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

Abolishing AN/I

The Incidents noticeboard is an unhealthy plague on this project. I would like to see it marked historical. How can we accomplish this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't.  GARDEN  22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We can do anything so long as we want to!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just spill over here? rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not feasabley possible IMO. Where would people go if they had an incident to report? Where would all the reports currently on ANI go. For any proposal concerning the abolishment of ANI, I'd strongly oppose. Something like this would need community wide discussion. I'm guessing Jimbo would oppose abolishing ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Abolition. The word is abolition. There's no such word as "abolishment", dammit. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a poll. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You could just...awwwwww! C'mon! Protonk (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Duh! --Rodhullandemu 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, why is Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents an unhealthy plague? —harej ;] 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(4ec) Could be done if we abolish admins. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let IPs delete the main page...  GARDEN  22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Its the atmosphere of the place. We need a more village pump-style place. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I regret the frequent drama there, I doubt that any change in format will improve the atmosphere there. We need a place where frustrated people can ask for admin help; by definition, people who bring things there are frustrated. Tempers will flare and drama will exist. Frankly, I'm always impressed by how calm many of the participants are.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The village pump serves a good purpose. It lets people talk about features and ideas which they don't have the expertise to write themselves but want someone else to do it for them--for free--and it concentrates it in one place where I never have to go. It is wonderful. Protonk (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard all year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hey wait, AN/I hasn't existed forever. What did we do before it? Why couldn't we go back to that? Hermione1980 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Before ANI, we just dumped all those reports here on AN. Basically, what MZMcBride is proposing is to re-merge AN & ANI, which would bring back the same old problems. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• It would certainly be possible; most of the real incidents there have other places to report them: the various noticeboards like WP:BLPN, WP:NORN, WP:AN3 or general reporting areas like WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI. Most of the rest of the reports are just noise. Mr.Z-man 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution is simply to pay less attention to it. If you're an admin, only post here if you have a real solution to what is clearly a real problem. Cut out the drive-by opinions and let the bullshit reports simply be archived without attention. Without fuel, the fires will die. Tan | 39 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think ANI is overused, but the inverse of that is the other boards are often ignored by admins. I've had notices at SSP and Edit War go unanswered for twelve or more hours. ANI (and AIV for the simplest of cases) is the only board that's regularly maintained. Dayewalker (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons those boards are underused is the fact that AN/I gets results. Another reason is that some of those boards are difficult and confusing to users (AN/3 used to be a complete mess, took me so long to figure out how to write a report that the edit war was stale by the time the message was posted, SSP/RFCU was the same way). Things improve and decline in that regard over time in different areas. AN/3 is better now, as is SPI. But AN/I is still the all-purpose "this is a problem and it needs fixing" board. That leads to DRAMA, naturally. but it is also awfully hard to fix. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea here is to do what Mr.Z-man suggested. Diffuse the drama to various places rather centralizing all of it (and thus creating a powder keg). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Where would the civility ones go? As they make up a big bit of ANI? rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA might be the place for them. MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MBisanz here. WP:WQA would be the place for civility issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion is crazy, AN/I is the only reliable wikipedia project. Elbutler (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Spreading the various types of complaints out onto their "home" forums is fairly easy to do... One would simply have to replace this page with a template asking the user to choose what type of complaint they are making, a la the image upload templates that select a proper license type. It would lead to two issues, however: first, all of these pages would have to see increased monitoring from admins, and second, there would still need to be an AN/I type forum for concerns that don't fit a specific problem type. Resolute 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I do not like this; it is like putting a fresh coat of paint on the ceiling to hide the water stains without fixing the leaky pipes. This will do nothing to reduce the drama only hide it on smaller forums. These discussions have to take place the name of the place will have no effect on how passionately people will argue for their cause. Most of the drama comes because we are discussing some form of editing restrictions against editor who believe they are right. I have a problem splitting those discussions into smaller and smaller groups. First of all with such small area of interest the people who watch a noticeboard can easily become just two opposing groups perpetually at war with each other. Next what is the minimum number of administrators and editors are needed to officially community ban an editor and if that number is not made can any administrator unban. Large diverse discussions are usually the best and this goes into the opposite direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggles4U (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So we keep this board for specific admin-related issues. See Template:ANI deprecation notice. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• There would still be many issues that can't be easily shoehorned into any single category. Moreover, drama on ANI is due to the existence of drama. Removing ANI will not reduce the overall level of drama. Furthermore, there's a common misconception that seems to be implicitly accepted in this discussion. There's a notion that "drama" is somehow a necessarily bad thing. We as a community are composed of many different people from different backgrounds and often different ideas about what is best for the project. We disagree over content inclusion, general policies, how to interpret policies, which of conflicting ideals take priority and many other things. That such disagreements will often be heated and generate "drama" should not surprise us nor should it bother us. As long as people continue to work on this project together there will be drama. At the end of the day what is important is that such interaction leads to an improved encyclopedia. More often than not it does. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a poll. And your argument is rather silly when one looks at the facts. People aren't "continuing to work on this project." They're leaving because they get sick of the drama. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've refactored the first part of the remark so it doesn't look like a poll vote. The rest of your comment isn't a response to my point at all. Drama will exist no matter what. High levels of drama are inevitable. Yes, people do leave when they get sick of drama. That's the way it is. If you think you have some way of actually reducing drama without harming the project then I'd be happy to listen to it. Reorganizing doesn't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Diffusing the issues has a number of benefits. It allows admins to selectively watch boards that they're interested in. It creates less likelihood of drama building up all in one place (which means there's a higher likelihood of boards being productive and drama-free). And it means that discussions can stay active longer without having to archive due to page size. What's the disadvantage here? I think abolishing AN/I will reduce drama and I've seen no evidence to the contrary. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • "Diffusing the issues" = splintering focus. Other boards have failed for this very reason. Either they receive too little attention from the wider community or they receive too much attention from a certain subset of editors. AN/I is a good catch-all and off topic discussions can redirected easily. The solution is not to abolish the board but correct its use. - auburnpilot talk 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • This is chicken and the egg. If people can't go to AN/I, they'll focus on other places. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• AN/I is a plague, RFA is broken, ArbCom is incompetent, Jimbo is <today's opinion>... - auburnpilot talk 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So we try to improve things rather than accept the poor current status. And I would hardly call the view that AN/I is a plague transient. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, but in my opinion, it's equally without basis or viable alternatives. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Did you read Mr.Z-man's suggestion above? What are your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - wow, MZMB with a good idea? Say it aint so! :o Sceptre ^(talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It ain't so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Why's that? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think that anything on Wikipedia is per se broken, first of all. Redundant, perhaps. Maybe I just don't participate in WikiDrama™ much, but I don't see much of a difference between regular AN and AN/I. Also, 99% of the time, anything I've seen posted to AN/I can be diffused. I've never understood why AN/I was separate anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My question as to why Administrators Noticeboard Incidents is a plague was never answered. —harej ;] 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That post - right above this - is partially the reason AN/I sucks. Tan | 39 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While one can shoehorn a lot of discussions into a few major categories, not everything will fit and some things will only fit if you squint real hard. For example, dealing with Betacommand's bot behavior, or when someone makes a death threat, or when a professor assigns 200 students to write wikicontent, or admin X is discovered to be running a sockpuppet farm, etc. There are many infrequent issues that are hard to categorize and if you dump AN/I they are just going to land at AN (which gains nothing as far as I can see). While I can understand encouraging discussions to be moved to dedicated noticeboards when the clearly fit, I think it is unproductive to try and close down AN/I and offload everything. Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was strange that we had two noticeboards that served the same purpose (WP:AN and WP:ANI) and were used interchangeably (whether people are supposed to or not). On top of that, 97% (my own approximation) of the threads on those two noticeboards can be handled elsewhere (like the other noticeboards that are listed at Template:Editabuselinks). I'd support this idea. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec, resp to initial post) You can't change people's behavior by eliminating the place where they misbehave. The problem with ANI isn't the existence of the board -- it's the behavior of the people who post on it. Does anyone else see the relationship of this thread to the one above? DG suggests that those of us with the bit must "lift our game." That's what it would take to make ANI less toxic. All of us who post there can take that one extra moment before clicking "save" to determine whether or not the snipe, flame, or snark we just wrote actually helps the encyclopedia or not; and if someone insults you, you don't need to insult them back. "Revenge yourself on your enemies by not becoming like them." (You may leave your incivil replies and insults to my mother below.) Antandrus (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

YO MOMMA WAS AN ADMIN, OOPS THATS YOU - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've thought before that it might do more good than harm to lock everything but the articles, but ultimately it's not practical. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea, we already have enough of a problem with bureaucracy. All that will happen is a smaller group of editors will create a much more bureaucratic atmosphere at the smaller noticeboards. The answer is to fix the problems here rather than to splinter then into smaller pieces. RxS (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am with TenPoundHammer. The issue for me is less the drama of ANI and more the question of what exactly is the difference between reporting something here and reporting something at ANI. I would like that clarified if possible. JuJube (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific proposal

To report:

• Problems with biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
• 3RR violations → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
• Ongoing vandalism → Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Pages needing protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
• Civility issues → Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
• Everything else → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. That's just effectively merging ANI with AN. The backload here is already massive. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The backload would be shifted to other places. This isn't merging anything. It's quite the opposite. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I support changing the admin noticeboard into more of an index, with more specific notiveboards - however, we'd have to create a few more than we have at present. WP:AN/Content, WP:AN/User conduct e.t.c. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So make some suggestions, though it's very likely somebody has already created such noticeboards and they're just not visited much. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What about, instead of getting rid of AN/I altogether, we'll simply be bolder in moving threads to the right page/noticeboard? MZMcBride already wrote what belongs where, and most of the time threads on AN/I simply don't belong there in the first place. --Conti|✉ 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear that the only way to enforce such a thing is to lock the page altogether. I see no other real way to force people to post elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is not AN/I but the way editors use it. If a discussion belongs at a more appropriate board, copy/paste and leave a note explaining where it went. Closing AN/I while simultaneously creating a half dozen new boards is not a good idea. - auburnpilot talk

Remember that WP:AN started because Ta bu shi da yu thought "oh, that'd be useful." It promptly spawned ANI and AN3 as sub-boards. Supposedly ANI is for current news reports for admin attention, this is more of a longer-term thing. And the traffic here is already vast.

I suggest leaving ANI there, steering more problems off to the further sub-boards and fixing the behaviour that makes ANI a problem - make it effectively redundant rather than just removing it - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, fair enough. :-) So do we have consensus to start doing this a tad bit more aggressively? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a proof of principle discussion so we can see if we are on the same page. Of the 38 threads on ANI currently, which would you move elsewhere? Dragons flight (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1 Scribe711/Wired for Books ## Don't we have noticeboards for spam-related issues?
• 2 User:SmashTheState, or, Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!1 ## Username violations surely have another place on the site
• 3 Reversion of large numbers of my edits by User:Pigsonthewing ## 3RR noticeboard
• 4 Big Dunc, blocked ## Unblock request; use user talk page
• 5 Continuation of edit warring by User:Arimareiji in Rachel Corrie ## Edit war noticeboard
• 6 User:HorseGirl070605 ## Legit use of board
• 7 Images used in Intelligent design covered by Non-free content policy? ## Non-free content issue / edit warring on AN/I? The hell? We have like twelve other more appropriate places. Article talk pages would be a start...
• 8 User:Godvia ## Legit use of board, though AIV also works
• 9 Eugene Krabs dilemma ## Conflict of interest noticeboard (yes, I'm pretty sure we have one)
• 10 Disruptive editor at South Korea and some related articles ## AIV? Edit warring noticeboard? Take your pick
• 11 Upcoming revert war on several articles ## Edit warring noticeboard
• 12 Pope John Paul II ## I assume there's a socking noticeboard. If not, one should probably be created; or use RFCU or something
• 13 Problems at Indiana University South Bend ## COI noticeboard again?
• 14 User:Cheapfriends and North / Northern Cyprus ## Socking again...
• 15 User:SoUnusual ## Legit use of board (admin misconduct)
• 16 Infoboxification by Dwiakigle ## User talk page? Article talk pages? WikiProject talk pages? Surely there are better places than AN/I.
• 17 User:TAway ## Talk page of the user or article; or edit warring noticeboard
• 18 Vandal harrassing User:MBisanz ## AIV
• 19 Large sockfarm ## Socking noticeboard? Put all of this is in a centralized place so I don't have to look at it. :-)
• 20 Incivility by User:Panlatdelkwa ## Wikiquette board
• 21 Possible sock of Manhattan Samurai ## Socking noticeboard
• 22 IP 69.14.222.125 ## Spamming noticeboard? Conflict of interest noticeboard? AIV? Edit warring noticeboard? Specific admins' talk page? This could go anywhere.
• 23 User:Miklebe impersonating User:Mikebe ## Probably legit use of board
• 24 3RR discrepancies ## 3RR noticeboard exists for a reason
• 25 Content Managment System pages and Deletion ## No idea what this is. Looks like it would be better off on the article's talk page
• 26 BLP concern John Burris ## BLP noticeboard exist. I posted there today.
• 27 Continued userspace campaigning by indefinitely blocked user ## Legit use of board, probably
• 28 User:LOLthulu ## Socking noticeboard!
• 29 User moving articles without discussion ## User talk page. Article talk page. WikiProject talk pages. Then come to AN/I.
• 30 Drake Circus ## lolwut? Article talk page?
• 31 User:Johnlemartirao ## Block request for user for vandalism / disruption --> AIV seems appropriate
• 32 Racism and the panarabism ideology ## Speedy deletion request. Tag the page. Don't post about it.
• 33 Israel Shahak article ## Legit use of board
• 34 Tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation ## Sanctions noticeboard? User talk page? AIV? Maybe AN/I, just maybe
• 35 User:Nationalist320 and his sock User:Sea888 ## Socking noticeboard
• 36 Disruptive editor/Sockpuppet ## Socking noticeboard
• 37 Sort of kind of a legal threat ## Legit use of board
• 38 Personal attack by User:Damjanoviczarko ## Wikiquette

I think the only thing we need is a noticeboard dedicated to socking issues (if we don't have one already). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, sounds like fun:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scribe711.2FWired_for_Books→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Big_Dunc.2C_blocked→WP:AN or WP:AE
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuation_of_edit_warring_by_User:Arimareiji_in_Rachel_Corrie→WP:AN3 (which claims to be more about edit warring than 3rr these days but I don't think that is true in practice...not sure though)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Godvia→Not sure. Any admin talk page might work.
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Eugene_Krabs_dilemma→WP:EAR
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Upcoming_revert_war_on_several_articles→WP:AN3
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cheapfriends_and_North_.2F_Northern_Cyprus→Probably WP:AE. If we haven't had an arbcom case on that part of SE europe, I would be surprised.
8. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TAway→WP:AN3
9. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal_harrassing_User:MBisanz→WP:RFPP, I'm dubious on the "we'll find socks if they keep doing it" claim, there are a whole lot of IP addresses in the sea.
10. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_sockfarm→WP:AN or WP:SPI
11. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sock_of_Manhattan_Samurai→WP:SPI
12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_69.14.222.125→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Miklebe_impersonating_User:Mikebe→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam..maybe.
14. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_discrepancies→WP:AN3...or WP:AN since the blocks came from "edit warring"
15. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Content_Managment_System_pages_and_Deletion→Wikipedia:Help desk?
16. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_concern_John_Burris→WP:BLPN, where it was sent, but evidently not responded to.
17. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_userspace_campaigning_by_indefinitely_blocked_user→talk page of any active admin
18. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:LOLthulu→WP:SPI, as that's basically what it turned out to be.
19. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_moving_articles_without_discussion→Dunno. see the cyprus comment.
20. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Israel_Shahak_article→WP:AE, I'm almost certain that article is under probation.
21. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nationalist320_and_his_sock_User:Sea888→WP:SPI
22. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet→Ditto. That editor adding the reports shows up on AN/I a lot.

Soo, 22/38 is about 2/3rds. Not too shabby. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem in being proactive about shutting down non "admin intervention needed immediately for problem that doesn't fit SPI/AN3/AIV" threads and directing users to various other noticeboards, so long as we do it consistently, clearly and helpfully. This means we can't just say "An3 is ← that way" (I've been guilty of that) and we can't just fix their problem in record time then say "Well, if you really wanted your problem fixed, you should have gone to ABC noticeboard" (Guilty as charged for that, too). We, that is the editors who lurk on AN/X, should spend more time on the other noticeboards. Complaints answered there work doubly. They remove the complaint (duh), but they also remove the implicit incentive for editors who are party to the complaint to bring something like it to AN/I next time. The faster and more completely a problem gets resolved on those 'other' noticeboards, the less crazy AN/I will be. Another thing that will dramatically reduce the influx of AN/I threads on non-emergent issues is to sit down and really give some teeth to WQA and RfC. right now the former is worthless unless someone is going to be chastened by a 'stern warning' and the latter serves little purpose (in most cases) except to show to Arbcom that all steps in DR have been taken. Those need to get fixed. That will help stem this tide of dramahz. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You talked me into it. I just added WP:RFP to my watch list, and I've already taken care of one item there. Looks like it's a lower drahhhhma area, too. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that AN/I would be the appropriate place to go with editors' behaviorial problems which extend past the boundaries of other boards, i.e. the problematic editor who's uncivil, edit-wars (or close to it), is disruptive or tendenitious, etc. Each of the behaviors might not be significant enought to get a strong response on an individual board, but together they indicate a problem editor who should be dealt with in some way. Isn't that something that should be reported on AN/I? (And aren't those editors exactly the kind who stir up drama?) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI is a mess because it deals with disruptive editors who don't want to be blocked, and frequently think that the best way to avoid a block is by continuing their disruptive behavior there. As we can't get rid of disruptive editors (sadly!) all abolishing ANI would achieve is to move the same disputes into boards where there's potentially less oversight. Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we make (offically) ANI specificly for blocking requests which do not fit into the other noticeboards and/or are too complicated for AIV, then move other issues to their appropriate noticeboards as has been proposed below? Right now the notice at the top of this page says "For evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI)", It'd be nice if we were to define what exactly incidents, noone seems to have a clear understanding of what it is, only what it supposedly isn't. —Nn123645 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving toward a consensus

So, do we have at least some general agreement that we should begin to start pushing people toward more appropriate forums when they post to WP:AN/I and it belongs elsewhere? I propose putting Template:Noticeboard key in the editnotice of WP:AN/I and possibly on the page itself and then getting serious about enforcement. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to enforce this we need to make sure we do it in a non-bitey manner. Don't simply shut down threads that aren't appropriate. Copy them over to the correct board and let the person who made the thread know. Furthermore, we need to be ready to move the complicated cross-situation ones back over to ANI if it is necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua and to take it further, admins need to pay more attention to these othere areas as well. I've encountered things posted at different areas that are there for hours, a couple even there for a couple of days. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some handy ?action=watch links in the editnotice would do the trick. And I agree that we need to do this in a user-friendly manner. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...I think you have consensus to do what should have always been practice: move non-emergent disputes from AN/I to the appropriate fora. In order to do something more I would want to know that the targeted boards can handle the change. Because if they can't, we are right back where we started. Will SPI push DUCK cases back to AN or AN/I? Will AN3 push "edit warring but not 3rr" cases back to AN/I? Does the spam noticeboard get sufficient attention from admins willing to mete out blocks for persistent spammers? Also, is this universally a good idea? We may think it is (here on AN), but I bet one of the reason people like it as AIV is that they can just dismiss reports that don't fit a specific rubric. Same with (well, it used to be) AN3. RFCU used to (a while ago) be that way. There may be some merit in specialization and systematization. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping any section headers and leaving a "Discussion moved to: Foo" note. And then we just need to encourage people to watch the boards that interest them. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving posts to more appropriate boards would probably work, if those boards were actually watched. The few times I've posted on more appropriate boards, and it's been ages, my posts have been ignored. Completely ignored. Which is a lot nicer than some bored and immature administrator stopping by AN/I for a closing pot shot. So, yes, even though no one here considered that the vast majority of those editing Wikipedia wish all the bureaucracy would simply die off and have no idea of all these other boards and stuff because it is impossible to find anything on Wikipedia outside of articles (and there's a user currently trying to fix that issue) it might work to simply forward posts to the appropriate boards. It's a simpler idea than creating a new level of surveying, and hiding where most newcomers might think to come behind a frustrating voice mail board.

Of course, moving posts would have to be done with a simple and polite message, and that seems almost impossible at AN/I (mostly due, again, to immature administrator cheap shots). But, yes, I think this would probably work.

Oh, and all discussions discussing the drama consumers (those two or three editors that consume over 30K every time someone mentions them at AN/I) should have a special drama board. It could be called something nice like, "Repeated issues," to make it seem like it's not the drama board. In fact, just doing this, making a large volume repeated drama board might make the whole of AN/I more civil by giving those craving the drama a creative space, and probably the asshole drive-by cheap-shot administrators and editors would be more attracted to that board--maybe.

By the way, the Burris BLP issue was taken care of in the easiest way possible: other editors started watching and editing the article. However, last time I suggested an issue had been assisted at AN/I I got personally attacked by a couple of cheap-shot, drive-by, administrators, so the issue must stay on AN/I even though it has been dealt with. God forbid a mere editor would be allowed to say an issue they raised had been dealt with when there were a couple of little kids with mops looking to have some malicious fun. Yup, board forwarding sounds like it could work. --KP Botany (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NB that the "Burris BLP" issue, which wasn't really an issue since there was no BLP violation, was resolved by you leaving a talk-page comment, and the other editor on the page immediately agreeing with your proposed addition of a 1996 factoid to the article. It wasn't even appropriate for BLPN, much less ANI, and it was only because you didn't AGF that you felt the need to go complain. THF (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to assume good faith with BLPs--there's a need to go on the content of the article itself. If a BLP is negative, one doesn't bother assuming the editors had good intentions, or bad intentions, that's not how BLPs are dealt with. One takes care of the problem with the BLP immediately. I'm a full time student, the article was seriously negatively weighted, highly positive information about Burris, from articles that were used as sources, were ignored completely, but I requested other editors monitor the article in a public forum, other editors agreed to do so and have been monitoring the article. If I had felt the need to guess as to the article's editors intentions in writing such a slanted article, I would have carefully checked the edit history and posted notices as needed. If I had assumed bad faith, I would have popped a BLP violation notice on the talk page of the guilty party, after requesting the article be oversighted if there were materials in the article needed that. And, yes, there is a nice administrator who takes care of oversighting these BLP issues when I find them. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, looks like you folks might be serious about this. One observation I'd like to make, and perhaps I missed it in skimming through everything since my last comment, but I think there would need to be one or two guidelines. What comes to mind, and forgive me if I missed this in the "quick skim", but 1.) The editor (or admin) who closes the thread at AN|AN/I should be required encouraged to ensure that a thread has been started at the appropriate board, (as well as a link provided to said new thread in the closing) and 2.)(optionally) make sure that involved parties are notified of the new board/thread on their talk pages. — Ched (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ... and in line with MZM, let's hope that foobar doesn't end up FUBAR (sorry, I just had to add that) .. ;) — Ched (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. Let's do it. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure at first, but now I agree with you all. ANI is the Ma Bell of drama. Let's break it up. People will catch on fast enough. Benefits of this will be less of a rolling fireball of anger and hurt, and the "ANI regulars" will be free to help out on the less visible pages that will be focused to fix certain issues. ANI is too much of a dumping ground for people to see and be seen. Better that bad behavior and slagging of reputations is never again rewarded with a central showcase and venue. Baseball Bugs's comment comparing AIV as an example of how to do things is especially persuasive. ANI is a waste of our "lives" on here and a net negative. Let's do it. rootology (C)(T) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC?

Anyone else think we should initate a RfC on this to involve the wider community? If we do, I suggest we should add a notice to the watchlist page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its not like we're changing a policy or anything. Its especially overkill if we're just going to be more proactive in moving threads to more appropriate boards, which is really something we should already be doing. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Just be more aggresive in moving posts to the correct pages.--Patton^t/c 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the original complainants goal is to encourage vandals and discourage regular editors, this would certainly be a good step in that direction. Too often we hear an admin say, "This is the not the place to post that complaint." WRONG ANSWER. The right answer is, "Oh, that's a problem, I'll fix it." This kind of splintering (which is already too much) does nothing except encourage lazy admins to give an answer that equates to what Freddie Prinz's landlord character used to say: "Eet's not my job, mon." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed fully. WP ought by its own history be antithetical to bureaucracies and creation of dozens of "proper places for discussion of that problem", and supportive of individuals actually acting responsibly on any problems which they see. Collect (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We try to do that, but what happens is a siphoning of interest from specialty boards to the general boards. Why go through the bother of reporting someone at AN3 when I can just make an AN/I report? Every time we take one of these wrongly placed queries and fix it instead of moving it we send an implicit signal: "Don't go to the other boards, come here." We don't want to do that. We want (presumably) SPI/AN3/AIV/UAA/etc to work. We want the various content noticeboards to be fruitful places of discussion. We don't want every issue coming to AN/I. In order to do that, we need to give people an incentive to go to those boards. Does that mean that we say "wrong queue, I'm not helping you"? Of course not. We say "I'll move your request or tell you how to move it, then someone will help you there." That is the right answer. I appreciate the anti-bureaucratic argument that we shouldn't have "proper" places for discussion but I submit that ship has sailed. we have those noticeboards. Some of them work rather well. They benefit from specialist attention and lack the drama-rama of AN and AN/I. So part of what we do should support that. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To echo the point, I personally don't much care for drama. Accordingly, I seldom post to AN/I, and don't watch it regularly. However, I do watch, and participate, in some of the other noticeboards - AIV if I notice a backlog, RFPP, BLP/N, etc. To the extent that appropriate cases are moved to the appropriate venues, you'll get a different subset of admins who have chosen to deal with those issues. As long as others pitch in, there no reason that over time that processes like WP:RS/N couldn't take hold just as firmly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is an excellent example of the way to do things. It doesn't require the tedious construction necessary to post at the 3RR page, for example, which requires you to have two screens open at once to repeatedly go back-and-forward to find and post stuff that's already visible in the history. AIV simply says, "Here's a problem - fix it." AIV should be the model for the way to deal with issues. It's shortcoming is that it's too restrictive. If the complainant were to post a sentence or two explaining the issue (3RR, POV-pushing, etc.) then you could use AIV as the one-stop shop for most all disruption, and then you wouldn't need WP:ANI anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I should point out another problem with the notion of splintering ANI further, and that is forum shopping. If a user doesn't like the answer you get in one place, he takes it to another place. Well, if there's a one-stop shop, by definition there will be no forum shopping going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to see if someone is doing that, though. The potential of forum shopping isn't a reason to not do it. The only real hit from this, from reading all of this, is that AN/I regulars will be out of business. That's no big deal and irrelevant, so I still don't see a reason this won't be good overall. rootology (C)(T) 03:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, we need an RFC about the AN thread about AN/I? Does ARBCOM or NASA need to be informed? Seriously though, it's probably better to have a one-stop shop for people who need attention, rather than making people learn the yellow pages of WP acronyms, or pelting them with tut-tuts if they use the wrong board. Much as I'm not a fan of the dramas, at least it all seems to be gravitating to one place. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is where acting like an adult comes in, a commodity that seems always in short supply on AN/I, especially among admins. If someone posts a problem on AN/I that is belongs on another specific topic matter board, a mature (meaning able to act like adult, not meaning old) administrator posts an appropriate response, moves the thread, and posts a note on the talk page of the poster.

"This guy has been following me around for days, changing all of my edits to the Herbal Medicine articles, where I'm adding my website. Other websites are on Wikipedia, someone please tell him to stop reverting mine." Signed Julie-Sells-Orange-Juice.com

Hi, Julie-Sells-OJ.com, this issue should be discussed with editors and administrators who monitor the COI board (heck if I know what's the correct board, says KP, but not the admin). I've moved your notice there, and closed this thread here. Here's a link to the new board. I've also posted this notice and link on your talk page. Signed Admin-who-acts-adult-like

At COI notice board, "Hi, folks, Julie-Sells-OJ.com is having a problem that she posted at AN/I. Here's here contribution history, and the other editors's contribution history, and here's her post from AN/I. Thanks. Signed Admin-who-acts-adult-like

You act like human beings to people and they'll act like human beings back. The ones who won't you couldn't have done anything about, anyhow, but you've looked good to the uninvolved ones who will in the meanwhile. --KP Botany (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not everyone who might move a thread is an admin, and it's not unheard of for admins to get a little frosty :-). OTOH, it might actually be a good thing if that were done in an easy-to-follow way, so that if people aren't sure which board to use, they can use a grab-bag board with the understanding that it will be moved to the most appropriate place. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think non-admins moving the threads would be a good idea, too, because it would allow admins to take care of work that requires admins. But last time I suggested a non-admin was capable of doing something at AN/I I got attacked by the kiddy contingent (and this means the immature brats, not the youth, as some of the best admins are, imo, a few of the youngest) for usurping their power-tripping. But, yes, I think that non-admins would be quite capable of sorting what goes where along with admins. Especially if it speeded up the amount of time required to deal with an issue.

I don't think the grab bag board move is a good idea, though. If you don't know where to move something, simply don't. Someone who knows will come by and move it, or it can remain on AN/I. From MB's post above it seems obvious where a large number of posts belong. Don't worry about handling and redirecting everything, just haul ass, politely, on the obvious ones. --KP Botany (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with the idea or moving what can be moved, as discussed, demonstrated, and/or elaborated upon by MBisanz, Protonk, and KP Botany among others. GRBerry 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me that some form of informal clerking to move threads to more appropriate venues would be of assistance here. We can't expect every newbie to learn precisely where to post precisely what, but we can lift and shift threads and tell them where we put them. Mind, I seem to recall that a lot of the subsidiary noticeboards, including ANI, are fundamentally just patches for the fact that we have more questions than can conveniently be handled in a single place, and we're not going to change that by moving the questions around. But anything that makes ANI less toxic has to be good. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving posts elsewhere is all well and good, if and only if they actually get attention at their new destination. As Protonk and KPBotany point out above, some of these other noticeboards really aren't working very well. Two examples:

1. WP:BLP: case untouched for eight days on the third time of asking. Not impressive.
2. WP:SPI: by far the worst offender at the moment. It's only been running for three and a half weeks and already has a two week long backlog(!) This page might have the decorations of clerk coordination noticeboards, suggested reading lists and dedicated approval processes for trainee clerks, but very little investigating is actually getting done. As it stands, there's far more bureaucracy than working dispute resolution happening.

Outsourcing could be a fine alternative to the boards the work well (e.g. WP:AIV), but some groundwork needs to be done elsewhere first. Knepflerle (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Then it should go back to AN/I if it's being ignored.

One of the other issues I mentioned is the need to remove the drama queens/kings threads from AN/I. In fact, these threads, which are like velcro soft sides for sharp-mouthed admins contribute a lot of the toxicity to AN/I. They're the threads about and by a small handful of half-a-dozen users, and they accomplish nothing but to gather the contributions and times of editors and, especially, admins who want to kill time on Wikipedia. They need their own board. Call it AN/Long term issues board, or AN/Repeat offenders board.

Create that, move the BLPs that are ignored back to AN/I, with a notice at AN that they're being ignored. This is why I said to user THF(?) above that the important thing to do with BLPs is to fix it. Administrators don't watch the BLP board. In fact, I think I'll start asking potential admins why they don't at RfA. It's a board that Wikipedia administrator should be more concerned about than participating in the latest dramathon.

Maybe all that time spent chatting on the cabal's IRC could be spent notifying admins that there is work to be done that should be part of what earned them their right to secret channels. --KP Botany (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do wish the rest of the cabal would occasionally let me in on what's happening around here. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, drama's a pain. But what would be bad for Wikipedia (in my opinion) is if we ended up with a lot of boards each with a lot fewer people reading them. Drama is just a cost of having a board that a lot of people read which gives us sufficient resources both for action and to get some idea of what the feeling is about something. It's hard to keep track of lots of boards. dougweller (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IPs blocked, consensus that user is banned. Our work here is done, for now anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

After a request for comment on Carnatic music, Naadapriya (talk · contribs) was banned from Wikipedia. this was several months ago

However, an IP, clearly referencing that incident and almost certainly Naadapriya has now left a variety of increasingly harassing messages on the talk pages of people involved with the investigation that led to his community ban. He uses a dynamic IP, which makes things difficult, however.

The ones he left for me were:

• [1]
• [2] (Explicitly identifies himself as Naadapriya, if you know the circumstances)
• [3] (restores deleted message)
• [4]

He did the same to many other uses, sometimes using the same messages as he sent me. In no particular order (there's several IPs,

• [5][6][7](this one denies he's Naadapriya) [8] (this one heavily implies he is Naadapriya given the context of Naadapriya's ban). [9][10][11][12][13](the last explicitly references Naadapriya's ban, with a link, even)[14]

And finally, here he attacks the Naadapriya sockpuppeteer tag several times. That also contains quite a number of additional dynamic IPs that are not included in the above evidence.

He also has continued his behaviour on Carnatic music [15], but I think this is more than enough evidence: Can something be done? Leaving banned users to harass other editors really does not send a good signal to any other editor who gets banned. Can we get a range block? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He's left some really nasty messages as of late on my talk page.[16][17] There's too much collateral damage for a rangeblock, unfortunately. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The abuse and threats are continuing [18]. Please do something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of repeating this here and WP:ANI, have you filed a checkuser request? User:Nishkid64 is already a CU, I think, and he's determined that it's too large for a rangeblock. What would you specifically like us to do? The article in question is already protected. We can't go and protect every single user talk page out there. Is there a range or some common connection to all this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[Post from banned user deleted]

Ok, I guess, I'll go along but you are going to have to explain from the beginning. I have no clue what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[Post from banned user deleted]

[19] - This is clear harrassment. Blanking a page is also now a "correction". D.M.N. (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Above IP blocked 72 hours by Lucasbfr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should rangeblock for all but established users: Anything else is just us saying thqaat we'll accept vandalism and harassment by banned editors, provided they make it difficult enough for us. If not that, at the very least all posts from the user will need to be deleted on sight, and enough admins be on alert to find such posts and delete them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The range(s) are just too big, IMO. There are even /10 ranges. MediaWiki doesn't support such high collateral blocks. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports, anyone? I think that's the next logical step. Also, I think someone may want to add a section for a formal banning. I think all we had was a single user indefinite block, not a community ban. Just a formality really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, our old friend "vagabond from a Multi User system"! I was also pestered a week ago, but it appears my withdrawal from the discussion gained the result of them leaving me be. I suggest that this is an option others may wish to pursue, as well as the more technical ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider the four posts the IP has so far made to my talk page ([20],[21], [22], [23]) sufficiently disruptive to be regarded as harassment. After the second, I effectively told him that I would ignore any future communications from him. As long as he restricts himself to posting semi-coherent rants to my talk page, I simply won't bother taking any notice of them and they will constitute nothing more than a very minor nuisance.

I was also going to suggest that an abuse report be filed. In the meantime, protection or semi-protection of Naadapriya's user and talk pages, and semi-protection of the Carnatic music article should be enough to block off his main avenues of disruption.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On my reading of the instructions on the abuse reports page, it seems likely that an abuse report on these IPs would be rejected at this time. The instructions request that reports only be filed for IPs with behaviour sufficiently disruptive to have earned 5 blocks. Although this condition doesn't always seem to be insisted upon, I suspect the abuse investigators would prefer to wait and see whether the measures already taken will have any effect.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protection may be better than a rangeblock here, until this person finally accepts that they have long since worn out their welcome here. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • WP:RBI until then, I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Concur, but if the IPs move on to bigger and better things the rangeblock should be reconsidered. arimareiji (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[Post from banned user deleted]

Formalizing community ban

Tendentious POV-pushing, and other types of disruptive and problematic editing, including harassment, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, edit-warring, attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground and game the system, egregious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, trolling, etc. was, in my opinion, enough for the community to de-facto ban the user (i.e. no individual administrator was willing to unblock). This is a proposal to have the community ban formalised (and listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users as such). I personally didn't see the need to formalise it because it's effective as it is. However, given that it was suggested (even though it's a mere formality), and given that this has the potential of affecting myself, article content and many other contributors, we might as well note the ban on record. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) NB: I've notified all users who provided input at the relevant discussion concerning the previous remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Topic ban violated using sockpuppets, indef blocked by CheckUser. Enough said. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Certainly. User was unusually problematic, and behavior of th IPs, whether him or the meatpuppet they claim to be, do not give mch hope for any sort of reform at this time. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Annoying user. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely endorse ban times infinity plus forever. There should be no place at all for Naadapriya's type in Wikipedia. Would anyone be objected to me tagging early? --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 11:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support acknowledging indef block as a community ban, owing much to the sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. If the person responsible for those IP messages is not Naadapriya he is at least a remarkably faithful clone. In any case, Naadapriya's previous behaviour had already been sufficiently disruptive to justify a community ban. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is an individual indifferent to Wikipedia's preferred method of encyclopedia building. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support As an admin that's previously dealt with Naadapriya, I agree that past and current behavior are sufficient to warrant a more "official" community ban. GlassCobra 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'd hoped that the previous topic ban would have driven some sense into the user. This appears as the logical next step. Mspraveen (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per GlassCobra, although to be precise I dealt with Naadapriya before becoming an admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me. I've tagged Naadapriya as banned per the consensus here. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 15:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast...

I just got a message from an IP which, judging from this, appears to be in Naadapriya's IP range. However, as the IP claims not to be Naadapriya, I'll assume good faith that I didn't just get contacted by him. It would be much appreciated if an admin could look into the message, or if we could get a CheckUser on the IP to see if it really was Naadapriya who contacted me. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 13:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

First off, the claim that only one person did not participate in the original discussion is a lie. Compare Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#Community_sanction.2Fban_proposal_on_User:Naadapriya with this list, and you'll see that MathCool, Dylan620, LessHeard van U, and Sheffield Steel are all new to the current discussion.

Next, Naadapriya was a known sockmaster, and the IPs acted solely to attack anyone that ever commented in the Carnatic music Request for comment that led to Naadapriya's banning.

And, anyway, the wrting style is identical. Carnatic music, archive 4, after I pointed out that there was a problem with the use of a source:

“ Glad to see sudden interest from some editors on this issue. All compositions in Carnatic Music to date are devotional music. Todays Carnatic music was originated in Kannada. Deveranaama in Kannada means devotional song. Therefore one can say Carnatic Music is devotional music (Devaranaamas). In any concert artists sing both elaborate and short pieces. Sometimes short pieces are called Deveranaama or Padas. Both elaborate and short pieces are integral part of Carnatic Music. In the latest (CD AVMC1016/C-1017) one of the current leading artists Smt Sudha Ragunathan of Tamilnaadu labels all compositions with Ughabogha as Krithis, not Devaranaamas. Artisis do not make alapane when the start with Ugabhoga since it was the original form of alapane. Therefore Ugabhoga is an integral part of Carnatic. The article should go back to the version before Ncmvocalist first deleted. BTW : There is no international Jl for Carnatic music. RS include books, public concerts, radio programs and legal CDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC) (emphasis original) ”

This, I will point out, in the middle of a Request for comment. Now, compare these recent IP messages to me:

“ Some time back you jumped into in-depth discussions related to Carnatic Music as if you were solicited. Then you left it orphan. Can you please explain why you got involved then but not now. By a Vagabond from Multi-User System.76.212.2.204 (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) ”

“ You participated in a discussion leading to a framed-ban by Ncmvocalist then you have dumped the article. Where will Wikipedia end if editors hop-in and hop-out on articles that they have no genie interest. It leads to believe building PR is the motivation.76.212.11.203 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) ”

Both are very upset that I participated in a request for comment. Both have an hostile attitude against people showing up on his article, and both this IP and Naadapriya are really, really out to get Ncmvocalist.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Shoemaker, the language construction and pov is identical to previous "I am not Naadapriya" editors who just happen to get caught in autoblocks when that account is sanctioned. Unless Good Faith can extend to the point that the only people from a particular geographic area all share the same net provider and the same interest in editing the Carnatic Music entry on Wikipedia, I think this is as obvious socking as you will likely find. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll file an SPI momentarily. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, while looking for the actual discussion that resulted in the original block, I found this at User_talk:Naadapriya/Community_sanction:

“ As part of the rebuttal process for this framed sanction by unregulated-loosely formed-piece-meal type community, two ANI are posted

regarding controversial involvements here. of 2 Admns. Detailed point by point rebuttal to the make believe consensus for framed sanction by a majority who had acknowledged lack of knowledge about the related article is under preparation Naadapriya (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC) [Emphasis added]

”

Compare to the quote above, "You participated in a discussion leading to a framed-ban by Ncmvocalist then you have dumped the article."

Interesting similarity of language.

I think the point is clear: The IP's case does not hold water, and the IP is, at the very best, a single-purpose account seeking to harass and bother those seen as involved in the original Naadapriya discussion. If Naadapriya him- or herself wishes to seek an overturn of his ban, he is ill-served by the actions of such IPs, meatpuppet (and, if so, one very close to Naadapriya, as all their actions revolve around him) or sockpuppet.

If Naadapriya wishes to return, with appropriate mentorship and promises to reform, I'm willing to see a second chance, but the actions of these IPs have severely hurt his case. I would suggest Naadapriya and/or the IPs step away from Wikipedia for a few months, then write the Arbcom, seeking to have a mentorship arranged under which they could return. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can leave the SPI behind then, since the IP that sent me the message has been confirmed as a Naadapriya sock via the duck test. Should the IP be blocked? --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked; I hope this is the last occassion where more time is unnecessarily wasted on it. The community ban was not just legitimate, (even when enforcing on socks), but to be clear: was absolutely necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Circular references galore!

Bored admins may want to check out external links to nationmaster.com (a Wikipedia mirror). It's being used as a circular reference on a few hundred pages. --- RockMFR 01:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem exists to a much lesser extent with onpedia.com. Skomorokh 01:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done with onpedia. Is it kosher to add mirrors to the spam blacklist? Protonk (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just a personal opinion, but I think adding mirrors to the blacklist is a good idea. It will keep good-intentioned people from using the mirrors as references. There's no conceivable way that a mirror of Wikipedia can be used as a reference here. (Cue someone coming up with at least one Sherlock-Holmes-level-clever way to use a mirror as a reference.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really Sherlockian, but any article about Wikipedia mirrors could cite the info page on a mirror as saying "We mirror Wikipedia"... :D //roux   18:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, I think it's an excellent idea. There's no reason why there should ever be a link from the mainspace to a Wikipedia mirror. My only concern would be that it might mess up one of our project-space pages which lists Wikipedia mirrors. Does anybody know if there will be any problem of that sort? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you can whitelist the "main" url. Not sure though, probably the SBL people would know pretty well, though. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done I've removed about 100 so far, ~200 to go in mainspace (that's a guess from the ~700 linked overall, YMMV). I can't keep going or my brain will spill from my ears. I contacted one editor who seemed to source pages from there a lot (Chinese railways stations and such), but I haven't noticed any other clear patterns. Protonk (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed some more, but this activity is seriously mind numbing. Can someone running a bot configure it to do this? Xasodfuih (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, probably. Many hands make light work, though. It is probably faster for each of us to do ~20-50 than to write a bot. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I pulled out a bunch. The first 300 in the above list are all Talk, AFD, WP, etc. pages, but free of articles. I've also learned that we apparently have an article for every single stop on the Hong Kong light rail... sigh. Natalie (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While doing one of these I found a few links to shortopedia, another online encyclopedia. It doesn't look like a mirror, but I doubt these are appropriate to use as reliable sources either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I removed some twenty a week from nationmaster.com/encyclopedia for weeks at the end of last year. Just remember that nationmaster.com also has a number of very valid subsections which should not be removed (/graph, /country, ...). As for mirrors that should be removed / blacklisted, speedylook is a machine translation of the French Wikipedia and is used in a number of articles as well. Less obvious, but very annoying. Fram (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At this kind of volume I'm inclined to shoot on sight. I'd rather we delink nationmaster entirely than get into the murky "some parts are ok but some parts are wikipedia mirrors". I know we live with that w/r/t About.com and some others, but it is a pretty sub-par solution. Is there some sub-directory of nationmaster that is only original content and some sub-directory that is only mirror content? That would be neat to know. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, the only ones that have to be removed are the nationmaster.com/encyclopedia links. Links like the one in Scientific literacy are correct (although they could be replaced by a link to the original source). A smallnumber of these[24] are the bad ones. Fram (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we can blacklist only that subdomain. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Technical question: Is there a way to filter Special:LinkSearch results to only include results from a particular namespace? (In this case, mainspace)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we got most of these. I'm still waiting for some response on the SBL talk page. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting reversal of an RFP decision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No anon edits in last two days, Simon Dodd is now informed that he can raise another request should vandalism levels indicate. Discussion of criteria for page protection lives at WT:RFPP. No admin action required at this time. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Not all articles are alike. BLPs are special - so particularly sensitive, in fact, that we are currently considering a policy change that would permanently semi-protect all BLPs. Yesterday, I requested semi-protection for a BLP: Newt Gingrich.[25] It has a long history of anonymous and frequently quite nasty vandalism; I pointed to eleven incidents in the last two weeks, and noted that other articles - not even BLPs - had been protected for fewer incidents over the same period of time. Protection was refused by user:Royalguard11. That would have been difficult enough to understand, but to make the decision even less comprehensible, not ten minutes later, user:Royalguard11 granted protection for PacMan, which has had barely more anonymous vandalism (twelve edits) over the same time period.[26] Pacman! We are more concerned about vandalism of articles about a 1980s video game character than a BLP?

I requested reconsideration at AFD (same link as before), but that request was ignored. I am therefore bringing the matter here, and request that another admin review and reverse this mistaken call. I would further suggest that we need some kind of standard - if only a guideline - for where the applicable RFP threshold lies. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to review my decision then I do not object, I won't even take offense to it. If you really want to compare, Pac-Man had twice as many in the last week over Newt. I don't consider last weeks vandalism to have any impact on whether it needs protection today. The last 50 edits for Newt also stretch back over a month. I stand by my decision but as I said I have no objections to a second opinion. -Royalguard11(T) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see where Royalguard is coming from, most semi-protections are justified by amounts of disruption in a short period of time or that receive it daily, if an article receives one disruptive edit a day, its not as justifiable as an article that has over 10 edits of disruption in two days.--TRUCO 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting "twice as many"? I dispute that number, so let's do a quick comparison. I take the "last week" to be the week before you protected the page, which comes to February 8th through 15th; based on that, looking at both pages' histories, each article was anonymously vandalized eight times: nos. 1-8 in my request for page protection, and the following difs for PacMan: [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. If the decision is a function of the last week rather than the last fortnight, the case for protection becomes even stronger: if we had a blind test, where the only information available was that two articles had been vandalized eight times in a week, one is a BLP, one is not, and page protection is granted for one of them, every ounce of common sense would tell us that Wikipedia was more solicitous of protecting the BLP. And if the likelihood of future vandalism is a factor, the case for protection becomes even stronger. So what gives?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh there were the same amount of disruption? Then protections should have been justifiable. --TRUCO 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my point here isn't to criticize RG, to complain that PacMan was protected, or to complain about inconsistent treatment; the inconsistency between PacMan and Newt isn't the point, but it but does highlight the point, which is that this article ought to be semi-protected. Even without the disparate treatment by the particular reviewing admin, I would still be appealing the decision as incorrect and inconsistent with how other editors have treated other requests for protection in non-BLP contexts. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I know that you'd love me to tell you the exact formulae I used to calculate and everything but I can't, because there isn't one. When I look at pages to protect I look at them on a case by case basic, I do not base whether or not I protect an article based on whether I did another one. You're hypothetical also doesn't stand up here. If I was going to predict future bad cases of vandalism based on old ones, Pac-Mac would win because it has 3 prior cases of protection, while Newt has none. But that does matter anyways, what I was trying to say about that was that you wanted indefinite semiprotection for an article that has never been protected before, which is basically and automatic decline (indefinite is rarely granted and usually to pages that have long on/off histories). Thirdly and honestly I was looking at vandalism since the 10th, which is almost too a period itself. And before anyone asks, before the comment I gave above I hadn't been on Wikipedia since the couple requests I did yesterday. That's why there was no response. -Royalguard11(T) 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) As I said at RFP, I don't understand this theory you've advanced twice now that protection not having been granted before is a reason not to protect the page before. Maybe PacMan was previously nominated three times and reviewed by an admin who is particularly willing to grant protection while Newt was previously nominated three times at the same time but reviewed by an admin who is skeptical of page protection. At any rate though, as I just said, the issue isn't the disparate treatment, it's that not granting protection in this instance was a mistaken decision that doesn't comport with how other requests are routinely handled (see, e.g., my note about Ichigo Kurosaki below). (2) Although you're right that I "want[ed] indefinite semiprotection," I explicitly stated that I wanted page protection for as long as the reviewing admin thought was appropriate, and suggested that indefinite was my preference. So, with all due respect, your argument that I requested inappropriate relief just doesn't work: if you concluded that indefinite protection was inappropriate, you could still have protected it for a shorter period. (3) Lastly, I'm not suggesting that you are, but please don't take this personally - this isn't an attack on you, just on the decision. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We typically try to keep editing open on the higher profile articles unless there is overwhelming vandalism, it's part of our storefront. I think this was a perfectly defensible call. I don't see any need to bring it here, could you not simply have extended the debate at RFPP? Guy (Help!) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I tried to extend the debate at RFP and was ignored. The request was denied at 02:02 today, I responded requesting that the decision be rethought at 02:41 and 03:34, and no one responded. The request was then dumped into F/DR. I didn't bring the issue here until 20:03, nearly 18 hours after I tried to "simply ... extend[] the debate at RFPP." Could I ask a clarification before responding to the other part of your comment: By "storefront" do you mean the idea that Wikipedia is the free encyclopædia that anyone can edit? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The longest I see a vandal's edit up this month is 24 minutes; all but two were reverted in 1 minute. People are watching this page, I wouldn't worry about it too much.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is easy to say when you are not (as I am) one of the editors who watches the page and is forced to waste their time to revert the ongoing vandalism.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just to add another comparison point, protection was just granted to Ichigo Kurosaki after eight incidents of anonymous vandalism in the last week. So eight in a week is enough to protect "a fictional character in the anime and manga franchise Bleach," but eight in a week is not enough to protect a BLP? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And another: Page protection granted earlier today for 17 Kids and Counting, "a reality television show," after six incidents of anonymous vandalism in the last week.[35] Six in a week is good enough for reality TV, eight in a week is good enough for cartoon characters and 80s video games, but eight is not enough to protect a BLP? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mate, all that is just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS material. Like I say, just reopen the RFPP debate if you think the answer is wrong. If you actually want to know the reason some things get blacklisted and others not, then just ask - I think less-watched articles are more likely to be protected (fewer eyes), high viewer traffic articles will be less likely, due to many eyes to revert vandalism; high profile articles are our storefront, we work hard to keep them open. I think all this has been explained. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• [← Undent ←]

Guy,

1. Relisting less than 24 hours after protection was refused, with no new incidents of vandalism so far today, would seem tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And, even if it wasn't, Einstein hit the nail on the head: it's insane to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.
2. Citing WP:WAX gets you nowhere, for either of two reasons. First, WAX pertains to deletion discussions. This is not a deletion discussion, and a guideline for how the community reaches consensus about deletions maps poorly - if at all - to a context where admins decide whether pages should be protected. In the latter, rough congruence between how requests are handled is a reasonable expectation, and, to the extent there is to be disparate treatment, any disparity should be more solicitous of BLPs, not less. Second, even if WAX applies, it concedes that "just because an argument appears here does not mean that it is always invalid."
3. That's the second time you've used the storefront metaphor and I still don't understand it. I haven't asked for the article to be protected or deleted - merely semi-protected. That in no way prevents the article being visited or edited by anyone who so desires. Surely you don't believe that bizarre canard offered by opponents of the policy change - that semi-protection means that not anyone can edit the page? Semi-protection prevents "anyone" from editing the articles about as much as putting doors on a hospital means that the hospital is no longer open to "anyone." Requiring minimal effort, such as registering for an account or turning a handle, before commencing editing on a class of articles, is emphatically not closing our shop front. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about the process. It consists of 1. An admin reviews the request and 2. That admin makes a judgement call based on whatever factors they deem important. That's it. There isn't some hidden test, process, or even consistency between admins. Comparing decisions made by different admin is moot because different admins will make different decisions about the same article. We've discussed some "criteria", but there is no definite criteria for or against protection (there is vandalism, but nothing on how much/how often/how far back or when "vandalism" is borderline "edit war"). There is no correlation or congruence (I had to look that up!). Read the policy. And FYI if you haven't heard, autoconfirmation now requires 7 days/10 edits, not just registration. -Royalguard11(T) 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that there is little guidance for admins - that was implicit in my suggestion above that there ought to be ("we need some kind of standard - if only a guideline - for where the applicable RFP threshold lies"). An editor ought to have some kind of ballpark outside of which she knows ex ante that an RFP will not be granted, and vice versa. While I support giving admins a wide range of discretion, because we all know that the kind of behavior that triggers attention at RFP comes in an endless variety of shapes and forms, there certainly ought to be some degree of consistency between how two identical requests will fare with different reviewing admins, and that suggests the need for some kind of guidance. Moreover, the less guidance there is for reviewing admins, the more variance there will be between how requests are handled, and, thus, the more obvious it seems to me that there ought to be a clearer process for appealing to a second admin to review the decision. It seems preposterous that the fate of an RFP is entirely a "luck of the draw" situation.

I hadn't heard about the autoconfirmation change, but it doesn't change my analysis in any substantive way. If someone is going to be put off by having to wait a week to edit a single, small class of articles - if they're going to say that they may not still be interested in editing BLPs even days hence - that tells me that this person is unlikely to blossom into a productive editor - they are, as likely as not, going to be a pest. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have flagged this discussion for attention at WP:BLPN.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, Mr. Dodd, you could, rather than spend considerable time and energy arguing for indefinite protection of the article, resubmit to RFP for short-term protection. If, when that time is up, protection is again deemed necessary, ask for more. Should it turn out that protection is repeatedly needed, I think you'll find a request for indefinite protection will hold far more weight. Just a suggestion. Closenplay (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) PS Added Newt to my watchlist to help ease the burden.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Argentina

There is an ongoing discussion in the article of Argentina regarding ethnicity and demographics. A consensus was once reached, but the discussion has been reopened. Sherlock4000 (talk · contribs) has reverted any attempt to change the section. I don't claim that my particular version should be the one to stay, but I find it irresponsible and unacceptable, and bordering on vandalism, that the user, despite being asked repeatedly to participate in the debate in order to find a consensual solution, s/he blatantly refuses, ignores and deletes our comments, either by calling them pettiness or gibberish. He calls the edits of other users that restore the deleted text as "vandalism", "using secondary sources" (therefore unacceptable to him, even though we are using primary sources, but he refuses to accept or answer our comments when we cite the papers) and claims that we have "jelousy of Argentina" because we are "Mexicans" or "located in Mexico" (not the case, and at least I can stand scrutinity or an IP verification).

Protecting the article will not suffice, since it has been protected before, only to be vandalized (or rapidly edited) once it becomes unprotected.

--the Dúnadan 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

One more attempt: requesting him to discuss [36].

Again, I do not claim that my proposals should stay. I have asked him to discuss, but he impolitely refused. After two days with no positive response, I offered a different version. This time, it was not only reverted, but he removed any mention of the results of the genetic research, which, are relevant in this particular case. S/he reverted three times consecutively by [37], [38], [39] but again, refusing to discuss.

--the Dúnadan 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear noticeboard staff,

This user (the Dúnadan) has attempted to impose genetic studies on a country page (Argentina), when they've been amply mentioned on Demographics of Argentina . This is highly inappropriate because all genetic studies are normally contributed to the "Demographics" page (as is the case on Demographics of the United States or Demographics of Brazil). He prefers to make the Argentina page an exception to this without consensus and when genetic studies on the country page would be irregular and most likely offensive. To justify doing this, he uses only a seconadry source: an article written on the study by a public official with an agenda (judging from the article's fiery last paragraph, which was purely his POV).

He tried misrepresenting this to Chaosdruid, which couldn't have been an accident, as Dunandan is fluent in Spanish. Chaosdruid is an editor who's generously shown interest in the article and the disagreement, and he's already advised Dúnadan to leave the material out ([40]).

Finally, my exchanges were only with that one user (not "we" or "our"); nor have I accused the user of anything he didn't betray feeling, himself: he had earlier written to Chaosdruid that this disagreement is a result of people's attempt to prove which country is "whiter" and "richer." ([41]) That's pettiness ("whiter") and jealousy ("richer").

Thank you all for your time.

My regards,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of these editors have been brief, and I'll be even briefer. Less than two hours ago I proposed that the disputed content be move to a footnote ([42]). So far, I've heard from User Sherlock4000, who accepted the idea (User talk:SamEV#Good idea for Argentina) and asked me to comment here. I don't intend to defend any of his actions before this, my first interaction with him; but clearly he's willing to compromise. SamEV (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already moved all of the relevant material to a new discussion page Talk:Argentina/Demographicdisc and proposed archiving the rest of the Talk:Argentina discussion on the matter, leaving one section for the link in the main chat as is now at the bottom of the chat page.

I am a strictly NPoV on this matter, apart from ensuring Wiki guidelines and correct referencing.

The article already had a cleanup tag and has since been demoted and without consensus it will be difficult to meet the expected standard to pass GAR or to avoid even more deletions and demotion to C-class

There are seven or eight reversals/re-edits everyday, cleverly avoiding 3RR since most of the parties have suffered a warning for this in the past, and it has at least once been sent for mediation here where it seems the interested parties were too busy reverting each others edits and infighting to pursue the action.

--Chaosdruid (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the tardiness of my response as not all of us live in the same time zone or have the same working schedules. I think a little background is necessary, especially for the new users who wish to help and the fellow administrators that wish to get involved.

Please note that, based on Likeminas comment at Talk: Argentina, and despite Sherlock4000 spurious claims otherwise, I am not the "user trying to impose" anything. Users Tanthalas39, Likeminas, CenterofGravity, Vassyana, echidna2007 and AndeanRock at different points in time seem to agree with a proposal of including some genetic information. On the other hand, users Ale4117, coldhartedman, Fecho85, Sherlock4000, Lehoiberri, SAMEV and Opinoso disagree.

Fercho85 (from the disagreeing group) and I had agreed a few months back (when only the two of us were discussing) to include all sources (CIA, Census and genetics) in the article as long as they were all properly contextualized, identified and referenced. After a three month break, I came back to find that the consensus had been broken by Fercho85 himself, making unjustified claims as to the "authority of the sources". Debate ensued between him and other users (mainly Likeminas) after which I made quite a lenghty proposal as to why we should stop playing scientists trying to "prove that the research is wrong" and rather debate on whether it is pertinent to include their results or not in the article. I argued, based on the Government of Argentina's own claim that they endorse this and similar genetic studies in order to redefine Argentina's identity in a less discriminatory way, that it is pertinent to include them. (This is why Sherlock4000 calls the paper the opinion of a "public officer with an agenda").

Please also note that the study is not a secondary source, since the abstract was written by the authors themselves; and even if it were, secondary sources are valid, and especially more valid than tertiary sources such as the CIA Factbook and Britannica or any other encyclopedia which make broad generalizations on ethnicity, which Sherlook4000 seems to prefer in this matter.

Nobody responded to my proposal, so after almost two weeks, per WP:BOLD, I edited the section accordingly, in order to restore the previous consensus. Sherlock4000 immediately reverted all changes, and has continued to do so, despite the fact that I have invited him/her several times to discuss.

If there is no consensus, and it is clear that there is not (neither to remove the data, like s/he is doing) nor to restore the previously accepted consensus, (what I am doing), then what should be done? To stop calling names and to talk! That is what I've been trying to do, by asking him/her several times to stop reverting and discuss.

Calling the actions of other users "petty", "jealous [Mexicans]" and blatantly deleting any effort of communication, as well as making spurious accusations when there is conent disagreement is unacceptable per WP:Etiquette. That is why I requested the attention of an administrator, not because I am seeking mediation (though I appreciate the efforts done in this matter and will collaborate with them), because mediation at least required a previous effort in communication. I requested the attention of an administrator because there is no way out of an edit war with a user that refuses to talk with the party s/he disagrees with and reverts any attempt to edit the section if it is not his/her way (i.e. WP:OWN), and simply talks to users s/he agrees with. Like I had repeatedly said before, I am not trying to impose my version, but to have a discussion in order to reach a compromise. And a compromise is reached by talking to the persons you disagree with, not only to those you agree with, and then claim "you do not have the consensus to do what you like and I will not talk to you".

Having said that, I would agree to SamEV's proposal. However, all users mentioned above should also have their say, not only me, the purported "user who imposes his POV". --the Dúnadan 22:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, I think dispute resolution is what you want. Most of the above fails the TL;DR test - this noticeboard is not the place for complex issues to be resolved. I am sure some of the mediation team will be able to help, or at least identify that one side is being disruptive and the other not, but for now this looks like a content dispute and not something where we can easily take sides - which is what we are being asked to do. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting User:Rjecina

 Deferred to to dispute resolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reporting

• Reporting User:Rjecina: Censoring Wikipedia. Misleading Reader. Conscious and Intentional Violation of Wikipedia policy on Balance, POV forks Do not hide the facts,Characterizing people's opinon Biased statements and on the general concept of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Policy. The issue is with regard to the Current Academic Level Dispute around the validity of Pacta Conventa and the circumstances of Hungarian-Croatian historical relations. He also seems to have a conflict showing an impartial attitude towards Croatian-Serbian relations, which results in edit warring between him and multiple other Wikipedian users. On the occasion I continue to insist on presenting all competing academic viewpoints, He threatened to block me. He removes sourced, reliable, varifiable, third party english reference provided by various editors so that only one of the viewpoints that is supported by his/her patriotic or nationalistics feelings, are maintained in a double-edged academic level dispute. The issue is still disputed among historians to this day, and Wikipedia policy states to allow all significant viewpoints to exist in an article beside one another. In addition, He also changes historical facts in non-disputable areas, and refuses to be corrected by proper sourced reference. He "patrols" all relevant articles and intentionally maintains Factual Inaccuracy, Ambiguity and Biased Point of View.--Bizso (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  
  

Evidence:

[43]Removed sourced references from talk page

[44]Removed even more sourced references from talk page but left other viewpoint there.

[45] Removed reference from the article

[46] Removed all references and in addition replaced unreferenced tag!

[47] Removed tags, reference to the dispute (link and sentence), "Citation needed" tags on biased statements, and additional information

[48] Changes historical facts and removes more precise information (not regarding the dates -1097 or 1102)

[49] Changes historical facts and removes more precise information

[50]Removes additional information

[51]Maintains ambiguity although article is tagged for in need of Copy-Editing

[52]User also censors articles on different topic and removes additional information--Bizso (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[53] Removes sourced additional information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

• Request User:Rjecina has shown no sign of being capable of distancing himself from his nationalistic/patriotic emotions with regard to the issue on the Valditiy of Pacta Conventa and historical Croatian-Hungarian relations. Hence, User:Rjecina is unable to positively contribute to Wikipedia in an objective manner, which is required by Wikipedia's Policy on Netral Point of View.

Therefore, I request that User:Rjecina be banned from English Wikipedia for an unspecified period of time.

Important note: Rjecina turned out to be not an Admin, he just acted as one.

Rjecina, I'm sorry to do this, but your edits do have consequences.--Bizso (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Overview

What is happening here is that this is a highly sensitive issue. It concerns whether the Croatian people were independent for 9 centuries or were part of the Kingdom of Hungary as a province. Understandably, the Croatian people and editors on Wikpedia support the formal view and include it in every possible article on Wikipedia. However, this fact is still disputed among historians today so it is undecided even on academic levels, whether Croatians were independent or not for 9 centuries. Therefore what they do is omit the competing viewpoint and mention the "independent" version everywhere. If someone, like me and other previous users for example user:Torokko, attempt to draw attention to the fact that the validity of the document that defined the Hungarian-Croatian relations as "equal" is disputed, the Croatian editors and admins simply remove it and discard it. Even if there are references to relaible, verifiable, english sources, they delete them. They are effectively censoring Wikipedia on this matter due to patriotic feelings for their recently independent country. This is what is happening.--Bizso (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Don't you see, Rjecina? This article is not about relations between Croatians and Hungarian Wikipedian users!

This article is about history!

And what you have done is you removed reference to this Dispute (validity of Pacta Conventa and terms of Hungarian and Croatia historic states) form the article and from other relevant articles on Wikipedia.

• You removed a single sentence that mentioned the dispute and gave a link to the relevant discussion page.
• You deleted the TALK PAGE of Pacta Conventa, so that only the viewpoint that you support reamains still there!
• You also deleted the additional information about the debate on the Pacta Conventa in the article itself!
• You introduce inaccurate facts and insist to maintain them on non-disputable topics that have nothing to do with this academic level dispute, and you do so without providing reference!

What you are doing is artifically hiding one viewpoint so that the other competing viewpoint stands that you personally support. This is a discussion on academic levels and you are removing not only the comments, and edits, but also sourced varifiable, reliable, english, neutral academic level references! You have removed at least 12 during your last edit. You are violating NPOV#Balance and Do Not Hide The Facts
And I am not Torokko, so stop threatening to block me or accusing me of someone else just because I draw attention to this very serious issue of censorship....--Bizso (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See:User_talk:Bizso for the full discussion.--Bizso (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:Rjecina has been notified of this thread. Oren0 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

While adding unreferenced tags to unreferenced articles and removing unreferenced material isn't disruptive, blanket removing all talk page posts you don't agree with is. I have warnedhim about it, though he doesn't need to be blocked.--Patton^t/c 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

no, he was adding unreferenced tag to referenced article and removing referenced material.--Bizso (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that the editor who filed this report is currently canvassing (or so it appears:[54], [55], [56]) for support from editors who are known to have been in disagreement with Rjecina. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because Bizso is a prob. a sockpuppet of User:Velebit or User:PaxEquilibrium (71.252.55.101 (talk · contribs) is also prob. him). Very intimate knowledge of Wikipedia policies, templates, and predilection for restoring talkpage discussions shared with previous sockpuppets of these two [57]. His ultimate goal though is to get rid of Rjecina, who got lots of his/theirs sockpuppets blocked by filing perceptive CU reports (that all beside the usual anti-Croat propaganda, on which we grew accustomed to by now). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see now that User:Rjecina censors not only all articles on Croatia-Hungarian relations based on his nationalistic feelings, but other articles as well, namely on Croatian-Serbian history by removing images.[58]

Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Removal_of_images

What's more, surprise surprise, the editor that challenged Rjencina's superiority and impartiality has been now blocked[59]

"I have not removed images" --Rjecina

"You are facing with group of people coming from Croatia whose hurt nacionalistic pride cannot stand seeing these pictures here. These people want only to destroy this article - if not completely then just as much as they can. This is a consequence of Mr Wales' idea that everybody can contibute knowledge - which makes this and other articles unprotected against malice and ignorance."--71.252.55.101 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

no comment--Bizso (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[60]Here he removes sourced additional information again, from sources such as Encyclopedia of the Holocaust by Shelach, edited by Israel Gutman, just because it includes facts that doesn't conform with his view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improperly resolved move request at talk:Mogilev

A move request for Mahilyow > Mogilev failed to gain consensus, with three editors in favour and four opposed since it was opened, on February 4. Administrator User:DrKiernan closed the request and moved the article anyway, insisting that the the request was concluded properly. Would one or two neutral admins please review the article move? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 18:12 z

Catherine of Aragon protection

Hello! Can an admin protect Catherine of Aragon article from edits by anonymous users? There are multiple anonymous users who do small sneaky vandalism (such as removing short words or replacing them with nonsense). It's hard to keep track of those edits and reverting all of them is impossible. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. In the future, please direct protection requests to WP:RFPP. Thanks, caknuck _° is a silly pudding 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts

Question - does anyone here watch or respond to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts? It is hard to see what is or isn't resolved there, but some of the issues seem fairly serious. BTW I've set up an automatic archiving which should go into effect in an hour or so, so some of the stuff is pretty old. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WilletonSHS

An easy one for you:

WillettonSHS (talk · contribs) has been OWNing Willetton Senior High School for months now. They only visit Wikipedia every now and then, but when they do their sole purpose is to revert any changes to the article back to this biased and unreferenced version, which is substantially an advertisement for the school. There is never any edit summary, and all attempts to engage this user in discussion are entirely ignored. (Not an exaggeration—this user has zero talk page edits; in fact this user's contributions consist entirely of 45 edits to that one article.)

Friendly advice to this user having been ignored, and {{advert}} tags having been summarily reverted, I recently moved to a tougher position, purging the article of unreferenced assertions,[61] and leaving a strongly worded talk message.[62] A few minutes ago WilletonSHS reverted, again without edit summary comment or any response to my message.

I think this is pretty much a textbook case of a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest and no intention of engaging. I am ready to indefblock as a hopeless cause. However, propriety would suggest I hand over to someone who is entirely uninvolved. Any takers?

Hesperian 02:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an open and shut case. I'll block indef and leave a message for them - at the very least it will get the user's attention. Natalie (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that reversion just a tad excessive? There seems to be some reasonable middle ground. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by 96.231.69.49 and 69.137.227.99

A series of disruptive edits on Patrick Syring (example), Link TV (example), and James Zogby (example). Looks to be one person, possibly Patrick Syring himself. (He was recently released from incarceration.) Not sure of the appropriate action... perhaps semi-protection of those pages? Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized template?

Resolved

 – Fixed for now according to VPT/Brion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_NFLactive. I assume some template transcluded onto there was vandalized? Could someone figure it out and revert and protect as necessary? Enigma^msg 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not just that one, a bunch are throwing weird errors, and math errors. People's ages showing as "61.00000000000" and then this. I checked every included template on the one you linked, and the only recent change wasn't (apparently) the one. rootology (C)(T) 05:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. See WP:VPT. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 05:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I also scanned recent changes to templates and couldn't find anything. Looks like something more serious than vandalism. The reason I noticed it was Jason Hanson, which was displaying the weird errors mentioned. Enigma^msg 05:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is affecting a large amount of templates btw, even {{archives}} is effected.....ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

{{convert}} is dead too. Did MediaWiki just get updated with a bad version or something? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so, they talked about working out bugs, you would think they would have at least a test wiki to try these things out before updating a bugged version.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So what was it? (was it actually a MediaWiki version?) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is is fixed now. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Copying content during AfD without attribution

Resolved

 – User advised of GFDL requirements and acknowledges the need to conform to them - Fritzpoll (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I came across a few edits of User:Ikip that I thought were questionable:

• Talk:Green Lantern#FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'dg; Delete
• Talk:Ayn Rand#Current AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Ayn Rand; No consensus
• Talk:EastEnders#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Moore; Withdrawn
• Talk:EastEnders#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Kelly (EastEnders); Redirect
• Talk:Johnny Haymer#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelmo Zale; Merge

They appear to be full text copies of articles with active AfDs to the Talk pages of their respective potential merge targets. The edits do not have informative edit summaries as suggested by Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger, but the source articles may be inferred trivially from the AfD names. One may argue that the contribution history can be traced back through the AfDs, roughly comparable to following the recommended article wikilink provided in an edit summary. However, the deleted article's content cannot be properly attributed, as its history is deleted. Proper GFDL attribution was affirmed recently when TTN was warned for not providing attribution when performing merges (Dec 2008 AN/I).

I am requesting input on the appropriate level of action, e.g., dummy edit to attribute in history, blanking, revision deletion requires admin action. I also have concerns with copying full articles that have active AfDs, but I am unaware of any existing discussion or consensus.

I asked MBisanz for input as the closer of the B'dg AfD, mentioning AN; he recommended discussion with Ikip first, falling back to AN if necessary. I left Ikip two comments, but received no response. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's part of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and given the quantity of articles he's saving in his userspace here, he's trying to save the history (including really questionable ones like User:Ikip/Suing phone companies for handing over phone records). I believe it's a habit of his for rescuing articles. Yeah, he really shouldn't do that and should just ask an admin for the history afterwards. B'dg in particular concerns me since he alone voted for merge and decided to unilaterally save the history even though consensus was deletion. That's not a good precedent to keep. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The correct immediate action would be to revert the copies and warn him to stop misusing talk space. If he wants to use his userspace to permanently store copies of every article that's deleted then so be it, while there are admins still prepared to humour him. He should not be using talkspace for the same purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What Chris said, only gentler :-) There's nothing wrong with userfying a potentially redeemable subject, but that is not of course an indefinite license to keep it. Userfying preserves WP:GFDL, copying doesn't. There used to be a category for admins willing to userfy deleted content, somewhere or another. I'd point him that way. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles or were you thinking of something more specific? –xeno (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'll let this sit for another day, then go ahead and blank the copies, leaving the AfD notifications. The userspace articles seem to be related to User:Ikip/AfD on average day (WP:VPP) (WT:AFD). Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed 3 of the 5 edits. One was already removed, the other one I attributed to the original article.

I am concerned about this editors behavior. This is more than a concerned unbiased editor, worried about another editors contributions. This editor started examing my edits during WP:FICT, in which we have completely opposite views (we have completly opposite views on all issues). He was unable to get me in trouble in another instance, so this is his second attempt to get me in trouble.

I have never come across WP:GFDL, and I don't really understand the process. User:TTN has a history of disruption, with a 6 month edit ban on merging, and his edits, merging multiple articles, were obviously much more disruptive than mine [copying and pasting to a talk page]. Userfying an article is in all intensive purposes the same thing.

Chris Cunningham and I have a history, we don't get along at all, and we don't see eye to eye on most issues. The same goes for JzG, although I appreciate his "softer approach" comments.

I want the best for Wikipedia, I added those articles to the talk pages in the hopes that editors who have an interest in the subject would expand those articles with verifiable content which meets wikipedias standards. Ikip (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If, as you say, you don't understand GFDL--despite the fact that a link to it is at the bottom of every edit window--the best things for you to do would be to heed the advice of those who do, to stop what you're doing until you yourself understand and to not compile some sort of Enemies List as way to avoid responsibility. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaining the past edit history that I have had with certain editors is not an "enemies list", I would be happy to explain how WP:ANI works if you would like. I have actively worked to build wikipedia since 2005, adding over a hundred articles, and this is the first time I have had GFDL brought up at all. The responsibility assumption is fallacious and personally offensive on so many different levels, I would really appreciate it if you refactor it out (then I can refactor out this sentence). Thank you so much, I can see that if I need any explanation about how wikipedia deletion policy works I now know who to ask. I am really interested in continuing to build the wikipedia project, and learning more about GFDL. Ikip (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, the GFDL is the licensing model Wikipedia uses, which requires (in simple terms) that we be able to show the history of the text for the purposes of attributing authorship - that is, who wrote what. By simply copy-pasting the text, we lose track of the authorship history and so it violates Wikipedia's text license. If you want a deleted article userfied, please ask me (or another admin in the category that Xeno links to above). We basically restore the article to your userspace, with the history intact so that the license is satisfied but you get to have the text. Hope this helps. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In short -- the unpardonable sin of not being an admin who has the power to save the history of an article is the problem. Ikip is actually trying to do what would appear to be "the right thing" here. Collect (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed he is, but he just needs to do the right thing the right way (i.e. by preserving the GFDL history), instead of the right thing the wrong way. Black Kite 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

okay, thanks a lot for the clarification Fritzpoll. I think I am going to ask you some more questions on your user page. Ikip (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Great - not got a problem with that. I think that, given this clarification, we can mark this thread resolved - I'll sort out the existing userfication. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the B'dg entry just now. No need to userfy. I am not that interested in the topics. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennazooje and Todd Goldman

User:Jennazooje has spent the last few days trying to remove negative information from the article on Todd Goldman and/or redirecting that article to Todd Harris Goldman, an article Jennazooje created in the same time span. The editor has just moved and/or redirected the article. Unfortunately, I have to get to bed, but it would be great if an administrator could move the article back to its original title (which I cannot do, since Jennazooje started a new article at that location and then edited to which article it redirects), and restore the sourced and uncontroversial content. Thanks. --Maxamegalon2000 06:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, assistance is needed. I've warned User:Jennazooje again about this, but the user has made multiple moves between Todd Goldman, Todd Harris Goldman and Todd Goldman David & Goliath and I can't sort it out. The original article was Todd Goldman. Todd Harris Goldman was a redir, and the user recently created the David & Goliath variant. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 06:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

There is a new straw poll for granting crats the technical ability to desysop. Synergy 07:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Feedback requested on a BLP related proposal

Note: don't go vote, read and comment on talk: Wikipedia:Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal or WP:NOCACHE. The point of it all is plainly simple and obvious. rootology (C)(T) 07:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement RfC

The Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions, will be closing at 0200 UTC on 21 February, 2009. All editors are encouraged to review the RfC and participate before its close. After the closing, the Arbitration Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Resolved

 – Dunno who went to town, but it's empty now. –xeno (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged if anyone is available to take care of it. Thanks. --L. Pistachio (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with Twinkle

Resolved

 – Article deleted, TW problems not an AN issue. –xeno (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to tag Sarah And Shea for speedy deletion using Twinkle, but it didn't work. Could an admin please look into this? →Dyl@n620 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best to visit WT:TW with this. –xeno (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:TW/BUGS#TW-B-0255_.28acknowledged.29. –xeno (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Testing

I need testing for the Abuse Filter on test wiki. Please help me sort out remaining issues so we can aim for a full deployment in the next few days :-). You can help by signing up, testing existing filters (viewable through the interface), writing and testing new filters. — Werdna • talk 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And where do we report bugs? --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here or bugzilla. — Werdna • talk 23:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Where here? Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably on Werdna's talk page, unless he says otherwise. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just pick some random page on Wikipedia and post your bugs there. Chillum 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Blocks have been lifted, disputing editors have disengaged, one editor retired (not under a cloud), this situation is over.

---

• [63]
• [64]
• [65]

Someone else warn him since he won't accept comments from me. -- m:drini 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Die4Dixie: I also received e-mail from him reading, "I was wondering if you could take a look at my block and comment. I understand if you cannot review it without drini´s input, however he has made himself unavailible. Any consideration that you could offer would be appreciated." This is perplexing to me considering that Die4Dixie is obviously not blocked and Drini is clearly available and responsive. Dcoetzee 21:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the user. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Die4Dixie was blocked by Drini but has since been unblocked by him. So your email appears to be out of date a little. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, this is not canvassing. Canvassing involves asking people to vote one way or the other. Die4Dixie doesn't seem to be doing that. It is however inappropriate. Majorly talk 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that he's also using email to continue now spamming the page? -- m:drini 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the email was simply delayed. Please assume good faith. There is no evidence of email abuse here. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, will turn the page and move on. -- m:drini 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but is customary to let editors know when there is an ANI thread opened. It appears that I am late.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting tired of your provocations. Please other sysops, look at his latest edit on my talk page, and proceed with his wishes otherwise tell him to stop provoking. -- m:drini 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks. I would like to put some distance between me and this account and the drama. I would like the account undone and my pages erased. Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, see WP:RTV. Meanwhile, please stay away from m:drini or I'll block you for harassment. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He appears to have retired; I guess that counts as "staying away". Ironholds (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he'd already said he was going to do that, hinting he would make a fresh start, which is not needed but I guess ok if that's how he wants to handle it. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frivolous unsigned image and caption at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Hi. An editor, Jandrews23jandrews23, has been posting a frivolous, and possibly offensive, image and caption in this section of Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

• The first instance of this problem was when the editor modified one of my messages by putting the image in my message unsigned. I deleted it and left a message on his talk page.
• Then he put it unsigned elsewhere in the section. I used the unsigned template to sign it for the editor.
• Then he removed the unsigned template and his message is now unsigned again.

This has been going on today.

Perhaps an administrator can help by deleting the image and warning the editor? It doesn't appear to be for developing the article and having it unsigned is a nuisance because those who might consider it offensive may attribute it to other editors. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no censorship on wikipedia, but refactoring other's messages (as you asserted) is against wikipedia policy. You can warn on that. On the image deletion, IfD is just around the corner. The image wasn't uploaded by Jandrews23 btw, you can just delete it from the talk page for trolling.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. May I ask a few questions for my wiki-education?

1. What is IfD? And what do you mean that it is just around the corner?
2. How could I have found out that the image wasn't uploaded by Jandrews23jandrews23?
3. re "you can just delete it from the talk page for trolling" - Did you mean that I have the option of deleting the image because he wasn't allowed to use it? And it's reasonable to delete it because he is trolling, i.e. causing trouble?

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just realized the IfD must mean image for deletion, and perhaps you meant that there are some proceedings going on now to delete it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1. IfD is Wikipedia:Files for deletion (formerly Images for Deletion).
2. If you click through to the image page, you can see who uploaded it in the file history. (Note that the original uploader may have nothing to do with how the image is currently being used.)
3. For how to deal with trolling, see m:What is a troll?. --Dynaflow babble 01:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There were a lot of trolling images on the talk page in question; some were just of little relevance many had captions obviously designed to antagonise some participants in the discussions. I have removed them all. CIreland (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Many thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoring history for recreated redirect

While working on an article recently, I found a source in something called the AIM25 archives (see here. I made a link to "AIM25", but it was a redlink. I then looked a bit further and found Aim25, and then created AIM25 as a redirect to that. I then noticed that in the history of "AIM25" there were two speedy deletions and two earlier versions of the "Aim25" article. Deletion log and deleted page history (admin-only link). Personally, I think the previous articles (at least the second one) were fine, and the current one is fine, and that the speedy deletions were wrong. I am considering restoring and merging the page histories, but thought I'd check here first in case I'm missing something. Anyone see any reason not to restore the history? I'm aware that the articles were created by users with related names (1 and 2), but the article content at Aim25 seems fine, even it is substantially the same content that was at AIM25 (see here - admin-only link) before that was speedy deleted. All a bit strange really, but the article stuck in the end, even if it took a few tries. I wonder how common that sort of thing is? Might in the end leave the earlier versions deleted just to show that this sort of thing can happen all too easily. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

There is consensus against the table Doktorspin has inserted into Nativity of Jesus. Other editors raised questions of OR and NS. I then picked up on it. He and I edit-warred over it; the page has been protected a couple times. He has been blocked for edit-warring once, and for incivility once. I tried to get comments from a wikiproject, but that didn't do any good. Then, on the advice of an admin, I solicited opinions on the talk pages of related pages, as well as contacting active users who edit those pages a lot, as well as 3 whom I just happen to respect. There was a clear consensus out of those, that the table is unacceptable; nine persons supporting me, with two supporting Spin. An uninvolved admin even noted on his talk page that there is consensus against Spin. The page was unprotected today; I removed the table, as the admin clearly indicated consensus was against it, and Spin has removed it once more. He seems to think that because I asked for the outside opinions, they are invalid. His hubris in ignoring consensus is galling. Help is needed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the most recent version of the article contains the complained-about edit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was filling in a RfC to get independent views on the material in question rather than Carl's canvassed opinions currently available only to find that the table had been removed by Carl who has consistently refused to seek consensus. So I put the table back in and went to finish the RfC only to find the table removed yet again. Note that as soon as the block on the page was removed, Carl stopped any pretense of discussion and took out the contentious table. Carl seems unable to justify his attempts to apply various rules. I have asked him to specify his complaints and has proven totally unable to get specific. If you check his latest efforts you will be able to judge. He is simply unable to understand what consensus and compromise entail. I have been blocked over this issue because of the frustration caused by his uncooperative approach to our contention. He would remove the material claiming rules he couldn't defend and I would respond angrily, so I was blocked because of the angry responses. (Now he has become insulting over the issue, calling me an SPA and referring to my hubris, but will he be blocked? -- It's not my intent.) Could you please reinstate the table so that I can get unbiased responses to the material? If you cannot do that, please remove the RfC on the talk page. Thanks. -- spin^control 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The table is simply a visual aid for the lengthy verbiage on the subject. Where's the problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is that several (presumably unbiased) editors have expressed concern over the table, for a variety of reasons including WP:OR and WP:SYN. At present the talk page shows a definite lack of consensus for inclusion of the table. Kevin (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a reasonable way to get relatively unbiased opinions. That's why there was a RfC placed in the talk page. -- spin^control 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

10-3 isn't a consensus, discussion needs to continue. It doesn't really matter whether the table is there during the discussion or not (it's not like this is a BLP, it's just a disagreement over whether or not something is OR), so how about everyone just leaves the article as it is, has a nice cup of tea and a sit down and talk it over some more? --Tango (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps someone might edit the RfC to point people to the diff so that they can easily find the table. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nativity_of_Jesus&diff=271723110&oldid=271721180

-- spin^control 03:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin, I cannot be faulted for following the advice of the admin who blocked you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing doesn't yield unbiased opinions. You never once considered real means offered by Wikipedia to resolve the issue, such as RfCs or WP:ORN. You just wanted to remove the table. -- spin^control 03:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Baseball Bugs that the table functions as a visual aid for the verbose text. It is helpful in spelling out the contradictions between the accounts in Matthew and Luke, but I will admit it is somewhat visually disruptive within the body of the article. Perhaps there is another way to present the same information that does not require a table format, and which also adheres to the editorial standards to avoid OR issues? Pastor Theo (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The table was originally much more compact, because I'd placed similar tropes between narratives on the same lines, but, in order to try to compromise, I separated the annunciation to Mary from that to Joseph because someone claimed that that was presenting a false contradiction. It is not the contradiction per se that I'm interested in but the full range of differences. It is when you start to look at what an account actually says that you can understand how the text was constructed. An early compact version can be seen here. -- spin^control 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What I find interesting about this issue is that a number of people have stated the generic need for "secondary sources", but no-one can be precise about what is needed and why. Carl has repeatedly failed to give any constructive specific changes that he would like. He has purposefully removed the material at all costs, yet cannot enter into the cycle of gaining consensus. Consensus is built: it's not a weapon.

It seems no-one who has spoken out against the table is able to get specific either. Most people know the benefits of clarity that a table provides, so it cannot be the fact that it is in a table. I have offered to correct any information that is inaccurate and any editor can correct anything that they feel is wrong, but no-one has. All that has happened is that the table has been incessantly and unaccountably removed. I have called for a RfC on whether the table infringes Wiki content standards, but I won't get any comments without easy access to the table. And so far no-one has supplied any specific infringement. All that's been recommended is "secondary sources, secondary sources". If people cannot be specific I can't see where there is any problem with content standards at all. -- spin^control 07:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions...

• If you want to make it easier for people to discuss the table, post it to the talk page. Don't edit-war to add it to the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a useful suggestion that I have now implemented. -- spin^control 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you haven't already read WP:SYN and thought about how it might apply to this situtation, please do. Then, go and find some secondary sources (for preference, respected and uncontroversial bible scholars) who actually do the sort of "compare and contrast" treatment that the table provides. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been over it very closely since it was first bandied about with regard to the table. What I can guarantee is that the people who are citing it are guilty of doing precisely what I am not. They are interpreting the table (for whatever ends), while I am not interpreting the primary source data.

Take the very first sentence: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources." And of course I say, "conclusion? what conclusion?" It goes on to say, "material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research", again, inappropriate. Notice the heading: "Synthesis of published material which advances a position".

And again I say, "Position? what position?" This attempt to use wp:syn is a flagrant misunderstanding of the notion. A table presents information and one here can claim that the presentation, not being random, is putting forward a position. I have solicited all and sundry in an effort to clarify any specific grievance as to the claim that the form puts forward a position. I have reorganized the table so as to move tropes dealing with the same thing out of alignment so that people would not confuse them as though they were contradictions. The responses I have received have been simply and sadly vacuous. No-one can get over their shyness and get down to nitty-gritty instances of a position being put forward. I defy anyone to demonstrate any position. It seems to me what has been going on here is absurd behavior and a betrayal of the due Wiki process of forming consensus. -- spin^control 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you still can't see why this table might fail our content policies, think about the question of how you decided exactly what to include in the table, and whether it would be acceptable for any editor to add further entries if they spot differences between the two narratives. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are differences between the two narratives. (Professor) Larry Hurtado, for example, acknowledges them here: "The very differences between the two birth narratives ... make it difficult to derive either from the other one." [66] This is not novel. It is not synthesis. It's just out there for anyone to see from primary and secondary sources (and when there seem to be specific contradictions, I've cited examples from secondary sources).

My collation process was merely to cover the basic contents of each and any places where there were similar tropes. I had an introductory paragraph explaining why it would be useful to compare the two accounts, given that they have been conflated for centuries, but then someone wanted a secondary source for that. The person would dare contemplate a painting which showed the magi at the manger or a film dealing with the birth that has magi with shepherds and the family going from the manger to Egypt. Now what they are doing is synthesis. My interest is to see exactly the sorts of things each separate narrative is doing. Discouraging the table is favoring synthesis. -- spin^control 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought and effort. -- spin^control 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi copyright issue

I asked User:Khoikhoi not to add unclaimed copyright tag to the images [67], but s/he is repeating the same action: [68], the source page clearly states: "Copyright ©2006-Doorbin.net , Inc. All rights Reserved" (in simple plain English) [the Persian note says: "Any kind of usage needs attribution", nothing is mentioned about Commercial or Derivative works]

Note that Iranian copyright law JUST permits the Non-Commercial, Non-Derivative usage of copyrighted subjects for personal usage [69]. -- Meisam (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If the source page really says what he claims in the translation ("Any type of use of the material and photographs taken from this site is permitted on the condition that reference be made to the origin"), I don't really see a problem with this one. If it allows "any type of use" with the sole condition of attribution, it doesn't need an extra statement that commercial/derivative uses are included in that permission. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:ProfXY

This user has been making a large number of edits to the article Hamitic. Unfortunately s/he seems to cut-and-paste the text from the screen, then edit offline and then repaste it. Of course all the wikfication, interwikis etc disappear. S/he then tries to restore parts of it, leading to a mish-mash. I have tried explaining this to the editor on the talk page, but s/he does not seem to understand, and responds aggressively. This has led to a break down in communication and edit-warring, since attempts to restore the wikified version are treated by ProfXY as 'vandalism' and all explanations of what s/he is doing wrong are just denied. I have now lost my temper, and it is too complex to try to retrieve any legitimate edits from ProfXY's revisions, so I have been reverting. I hope someone can explain to him/her what the problem is so that ProfXY and other editors can work together. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted a 24 hour block and left this message on their talkpage. I didn't see much point in adding a warning to the page, as previous ones have been ignored, and it appears that the editor is inclined to edit war with anyone changing their version - so a break and a pointer toward appropriate helpful links seemed the best response. Hopefully they will take the hint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Paul B (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thehelpfulbot - Deleting Broken Redirects Task (Admin bot) BRFA

Hi all,

I have put a request in at Bot Requests for Approval for my bot, Thehelpfulbot to be able to use pywikipedia's Python script of redirect.py to delete broken redirects. pywikipedia has been extensively tested and the bot has already been speedily approved for using the same script, but fixing double redirects. As far as I can tell, no other bot is running this task, as User:RedirectCleanupBot is no longer in use as WJBscribe left Wikipedia. This bot will require the admin flag to run this task, which is why I am posting on this board - to let you know about the bot.

If you wish to comment, please do so at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Thehelpfulbot 5.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 14:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Government of Pakistan - Vandalism from multiple IPs

Article is undergoing vandalism from multiple IPs today. Please see this, this, this , this and this . The things in bracket translates to (Son of an owl - Stupid/idiot/fool, Son of a bitch, very good) in Urdu/Hindi as far as I know. Requesting semi protection.

Thanks, --Jyothis (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template questions

Hello, I reverted some vandalism to the Template:Three digit page a short time ago. I also saw how many different pages use this template. Could someone please: 1) make sure that the template hasn't been maliciously altered (I don't understand it), and 2) protect it because it is linked to so many pages? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thehelpfulbot - Deleting Local Images that are also on Commons Task (Admin bot) BRFA

Hi again all,

Thehelpfulbot now has another request, using pywikipedia's Python script nowcommons.py to delete local images that are also on Commons. You can have a look at the code if you wish, by seeing the pywikipedia library here.

This task will also require the admin flag to run, which is why I am posting on this board again, to let you know about the second admin bot task.

If you wish to comment, please do so at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Thehelpfulbot 6.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias and rollback page

I'm a bit concerned that Aitias has recently declined rollback right to an editor who has been around nearly a year, on the basis that they made two totally accidental reverts five months ago, that could have been made by anyone. Two other admins, Juliancolton and Acalamari, disagreed with this decision, as have I. Efe also left a comment, but it seemed neither here or there. I'm a bit concerned that Aitias is misunderstanding the idea that rollback right is easy come, easy go, and not some sacred power. A couple of clear accidental reverts (that anyone could have made), that were made months ago, should not prevent someone from gaining this tool, that really is no big deal (unlike adminship). Thoughts from others would be appreciated, I dislike high standards for user rights, and high standards for rollback is really over the top. Majorly talk 19:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Majorly here. Rollback is a easy come, easy go userright. If Aitias's concerns turn out to be true and there is abuse of the tool it can be removed without warning (just as the policy states). Tiptoety ^talk 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would really be appreciated if you stop telling the untruth, Majorly. One day ago is not "months ago". — Aitias // discussion 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an understandable mistake, IMO. Thehelpfulone was right in blanking the page, but if the user didn't know Thehelpfulone, he could've been anybody to him. Did it ever occur to you that he might have though THO was vandalizing by blanking it? iMatthew // talk // 19:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias: Is that edit warring? Is that blatant misuse of the tool? Nope. What's the problem here? I agree with iMatthew - the blanking for no apparent reason isn't exactly helpful. Majorly talk 19:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly's mentioning of "one day ago" was likely a mistake, rather than an attempt to distort the truth. Even so, it doesn't really change the edit in question. Acalamari 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, "for no apparent reason". — Aitias // discussion 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking a page for no reason in the summary doesn't help RC patrollers. He did what he thought was best. Nothing malicious, no misuse whatsoever. Majorly talk 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"doesn't help RC patrollers" What "RC patrollers" have to do before reverting is to think. — Aitias // discussion 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If I saw someone blanking a page, with no apparent need to (no copyvio, BLP issue or whatever), I'd revert it immediately. Going to remove my rollback right? Majorly talk 20:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In the event the userright were to be abused, I would admit granting rollback was a mistake, but as Majorly notes, the two diffs cited to deny rollback were, in themselves, mistakes rather than abuse of any reverting tools, and they certainly weren't edit warring. The rest of the user's reverts that I looked at were fine, so I really don't see why this has been a big deal. Acalamari 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if I were to be requesting rollback right now, I'd be denied for this obvious abuse. Seriously, it's rollback, we have bigger priorities. Can someone grant the guy the button please, so we can end this fuss? Thanks, Majorly talk 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Atias' decision is certainly not indefensible. The threshold is misuse, not abuse. A bad reversion in the last day is problematic. Per Majorly's question, it's a blatant misuse of UNDO, at the very least. WilyD 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking without giving a reason is acceptable now? Majorly talk 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

imo, mistakes made in good faith cannot be clarified as "misuse" or "abuse". –xeno (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Once again, Majorly: Did you have a look at the content of the page? — Aitias // discussion 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course, Aitias. It's someone's userpage. It appeared to meet the guidelines of what is appropriate. Majorly talk 20:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We can sit here all day and bicker, but because consensus is clear I have granted Jpoelma13 the flag. Tiptoety ^talk 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tip. Hopefully I will not be proven wrong by giving the benefit of the doubt. Majorly talk 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "consensus is clear" Nothing is clear. Efe's, WilyD's and my opinion do not count? Ridiculous. — Aitias // discussion 20:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, note that I have just removed it again. Achieve consensus first, grant afterwards. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 20:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's clear to me you are totally unfit to continue as an admin if you can't handle having such user rights at your disposal. At least get a neutral person to remove it, if anyone at all. Jeez. Majorly talk 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to remove rollback after Tiptoety had granted it? Acalamari 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wrong question, Acalamari. Sorry. No shift in the burden of proof. The correct question would have been: Where was a consensus for granting it? There was none. — Aitias // discussion 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies removing the flag after it's just been given. If Tiptoety's decision was in error, it would have been discussed first, and reversed either by himself or an uninvolved admin. Acalamari 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There was none, it was an anonymous decision made by Aitias. iMatthew // talk // 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're flatly wrong. wikt:misuse only requires that you use it wrongly, which this blatantly and indisputably was. wikt:abuse would be the word you're searching for if you require malicious intention.

And Majorly - regardless, you're responsible for the content of your edits. If you're reverting good edits to restore crap, you're reverting wrong. WilyD 20:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Renegade mistakes shouldn't be considered misuse or abuse. We're only humans, not flawless bots. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't argue this with me, argue it with Noah Webster. WilyD 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We can argue semantics all day, but not giving the user rollback for one honest mistake is ridiculous and punitive. –xeno (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see what was "crap", but that's your opinion. Majorly talk 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, the only way that could possibly be true is if you haven't looked at the edit. Please familiarise yourself with the content of what we're discussing before commenting. WilyD 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, of course I looked at it. It's not my kind of userpage, but it's not against any guideline. THO says below that he should have been more clearer when blanking it. So it's not entirely the user's fault. Majorly talk 20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

@Aitias: Um, just because you haven't got your own way, doesn't mean consensus wasn't clear. Efe didn't express an opinion either way; only you and WilyD disagree with granting this easy come, easy go flag. Why are you making things so difficult? Please observe this, and move on. Thanks very much, and have a lovely evening. Majorly talk 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone re-add it? It was removed. iMatthew // talk // 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They can, but they shouldn't. WilyD 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, disregard the above. Aitias has decided to reverse Tiptoety's decision, despite his clear COI in denying it, against other admins' wishes first time round. Excellent. Majorly talk 20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias, I agree with flagging the user with rollback, the "mistake" he made was because of me, as editing with a summary "blanking page" wasn't really useful as has been pointed out. In fact, I probably would have reverted that user if they just wrote "blanking page" as it seems like they are a vandal - I did replace the page with a block message, but he was right in reverting me. The Helpful One 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather silly. Can we step back and think how the user is feeling about this? I'm sure he wishes he'd never bothered. Regardless, I've made bigger mistakes with rollback, and I don't really see that one mistake is that big a deal. But I won't comment further. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• This recent edit and subsequent deletion makes me feel as if this user cannot be trusted with rollback for at least 6 months. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait, 6 months!? This is rollback, not adminship. That was one mistake the user made, that could have been done by anybody. Telling someone that for one good-faithed mistake, they can't have rollback for 6 months is just absurd. They should have it already. iMatthew // talk // 20:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It was a blind revert without looking at the content or who originally put it there. I would say wait 9 months for RfA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Having looked into this, I agree that rollback should be granted in this case. We all make mistakes, and nothing a non-admin can do is permanent - reversions can always be undone, and as long as the user acts in good faith and is broadly competent (as this user seems to be), then the bit seems to be appropriate.

What I find the most concerning, however, is the behaviour of Aitias, who - as far as I can tell - has violated WP:WHEEL, WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:CIV over this incident. Snappy and sarcastic comments such as "Well done." Mis-quoting Majorly (or manipulating his/her words, anyway) at the rollback page is also out of order. When admins disagree - as they often will do - the least they can do is not bicker, not be rude, and behave like adults: something that everyone except Aitias seems to have done here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame I'm on a wikibreak. If I wasn't I'd be tempted to comment on the thread. Meantime, lets stop making bluelinks to various pages and throwing allcaps links around. Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

@Pedro: While I don't want to disturb your break, I would truly appreciate your opinion on this matter. — Aitias // discussion 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with flagging the user for rollback. The criteria say that there should be clear evidence that the user knows what vandalism is and can differentiate good edits from bad edits. The mistake notwithstanding, a review of the user's edit history over the last several months definitely shows a clear understanding of vandalism, and that the tool would be useful. I strongly disagree with Aitias' removal of the flag: there is no requirement for a consensus for anyone's rollback flag: this should be considered a vote of confidence by Tiptoety, and the user has not abused the rollback privelege so it should not have been taken away. Mangojuice^talk 20:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pedro - apologies for the blue-links! If I may suggest a way forward, how about leaving it 24h, no more comments on the conduct issues, just on whether or not this poor user should be given rollback. Then if ~60% support materialises, it's given? This seems to be the most pain-free way out of what seems a quite nasty discussion on a second reading! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not pointing directly at you TT, and thank you for your useful words - but throwing WP:WHEEL in is more likely to hurt than harm - that's all. Pedro :  Chat  21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is all fairly ridiculous. There was consensus to give him rollback when Tiptoety added it, and there's even more consensus now. I'd say a few people receive troutings, and the user receives rollback and we pretend none of this ever happened. –xeno (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mind explaining how you could determine consensus here? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By looking at the overwhelming support versus the 2 or 3 people opposed? The same way we always do it. –xeno (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is pretty unneeded, people are forgetting about the "easy come" part of rollback. This is just the sort of thing people were afraid of when rollback was being debated. Give it to him and then switch to the "easy go" bit if needed. RxS (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  My take on this. There are a few admins who regularly deal with Rollback requests - Myself, Atias, Acalamari, Tiptoey, Peter Symonds, Juliancolton are the names that spring to mind (apologies to others who also help here). On balance I tend to find Acalamari and Tiptoey have probably the most lenient of attitudes to granting, myself Peter and others sit in the middle and Atias probably applies a slightly higher level of "standard" or maybe "scrutiny". Rollback should be "easy come easy go". I agree with that - however I'm not so foolish as to not believe that editors now see rollback as some kind of "right of passage". It's wrong, but it's clearly a view point (hence the little rollback emblem mimicing the mop icon for user pages). The issue for me is rollback is totally admin discretion. (c.f. edit count requirements for AWB).

  In this case I would grant - but I sit at the more lenient end of granting. I do not think an admin should have granted mid-thread - and I don't think Atias should have reverted. I certainly do not think this is a wheelwar - far from it - and suggestions like that are unhelpful. My personal opinion is a little more discussion before hitting WP:AN would have been handy, but that here we should grant but note to the editor that the easy give / easy remove part is focussed on the remove if they do make any mistakes with the tool. I have other thoughts on wider ramifications but this is already tl;dr and those thoughts are better at WT:PERMPedro :  Chat  20:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  The above is more or less correct, though - this is dangerously close to WHEEL, enough that I wouldn't touch it, and there needs to be some way to actually review the decision to grant rollback or not, rather than an add-hoc count 4 in favour 2 against with discussion happening so fast every comment starts (ec) as a consensus. The choice certainly could've reasonably gone either way. Making this about Atias making a reasonable decision from the get-go was a mistake - we shouldn't be trying to personalise conflict like this. WilyD 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  My count is closer to 10 or 11 in support (or who commented that the users error should not be held against them). –xeno (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  Another admin action in this case would equal a wheel war. IMHO not taking an admin action cannot be declared as an admin action (within the context of permissions - hence not granting was not an admin action). Therefore we have grant...ungrant - not a wheel war, more a WP:BRD. Leaving that aside (and suggesting we all drop wheelwar as a debate) we move to finding consensus, which as WilyD accurately notes is impossible right now, as this conversation is so fast moving. However it will come, of that we can be sure. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  So, you're saying we need to formally not-Vote this out? –xeno (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  Err, things seem to have swung that way, it was not nearly so lopsided at the time, without much decided and with discussion coming a mile a minute. That's not the right time to overturn a decision. WilyD 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

</drama>

Support

1. Ok, lets stop being all bureaucratic and silly about 'wheelwarring'. There is a reason every admin action can be undone. You are all looking at that one edit, I want you to all look at this discussion instead. That is a far better indicator of the nature of Jpoelma than that one revert. After you read this discussion (which shows both positive and negative aspects of Jpoelma), decide. Based on that I support giving him rollback. Prodego ^talk 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
2. It should not have been removed in the first place, but I guess that's not the point, is it? Support him getting it back. iMatthew // talk // 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse giving the user rollback. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Endorse –xeno (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Reasons explained both above and here. — Aitias // discussion 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• I always thought we'd be able to use discussion in order to determine consensus. But obviously people do prefer voting rather than weighing arguments. — Aitias // discussion 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Some extra eyes requested on recently unprotected articles

I've been looking through WP:INDEFSEMI and unprotecting articles that have been semi-protected for lengthy periods of time without compelling justification. I'm adding them to my watchlist as I go, but if some others (admins or otherwise) could paste these into their raw watchlist, I'd appreciate the additional eyes. Some of these may in fact be perennial vandal targets, so feel free to reprotect as required. –xeno (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Best to cut from the edit window to get the line breaks...

2001 anthrax attacks Abiogenesis Aerospace engineering Age disparity in sexual relationships Alpaca Amoeba Amun Animal Liberation Front Animorphs Annelid Antichrist Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Anti-Defamation League Antidisestablishmentarianism Aquarium Archaea Armenians in the Persian Empire Asian people Auld Alliance Austin Kincaid Autobahn Backmasking Bank Barefoot Battletoads Bean bag Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans, Louisiana) Benzene Big Brother Birth control Bloody Mary (folklore) Blue Whale Bosniaks Boycott Brian Vickers British Board of Film Classification Bruce Edwards Ivins Chichen Itza Chinese Chris Mordetzky Christina Aguilera Christina Applegate Coccinellidae Computer virus Cookie Monster Cool (aesthetic) Corrina, Corrina (film) Craigslist Cronus Cyber-bullying Darth Maul David Miliband David Suzuki Des'ree Diablo III Digital television transition Donald Duck DTV transition in the United States Dumb Dyke (slang) Elena Ceauşescu Elmer Fudd Encarta Eternals (comics) Eukaryote Ewok Feral child Figeater beetle Fleshlight Florence Devouard Force (Star Wars) Frank McCourt Fried chicken Funafuti Fungus Fur Gaia (mythology) Ganesha Garry's Mod Gaston (Beauty and the Beast) Gazelle Geisha Genie (feral child) Germaine Greer Ghazal Omid Girls and Corpses Glenn Quagmire Goat Goebbels children Googol Guo Jingjing Hand Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) Henna Hiccup History of Sparta Hospital Human trafficking Ian McDiarmid Iga Wyrwał Illyrian languages Imperial stormtrooper Institutional memory Is This the Way to Amarillo Islamic terrorism Jack and the Beanstalk Jack Nicholson James Earl Jones Jenkem Jennifer Love Hewitt John Johnny Knoxville Joshua Blahyi Karl Rove Kathoey Kelly Ripa Keshav Malik Kevin and Bean KROQ-FM Labor Day Lard Laurence Baxter Leaf Leech Lene Marlin Liquid List of banned films List of Croats List of designated terrorist organizations List of one-time characters in The Simpsons Liv Tyler Lolland Louder than Words Lucille Ball Luncheon M-80 (explosive) Mark Hamill Mathematical beauty Mehdi Kazemi Methane Metroid Metrosexual Michael Phelps Microsoft Entertainment Pack Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Montel Vontavious Porter Moron (psychology) Mothman Mr. Freeze Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide Name of Armenia Naomi Campbell Nazi human experimentation Negro Negroid Newspaper Nexopia Nightclub Odin Osmosis Overweight Pants Parthia Pat Patterson (wrestler) Pepe Phylum Pickle Pimple Planet of the Apes (1968 film) Pole dance Prehistory Prison Prohibition in the United States Prokaryote Protist Protozoa Providence, Rhode Island Psychiatry Quark-gluon plasma Quetzalcoatl R.E.M. Ra Raccoon Radovan Karadžić Reverse osmosis Rey Mysterio, Jr. Rockwood, Ontario Rodent Rodney Moore Rose McGowan Sana'a Mehaidli Saturn (mythology) Scrotum Sea anemone Seaweed Semen Sex symbol Silverfish Sleep deprivation Slug SMS language Sooty Sophitia Sound Spaghettification Spoons sex position Stalker Stalking Stan Lee Star Wars: Battlefront StarCraft II Stephen A. Douglas Stock Storey Stupidity Suicide attack Swim briefs T.O.S: Terminate on Sight Taliana Vargas Tarantula Taraxacum Target Corporation Tax haven Tea (meal) The American School in London Thomas the Tank Engine Timeline of the Big Bang Tofu Tom Green Tony Maudsley Types of gestures U.S. state Underground economy Uranus (mythology) Usenet Vanessa L. Williams Vera Lynn Verizon Communications Victoria's Secret Violet Blue (author) Water resources Weegee Weightlessness Wikitravel Winnie-the-Pooh World Wide Fund for Nature Worm Ya̧nomamö Year 2000 problem Yeerk Zbots

Gamma Beta

Hi

I'm trying to get Gamma Beta unprotected. I feel that it meets all the requirements to be an article and would be a good addition to wikiProject: Fraternity and Sorority. I've made a userpage for it, if you could give me some tips or criticism what needs to be changed so that Gamma Beta can be an article please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hawee/Gamma_Beta Hawee (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)