis^Brievenbus 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm...maybe the introduction should express that this is for community discussion of potential bans and things like that. It isn't a chat room. And some tech whiz could add it to the noticeboard template? Durova^Charge! 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the page has been created: Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. I'd rather have seen a discusion of the name first, but whatever. Let's see how it goes. If it does turn into a chat room we can rename it to Village Ting, or Ðing. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit, please feel free to edit/second-guess/slash away. IronDuke 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better explanation of what this is for would be appropriate. Right now, since it only mentions community bans, it may be viewed by newer users as only for community bans. I must admit, I myself am not entirely clear on what else would go on this board. Natalie 03:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone created the board almost as soon as I suggested the idea. The door's very open to discussion. It would work with the new mediation I've been proposing, to welcome the entire community in community decisions. Things fly along fast here and at ANI - a regular editor who doesn't follow sysop topics would probably miss a lot. It seems to me we should encourage open involvement in community decisions. Admins don't carry extra weight at these discussions over any other editor in good standing. It's the equalizing principle. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's just for Community bans and the like, perhaps a better name for it would be something like "Community enforcement noticeboard". As is, the title seems to suggest it's just another name for the Village Pump. Actually that might be a decent way of dealing with the title as well: make it be Wikipedia:Village Pump (Enforcement). --tjstrf talk 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In theory it would be open to any community decision making. I'm flexible about name and location. What I want to circumvent is this impression and the people who read the thread but are too shy to participate at all. Durova^Charge! 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's for general community discussion/decision making (the two are rather synonymous), then it really is a duplicate of the village pump with one additional subject. The pump already has all the areas it would discuss that aren't community bans/enforcement that I can think of covered, so to avoid duplication we should put it in the same tree as the others. The pump already has problems with duplication here and on various ancillary Wikipedia talk:-space pages (for the proposals and policy sections especially), adding another general discussion area would presumably result in even more duplication. --tjstrf talk 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• I hope I have not jumped the gun, however, I have made some changes to the proposed community board and transcluded templates of a technical nature. If this is not the consensus, please feel free to discuss or edit, slash, etc. regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• The name should be more specific if it is for the new mediation; community noticeboard sounds too close to community portal, new users will be liekly confused. If it is to be more general, we already have forums for that, as pointed above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Uh, how would this be different from the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard? I mean, how are we going to stop the new board from collapsing onto itself, like WP:PAIN did? Titoxd^(?!?) 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it amazing that someone has even posed that question. Is that a joke? Durova^Charge! 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, and not by a far shot. Let's say that I want to go there to ask for a community ban on EvilCat. What's to stop the other user from engaging me there, and writing megabyte upon megabyte of ranting? What is the difference, in principle, of both boards? I still see it boiling down to one user asking for punishment on another. There may be something really obvious that I'm missing, but I still don't see why my question is a joke. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Siteban discussions would proceed there the same way they proceed here or at ANI. The only differences are how a community board title doesn't imply admin-only discussion and a lower traffic board decreases the risk that occasional visitors will miss something important. If a thread gets trolled it'll get refactored or shut down, same as here. That board is for community decisions rather than gripes. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the only reason ANI doesn't dissolve into PAIN is that it is watched by hundreds of people. If the community noticeboard is not watched, the same thing will happen there. For the matter, if PAIN and RFI had been watched, there would have been no problem with them. —Centrx→talk • 22:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So let's all put Wikipedia:Community noticeboard on our watchlist. :) --Conti|✉ 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Another use for the community noticeboard could/should be the notification of recently closed ArbCom cases IMHO, which are currently put here. --Conti|✉ 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had that in mind. The heavy traffic on this board makes it easy to miss that sort of notice and ArbCom decisions are of interest to the entire editor community. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the goal of countering the impression that this board or other boards are just for admins is admirable, and should be pursued. I lurked, if the kids are still using that term, on this board for many, many months before I ever posted a single question, much less a comment, and still have maybe posted 3 times. But I think I agree with Tjstrf that this could easily result in more duplication of topics or confusion over where a certain thing should be posted. Natalie 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's another good use for it. I endorse the idea of moving closed arbitration case-postings to the CN, seeing as they're of interest to the whole community. Picaroon 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I'd rather move AN over CN; from my perspective, splitting the discussion like this seems more confusing than anything. It adds another page for me to watch over, fragments already-hectic discussion, and may add to the unfortunate perception that admins are more important than other users. Well-intentioned, I am very much sure, but a move/merge may be more useful than a split, is my take. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't mind having a new specialized noticeboard, but it will only be productive if we move inappropriate posts to the forum where they actually belong. Already the Community Board is picking up policy-related discussions that arguably belong on WP:VPP or WP:VPR. >Radiant< 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Since it's a general board it'll probably pick up a fair amount of misposted traffic from novice editors. A little maintenance should take care of that. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing trolling at the refdesk talk page.

User:Loomis51 and User:Barringa are luring us (and by "us" I mean other RD editors like User:SteveBaker, User:Mwalcoff, User:Dave6, and the original remover, User:87.102.9.117, as well as I) into an argument - the latter user attempting to soapbox the RD with anti-semitism, the former attempting to engage me and other editors into a debate and accusing us of "sweeping things under the rug". I've run out of good faith here - I and other editors have explained to them both WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CENSOR, but they continue. As users like Friday, Sczenz and Hipocrite don't seem to be taking any action here when they usually are active in such things, I'm asking for someone, preferably an admin, to come in and check out this situation. Loomis seems to think that the question should have been removed because of its content, something we don't do, and that telling Barringa in good faith that his question was removed due to its intent was somehow aiding and abetting an anti-Semite. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a few diffs? .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you can just have a look at this entire thread for starters. Anchoress 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like a flamebait post. I think this is such because it seems (from the text of the post) that the conclusion is already decided in his eyes, and thus it's not an actual question but rather an attempt to "stir things up." Perhaps he re-work the post in a different way as to be non-offensive, but I'm not sure if that's possible... .V. _[Talk|Email] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

He did, and now the two are going at it in a different post. Both are using the refdesk as sandboxes. one example, the rest are in Anchoress' post and a multitude of diffs in the RD/H history that would take half an hour to all post. edit: Loomis still seems to be under the impression we remove "anti-Semitic" questions for their own sake rather than because of their intent. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This certainly is a mess... .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board: Canvassing and vote stacking?

I am concerned that this wikiproject is being used as a forum for Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. I was engaged in a dispute over an article that was asserting a very Scottish POV Talk:Hamilton when a posting was made to Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. Suddenly, 3 project members joined the debate by simply supporting the original disputant. Not only did they not contribute any fruitful debate, I received further insult for engaging in the debate. Upon reading the Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board page, I have the concern this project page may be used to disrupt Wikipedia. For this reason, I look for administrator consideration. Alan.ca 05:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm an ethnic-based noticeboard? Hmm yikes. I see a bit of POV-solicitation going on (here for example). I guess wikiprojects kind of do the same thing. It's hard to draw the line between notification and solicitation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An an attack on an editor with a different point of view, for good measure. Tyrenius 06:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An ethnic based noticeboard? I think not. It is a regional noticeboard - as is pretty obvious. The Hamilton article is Scottish related and is thus relevant to the board. As pointed out in reply to your post RE:Canvassing Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Talk:Hamilton the dispute involving yourself and Brendanh being stated upon the board does not qualify as votestacking. siarach 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Everyone on that board is interested in Scottish topics. We have Swedish notice boards, and an Irish noticeboard, and many, many WikiProjects which serve a similar purpose. Hamilton is relevent to Scotland. Get over it. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What can I do about continuous soapboxing?

Is there anything that either I or an admin can do about continuous soapboxing? I and another editor have repetitively pointed out that WP is not a soapbox in this one particular Talk page, but it continues. The latest rant appears to be some lengthy diatribe about Jewish people[1]. How can we get these soapboxers to stop? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that one of the soapboxers, User:Mr Phil, has recently been warned by an admin about making personal attacks[2]. His account on German Wikipedia[3] was banned because of his behaviour. And he has indicated on his Talk page that he will only edit in English Wikipedia because of this[4]:

• Ich werde mich von jetzt an nur noch in der englischen Wikipedia äußern, die deutsche Wikipedia ist nur für Zensur gut.
• Translation by Dictionary.com Translator: I will express myself from now to only in the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia am good only for censorship.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet more lengthy soapboxing[5]. These editors are now on a full-blown rant against Jewish people, and even go as far as justifying the Holocaust. Help from admins would be much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be considered vandalism if the soapboxing does not stop? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the soapboxers have now vowed to wage an "endless" edit war.[6] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple of the Jedi Order (Real)

The organization's agent and major contributor to this articcle had blanked the page, agreeing with the AFD discussion, and has requested deletion. Can we spare his organization any further embarassment and close this AfD early (speedy delete)? I am the AfD nom. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These aren't the droids you're looking for... EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As a note, Jerry, you may close any AfD whose article has been deleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. Re EVula - I am not the droid you are looking for. Cheers! Yuser31415 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, non-admin AfD closing should [probably] really only be done in the event of an overwhelming "Keep"; an admin is still needed to delete the article (though I suppose if one were to tag it for speedy deletion with a link back to the AfD, that would work in a pinch). EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about closing the discussion after the article was deleted. For example, User A creates attack article, User B doesn't know about speedy deletion and AfDs the page, Admin C speedies the article per CSD G10 but forgets to close relevant AfD, User D can therefore close the debate as speedily deleted by %admin% (linking to the deletion log of the article would be a good idea, however). Yuser31415 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I frequently close AfD's where the article has been speedied and I'm not an admin (eg. in the past 15 minutes I closed 2: [7][8]). Of course I close them only once the article has been deleted, not tagging for speedy and hoping it gets deleted. James086^Talk 08:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Non-admins closing an orphaned AfD after the article has been speedy deleted is a Good Thing™; closng an AfD as delete because it should be speedied and is so tagged, debateable at best (I did it a couple of times and got a polite "Don't do this message".) Eluchil404 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit for disclaimer pages

This (should be) a fairly uncontroversial matter to review. The issue is a proposal for a slightly enhanced rewording of the disclaimer pages so that the word "article" is either implicitly or explicitly modified. The modification: indicate that disclaimers apply to *all* informational resources on WP, (not just articles). This applies (for a notable example) to the "reference desk" resources. This is a fairly important issue to consider, since "reference desk" responses routinely include content that could reasonably be mis-interpreted as direct advice. More details can be found at: legal disclaimer discussion page. I could not determine if any follow-up was applied on this matter, so I am posting here. Any attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If this is not the appropriate place for this, alternatives are also appreciated. dr.ef.tymac 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned this on wikien-l, a few days ago, and still no replies. =\ Perhaps foundation-l will get a better response, I'll post there. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PRODs not showing up in Category:Proposed Deletion Over 5 days

I have moved the discussion to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#PRODs_not_showing_up_in_Category:Proposed_Deletion_Over_5_days . It looks like we'll need the help of people even geekier than us (and who would probably take that as a compliment) ;) Kla'quot 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Block Review

User:Jfell is apparently creating a number of alternate accounts for vandalism. I've not requested a checkuser, but if you take a bit of time to review the edits of User:Jfell, User:Theslothkills, & User:Fatman05 (as well as User:Jfell11 & User:Jfell2) I think you will see what I mean. The editor is using the same template for all the userpages as well as similar statements about "babies" etc. The editor also used User:Jfell to "adopt" new user User:Fatman05. WP:DUCK this is the same person and since this individual has been warned about vandalism multiple times and is just creating new accounts to continue to vandalize articles, I blocked all of these accounts to nip this in the bud. Since some of these were indef blocks after 1 edit by the account I figured I would submit this series of blocks for review. Thanks.--Isotope23 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that before I removed it, User:Jfell awarded himself a barnstar "from User:Thadius856".--Isotope23 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A big thanks for removing the barnstar. Having never head of Jfell, I'm glad somebody caught this fake 'star. A big thanks to Shadow1 for alerting me to ANI raising my name as well. I'm a bit flattered all the same — am I really so famous on-wiki to warrant such fandom, or was I just chosen at random? thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure... sorry, I meant to hit your talkpage, but I got sidetracked. There is more going on here; I don't want to say to much at this point per WP:BEANS.--Isotope23 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal block posted for review

I have just blocked 69.92.184.84 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for continuing vandalism at Gail Simone. Relevant edits are [9], [10], [11] and [12]. I think this edit [13] demonstrates sufficient knowledge of the vandalism and blocking policies to make the need for warnings unnecessary, but believe that needs to be reviewed by fellow admins. Steve block Talk 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that last edit suggests they are well aware that the actions aren't acceptable here. --pgk 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, my thoughts exactly. Steve block Talk 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

There are some legal threats on Talk:Earl of Stirling (against editors who request evidence of a chap's claim to be the Earl, including myself). The editor, who edits using the stable IP 68.179.175.185 (talk • contribs) has been blocked before for "hoax" and "clear legal threats" three times. The most recent threats are at the bottom of the page. --TeaDrinker 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Proposing a long block. The IP is obviously static -- it's been blocked for the same reasons, at the same pages, as early as March 2006, and the user on the other end is obviously both well aware that legal threats will lead to blocks, and that legal concerns should be kept off-wiki whenever possible. I'm personally inclined to block for quite some time -- 3 to 6 months, at least. If they're going to sue, that's one thing, but we can't allow the community to be disrupted by someone who threatens legal action at every content dispute. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months, would also recommend dropping a note to the ISP about this nonsense. —Pilotguy push to talk 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, I'm just curious - nothing to do with this matter above, it just reminded me - what is the policy on editors issuing legal threats, I've had one myself from another editor sent off-wiki - naturally being me I have sold my wife and children, changed my name and destroyed the family home before the writ can appear - but what is the wiki-policy, and what should the average editor do if he receices such a threat? - I hasten to say (being me) I just told the editor concerned exactly where to place his writ, but some editors are less forceful than me - so what should they do. Giano 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Giano here is the link WP:NLT Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes but that says on wiki - what if the threat it is off-wiki but concerning on-wiki? Giano 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You can just report it here or forward the e-mail to an admin. No legal threats means no logal threats. And I thought that was your kids I saw on ebay. Chick Bowen 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, don't buy the middle one - he only gets out the shower when the water goes cold! Giano 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This fellow first popped up in November of 2005 [14] and has been a pain ever since. Note that he's actually been to court (in Scotland) over these and related matters and been ruled against repeatedly. Honestly, a year-long block wouldn't be amiss. Do we want to revisit this in August or next February? Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind an occasional "My God, have I been here that long?" moment every 6 months... Thatcher131 05:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-13 Easy question for mediators

Someone might want to remove the guys personal information. I left him a message but he hasn't responed and of course I'm the one he's pissed at so I don't want to do it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheels for willys

On User talk:Wheels for willys, a likely sockpuppet of a banned vandal claims, "This Willy on Wheels is comming back. With a new page move vandalism bot. Over 1000 sleeper socks registered and past the checkuser threshold. Get ready for 1 million page moves." I'm just making note of this. We must get "Wikipedia will be destroyed" threats at least once a month, but it's probably worth noting them here. --Yamla 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Even if it were true, the response would be just the same as if it had not been known, and it most likely is just bluster intended to get someone like you to post a famous message. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, if you want to make a convincing threat, try running it past spellchecker first. This is practically a caricature of itself. — MichaelLinnear 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've mopped up his other accounts and placed a Checkuser request. --Slowking Man 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a few of those recently, always promising to start tomorrow carrying out all sorts of threats (all claiming to be willy on wheels). I've assumed that it's some troll and if not we'd just deal with any vandalism the same we always do. I've also noticed various questions (like on talk here and on Jimbo's talk page) about Willy On Wheels lately. --pgk 07:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to know about Willy on Wheels?? He's a pagemove vandal, nothing more... I expect this user's just trolling. Let's just move on shall we.... --sunstar net^talk 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheels for Willys! Help bring wheels to Willys! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luigi30 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Probable spammer

Jsatz23 (talk · contribs) has been regularly recreating pages (spam, in my view) that are just as regularly speedily deleted, and his Talk page is filled with templated warnings. The pages include MedSocial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and its variants Medsocial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Medsocial.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Healthology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). So, is there a "spam-warn 2" template to escalate the notices, since he hasn't responded to regular warnings? {{uw-spam2}}, being for external links, doesn't really fit. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think {{uw-creation2}} and its successors are designed for this situation.-gadfium 01:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, the wording strikes me as too vague ("inappropriate pages"?), but if it comes up again I'll give it a shot. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

undelete Image:NVMap-doton-McDermitt.png for proper commons transfer

Image:NVMap-doton-McDermitt.png was send to commons last year, now it's up for deletion because of missing information about the creator. Please undelete it so that I can transfer the information. --32X 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Original source information: {{GFDL}} <br> Adapted from Wikipedia's NV county maps by Bumm13. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded by User_talk:Bumm13, 20:04, May 18, 2004. 2004, wow, that is old time. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Was a bit more work than with the CommonsHelper, but the problem should be solved now. --32X 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the proper use of Image:Olympic rings.svg on WP?

The permissions on the Image:Olympic rings.svg don't seem to be clear as to how the image can be used on Wikipedia. In the past there have been issues that the image was not to be used as a header for the olympic medal table because of fair use. This has come up again and I was going through all pages that linked to the image of the rings and removing the image when it was called to my attention that I should check here for guidance.

If this is not the correct place for my request, someone please let me know and I'll put the request there. Thanks. --EarthPerson 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally this would go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I'd recommend uploading a local version of that file to en: and using it only when it meets Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, per the note at Commons. Jkelly 04:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken the question to WP:MCQ. --EarthPerson 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CAT:CSD

Nicely backlogged, if everyone cleared a letter it would soon be gone! Viridae^Talk 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all over U. Wait, that doesn't sound right. I'll take care of U. No, that's not good either. I will make U my b- ... ah, forget it. Proto::► 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad image extension

I would like to place Image:BreastImplantSilicon(picture2).jpg in the article breast implant, to illustrate potential risks of implants, but currently the image is only allowed in capsular contracture. Can an admin please allow this image to be shown on breast implant? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. the wub "?!" 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks wub. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An RfC

Just wondered if anyone who commented on this discussion would like to certify or comment on this RfC. Thanks. Worldtraveller 10:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:La

Persistent vandal just changed {{La}} to read shit. I've protected it, but people might want to rack their brains (again) to think of similar templates that will cause a shitstorm if so amended, as I really have to leave the house now. A starter might be all the other templates listed for use at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. What were the objections to making the entirety of template space semi-protected again? I blocked the anon, 218.186.8.12 (talk · contribs) for a month based on the user page, allowing account creation and disabling the autoblock, but looking at the blocklog there may be issues with that. I leave it to people who understand the intricacies of blocking anons better than me to have a look at the correct course of action. Sorry to dump and run, but life is seldom uninteresting. Steve block Talk 11:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I just protected {{lt}}. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that all templates mentioned in the table under instructions on WP:RFP are all in the same league. Eli Falk 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

redirect: Otto Warburg

A "go" on "Otto Warburg" was originally redirected to Otto Heinrich Warburg. I recognized confusion between this person and another of the same name Otto Warburg (botanist), so I created an article for the botanist. I then attempted to change the redirect of "Otto Warburg" to this latter gentleman, as he is the one with the name (and no middle name). The redirect source appears to be correct, but when a "go" is made, it is not redirected anywhere. Why is this and how can it be fixed? --JohnDoe0007 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

nevermind...it seems to be working properly now. Must take a short while for the redirect to take effect. Thanks for all your great work admins. --JohnDoe0007 12:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested

I have soft-blocked 66.172.165.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 6 months. Looking through the contributions, I found nothing productive and a great deal to indicate a static IP--repeated jokes about the same names for example. Though the edits are juvenile, the IP address does not resolve to a school. I won't be offended if anyone unblocks, shortens, lengthens, or changes the blocking parameters--you don't have to contact me. But I do not believe we are likely to get anything useful from this IP. Chick Bowen 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your block. (Just in case you're wondering - I changed the {{vandal}} template in your comment to {{IPvandal}}.) Cheers. Yuser31415 00:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User User:Jegnome

It appears that 100% of this user's contributions have been hoaxes; he's inventing new species and even assigning them binominal Latin genus/species names (and then altering the corresponding genus's page to include his latest creation). I've already reverted all of his changes and prod'ed all of his new pages, but I'm not sure if an admin wants to issue warnings, block him, or both. Cheers. --Hyperbole 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Spider/Cow hybrid was patent nonsense and I deleted it as such. The others can go through the WP:PROD or AfD processes. I'll leave a note on his talk page, but note that anyone can issue warnings. Chick Bowen 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Libel risk on Paul Staines

Could an admin please urgently purge this revision [15] from the edit history. Staines, the subject of the article, claimes that the Guardian newspaper published a retraction of the referenced article and has threatened anyone who links to it with libel suits.[16] [17], [18]. I'd also recommend purging *this* edit when completed. Cheers, DWaterson 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And also references on the talk page. Cheers, DWaterson 11:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The user was told on his talk page. This story has been mentioned on half-a-dozen blogs, and *all* have since referred to Staines legal threats and taken them down, so I think the anon's claims that he's just referring to a 1986 Guardian article innocently (and 1986 Guardian articles are not exactly something you'd just stumble on - it's only been mentioned on these blogs (and copied from one to another, and each now accompanied by legal threats)). Nssdfdsfds 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User categories for discussion

We could use some more contributors at UCFD. As of right now there are discussions that are as old as 13 days that are long overdue for being closed, as well as others that are 10 days old that still only have two contributors adding their input. It looks as if I'm going to get the mop shortly, but even then I don't feel comfortable closing the discussions that I was the original nominator of (which happens to be the majority of discussions). If we could get a few editors to help close the overdue discussions that would be helpful (as well as add your input to any discussions). VegaDark 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, to deal with a backlogged page, use {{backlog}}. If the backlog requires admin attention, use {{adminbacklog}}. Eli Falk 09:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously aware of those tags. We have so many backlogged pages now that tagging something as that doesn't exactly get instant results. I highly doubt anyone who doesn't already visit UCFD would go there simply because I tagged it as a backlog. VegaDark 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that closing UCFDs (as with CFDs) often requires (as I've said before) a black belt in Bot. I could merrily close every discussion on there in an hour, but would have no clue what to do afterwards, as the instructions provided are very complicated. Proto ► 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble might also be that many people consider UCFD a relatively low priority, as opposed to, say, dealing with copyvios, vandalism, or other processes. >Radiant< 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We have too much policy

I've compiled a list of policies that are partially or wholly redundant with one another, or overlap in a significant amount. The list is here. It would seem that we can roughly halve our amount of policies by doing some effective merging. I think this would be a good idea, but must note that people have objected to such merging in the past. >Radiant< 10:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But see, my problem with this is that we have these separate for a reason. Deletion and undeletion are 2 different things. They should not be all in one. That's just one example. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not like to see Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy merged, as blocks and bans are explicitly not the same thing. Same goes for undeletion/deletion (as Woohookitty states), and protection/semi-protection. Copyright violation and Copyrights are separate for good reason. I am not even sure how Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Usurpation are meant to overlap. Libel and BLP could be merged, though. Proto ► 13:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The two protection policies merge quite nicely. User:Steel359/Protection policy. -- Steel 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is probably best to take any further discussion of this to Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines, rather than have a parallel discussion here.--Doc^g 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Abdy batman vandalise PlayStation 3 page

S/he has received temporary ban and several warnings. The latest: 09:44, 15 February 2007 (hist) (diff) PlayStation 3 (j90n)

From PlayStation 3 history: cur) (last) 10:46, 15 February 2007 Notagoodname (Talk | contribs) m (→Form factor and power consumption) (cur) (last) 10:13, 15 February 2007 Dancter (Talk | contribs) (rv: it still seems to be in effect) (cur) (last) 09:55, 15 February 2007 RexImperium (Talk | contribs) m (cur) (last) 09:47, 15 February 2007 W Tanoto (Talk | contribs) (reverted to prev version, because of vandalism by Abdy batman) (cur) (last) 09:44, 15 February 2007 Abdy batman (Talk | contribs) (j90n) (cur) (last) 01:59, 15 February 2007 Dark Knight6 (Talk | contribs) (→Graphical user interface)

I hope actions will be taken soon. I have reverted the page to previous version.--w_tanoto 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user with a test4 for the PS3 article. If he continues again, report him to WP:AIV. Hbdragon88 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA on speedy?

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JJGD was listed on CSD by User:JJGD, its author, after one day of self-nomination. We're not supposed to delete RFAs, right? Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not usually, but I would be OK with deleting that one. It's not as if he's trying to wipe a failed nomination off the map. It appears he decided to run for adminship and then decided against it the next day. It wasn't transcluded to RfA, nobody voted, etc. -- Steel 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

Note: I just blocked User:Fuskamu for pagemove vandalism and attacks, but need to go into a real-world meeting for a couple of hours. Could someone please make sure to un-do all the pagemoves and post the indefblocked notice. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Took care of this before spotting this message. Taken care of. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex Hernandez

Why was this article deleted? I'm pretty sure I created it a couple of years ago and now it turns up as a dead link. I can't find any AFD either Spearhead 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it was vandalised, with someone adding their own biography, then two people - the person who tagged the vandalised version for speedy deletion, and the admin who deleted it - were both very lazy and didn't bother to even glance at the page history. It's restored now. Proto ► 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus standards for deletion

An admin has been closing AfDs with different standards for deletion than some others expect. While specific instances can be taken to DRV (having been raised with him first), the issue is perhaps that there is lack of shared understanding as to what "rough consensus" might mean. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus perhaps gives insufficient guidance. Wikipedia:Consensus states the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision. Wikipedia:Supermajority - a rejected policy but perhaps the content is useful because it reflects past decisions, states consensus is two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD). Specifically what is the appropriate closure for only 56% delete out of a vote of 16 - ie 9:7 with also an 8th keep vote from a new user? --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let us know what AFDs you are talking about. AFD is not a vote, the closing admin must and does take into account the quality of the arguments. Proto ► 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

When I get a moment I will post at DRV so specific merits of the case can be considered. My point in raising here is have I missed something - the standard for consensus was 75% - translated as the range 60-80%, 56% seems too far outside that standard notwithstanding the merits of the argument. If it is to do with the merits of the argument beyond numbers providing consensus then surely the closing admin should comment to that effect - he didn't, not even when asked politely on his talk page, from which I conclude a different standard applies. Is that standard agreed?--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to give you a straight answer without knowing what AFD you are talking about. AFD is not a vote. If we have 50% of people in an AFD discussion arguing for deletion because the article violates all kinds of policies, and 50% arguing for it to be kept because "it is awesome", it will be deleted. Proto ► 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What Proto said. Please, don't take anything to DRV if your only objection to the closure is that vote-counting gave a low number. Friday (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Surely, if the article "violates all kinds of policies" or there is some other reason for ignoring the numbers, the closing admin should specify that, not say merely, "The result was delete." and refuse to comment [19] when queried politely as to the rationale for his decision. What I am seeking here is a clarification of the guidelines for deletion, ie that if consensus is less than say 60%, then further rationale should be given in the comments by the closing admin.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15 contains three relevant requests, all were closed without clear consensus as per simple numbers and no rationale was provided by the (same) closing admin. I am more than happy to accept that the arguments are important, but then the weight placed on those arguments has to be articulated in the decision.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no policy or guideline that says that an admin must specify her reasons for closing an AfD the way she closes it. Many of us do so out of courtesy when it's not obvious, but we are not required to. If you'd like to introduce such a policy, you need to do so on a community-wide level; there's no point in complaining here. Chick Bowen 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The deletion guideline for admins states quite clearly rough concensus should be achieved - closing AfD is not on the whim of an admin. Rough concensus is a numerical figure unless there are other factors taken into account - that figure has been expressed previously as 75% for AfD or at least in the range of 60-80%. I think admins are accountable beyond mere courtesy to explain their decisions when they are not obvious as per the guidelines -ie when they are ignoring the numbers and considering the weight of arguments. Is that not a shared view? That is the issue I am exploring here - not so much making a complaint. My complaint has been made at DRV where it belonged.--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't share it. Consensus is never numerical. Someone making a nonsensical argument will always be ignored, no matter what, whether they agree with the consensus or not, whether I happen to mention it in the closing message or not. Chick Bowen 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that there is no accountability in AfD ? The closing admin can do as he pleases and need not explain why he did it ? Tintin 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about no-accountability? There is WP:DRV for deletion review. The process is not perfect, but it is not incomplete either. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing an AFD (or other) discussion often does require a significant amount of judgement, and numerical vote counting is certainly not required and is in fact discouraged. However, I do agree that the closing admin should explain his decisions, especially if queried. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 05:43Z

I have no difficulty with reaching a conclusion that is not number driven, my difficulty is with the lack of explanation of that decision, including after querying. DRV does not incidentally provide the form of review necessary - the DRV debate for the article which drew my attention to the differing standard or lack of explanation (whichever I can't be sure since the closing admin won't reveal his reasoning, illustrates that DRV does not provide accountability, the closing admin hasn't contributed his raationale there and it is a review but not of the decision making because it can't because the rationale for the decision has not been provided (maniacal laugh). Some of that debate focuses on the issue that consensus isn't about numbers. Wikipedia:Consensus is policy and does actually mention numbers - therefore to ignore the numbers, surely you have to explain yourself.--Golden Wattle ^talk 09:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks by 82.29.229.116

82.29.229.116 (talk · contribs) has taken a content dispute at Wolf Blitzer personally and resorted to personal attacks and false accusations of vandalism. GabrielF 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Your racism is disgusting and reflects only on you but thats your problem." [20]
2. "No, the only problem here is your attitude."[21]
3. "Your use of that particular location out of literally millions of worldwide locations tells a different story. Your bigotry. Your problem."[22]
4. "Clarification of your racist remark noted"[23]
5. "You should apologize for promoting conspiracy theories and racism"[24]
6. "And just for the hell of it heres some more physical evidence to rebut your conspiracy theory nonsense. I will re-edit the article and cite the details of Blitzer's work for NER/AIPAC, I don't believe you can be trusted to do this with an evenhand and attention to the facts."[25]
7. (In responding to my NPA warning on his talk page and why the above do not constitute personal attacks): " Hopefully on the next occassion when you decide to promote what you think above physical and sourced evidence you will remember how embarassing it was to see that attempt fall to pieces. I am glad to have helped you with that. By way of being constructive again, can I suggest you actually read WP:NPA, apply it to your own public comments, then when you believe you have a firm grasp of it, come back and we can discuss how applying it to your own work will improve you as an editor. "[26]
8. I then placed an AGF template on his/her user page, which s/he removed as vandalism.[27]
9. The user then placed two vandalism warnings on my page based on the NPA and AGF tags I had placed on his/her talk page.[28], [29]

48 hours. Thatcher131 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recruitment for Vandal Fighter backlog

The tools we use for counter vandalism have improved in leaps and bounds; and its been key to maintaining Wikipedia stability. However, I've found even with these tools blatant vandalism is getting by our overworked first responders. I stopped going counter-vandalism a while back as real life got in the way and new admins and tools seemed to be doing the job.

But recently I've been running VF 3.3 in the background while I browse Wikipedia then scroll through the backlog about once every hour or two. Now while there isn't a lot of vandalism to clean up; there is a significant amount of blatant vandalism I still come across like this which took almost an hour to be reverted.

So I'd like to recruit and get a little help recruiting people to effectively use this passive tool so that we can catch this blatant stuff that slips by. I suppose a mini tutorial would help for new and experienced users alike not familiar to VF:

• English VF 3.3 download here
• Run file and click Connect button, ideally run VF and browser in windows next to each (overlapping) to easily switch back and forth
• Go to configuration tab and ensure "Automatically remove old edits..." and "Show only IP edits." are enabled.
• Change the color scheme so that it makes sense to you and draws your eye to suspicious edits, while not tiring your eyes. (I recommend a dull color like gray for normal IP edits)
• Hopefully you have a tabbed browser, which will make opening/closing multiple pages easier
• Then go to Live RC tab and rearrange the columns so that you can see article, editor, +/-, summary together
• Begin looking for Admins and others (by looking for reversion edit summaries) and adding them to your whitelist (by clicking on Wlist column) so that you can focus on anon edits
• Begin looking for vandalism, clues include: [[WP:AES| (which means there was a blank edit summary), large +/- numbers, especially for sub-sections (big changes in the article), bold edits (which are highrisk edits)
• When you reach the bottom of the list click "clear list" button and distract yourself with real life for a while as a backlog builds and do it all again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoyBoy (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Hopefully we can improve and organize our 2nd-tier Counter-Vandalism response. Feedback welcome, and if I should improve/post this elsewhere. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the User Lists tab, there is an option at the bottom to automatically import all admins to your whitelist. Also don't forget you can blacklist anyone you see vandalizing. Dave6 ^talk 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT: the policy you can't live without

It seems that the good people who have worked very hard to unite WP:V and WP:NOR into the brilliant WP:ATT have all gone to sleep, so I'm asking you all to have a look at it, because it has now gone live! It is scheduled to replace WP:V and WP:NOR in one week. (I hope most of you have already heard about it, and that I'm posting here as a mere formality.) --Merzul 04:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will look it over. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ILIKEIT. Good work to SlimVirgin, Jossi, Pmanderson, Merzul, Steve block, et al. Teke ^(talk) 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG, you're kidding me. Now what. Will WP:ATT acquire and merge WP:RS and every other core policy as well? Then will Jimbo have to break it up? Hbdragon88 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because this is an invalid slippery slope argument, and you know it ;) It's actually not so much the merger that I like, but the far more appropriate terminology. You will no longer have to explain to people why they can't "verify" something by their own analysis. In short, the main benefit here is that we avoids the oxymoron "verifiable, not truth", which is a source of much confusion, IMO. --Merzul 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just a summary of V and NOR; there's no change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it changes absolutely nothing wrt current policy, but I do think attribution is a better word. This will not have any impact for any of our experienced contributors, but it will help new editors understand "verifiability" better. To make it very clear, in terms of life on Wikipedia for our main projects, I promise that nothing will change due to this policy. --Merzul 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we pinch WP:A off Wikipedia:Announcements? I would imagine it would be used more for this than for the less-visited <15 edits since the turn of the year announcements page. Proto ► 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Images with no copyright tag

Hey folks, Category:Images_with_no_copyright_tag's backlog is currently a week old which works out to about 1,400 images. All hands helping would be nice. This includes non-admins, there is sorting to do as the bots tag some pages that have the source but no tag. We have fun with dramatic issues, but copyright violations are the core of keeping the encyclopedia running. Any help is welcomed as I'm in and out for the next three days. Teke ^(talk) 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton Removing Warnings from his page

I warned Calton to stop harassing me; he is continuing to revert his talk page to remove this warning. I request administrative action in this matter. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I warned Calton to stop harassing me The term for this is psychological projection: your pop-psych lesson for today. Meanwhile:

• My talk page, and I have the right to remove anything which is not a legitimate and necessary warning. This is a long-established practice (you all know this, but let's be clear).
• Mr. Ray Lopez (talk · contribs) is, in fact, Ray Lopez (talk · contribs)/Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs), once blocked indefinitely for trolling as an abusive sockpuppeteer and troller, but allowed a second chance under a "new" name by the blocking admin Theresa knott (talk · contribs). Details can be found at her talk page. Looks like he's resumed the behavior which got him indef-blocked, including edit-warring at Joe Scarborough again (ask Gamaliel (talk · contribs) about THAT).

Maybe it's time to restore the indefinite block and make it a community ban? --Calton | Talk 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the name "Ray Lopez" was indef blocked because it was too similar to "Ruy Lopez." Furthermore, I was performing my own contributions before you started wikistalking and harassing me Calton. Get your house in order. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to show your further ignorance in this matter, "Ruy Lopez" is not related to "Ray Lopez" in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop harassing Calton. There's no rule that says people can't remove things from their talkpages. --Carnildo 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what about Calton's harassment of me? He is going around to every single talk page and basically trash talking me, even though he's the one who started this latest round of drama. Where's his warning? Mr. Ray Lopez 08:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. Viridae^Talk 10:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I am not impressed. I think the best thing to do is block your new account too as it is clearly too associated with your old one. If you wish to return do it under a completely new username and stay away from editors that you have clashed with before. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page over edits?

I'd like to move Public health in mainland China back to Public health in the People's Republic of China which is apparently where it started. However there have been edits to the redirect. Could someone move this for me? Or, if I need to put the proposal up for discussion, where do I do that? --Ideogram 07:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be Wikipedia:Requested moves, but given that "foo in the People's Republic of China" is the format of every other article in the series, I have just moved it. Proto ► 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was bored

I've been meaning to try this for a while. I've created what should be an index to the archives of this page: User:BenAveling/admin index. If people think it's useful, I can probably fashion it into a bot. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)