Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222

Some one please close this AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Game Jam is a trainwreck with no hope of consensus. Let's just close it and move on. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuguar03 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't see any need. A WP:TRAINWRECK is when lots of articles get nominated together. This is just a bad tempered debate. Fences&Windows 22:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's due to be closed tomorrow, and anyway the nominator (the only delete) is now leaning a bit more towards keep.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agh. I closed it a day early. Dammit. If anyone wishes to revert they may. I'm more tired than I thought, time to stop editing. Fences&Windows 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry for neglecting to sign. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wakeup call

Request: Can an expert in English language please review most of the projects categorised as part of the Soviet Union project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soviet_Union for grammar and language alone. Can an academic please check the references (the sources themselves) to ensure that there is no daisy-chaining (one source cited once, perpetuated forever without necessarily being relevant even for the first instance).

Is there a conspiracy here at Wikimedia to allow the dumbing down of history? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it. Read on.

Administrators and other persons of peer-appointed rank are allowing fantastical rules to subvert the encyclopedia project.

Since when did rules deigned by apparatchiki supersede facts or appearance? There are pages with questionable grammar and facts being served by Wikimedia right now. Is that the way we do things here now?

The articles in the favoured USSR section are critically important for a variety of reasons, not least of which is to present a best of class historical record. Recognising that evidencing what it was like for most Soviet citizens, and those who were arbitrarily executed or sentenced to prolonged (or lifetime) prison sentences, should be evidenced only (no comment passed on even abhorrent crimes), seems hard for some people to accept. That's not a good starting point for an encyclopedia.

For an overwhelming majority of articles under this category, the absence of specific citations for every adjective, and the absence of citations referencing learned discussion (by academics about taxonomy, morphology, history, ideology, etc) is the most common feature of pro-Western bias in these pages. The absence of citations referring to Marxist-Leninist theory to illuminate concrete Soviet policy is the most common feature of pro-Soviet bias. Before we reject the importance of this issue, let us recall that living memory dies within 80 years, and sources someone is deliberately trying to suppress die even more quickly. Worse, the enthusiasm of some Wikimedia editors to award brownie points ('barnstars, GA, FA ratings'), commendable though it may be, is no excuse for elevating articles about Soviet/Russian/imperial/Western imperialism history to some kind of endorsed status just because there are some like-minded people, or a need for such articles has been identified.

It is a considerable disgrace that articles with wording in English that would not pass a high school examination can be vetted as 'Good Articles' or even 'Featured Articles' just because the request is made and no one disagrees immediately. This is nothing short of Wikimedia lending itself to falsification of history.

May I draw everyone's attention to the search term 'useful idiots'. Stalinism (yes, my definition) has survived as a particular form of ideological terrorism precisely because of the self-censorship or 'open-mindedness' that Lenin remarked on as an intellectual feature of fellow travellers. Academic rigour is the only counterbalance we have.

Impartiality should start with critical examination of adjectives, and citations should be particularly precise about attribution of characteristics/stereotypes (taxonomy, morphology). Should I mention that some people who are beneficiaries or victims of the various Soviet regimes are still alive and will have strong views, none of which can be accepted in good faith.

Before you ask me why I don't do it, I have already been challenged about my orthodoxy on Soviet history and don't think I'm the kind of clean-skin necessary for the integrity of this endeavour. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a bit counter-productive to come to the Administrators' noticeboard for help, and then jump in by accusing administrators of doing bad things. What's that old saying about flies, honey & vinegar?

In any event, what you've described is basically a large-scale content dispute, and administrators don't do content disputes, they do behavioral problems. I'm afraid you're going to have to resolve your concerns the way the rest of us have to, through discussions with other editors on article talk pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG, let's use tons of bolding and investigate the ludicrous claims of a conspiracy existing on Wikipedia. Russia is going to nuke us all, but someone thinks China is a bigger threat so let's all falsify more history, make ourselves look stupid, and archive this useless disgrace of a thread. Peter, what did you want again? Oh, yeah, "Can an expert in English language please review most of the projects categorised as part of the Soviet Union project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soviet_Union for grammar and language alone. Can an academic please check the references (the sources themselves) to ensure that there is no daisy-chaining (one source cited once, perpetuated forever without necessarily being relevant even for the first instance)." Well, this is the Administrators' Noticeboard, not the English experts', academics', and anti-daisy-chainers' Noticeboard. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the only "Wakeup call" needed here is for Mr. Strempel to review WP:NPOV. -- œ^™ 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD for a study page

Hiya. I've tagged the page UW SIS201 W2011 for speedy del. as a db:test, which it isn't really. Its a study guide for U.Wash. students. Its gotta go, but what is the proper CSD tag for this sort of thing? The Interior (Talk) 02:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it as A3 - it had "content" of a sort, but was not even masquerading as an article. I'd be interested in what others think of this situation as well. LadyofShalott 03:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Userfied. Moondyne (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not a general webhost, and that study guide has absolutely nothing to do with developing an encyclopedia article or even a user essay. How is this appropriate even for userspace? LadyofShalott 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Goodwill and little harm. I'll watchlist it and if it becomes a problem I'll sort it out. Moondyne (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This could easily be a copyright infringement though. 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure we're doing this new user a good turn by telling them they can host personal docs in their userspace. It might get them off on the wrong foot, and lead to "but it was okay last time!" type arguments. This user hasn't made any edits except to their study guide, and may have a mistaken impression as to what this site is for. The Interior (Talk) 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Moondyne, somehow in the process of deleting, restoring and userfying the page, the entire edit history was lost. The current history page shows you as the only contributor. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

History merged. Keegan (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I could have done that much better. Moondyne (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Losing the edit history is problematic, although restorable. I also am not convinced this is in the best interest of the new editor (who has not returned to make any changes to the page as of yet). Maybe this needs to go to MfD. LadyofShalott 22:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC) The page creator has been given a belated notice of this discussion. LadyofShalott 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Greece

Does this page fall under criteria WP:CSD#G4? There was a previous discussion about the redirect back in November of 2010 resulting in delete, until it was recreated in December of 2010 by Anas1712 with no prior observance of the previous consensus, but kept in a subsequent January RFD. In short, the RFDs conflict. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If it was up for deletion at RFD, then the answer is clearly no. Conbsensus can change, and the later RfD seems to indicate this. Additionally, a general rule is that no page which survived an XfD discussion can be speedy deleted unless it later turns out to be a copyright violation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

user:50.88.203.225

Resolved

50.88.203.225 (talk · contribs) has been adding links to a blogspot page on talk pages. One here on en.wiki, and three at commons, if this pattern is continued, then there should be other additions to other wikimedia projects and other languages of wikipedia. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-spam1 and explained that blogs fall foul of WP:ELNO. No further action required at this stage. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonathangluck

Resolved

 – also at ANI --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly been reintroducing libellous material into the article on Shmuley Boteach. Specifically, he has included a report that Boteach was responsible for financial irregularities in a charity fund set up by Michael Jackson, and that funds from the charity were misdirected for Boteach's own use. See this and adjacent edits. Originally this information was attributed to a number of dubious sources: an opinion column from Fox news, a blog and a Michael Jackson fanclub website. He has now attributed it to an article in the Broward-Palm Beach New Times. That article is on a different topic altogether - the trial of an arms dealer who, perhaps, is remotely related to Boteach - but there is a one-sentence reference in the article to the Boteach charity affair.

This is, in fact, only the most recent and egregious incident of attempts to introduce libels into this article. Before extensive edits by myself, Demiurge1000, and The Interior, this article was a web of slanders, half-truths, and distortions, largely sourced to blogs, obscure Jewish newspapers, and Michael Jackson fanclub websites. Since cleaning the article up, Jonathan has been busy reintroducing the material that was deleted.

This is Jonathan Gluck's (if that is his name) second user to be involved with this article. Previously, he edited under the username User:Jonathanglick13. The only articles that these two accounts have edited are this, and an article about Ronn Torossian, an obscure advertising executive. From his initial edit, Jonathan displayed a surprisingly wide knowledge of Wikipedia editing techniques and politics. He knew, for example, how and where to complain about another editor who was trying to edit the Shmuley Boteach article, and attempted to get him blocked; he was skillful in the use of all Wikipedia markup codes. All of which suggests to me that these two usernames are not the first that this editor has created.

It is essential to prevent this editor from continued editing of this article, as the material he includes is libellous and a clear violation of BLP rules. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I think this would be better placed at WP:ANI. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Never done this before, I thought this was WP:ANI --Ravpapa (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Speak truth, not what you are saying above. Discuss changes on the talk page.... all of my edits are sourced to MSNBC, Fox news & Palm Beach Post. All valid places. yes, I complained about an editor who vandalised the story repeatedly. All of the sources are very valid. Discuss on talk page. Jonathangluck (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Who's Manning the Ship at Commons?

A couple ago, an image was removed from the Frank Buckles article per this discussion. Short version, they said the image removed wasn't military. A VERY quick search of Google Images came up with this image, the very same image deleted at Commons. The source for that image...army.mil. About as military as one photo can get. This isn't the first time this has happened. It happened a couple weeks ago, then it was called a "copyright violation" and "there's no evidence that this is a federal work". Well, back to the ol' Google and via WLS Radio's website, there is the image, credit going to the Library of Congress, which as you know is at loc.gov (I looked for the file, but gave up after 10 pages).

So, this is two seperate images that "aren't military" or "federal work" that turn out to be found on government and military websites. Did anyone at Commons even bother to look at Google? Check the sources of the images?

So, it brings me back to the question in the header, "Who's Manning the Ship at Commons?" I think we need to take a good look at Commons, if all they are doing is blindly deleting images because someone thinks they are a violation or aren't military, when a 30 second Google Images search finds they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 12:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I'm sure you are well aware, this issue has nothing to do with en as commons is a separate independent project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am aware of that, but I find the people at Commons are unwilling to try to make changes. I am actually having an arguement with an admin on Commons over whether an image found at Army.mil of Buckles in an Army uniform is an Army image. Holy crap. So, I don't think they are going to be any help to make changes of themselves. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • m is the place where you should raise this... Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Okie Dokie. You can mark this as resolved or remove as a whole if you wish. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • While we're here, though, I trust you realize that being published on a military website does not mean that an image is free of copyright? The image of Frank Buckles asserts that it is being hosted "Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project", which means it is not a military photo. (See [1]) The photograph was displayed here, where it does not indicate who took it. Here the LOC indicates that it "does not grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. Permission and possible fees may be required from the copyright owner independently of the Library." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Oh, it does matter to us, since you've brought it here now. :/ File:Frank Buckles at 16.jpg. I believe we need to take this to PUF. There's no evidencfe that it's a military file; on the contrary, the military credits it elsewhere. It was taken in 1917, so could be PD-US, but PD status depends on first publication. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this was published before 1923? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)14:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
            • As I've explained to NH on my talkpage, the Buckles image was probably published in the last 20 years, as he didn't become notable until he was a centenarian. It's not PD in my opinion, it can only be used under fair use. The deletions at Commons were appropriate and necessary under Commons policies, and it's never a good idea to assume that material on a US government website is public domain. Acroterion _(talk) 16:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is relevant to enwiki (though not necessarily to this page) because files copied from here to Commons are often deleted here and with some attempts being made to delete against the original uploader's wishes.[2][3] Legitimate and sometimes valuable images get lost this way. Thincat (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't upload images to commons anymore and will continue to do so until forced by the software to upload PD images to commons, not wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For something like this, though, we don't know that it is public domain. Even though it is old, first publication of a personal family photo could be relatively recent. It is clearly not federal work just because it was on a government website. It would have had to have been produced by a federal employee as part of their job duties. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Update Both files hosted on Commons have been nominated for deletion. One as a duplicate the other, which I nominated for deletion as a duplicate of an image already deleted at Commons via a deletion discussion. A copy of the image is hosted on en-Wiki under NFUR rules. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevant information about this kind of thing is :-

"5.1.3 Does copyrighted material lose its copyright status and protection if it becomes part of a U.S. Government work or is included in a compilation published by the Government?

No, copyrighted material contained in a U.S. Government work does not lose its copyright status and protection. The copyright status of non-government works in a compilation is not affected by the lack of copyright protection of other works in the compilation or by the fact that the U.S. Government publishes the compilation. When copyrighted materials are included in a Government work or a compilation published by the Government, a copyright notice indicating what portions of the work are protected by copyright, and identifying the copyright owner, should be included."[4] Exxolon (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Userpage filling up categories

I notice that the user page User:Lavalamp from Mars has found its way into various inappropriate policy categories, due to transclusion of policy pages. The user appears to be indefinitely blocked - would it be appropriate to blank the user page to take it out of the categories?--Kotniski (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, and I did it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Trying to create a category

Resolved

The category Category:Films directed by Vadim Abdrashitov on the article The Servant (1989 film). However, when I click on the red link, it doesn't let me create the category and I get the unauthorised message "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism...." Why? Can someone create the category for me? I've been adding categories like this all day, and this is the first time I've had a problem. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Very odd. I can see nothing in the logs indicating that this category should ever have been deleted or salted. I have now created it, which doesn't prove anything since I'm an admin, but please tell me if I have stepped into a minefield. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I couldn't see anything in the logs either. Lugnuts (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Update - I've just created this category without any problems. Strange! Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that titles with "shit" in them are blocked by the title blacklist. Jafeluv (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's more subtle than that. The relevant entry is blocking the phrase "ate shit", as in Category:Films directed by Vadim Abdrashitov --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:67.205.251.109 inserting patently false information into Japanese articles

There's been a spree of vandalism from this IP adding patently false information such as movie listings on Japanese voice-actors' pages that has gone unchecked since February 22, including Romi Park and Kappei Yamaguchi. Is there a way to revert all of this IP's contributions without removing the additions made by subsequent edits by other anonymous users? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note the heading of this page: Are you in the right place? * Vandalism or spamming → administrator intervention against vandalism.  Chzz  ►  04:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That page is used for blocking the offending editor. The IP has been stale for some time and has not received any warnings at all. This is just meant to ask any administrators if they know of a way to clean up the mess he had made. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough, I suppose. I am almost certain that the answer is 'no' - other than manually removing the edits. There is a technical function that allows deletion of all pages created (recently) by a specific user (special:nuke) - and there are scripts to help with mass reversion. But, revert/undo on older edits with overlapping subsequent edits automatically is, I think, impossible. of course, someone here might well prove me incorrect  Chzz  ►  04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request gone crazy

I dont know where exactly to report this but here at the Libyan uprising on the talk page Talk:2011 Libyan uprising#Civil War? there is a move request that is now 12 days old and has everything from votes to now subsections, I am just requesting an admin step in and help out here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Koch brothers manipulation of articles?

There is an article by Thom Hartman alleging that the Koch brothers have hired a PR firm to rework many Wikipedia entries to not only be more favorable to their client but to also remove favorable information about progressive group. http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/are-koch-brothers-rewriting-wikiped 75.71.40.251 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to assert which editors are involved? Collect (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I registered an account over there to check. News organizations have already covered this in far better detail than Mr. Hartmann. Nothing to see here. lifebaka++ 23:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity do you have a link to some news coverage of this? Protonk (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thom Hartmann is a conspiracy theorist of the left-wing variety; he has asserted, among other things, that the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections were incorrectly decided due to electoral fraud (apparently, the 2006 and 2008 elections were free of the same fraud, and the 2010 Republican sweep was a result of the Citizens United court decision). I think we can safely close this section as "no action required. Horologium (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's gotten a bit of debate on wikien-l since this post. I might've misspoken a bit in claiming "new organizations," but the ThinkProgress bit certainly does a better job (and isn't hidden behind a wall). Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Old news. Already in signpost. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-14/In_the_news. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 22#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation were listed at WP:CENT and archived by SilkTork (talk · contribs). Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While I doubt that any user will be rushing to close the AfD RfC, I want to point out that it has a few days remaining in its 30-day listing period. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I withdraw for now my request to close the above RfCs. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I miscounted – the RFC bot delisted the AfD RfC yesterday. Thanks for creating this request. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead, would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC (initiated 3 January 2011) and Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition (initiated 8 January 2011). These discussions were also listed at WP:CENT and were archived a few days ago. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this back from the archive. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp appended so this will not be archived until the four above RfCs are closed. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One relisted and the other three closed. Thank you Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs), ErrantX (talk · contribs), and Hydroxonium (talk · contribs) for closing the RfCs. This can now be archived. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request at 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

There is an ongoing move request here related to the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. There are claims that the current title is in fact incorrect (and was merely adopted because that was where the first news reports came from). It would seem silly to leave the discussion open the full 7 days if the name is incorrect, especially as this article is prominently in the news at the moment. See also the arguments made in the discussion itself. Could I ask that admins keep an eye on the discussion and consider closing it early if a clear consensus has been reached? Please note that there are two issues: (1) Whether to name it "earthquake" or "earthquake and tsunami"; and (2) Whether to name it Sendai or Tōhoku. It is the latter that may need resolving quicker than the normal 7 days allowed for a move discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion and moved the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD backlog

More eyes would be useful at CAT:CSD - the backlog is 140 and rising. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Kehrli (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

• Kehrli (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com

Thirty (30) references to back up the single statement "This case has been brought to the attention of many forum owners and internet news forums". I think this is just an excuse to link to various forums to reinforce the rationale for the existence of the article. I don't have a problem with the article, just the 30 references linking to forums and blogs for a single statement. I mean what news story doesn't get mentioned in forums and blogs? Pretty much every article on Wikipedia could have this statement and dozens of references to back it up.

So I try removing the references, and get reverted as "vandalism" three times, and warnings twice. Would appreciate if someone could look at this.

82.152.218.51 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of bothering with that, I've just gone ahead and opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com. However, those reverters should be reprimanded for not bothering to look at the ridiculous amounts of citations to forums that they were restoring. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:217.23.69.206

This user has been warned 10 times in the past ten months to stop vandalizing wikipedia.Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From a brief look at their contribs, I also see a good bit of legitimate, useful contribution. Anyone blocking this IP might want to leave a note on the talk page asking whoever is using it constructively to register an account. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion of an uninvolved administrator(s) required (case Jacurek)

Resolved

 – Third opinions are no longer required because the enforcement request has been acted upon.  Sandstein  07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I placed my requests on March 16 at 20:42 , you closed the case on March 17 at 07:10 which is 10 hours after. Do you really think it was enough time?

I have a permission from the reviewing administrators to ask for a third opinion on this board. If any administrator(s) (previously uninvolved) are willing to spend some time and get familiar with this case [5] her/his comments will be really appreciated. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For your convenience, here is the summary of the case as I see it:

The case concerns several editors, some or all of whom have been edit warring recently and where reported to AE. Roughly, we are dealing with two questions:

• For edit warring editors, do we need topic bans or would 1RR restrictions be enough? And
• Can editors who make no more then one edit to an article be still seen as part of an edit war and sanctioned (for their single revert)? There is also a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT resolved. Hours after Jacurek asked for an opinion of an administrator other than yours, you close the AE thread. This is not very heartening... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The timestamp of Jacurek's message reads "02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)". I assumed that this timestamp was correct, but indeed it seems not to be. Nonetheless, the sanctions I imposed have been available for review at WP:AE since March 14, which is plenty of time for input by others. Any sanctioned users who disagree with the sanction can appeal it as per the instructions left on their user page.  Sandstein  09:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please review this talk page comment - I'm concerned it's potentially libelous

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Sandstein  07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm permanently confused about where reports of relatively serious (legal) matters go... Thanks for moving it. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Labelling people

I'm not sure if this is the correct place, but I was wondering how much labels applied by certain sources can be re-used in wikipedia's voice in articles. Namely I am concerned about editors using Israeli and Jewish sources to label people as say, terrorists and rioters while Arab media reports them as militant and protesters respectively, and the western media just ignores the entire situation. Calling rioters protesters or protesters rioters both push POV, so if there is no majority accepted POV, how should the people be described? Passionless -Talk 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LABEL. "Terrorists" can be "attackers" which is NPOV, IMO. Of course, you can always say "So and so called them "terrorists" with direct attribution.

If it was a "riot" or "protest" would dictate what words were used. I would lead towards not using a label but spelling it out. An example from thin air would be spelling it out in several words if those involved in a demonstration became violent. If most sources (especially those that are completely unbiased) say one thing then that is also a good option. Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which article(s) you refer to, but what would be especially helpful to the reader, I think, is to include an explanation of how Israeli and Arab media cover the topic differently. But you'd have to find a source for that and not base it off of original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess what I mean is what to do when you are only writing a very short blurb on the event such as at the current events portal or on lists like List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011, and there is no room to say this source says this, but this one says this. Maybe 'Protest' or 'Protest turned violent' would be appropriate for the column 'Type' on the list at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. And as long as a truthful description is given it will still be NPOV. Passionless -Talk 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Number 11 would be more NPOV if it was called a clash since that is what the source says. Clashes broke and the tear gas was only part of it. It currently reads like the Israeli forces were simply beating up protesters for no reason as is. So the overall problem with this list might be not how people are labelled but what words are used to highlight specific points instead of staying completely NPOV. Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I'll just go back to trying to paraphrase as NPOV as I can and ignore all labels from sources. And to Cptnono, maybe we should move this conversation to the revelant talk page, Passionless -Talk 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It is all minor tweaks so it should not be that hard. I did find one source thats reliability is questioned. I'll mention it over at the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI

Good afternoon everyone, we have quite a backlog on SPIs right now where the average I am seeing is 8 days for an average case to be looked at for a block, and that is increasing each day. Any admins that would be availible to patrol/help out would be great. Don't worry if your new to SPI, I have a full list of instructions, and if you have any questions, feel free to talk to me or any other SPI clerk. That link above will also help those who are expirienced because it directly points to the help we need. Thanks for your help and time. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No seriously, he is not joking. If someone can sockpuppet for a week and more after being reported, should we all just not bother reporting people and go to our favourite admins instead? Is there a problem here? I'm sure some of these cases are just bullshit, but I'm sure some of them are not. Leaving them to rot for over a week is really not sensible in my opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Need an admin to close an AfD

Resolved

 – Closed as no consensus

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues has been open for more than a month. Would somebody please close it? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I note that, though it's been open for a month, it wasn't listed until March 8th. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Any admins fluent in Italian?

Resolved

 – User contacted in Italian as requested, awaiting further developments. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Got this question on my talk page today. If I understand correctly what the user wants to do, it's something an admin would have to handle (I'm not one). Complicating the matter is this user is newly registered on en.wiki and it.wiki, so I can't easily track the issue down. Anyone willing to jump in? Townlake (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From Google Translate:

"Hello! Are you a manager? How do you delete parts of a page in history? Can you do it? Or [do you] need a manager? I'm hoping for an answer!"

Assuming "manager" means "administrator". Perhaps the user is asking for RevDel, but that can be clarified by someone who is using something more reliable than Google Translate... --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the translation you've provided for the admin community, I should clarify that I'm not asking simply for a translation, I understand the Italian in the question. I'm asking for someone who's got the tools to help the user potentially resolve a cross-wiki issue, or some other issue that appears likely to be above my pay grade one way or another. Townlake (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably an idea for somebody to find out what exactly they're requesting. Assuming it's something on this wiki which requires admin attention, I'll be willing to help, but there's nothing anyone can do without details. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone fishing for more info, thanks for the reply. Townlake (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More explanation (though still no specifics) at my Talk... he wants to erase some stuff that violated some unspecified rule from a page history. Editor seems reluctant to tell me which page it is unless he knows I can help... interesting. Anyway, any takers? Townlake (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it clear that this issue involves en only? If so Wikipedia:Local Embassy#Italiano (it) lists 2 people who's user page say they are admins, User:Snowolf and User:Chaser. I have informed them of this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Got the poke on my talk page: on itwiki they've been using delrev for a long time, and vandalisms are deleted from the history with revdel rather than rollbacked, if my memory serves me right, he's asking if we do the same, I'd drop him an explanation in Italian. And yeah, in case there are any issues with italian stuff in general, feel free to poke me. I had a list of admins form Italy at User:Snowolf/Italian admins but it's long unmaintaned and the other admins on that list are long inactive. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu

This user had started edit warring and POV-pushing without any discussion on the issue or consensus on the Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, as it can be seen on the talk page.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Dispute resolution is that way, guys. lifebaka++ 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

comment : HCPUNXKID has been reverted many times since his edits are opposed to consensus (examples of what were supposed to be "discussions", failed since a single user can't accept that his opinion is not the consensual one: [6] , [7] and [8]), and not only by Muboshgu, but by many users. The main discussion on these protests are ongoing in the main article's talk page, not template's one (examples given).

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think reporting someone is a reportable offense. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk needed at Afd

Resolved

: by Elen herself -- DQ (t) (e)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey - well meaning new editor has made a complete mess of it (can't tell the difference between AfD and the article talkpage I think). I'm the one who nominated it, so don't want to offend him by tidying up. Any volunteers? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What I have done in the past for cases like this is just remove the "====" part, place a standard Comment entry at the beginning of the line, then the person's header title just becomes the first sentence of the comment. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Elen must have volunteered herself. :P -- DQ (t) (e) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:Peer Review

There is a bit of a backlog at PR. If a few good editors and admin could take a look, review some articles and send these on their way, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 12:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock review

I just came across a user caught in a range block [9]. It's a /16, meaning 65,535 IP addresses. It was blocked as an open proxy more than 4 years ago. I don't know how long open proxies last, but 4+ years seems like a long time. Would it be possible to reduce this from 65,535 addresses to something smaller and possibly allow account creation? Or maybe just have somebody do an in-depth review of the situation since it has been more than 4 years? Thanks in advance. 64.40.62.149 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PS the blocking admin is semi-retired. That's why I'm asking here. Thanks. 64.40.62.149 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that there was a previous block [10]. So I've asked that admin to comment. 64.40.62.149 (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

IP ranges from this hosting company have been the source of high levels of abuse in the past, and they can be used to evade blocks. That said, whoever originally prompted this block is clearly no longer around, and we have more tools short of range blocks to deal with these types of issues now than we did 5 years ago. I am just going to unblock the range, though, for future reference, there is very little traffic on these IPs and they can be reblocked with little risk if problems return. Dominic·t 02:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 64.40.62.53 (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Got a mop but nothing to clean? Between today's ripe-for-closing discussions and the backlog, there's now an unprecedented 160 discussions needing to be closed (or relisted) at requested moves. We need some new blood. If you're unfamiliar with the area it can actually be quite educational and interesting. If willing to help out, but not very familiar, I'd suggest before plunging in reading:

• Wikipedia:Article titles
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
• Wikipedia:Official names
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and of course,
• Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a cheat sheet with some text that you might need to use a lot on closes, and some of the code and instructions for the mechanics of doing the close:

{{subst:polltop}} '''move per request'''.--~~~~ ← replace the requested move template, just below the 
 ----                                           ← section header, with something like this, as tailored
 
 {{subst:pollbottom}}                           ← place at bottom of discussion

 Fix double redirect                            ← edit summary when fixing double redirects

 closing requested move survey; moving          ← edit summary on the close
 
 Requested move; see talk page                  ← reason given in text box when performing the move

I don't have a lot of backlog time available with "now" issues, but I am more than willing to help the inexperienced with history merges. I'm quite good at it. Email me or contact my talk page with questions. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick: I've found that the automated message Redirected page to Whatever (produced by a blank edit summary field) is a lot more helpful edit summary than "fix double redirect". It's also faster, so you have time to close more requests! :P Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is very slightly faster (though ctrl+v takes milliseconds), but the edit summary is not as useful in my opinion. When I see "redirected page to X" I think "why was that done?" and may investigate. When I see "fix double redirect" I know the page was already a redirect and not an article, and knowing that it was doubled informs me (by implication) that there was probably a page move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Histmerge needed

Today, Hasteur (talk · contribs) made an AFD for Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) before Hasteur could complete the nom so now we have a misleading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) when there's only been one AFD. Could someone histmerge the pages so there's only the one AFD?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the hist-merge is necessary, really. Rtkat3 made the first AfD page in an attempt to contest a PROD, which was removed from the article regardless. Then Hasteur nominated it for AfD. I've deleted the first AfD page and moved the second one to its title without redirect, so everything should be fine now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All right then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You left four red-linked transclusions lying around in places, which I've repaired. If you're going to move an AFD without a redirect, please make sure you change the transclusion on the daily log and the Deletion Sorting pages. Courcelles 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Ryulong did not follow the big orange notification box for the page and did not include any sort of notification to me regarding this. I only bring this up as their interpretation and application of core Wikipedia policies as evidenced at the above mentioned AfD and one other currently in discussion. I will be notifying the user to extend the courtesey that they have failed to demonstrate during our interactions regarding the articles. Hasteur (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in this concerns you directly. It was a housekeeping issue that you did not need to be notified of. The "misleading" is the "2nd nomination" part of the page title when it is only the first such nomination of the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point at what specific exemption you believe is valid for this case. The rules for the page say you must notify. You mentioned my name 2 times in what appears to be an attempt to throw dirt on me regarding the process, therefore you are obligated to notify me so that I am aware of discussions in public administrative forums. Ryulong, you want to put this to bed? Apologize and accept responsibility that you failed to follow the letter of both the page rules and the edit notice and we can move forward. Hasteur (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not the subject of this discussion. There was a minor snag when someone made an AFD and put it at an incorrect page title. That someone just happens to be you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sega 6-Pak

Earlier this month Sega 6-Pak popped up on my watch list. It was recreated after one or more deletions in the past years. As far as I remember at least one of the older versions was better than this new one. Could someone please follow all that older versions under its various names and bring them back at one location or see wether this new article should be deleted for the same reasons? --32X (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a mess. It looks like the article existed at both 6 pak and Sega Genesis 6-PAK, and was deleted here, although the only consensus was for redirection, not deletion. It looks like we'd need to restore the deleted history at the redirect and do a history merge to preserve attribution, but I'm rusty on history merges. Someone with history merge talents want to restore 6 pak's history and use it to restore this article to the better deleted version? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The easiest solution: Move the existing article to the name of the deleted one (without creating a redirect), restore the deleted versions, continue these steps, and finally move the article back to its original name. --32X (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for a hist-merge. Sega 6-Pak is a clear G4 (the AfD'd version was far better) and doesn't seem to have had any information ripped from old versions, regardless. So, I've gone with the second option. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Rosanacurso

I'd like to propose a ban of User:Rosanacurso so we can quickly revert his edits. He has been wardriving (please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosanacurso and has 50+ blocked/tagged sockpuppets (who knows how many other unblocked and/or non-tagged socks). His socks primarily edit food and drink articles. Thoughts? --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I find this superfluous as the editor hasn't really made any significant contributions (most of their edits are to the sandbox) but I'll support. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Resurrected from the ANI archives due to premature archival. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin to close contentious RfC

Resolved

 – RfC closed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at the Family Research Council page related to whether the lead should mention the controversy about the hate-group listing by the SPLC. It was originally added after a long discussion before it was removed after a vote counting discussion. For that reason, I opened a RfC on the question. A major issue I see with the discussion I see is that various people, at both sides provided arguments that have nothing to do with the question at hand, but everything with their personal dislike for the facts (this happened at either side of the discussion), and I think the Admin closing should be well capable of sifting the non-policy arguments from the policy arguments. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. (By the way, since this isn't an "incident", but just a request for admin assistance, this board is probably the more appropriate one to use.) --RL0919 (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to revoke sanction no longer needed: WP:GS#Tony Abbott

Resolved

1RR restriction lifted. Mjroots (talk)

• Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw this while cleaning up WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Update: the cleanup has been reverted, so the direct link no longer works; discussed here) In summer 2010, the article Tony Abbott, about an Australian politician, was made subject to 1RR because of politics-related edit-warring. The sanction was logged at WP:GS as "indeterminate duration, but likely to be in place until September or October 2010", apparently because of the Australian federal election, 2010 due to be held then. The election has now passed and the article is no longer edit-warred over. I therefore propose to lift the sanction as no longer required.  Sandstein  10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have the users who commented on and enacted this sanction not been notified of this proposal? Perhaps they may note that the article's decrease in activity is due to the semi protection which has been in force since November (scheduled to expire in May)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The semiprotection seems to address a different problem, namely, repeated BLP violations by IPs. I didn't notify the users you refer to as this concerns a community decision, rather than any particular user(s), but I'm leaving a note on the article talk page.  Sandstein  11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

When a total of 5 users have commented in a "community decision", it would (in my opinion) obviously be wise to notify all of them rather than leaving a post on an article talk page which hasn't been used for a month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If the reason for the need of the restriction no longer applies, then I'm happy for the article to revert to 3RR. It would appear that the need for semi-protection remains in place. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had this article watchlisted for years, and it's been pretty calm since late last year, so the 1RR restriction doesn't seem necessary. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As an ordinary user who has not engaged in content disputes about this article, may I request that any restriction for which there isn't a prima facie case at this time be lifted, and the editing status be returned to normal.

Regards Peter Strempel | Talk 13:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the restriction from the edit notice, will sort out GS next. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily standard fare for administrators, but you're all in a unique position to help out with the added userrights you posess. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Pending changes RFC

I know, everyone is sick of it. We're almost done. Phase three, the review/recommend phase is now up. It is a questionnaire you can fill out with any reply you want, without having to argue or read fifty thousand words before participating. We really want users who haven't yet participated to join in in this phase, along with everyone who participated in the first two phases. The more responses we get, the clearer consensus will (hopefully) be. It will only take a few minutes of your time so fill one out whenever you have a moment. Thanks!

There is also a small but vocal group who want PC temporarily removed, not shut off just removed from all articles, during this phase. The Foundation has ok'd this move. I'm a bit too involved to feel comfortable evaluating consensus on this issue, if anyone wants to consider this and reply either here or on the talk page of the RFC that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "small but vocal" group. Almost half of participants appear to agree that PC should be turned off - to finish the "trial".

I object to this imposed phase 3 - I've tried to explain why, several times - but I'll state it here, for those who have not thus far been involved:

Phase 3, question 1 is, "Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off entirely?"

This is implying no choice other than NO PC EVER, or SOME KIND OF PC. I do not accept that those are the only options.

a) I believe that we should "continue to use Pending Changes in some form" - probably some trial, decided through consensus, to actually work out in a measurable way exactly what works and what does not.

b) I believe we should turn it off. I don't think we can meaningfully establish consensus for policies on usage, scope, and all the rest while it continues to be used without consensus.

a) and b) are not mutually exclusive.

I am not the only person who thinks this.

Over the past few days, since Beeblebrox announced this "phase 3" plan, it has been discussed on the talk page of the RfC. The overwhelming majority of people discussing it have serious concerns about phase 3.

The entire phraseology of this "phase 3" is leading users into supporting some form of current, immediate continuance of PC - again, as a "fait accompli". It leaves no scope for discussion and compromise.

I am extremely frustrated and disappointed.  Chzz  ►  19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Commenting only on the removal of PC: I started doing this back in September just after the trial ended (I removed PC from nearly 100 articles), only to be "reported" to Jimbo: User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 64#Removing pending. I would be happy to help with this task again, but only if I knew that this move truly had support and that other editors would not pounce on me for doing so (and I don't think I'm the only admin who holds this view). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal. Some probably will pounce on you, but all they have are non-consensus polls from long ago that proposed interim usage periods that are now over. —UncleDouggie (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

so do I. The necessary data is now available for analysis, and the continuation of this system of a small number of articles is confusing and unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DGG & DaBomb, the Foundation has approved this, you both agree with it, and it is derailing the RFC. I suggest you go ahead and do it so we can end this distraction that is stalling forward progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, on the other hand, you are way off. There is absolutely room for discussion and compromise. There is no "fait accompli" being pushed by me. This is the sixth time by my count that I have suggested that those who feel having PC on is an impediment to further discussion go ahead and remove it. Why is it not happening? And the idea that users are pressured into accepting PC is obviously untrue since the first question(the one you object to so much) asks them if they would like to see it removed entirely. I am also extremely frustrated and disappointed that these circular contradictory arguments and straw men have been used to derail what was a very promising process. For some reason you believe that users submitting their own proposals without fighting in an free-for-all discussion is a bad idea that will be impossible to draw any conclusions from. It will be hard, but as you told me some time ago most things worth doing are hard.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for a volunteer

We are at an apparent deadlock on how to proceed. Or more accurately there are several proposals that are exclusive of one another being floated on the talk page. What we need here more than anything is a referee. Not to decide the future of PC but to decide the future of the RFC itself. Is there an admin bold enough to step in and help us resolve this? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: does it have to be an admin?  Chzz  ►  18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Don't worry about that; it's not worth bothering about that point, here. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Update It looks like we are quite close to a compromise and there has not been further edit warring so the failure of the cavalry to show up wasn't so bad after all and this thread can probably be closed as we shouldn't be discussing this in so many places at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Semarang State University "Papat Limpad" competition

For NPP and CSD admins, you may have noticed a slew of student accounts being created. There appears to be a competition host by Semarang State University with apparently celebrity endorsement by Christian Sugiono. So if you see a bunch of user pages created by edits with a prefix of "JV" all creating pretty much the same user page (Hello, My name ...,I am participant for "Papat Limpad" competition from Semarang State University Faculty of Language and Art), this is what it is all about. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects#Semarang State University "Papat Limpad" competition to see if somebody is willing to contact the organizer and possibly coordinate something. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID

In short, User:HCPUNXKID is continuing to edit 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests in a disruptive manner pushing POV regarding Western Sahara, the users' home country. User has been unwilling to stop despite a clear consensus against the users' actions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what consensus are you talking about. The issue is that some users avoid the inclusion of relevant related sourced content to the article, depending on what user edits, while accept the inclusion of dubious or directly false claims (source gambling). Some users are trying to erase any presence of W. Sahara in the article, while others had put a fictitious date of start of the events. So consensus doesnt exists even between that users. Also, the only time the issue had been voted, 4 users agree to include the W. Sahara protests, while 3 disagree. I also point the issue that the POV & Unbalanced tags had been removed without any discussion, only because some users opinion.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For that past month you have been heavily edit-warring (see his contribution history starting from Feb.19). Wikipedia is not a vote. Also, making a retaliatory report on Muboshgu just shows how much disruption you caused. TL565 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment : I tried to discuss this issue with HCPUNXKID, however the discussion wasn't successful. The fact is that there is a consensus about the information added to the article (discussed in the main+7 archives talk page), but HCPUNXKID stated that "only him got the truth". These are 2 discussions of what was supposed to be a discussion : [11] and [12].

On the other hand, there were (I think) more than 6 users reverting HCPUNXKID's edits, which are clearly POV.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment : The issue is also discussed here : [13]

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The user in question has made a number of POV edits to the 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa Protests page regarding Western Sahara. A quick view into the history of the user's page[14] reveals specific POV, including (translated) "This Wikipedian supports the independence of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic." and "This user supports the right to self-determination referendum of the Sahrawi people." This user's repeated POV edits reflect this particular viewpoint. ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Imho, he has the right to have an opinion about WS issue (as I have have the right to have mine), however, he hasn't the right to edit articles according to his views, which is considered as extreme-PoV.

The problem is that his edits shows extreme PoV, for example, this [15] is a case of WP:OWN and WP:POV : I can't understand how an "activist" pro-Polisario woman can be cited as a source, as it is a primary one? I think the author should read WP:IRS, especially paragraph 4.2. :::--Omar-Toons (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I had just warned him about edit warring in 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests (had 10 reverts and also looks like a case of WP:OWN). This was his response, [16]. I STRONGLY recommend something be done about this user. He is disrupting articles wherever he goes and no one can discuss with him. TL565 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment : He reverted my edits and removed the Unbalanced template despite I started the discussion about the fact that he refers to activists as specialists, to some sources as the truth while adding "according to" to the ones related to the other side of the conflict (I fixed that but he reverted my edits). We also see a case of Own and Personal attacks.

Can an admin intervene and make sth to stop that? Thanks.

--Omar-Toons (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID blocked for 48 hours. EyeSerene^talk 10:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Jamesooders

Resolved

Hello people, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=420132476&oldid=420129325 why this user thinks we should use underline instead space in links ? also note that i am not a sockpuppet Jckrgn600 (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To declare without apparent reason that you are not a sockpuppet, will make people less inclined to believe you actually aren't. At any rate, the reverts by Jamesooders and the subsequent report to AIV do not seem helpful, I will give you that.--Atlan (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah never mind. I only just noticed the sockpuppet allegation in the AIV report.--Atlan (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, he alerted me i stopped that but he start alerting me again. Jckrgn600 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me Jamesooders is unaware of the process of link piping. I have informed them on their talk page.--Atlan (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I do appolagise for the inconveinice I caused, As mentioned I was not aware of "link piping". I have never seen any wikipedian make edits with such speed before, and it seems you were doing a good job :D. By the time I made the alert It was too late, but had realised that the work was in good faith. James'ööders 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remember Huggle should only be used for obvious vandalism. If you are unsure whether an edit is vandalism it is preferable to leave it alone. I will also note that bypassing redirects with link piping as Jckrgn600 was doing is generally not useful (see wp:NOTBROKEN). Yoenit (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True. Regardless, it certainly is not vandalism. Jckrgn600 was already told earlier on his talk page that there are more useful ways to spend time on Wikipedia.--Atlan (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dallas Davidson

Can I get some more eyes on Dallas Davidson? There is no excuse whatsover for a a blatantly obvious copyvio/COI edit going unnoticed for SIX FREAKING WEEKS. The article has had problems with COI editors since I first made it almost two years ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dropped it onto my watchlist, along with probably a half-dozen others who didn't mention it. You can relax now, TPH, you seem wound tighter than an otter on ecstasy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Roman888

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.

Banned by community consensus. Courcelles 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

---

This is a de facto to de jure ban proposal for an indefinitely blocked user. Roman888 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 8 March 2010 for violating copyright on the mainspace after multiple warnings. The following activities, many of which were engaged in the months after the block, indicate that a formal indefinite site ban is warranted:

• Abusive sockpuppetry: Roman888 has socked with 31 confirmed accounts and one IP address. There are a further eight suspected sockpuppet accounts. The ongoing SPI shows that the sockpuppetry has persisted through almost the whole of the nine months since the block.
• Copyright violations. This CCI demonstrates that over a period of two years (March 2008-March 2010), Roman888 engaged in systemic copyright violations. Just about every text that he/she contributed to a mainspace article was lifted directly from a non-free source. Roman888 was blocked temporarily for copyright violations in September 2008, yet continued to violate copyright with the account until March 2010. Sadly, the pattern of copyright violations continued with Roman888's sockpuppets. At first, the sockpuppets sought to restore copyvios that had been removed as part of the CCI (eg [17]). More recently, Roman888's socks have created new content (eg Batu Sapi by-election, 2010, created in October 2010) that again copies material from copyrighted sources.
• Harassment of other contributors. Roman888 through sockpuppets has harrassed and sought to impersonate:
  • the administrator who blocked the account -- talk page rant and Monkeybuttgirl23 (talk · contribs);
  • myself -- talk page rant, attempt to frame me for sockpuppetry, bad faith edit-warring report, and MforMkativerata (talk · contribs); and
  • other contributors (happy to provide diffs on request but I thought it best to keep the other contributor out of it).

I thought Roman888 had given up some months ago. But regrettably, Roman888 is back and has been back for months. Before xe was blocked, xe edited articles about Malaysian politics (where xe took an unrelenting anti-government editorial line) and also engaged in disputes on articles relating to Gordon Ramsay (see for example Talk:Ramsay's_Kitchen_Nightmares). As it turns out, I have been suspicious about some recent IPs from Australian addresses editing articles about Malaysian politics; User:Drmargi has been similarly suspicious about Australian IP hopping on Gordon Ramsay articles. The recent edits of 203.45.23.61 -- an IP pushing POV on Malaysian politics and getting into a dispute on a Ramsay TV show -- are irrefutable evidence that Roman888 is back and has been editing from Australian IPs. Amongst other things, he is continuing to violate copyright (violated source can be read here). A full site ban is sought from the community to bed down the ability of editors to deal with Roman888's ongoing socking and disruption.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, having dealt with Roman888 through various socks. We can't take chances with serial copyright infringers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is an editor who refuses to work within process, both in terms of copyright and in terms of respecting consensus and working toward new consensus. Roman has also attempted to frame me for sockpuppetry [18]. He appears to have relocated to Australia late last year, and is using that as an opportunity to push his agenda once again using a variety of IPs. In addition to the Malaysia articles, Roman is actively IP hopping and disruptively editing on two articles related to Gordon Ramsay and shows no inclination to stop. The rhetoric coming from these IP's is consistent both with what is seen on the various articles related to Malaysia on which he has edited, and with his rhetoric on the two Ramsay talk pages under the Roman888 user name. Most telling: I've referred to him as Roman on the RKN talk page twice recently, and he hasn't bothered to question my use of the name. Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to my earlier statement: Roman888 has now edited both a Malaysia-related article and the RKN article along with its talk page (still not denying he's Roman888) under a second (new) IP, 121.222.16.89, further strengthening the case that he is IP hopping for the purposes of block evasion and disruption. His "rationale" for not registering is that he doesn't want his personal details available to what he calls the Wiki Nazis, and he continues to insist existing consensus somehow doesn't cover the specific contingency he's using as an excuse to edit war. Drmargi (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Copyright violator, harasser, and "Monkeybuttgirl23"? Ban. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support This seems a no-brainer given the editor's record and they're effectively banned at the moment with all the WP:DUCK blocks at SPI, so we may as well make it official. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. We don't need editors who are willing to engage in this behavior, and be persistent about it, too. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• comment: seeing "xe" sprinkled throughout this makes me want to hit myself in the head with a hammer. Ugh. Are we really that afraid of gender issues? Especially considering that the English language obviously isn't! Anyway, my apologies for the slightly OT post here. Back to the community banning...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. MER-C 01:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and if there's any way to make an edit filter for that user, that would spare everyone some work. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not only he doesn't understand the sockpuppetry policy, but he doesn't understand the legal policy either. Minimac (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: He may be a lot younger than I would have thought. I thought he was an adult. He's evidently not very happy with me for protecting the page about the TV show that is obsessing him. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I think he's an adult, if a youngish one. Given his command of English and his vocabulary, he's old enough to understand the fundamentals of consensus (edit/revert/talk), blocks, and similar. The statement on your talk page this morning is typical of him: he becomes more abusive the more his efforts to disrupt Wikipedia are foiled, and his political interests are not those of an adolescent. Anyone who is old enough to use expressions like Wiki-Nazi and "personal fifedom" and who sees himself as part of a political network is old enough to understand the consequence of his/her choices, however juvenile his arguments may be. I'm just sorry you have to be subjected to the RKN/KN end of his nonsense in order to get this resolved. Drmargi (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have read all of page links the threadstarter provided, and having dealt with another infamous sock myself who uses Australian IPs too, it's more than enough to get him banned from Wikipedia. Like, seriously, 'Wiki-Nazis'? Haven't we heard that before from other juvenile sockmasters? GONE.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Server Upgrade Request

I am requesting that wikipedia upgrade its servers (or perhaps code base). Why? Because many features are being delivered very slowly and I believe that this is primarily due to insufficient processing power (or perhaps slow storage). An example is when I attempt compare the changes between two revisions of a given page. The time it takes to deliver the comparison webpage is very long. 130.56.80.103 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that even a server thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I should think so as the server consumes processing power analyzing the difference between two archived versions. A note is that this does not seem to occur on all web pages. Two examples of problematic webpage histories and history comparisons are Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising and Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. 130.56.80.103 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An update of this: The long delay occurs when I compare two non-current versions against each other. The problem does not occur when I compare any older version against the current version. This would imply a coding problem. 130.56.80.103 (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One, no one here can do anything, it's the wrong place to ask. Two, if you have a couple million dollars you'd like to donate for server upgrades, we'll be sure to use that. Otherwise you can blame the millions of other Wikipedia readers taking up all the bandwidth. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words: we blame society. I, of course, hold none of this blame, as blaming myself is counterproductive. HalfShadow 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to primarily be on pages with extensive revision histories, but not sure what we here (where administrators != real play with the code and hardware administrators, in many cases) could do about this. Also, I blame Sauron. Syrthiss (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Obama article has been like that for awhile. If you want to see diffs there, start it up and go reheat your coffee. Plenty of time. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Between too nearby revisions or between revisions a long way apart? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In theory, if the problem got bad enough (to the point of diffs being practically unusable), you could break off the article history to a subpage of the article's talk page. You could also just move some of the history (eg > 1 year old), but that would be a lot more work. It's a solution which is unappealing (because you couldn't easily compare diffs across the history break), but it's feasible. Rd232 ^talk 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboards and related pages

This is probably not the right place for this message, but I think it is the best place to get noticed so I'm leaving a brief comment here anyway. I've noticed that the noticeboards are generally a place focused on negativity, and that is understandable considering their purpose. However, we may want to rethink the processes and procedures behind it. One way of doing this is creating at least one additional noticeboard in this related hierarchy that focuses only on positive aspects of contributions, such as starting an incident report about the great edits someone has made, or the compliments they received from another editor; basically this would be a reverse incidents noticeboard, where we can file reports on good behavior. At first it may seem strange or ironic, but I think it would go a long way towards balancing out the dark side that we see around here, and it would allow people to communicate together on an entirely different level. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea, could be good for community spirit. An obvious use would be advertising barnstars, in an "I've just given X a barnstar because..." way. What to call it though? Rd232 ^talk 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Positivity noticeboard? All I can say, though, is that any such noticeboard would eventually lose participation until it became inactive. A valiant idea, nonetheless. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not precisely a positivity noticeboard, but we have Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down where people can say nice things about other contributors... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is more of a "Kudos" noticeboard, where we can file incident reports on users, new and old alike, to discuss the great work they are doing. I'm actually only interested in the great work people do here, and less than interested in hearing about behavioral problems. I suggest that if more time were spent on highlighting the positive, rather than the negative, one could directly influence and change the dynamic, such that we would be on the lookout for good behavior rather than the bad. I'm not sure why Fetchcomms thinks this would lose participation or become inactive, but I would be interested in hearing his reason. If some editors engage in bad behavior for attention, this will change the focus. If you want attention, do something constructive instead. Ideally, it would provide examples, and encourage collaboration. Here's an example that I just saw: On March 6, User:Anna Frodesiak created a short stub on intraguild predation.[19] On March 20, User:Cbangley created a new account, and in the next day, expanded the stub to what looks like a B-Class article.[20] If we filed a report on Cbangley, complimenting him on his good work and advertising the recent expansion, we could attract more contributors to the article, introduce the new user to the community, and begin actively retaining new users in real time. It would also give WikiProjects a centralized location to recruit new members and allow admin recruiters to view positive comments about content and backend production work. That's only one angle. Obviously, older editors want to be recognized as well. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone should really nom intraguild predation for DYK. I would, except the DYK page is loading too slow. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominated. Thanks for the suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Create redirect page: Oracle google lawsuit

I tried to create the page: Oracle google lawsuit and point it to:

1. REDIRECT [[21]]

But the system said I need to contact an admin, so here I am.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Created. Not an admin, so no idea why it didn't work for you. -- saberwyn 02:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Were you trying to redirect to the URL like that? That could have been the issue, redirects are internal links, not external. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Need eyes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone (2nd nomination)

Could an experienced uninvolved admin keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone (2nd nomination) which will be due for closure at the end of today. Following the blocking of several of its original editors, there has been an influx of SPAs with possibly more to come. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lear's Fool closed it as Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Any Commons OTRS people about?

File:JBarbera.jpg has had a permission email sent to OTRS, but the urgency is that it would be great to use it to illustrate tomorrow's TFA of Joseph Barbera (100th anniversary of birth, no free image otherwise available). If someone could take a peek and check whether the permission is good, you can officially count it as your good deed for the day. That's all, folks. Bencherlite^Talk 18:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done by Sreejithk2000 (talk · contribs). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Codifing what constitues a revert

Hi, I've noticed there are many instances where whether an edit is a revert or not is very murky, so I have begun to codify what is a revert here. I of course need consensus to introduce the codifing officially so I ask that interested editors join me to fill in the question marks in the examples I have written out. As I will be posting this elsewhere as well, please talk on the talk page of the article. Thank you, Passionless -Talk 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like rule creep to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked for breaking the currently very vague rules, maybe I go too far, but if half of what I wrote is clarified in the official rules than I would be happy. Passionless -Talk 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, none of what I propose is CREEP, it is still quite general. Passionless -Talk 05:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Before worrying too much about the proposal, it would be necessary to see examples of an actual problem (has someone been inappropriately blocked for 3RR?). The principle is much more important than pre-defined details of exactly what editors can get away with (see WP:BURO). Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I am afraid I can't show some of my blocks for fear of being accused of WP:BATTLE, but here is an example from today where I was warned even though all I did was make three reverts in 17minutes with the only intermediate edits being for grammar. I've been told many times consecutive edits like that count as a single revert. Now that I try to find this codified I get nothing, turns out that was an unofficial rule... Passionless -Talk 06:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also a closer definition is a lot more important to people like me who deal in areas which are under permanent 1RR. Passionless -Talk 06:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't really make head or tails of the page to be honest. But on a general note; most people are able to avoid being warned about inappropriate reverting, pinning down the exact definition of a revert seems to be more akin to wiki-lawyering and completely ignoring the spirit and intent of the 3RR policy. Perhaps the issue is not in defining what a revert is more closely, but with editors regularly being warned for revert violations failing to critically assess their own actions & looking to see how they can avoid such problems in the future. The rules have never seemed vague to me. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, I too think your proposal is instruction creep and that it places more importance on what editors can get away with. In terms of the warning you're referring to, there's nothing to dispute about what Gwen Gale has said or did; "the least one could say is that you skirted the edge" as she said on her talk and she warned you rather than blocking you. That is, "you shouldn't be reverting GF content at all in IP topics. Please use the talk page." If you want to be able to continue contributing to these topics, heed the warning; that's how you can avoid such problems in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have to agree with Errant; I can't make much sense out of the tables provided. Moreover, as much as I agree that interpretation of what constitutes a revert is very inconsistent around these parts, I don't think a rubric such as yours is the answer. Anything this cut-and-dried makes no allowance for judgment, and that always has to be a factor in situations such as questionable reverts. That said, I do think the parameters for what is/isn't a revert, and when one it edit warring need a serious re-think generally; I also find the three-and-out notion highly problematic in an environment that allows the freedom of access this project does. Come up with something less proscribed and more along the lines of a problem-solving model, and I could be persuaded to get behind it. Drmargi (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist, I'm afraid that many editors are either not making positive edits out of fear their edit be constued as a revert or they are making these positive edits and are being brought to ANI/ARB/EW where punishment is as random as the admin you get presiding. So by making the rules more clear in both what an editor can do and can get away with this will help all parties. And if you fear clearer rules will help edit warriors well I don't think so because it is more the behaviour than just the revert count right?

@Drmargi and ErrantX, I have added text to help explain the ideas gonig on in the tables and I have removed the first table which I think was probably most confusing(especially with a critical typo in it) and yet least important. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "problem-solving model" though if you explain I will try to do that too. And to Errant X, like I said above this whole matter is much much more important to those working on 1RR articles than to those on 3RR articles. Passionless -Talk 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you follow wp:BRD and be aware that some editors will use reverts to try and wp:BAIT you into getting blocked, you should be able to avoid most warnings. Focus on the talk page discussion, and be slow and persistent about editing the article. make an edit, let it be reverted, discuss in talk, wait a day for a response; repeat as needed until you stop being reverted or you get an effective talk page discussion going. trying to define it more than that feels like you're trying to find the edge of the system so you can push on it without going over; that's not the best approach. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried that one time, but it went on for a few days with no progress so I went to 3O, but they didn't show for days and it kept going for a week until I brought it to ARB where both I and the other guy got sanctions put on them, yay. Passionless -Talk 18:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, if one's actions are sufficiently like reverting that one needs to consult a detailed rulebook to determine if they're reverts or not, then they're almost certainly reverts for the purposes of the 3RR. If one regularly finds oneself making multiple reverts (or 'revert-like' edits) of good-faith, non-vandalism edits on the same article over short spans of time, one's editing probably does warrant scrutiny. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

BAH, I'm not talking about 3RR but 1RR where making two edits can suddenly turn into a block because some admin says you broke 1RR solely based on their opinions of reverts rather than based on a policy created out of consensus. The clarity right now is about the same as if speed signs on roads said slow, average, and fast instead of actual numbers, and the police would ticket you based on their feelings of what fast is. The lack of detail hurts well meaning editors too. If a group of admins went and filled out the question marks in the tables I created, there would be a large difference between them all. Passionless -Talk 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It should go without saying that editors who are under ArbCom-sanctioned 1RR-per-week editing restrictions should be particularly cautious about their editing. Attempting to nail down precisely how large and complex a revert an editor under such restrictions might be entitled to is rather missing the point of why such restrictions are applied in the first place. Try to find a way to contribute in these areas that doesn't involve reverting, or work on articles in a less contentious area for a while.

Understand that a 1RR-restriction isn't meant to be a licence, quota, or allotment. It's a very strong warning from the community that we're this close to topic banning (or just banning outright), but we're willing to give an editor enough rope to hang himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not about me, this is still about wikipedia and the murkiness of this particular policy, and the harm this causes. Passionless -Talk 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The "harm" of having an inexact (although I find it fine) definition of what precisely constitutes a revert is negligible to the spirit of WP:Edit war/WP:3RR - that discussion and consensus at the talkpage is the appropriate method of resolving disputes, and not the disruptive repeated amendments to the article. As has been noted by commentators above, drawing a hard bright line over what is and is not a revert is a recipe for brinkmanship editing and rule wikilawyering. It appears that you do not comprehend the concern of most people; repeated confrontational text amendments between two or more parties is disruptive and needs a generalised technical term to enable dispute resolution processes to be applied to the parties involved. I would close by noting that the definitions used to determine what constitutes a revert are robust enough for several topics of potential disruption to have 1 or 0RR applied to it, and sanctions enacted without much legitimate complaint. It ain't broke, and I don't think what you desire is a fix anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish people who actually work in 1RR areas would join this conversation. And as I have seen noted by others before, 0RR is an absolutely retarted policy as it means any additions which are non-vandalist/BLP can never be removed, and other course veiled insults are not appreciated. Passionless -Talk 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

After going through a fast moving page's history that is under 1RR, I see that if the rules where more clear and more enforced several respected editors would be in trouble, so maybe this lack of clarity of 'what is a revert?' does stop 1RR from harming progress on a page as much as it could.

With that said maybe I should just be asking that the unofficial policy, that sequential reverts (with minor/grammar edits inbetween not counting against it) count as a single revert, be added to the appropriate policy. Passionless -Talk 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure who you think you are talking to, but I have done some admin work in 1RR environments - and I am perplexed to what I said that might be an insult; your comments are becoming increasingly confrontational as your points are refuted. As for 0RR, such a restriction does not mean any non-vandalism edit remains "forever". Usually a 0RR restriction is placed on an editor (or group of editors) relating to an article, so reverts may be done by others if required but where it is applied to an article that a revert must first have consensus on the talkpage. It certainly makes editing an article more time consuming, but that is part of the deterrent effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I took a look at your talk page/recent contributes and did not see alot of 1RR related topics and the "I don't think what you desire is a fix anyway." is what I took poorly, though I see there is the chance you could have meant something non-bad faith. Anyways, I agree with you that "repeated confrontational text amendments between two or more parties is disruptive", but the way reverts are counted currently leds to cases where "repeated text amendments is disruptive". An example would be how I got warned and almost blocked this week because instead of making one large edit I made three over 17 minutes, with no major edits inbetween the three. If I could get you opinion on Gatoclass and ZScarpia's comments at the discussion that would be appreciated. Passionless -Talk 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right - I shall rephrase that last point of mine; "what you propose may not resolve the issues you raise." I trust my intent is clearer. I will have a look at the specific case - although my understanding is that consecutive edits to the same effect without intervening edits by others counts as one revert when applying 3RR; that was certainly the rule I worked to when I was last involved in adminning revert warring claims - UK evening time (a few hours from now). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wish someone would add that rule of yours-which is very common- to the relevant policy on reverting. I also wish at the same time admins would also decide upon whether consecutive edits broken only by grammar fixes can still be counted the same way, and this decision placed where all editors can marvel in joy of the clarity. Passionless -Talk 18:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is contained in the policy Wikipedia:Edit warring, which I have noted in the discussion per your earlier link. If you need further assistance on this point, let me know on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless I think you are wasting your time with something that clearly is against the spirit of this project, You are in my opinion becoming disruptive for the sake of being disruptive and that itself is a problem. Might I suggest taking a step back from the issue and go find a stub article that hasnt been edited in a while and bring it up to C or B class, then if you still wish to continue with this pointless "codifing" then perhaps wikipedia isnt the place for you. ZooPro 13:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RM

There's a backlog of about 140+ Pages - some having been open for over a month, I've taken part in at least two which will need an Admin close. I wondered if we could get some Admins and non-Admins to clear the backlog? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully there aren't too many that are suitable for non-admin closure as I take a reasonably regular look at it. Could definitely do with more admins for the more difficult closes. Dpmuk (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Return of Twinkle

• Previous discussion

I believe I've been able to better observe some of the policies around here with the time I've spent away from the tools. Nonetheless, if I am delisted from User:AzaToth/morebits.js, I'll refrain in the future to use it in CSD/XfD-related areas and use it instead on attacking the stuff in UAA and AIV instead. That, I think seems to have been the problem last time. I'll also subscribe to mentoring if it is deemed necessary as well. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Apart from the time you templated me for "vandalism" (!), I haven't seen too many recent complaints on your talk page about misunderstanding what vandalism is, so I'd support you having Twinkle for that. I think you're right that it would be wise to accept mentoring and not use any automated tools for CSDs and XfDs. I don't want to see an increase in XfD nominations, because some of those have been quite bad. I think your enthusiasm for "cleaning stuff up" is much better suited to vandal-fighting than deletions. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal Request for Lifting of Interaction Ban

Resolved

 – Entry deleted by Prodego (talk · contribs)

Good evening Wiki administrators. I apologize I don't know the format for this, but here goes. About a year ago, I was placed on an interaction ban with User:Mk5384. The reasons why are very complex and it would fill a talk page to repeat the entire story. Anyway, MK was later banned from the site for threats, uncivil harassment, and extreme personal attacks. In the weeks that followed, this user took to private e-mail, contacting the admins who had banned him, threatening them as well, including at least one suspected (but never proven) death threat.

I recently discovered this affair buried away on one of my archive pages and saw that this interaction ban was technically still "on the books". One of the stipulations was that I could ask for a review if I felt it was warranted. I ask for such a review and further ask that this ban be lifted. MK is never coming back to the site and I've had no problems with anyone else since then. Indeed, at the time, I didn't really see myself as a problem. I think the Interaction Ban was something a result of frustrated administrators who saw me as part of the problem rather than the solution.

I further hope that this is the correct place for this and it wont be seen as a violation of the ban itself to ask for a review of the ban. Again, unsure of the format. Thank you and good night. -OberRanks (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here it is, by the way, for review. Took me a bit, but I found it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625#Civility restriction and interaction ban -OberRanks (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because an interaction ban with a banned editor is practically without effect, we should be able to lift it on procedural grounds without having to examine (I haven't) whether it was or remains necessary. On the other hand, why do you want it lifted? All it does is to prohibit you from commenting about the banned user, which may not be a bad idea, since any comments by you about him might give rise to ban violations and more drama.  Sandstein  13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought about leaving it alone, but didn't want to possible mention this user casually or without thinking months or even years from now and wind up having my account blocked for six months or something like that. The one time I was blocked for "violating the ban" was when I asked a question about this user on an ANI thread - on my honor very innocently, but an admin (who had been deeply involved in the original ban proposal) immediately blocked my account and left a pretty angry warning message. Its situations like that I would hope to avoid to avoid in the future. But, then again, if no harm would come to keeping it in place I guess we could do that to keep all happy. Whatever the admins decide is fine - that's why I brought up here. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is that we could change the ban to a restriction. This would allow you ask questions in good faith without fear of a block, but would not allow you to disparage, harass or otherwise hound Mk5834, which would remain a blockable offence. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is basically the same situation as Baseball Bugs' interaction ban with Child of Midnight, which was loosened so that Bugs could comment on SPI reports and other administrative matters concerning CoM. That would seem like a good model for this, and I would support such a change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

BMK notified me of this discussion, and I agree that this seems like a good approach. The only reason I can think of to comment on a banned user is for possible input to an SPI or other administrative procedure. I think I've had maybe 2 occasions in the last year or so when that's been necessary. And I will add that the interaction ban worked out well for me. There comes a point where you can't say anything new or different to or about another editor. Except maybe in this narrow circumstance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic perhaps, but is there a central list of interaction bans analogous to the siteban list? 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT (though it is not necessarily comprehensive). –xeno^talk 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I know I've seen that page before, but had forgotten its title. 28bytes (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's say the ban is lifted, but of course any comments that are disruptive (and certain comments about that user could be inherently so) would, as usual, be prohibited by WP:DIS, WP:NPA, etc. Prodego ^talk 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no plans or intention to bring up or discuss that user in any way - my main concern here was possibly making a comment about this user in some discussion, for whatever reason, months or years down the road and having this still be binding and get blocked in the process. As amazing as it sounds, I had actually forgotten about this ban, and this user, until coming across it on an archived talk page. I thank the admins for whatever decision they arrive at, and be assured it is the farthest thing from my mind to cause any disruption of any kind. Best to all. -OberRanks (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ban national(ist) barnstars

Dialogue among Wikipedia contributors is already heavy with all kinds of biases, including those caused by competing nationalisms. Barnstars that are nationally denoted, without carrying any other qualification, should be banned because (a) they promote divisiveness, when barnstars are supposed to be a playful pat on the back by a fellow wikipedian, and (b) actually denote a compromise in the principles of Wikipedia through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased. Note that such barnstars are almost always "awarded" to fellow compatriots, thus adding to cliquishness and tribalism. (I submit a random example of such a barnstar for purely illustrative purposes.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work in Albanian pages, keep up the good work, cheers!x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to y by x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with them. They are used in a similar fashion like thematic barnstars. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. Most WikiProjects, which this appears to have come from, has their own barnstar. WP:VIRGINIA has their own (see at the far bottom; my creation) and that is in the US. So, this isn't just countries, but states. It is something to award members of that specific WikiProject when they do well inside that WikiProject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Working "in Albanian pages" could mean helping keep them neutral, as opposed to acting "in the interests of a certain nationality". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:MFD or similar as its not really something admins have any particular influence over. I personally don't see the problem with this kind of barnstar, though I suppose it's possible for them to be misused by some editors (in which case the best response would be to sanction the editor using barnstars to reward bad behaviour rather than delete the barnstar itself, unless it was created for some kind of offensive purpose [eg, a 'barnstar of the greater Albania Wikicrusade']). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. Od Mishehu: Yes, in theory it could mean "helping to keep them neutral". In practice, it never does. I cannot remember ever having seen any of these "national" barnstars awarded in any scenario other than the one where it's awarded by one nationally-driven agenda account to the other in reward for helping to fight the fight. – The other thing is that even if they were intended in a neutral, constructive way, their wording and symbolism typically doesn't fit. Using terms like "national merit", together with political symbols like flags, practically screams "patriotism", i.e. a pro-nation-X agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's one - User talk:KnightxxArrow#Barnstar -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I was afraid people would focus on the Albanian barnstar, and this is what happened but Albania -or any other specific country- is not the issue. Picture any other flag here, your own country's, if you want. The issue is that national(ist)-tagged barnstars and symbols tend to worsen the significant and already extensive problem of competing nationalisms in Wikipedia editing. It is indeed, as Fut.Perf. reminds us, extremely rare to see national barnstars awarded to someone for objectivity or pure encyclopaedic work. Time to re-adjust our focus, methinks. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Golden Maple Leaf Award Nation themed barnstars are not a problem, and for editors that work on articles related to a specific country, offer a nice local touch when rewarding good work. Resolute 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle, these barnstars are fine. I've awarded threeMalaysian barnstars of national merit: one to a quiet wikignome and the other two to editos who got Malaysian articles to FA or GA status. It's a way of recognising good work within a national wikiproject. But, they can of course be abused. Per NickD, if an editor is found to be giving barnstars to editors as a reward for pushing a nationalist POV the community, or if discretionary sanctions apply, administrators, can impose sanctions for battleground behaviour accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sorry, but the notion that these barnstars "compromise in the principles of Wikipedia through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased" is nothing more than editor bashing. What The Gnome's statement contends is that one's heritage does not promote a desire to share and inform the world regarding that heritage based on reliable sources fairly and accurately represented and to bring awareness of that heritage to a wider audience. Rather, The Gnome tars and feathers as intrinsically disruptive to Wikipedia anyone with an identifiable national background. I suggest The Gnome work on promoting reliable content regardless of the venue instead of attacking editors en masse based on a label. This sort of insulting pontificating only polarizes the community and results in uninformed editors believing that their ignorance equals lack of bias, as if it were some sort of inoculation against by-definition biased editorial positions espoused by carriers of the nationalist plague. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is my suggestion "editor bashing"? I raise the possibility of a certain act of "harmless fun" in Wikipedia degenerating into an incentive and a mindframe for biased, non-objective contributions. I have no specific editor in mind, nor any specific nationality. This is not about editors ("en masse"!) doing some ...horrible things on purpose but about the threats inherent in accolade and success. The rest of your post seems equally misguided ("insulting pontification") and full of ad hominems, so I cannot comment on it. I was hoping for an exchange of experiences of other editors and some informed opinions. Hopefully, we'll get some of that.-The Gnome (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's editor bashing as your comment in no way discriminates "nationalist" bad from "nationalist" good. Wikipedia has already degenerated, barnstars are not a symptom, not an instigator, not a reward, not a problem. A barnstar is an "Atta Boy!" with a picture attached. Unless you are going to ban the passing of all on-Wiki congratulations between "nationalist" editors, there's no point in banning barnstars. The issue is not that I'm engaging ad hominems, it's that you don't even realize your position regarding "nationalist" editors is itself an ad hominem. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is about the misuse and the excesses of nationalist viewpoints, already causing significant problems in wiki editing, the least of which is time wasting. There is nothing in Wikipedia about "nationalist editing", so, therefore, trying to protect the integrity of the site from it (by definition, a non-neutral kind of editing) is entirely legitimate. And, incidentally, this better not become a political discussion ("nationalist" good vs "nationalist" bad); the distinction between "good" and "bad" nationalisms is irrelevant to the point I'm making - and it's a point clearly about nationalist viewpoints going overboard here. (Call 'em "bad nationalisms" if you want.) It's gone beyong the "atta boy!" phase a long time ago. The barnstars, in themselves, are not the problem; but they do seem to amplify it. Let's turn down the volume a bit, I say.-The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Short version, discuss the edit not the editor. You do know that principle, no? Just because you're not naming anyone specific doesn't make your contentions any less offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gnome has a point, albeit a philosophical one that applies to all barnstars, which isn't really that far from PЄTЄRS J V's position. Creating boy scout badges means some scouts will aspire to get them all, and arguing they are not symbols of merit doesn't prevent them from being sported as such. If they have to exist at all, they should be for general merit relating to encyclopedic achievements devoid of all other characteristics. Facts are facts, right? Good copy is good copy no matter who writes it, right? A barnstar for contributions that suck but fill a perceived gap somewhere is just mutual masturbation.

That said, if barnstars really don't mean anything, why do they exist at all? That question is entirely relevant to the recent invite to comment on statistics about contributors and how to make newcomers feel more welcome (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update).

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  11:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What The Gnome decries is known purveyors of nationalist clap-trap trading barnstars with their cohorts. Quite frankly, I'm prepared to live with that. The (random) choice of Albania is telling, as twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of Eastern Europe is still held hostage to a general ignorance of its history. Bringing that history and culture to light is a noble purpose; casting aspersions based on labels one has indiscriminately hung on editors only serves the ignorance which those very same editors are seeking to dispel. I'm happy to receive any barnstar for any good work I've done. The Gnome's going around suggesting more ways we can rain on each others' parade doesn't do anything to make Wikipedia a friendlier place to contribute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, what about a HISTORY (or MODERN HISTORY; or POST-EASTERN BLOC HISTORY) barnstar? It would be awarded ("Atta boy!") to anyone who's judged by a fellow wikipedian to have contributed to that topic, irrespective of the specific topic's geography.-The Gnome (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As for making Wikipedia a friendlier place, that's not possible now that WP is at the top of every search engine. For every editor seeking to bring reputable balanced content to WP in an area of contention you have two trying to persuade us the Earth is flat. That is why Wikipedia is steadily losing editors. Unless you have a very thick skin and make the conscious choice to put up with the escalating level of crap, you leave. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On a personal level I couldn't agree more about flat-earthers and charlatans in droves trying to re-write history, adding utter nonsense and wasting everyone's time. I have been involved for some days now in an effort to ensure that certain aspects of Soviet history published on WP are reviewed to ensure accuracy, neutrality and an absence of the kind of revisionism that used to make unpalatable facts and people disappear from official records in the Soviet Bloc. But I don't see how doing so under the banner of any particular nation would assist; in fact, it might act as an automatic signal to distrust the motivations of the bearer. The efforts to improve WP must be neutral about nationality, and about personal loyalties or affiliations.

It is true, too, that it would be entirely rational to walk away from time-wasting disputes fuelled by irrational zealots who count on the fact that some good-natured but wrong-headed admin will try to seek 'consensus', which is really to be understood as a term for killing truth in order to pander to personal agenda: there is no committee version of truth, which is never ever subject to a convenient consensus. But defining and defending truth is never a national concern for the same reasons. It must transcend all personal allegiances to stand on rationality and facts alone. I think this is what The Gnome was getting at.

National emblems displayed with pride have their place, but not as adjuncts to discussions about language and sources worthy of an encyclopedia. Similarly, not all the barnstars in the world guarantee that their bearer has or will always produce worthy contributions, or that those contributions should not be subject to careful scrutiny, or that a many-decorated contributor's comments are always more worthy than those of others with no barnstars at all; truth, facts and rationality are not subject to any kind of seniority, rank, title or majority vote. That is why I am against barnstars of any kind.

Having said all of that, I recognise that I am expressing a personal opinion fully contestable in open debate, and subject to the same rationality I try to champion. That rationality tells me that if people want barnstars, they will have them. My best effort, then, can only be to make my case, as I hope I have, and to keep making it when it is challenged on grounds that do not persuade me. For what it may be worth, and without meaning to patronise, I recognise in you, PЄTЄRS J V, the kind of passion necessary to overcome the petty or sinister subversion of facts and rationality we have already touched on. But that will not happen if we walk away in disgust. Regardless of the outcome of this or any other debate, I hope to encounter many more engaged and interested people like you and The Gnome because I think no matter how much we may disagree or agree on any issue, by debate we learn from each other how to become more able not only as contributors to Wikipedia, but as versatile thinkers in our lives in general.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that barnstars are abused is not a reason to ban them. I've seen barnstars abused, but amusingly, not wikiproject one, but regular ones (like giving a barnstar to another user for disruptive behavior...). Also, calling project barnstars nationalist is hardly nice. We have country-themed noticeboards, wikiprojectts and awards. I cannot speak for all of them, but the ones I am familiar with are quite helpful for this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the objectives behind banning those barnstars will not practically be accomplished upon banning those barnstars, I would think it's a pointless exercise. That is, some could argue that some WikiProjects promote cliquishness and tribalism and that they promote divisiveness; given that, merely eliminating the barnstars will not accomplish anything useful because such contributors would still find ways to congratulate one another, praise one another's contributions, or to show their "pride" in some other manner which doesn't require the use of barnstars. And the converse can also be said about some WikiProjects; that they promote appropriate collaboration (in which event, the same could be said about barnstars when used appropriately/effectively). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• This request to ban nation-related barnstars reminds me, in a way, of the userbox wars of early 2006. Okay, a lot of things recently have reminded me of the userbox wars -- but I had to put that out there before I make my point. Which is the problem is not with the barnstar -- or the userbox -- itself, but in how it is used. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which strengthened both Wikipedia & knowledge about a given nationality, that is a good thing. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which weakens Wikipedia while promoting some nationalistic agenda, then it is a bad thing & the barnstar should be revoked & the person awarding it sanctioned. But that's just my opinion as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia for many years. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't really see it as a problem. While nationalist barnstars are given out to both NPOV and POV editors, it does not take long to realize which is which, and in the case of the later, it can be a useful warning that this marked editor promotes nation X's agenda, beware. Passionless -Talk 21:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty much any flavour of barnstar can be abused, not just "nationalist". This is a moot proposal, and debate should be closed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is very obviously false. Not "any barnstar" can be abused. Moreover, abuse (wrong, malicious use) of other barnstars at worst causes friction between sender and received. But nationalist barnstars indicate far more widespread and significant anomalies in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not "any", but certainly more than just the "nationalist" ones. I have seen examples of individuals (who shall remain nameless) who deal out barnstars for "reliable sources" and similarly innocuous-sounding things for pushing certain POVs. Indeed, I believe that the banning of "nationalist" barnstars would just open up the door for the abuse of otherwise innocuous ones.

"Nationalist" barnstars are as about as well-established as political userboxes. They serve some divisive purposes which are unappealing to those Wikipedians who refuse to deal with the fact that the encyclopaedia will inevitably end up becoming a forum for national/historical/policitcal/otherise-unspecified ideological battles. Banning them will pose an unnecessary headache. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. These decorations serve primarily to create an even more welcoming atmosphere for nationalist cliques. This by far outweighs the benefit of easier identification of those cliques per Passionless (though I agree that such badges on userpages, sometimes combined with NPOV and similar userboxes, are a pretty good indication that something is wrong with that user as well as the one who decorated him.) The award templates should be redirected to show something like the box below:

		National Merit Award Notice
		Editor <Insert name here> has identified your edits to be of "national merit" and tried to award you a respective virtual medal. Those medals are typically designed like military decorations and are usually awarded by editors pursuing some nationalist agenda to editors they perceive to be "on the right side" in their virtual battles. Now there are two chances: If you find yourself glorifying duely presenting true facts about that nation's greatness and heros and messing up correcting articles whitewashing that nation's enemies and traitors, go away. Neither the majority of people you think of as your compatriots nor the majority of the wikipedia community will endorse your edits. If you have not yet come across an admin enforcing the respective arbitration or community restrictions against you, that has more to do with the admins than with you. If you reject the idea that your edits have any "national merit," you might chose to either ignore this notice or leave a respective message on Talk:<Insert name here>.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd have to oppose any ban on country-based barnstars. There are lots of country-specific articles that need attention, and the barnstars are a way to recognise good work. The majority of the world's countries don't attract nationalistic POV-warring, and those that do should not be allowed to spoil it for the rest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, and the Wikipedia:Barnstars 2.0/Barnstar of National Merit versions are much nicer than the old ones - I awarded one recently for good work improving Cambodia-related articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Pragmatic oppose. Long-term nationalist pov-pushers are a big problem (and seem to account for a significant percentage of disputes). Encouraging that is the last thing we need, and I tend to think of barnstars the way Napoleon would... but in this case a nationalist barnstar is a highly-visible badge of loyalty to a nationalist cause. If editors with strong nationalist sympathies chose to wear such badges, it could be helpful when you wade into some Eastern-European dispute and you know which angle each editor is coming from... bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"A nationalist barnstar is a highly-visible badge of loyalty to a nationalist cause" :precisely! The insidious harm from promoting/rewarding biased viewpoints far outweighs the benefit of "quickly identifying" biased editors. We should be able to do that without the "help" of barnstars. (In fact, barnstars are not always a reliable guide. Not all nationalist-barnstar wearers are biased!)-The Gnome (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment National barnstars provide an important way to recognize contributions to our regional and national WikiProjects. Perhaps it would be useful, however, to change the names of these barnstars from, for example the Albanian Barnstar of National Merit to the Albania Barnstar. That help standardize the barnstars across regional lines (currently we have the "United Nations Barnstar of National Merit", which makes very little sense) and gives the awards less of a nationalistic flavor. --Danger (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, a barnstar rewarding work on an article/a series of articles related to a specific country. For example, Barnstar for Continuous Diligence on Zophonia. And without national symbols. Check your loyalties at the door.-The Gnome (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is what barnstars are for. To reward work. There's no need to specify in the title of the star, since that is described in the message left by the giver. Without some sort of symbol, the barnstar is just a generic barnstar and there's no point in having it at all. Danger (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I see no reason not to include the national symbol, anyway - if, for example, someone works on improving (by Wikipedia standards, not nationalist standards) lots of biographies of members of the Knesset (the parlament of Israel), I see no reason why an award with an Israelli flag would be inappropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the big problem is as barnstars are all worthless, it's not like you can trade in 5 for rollback, or 50 for adminship. Also, it's not just national barnstars that are abused, I have seen editors give out a variety of barnstars to admins who take their side in a ruling. I think it is better that editors give each other nationalist barnstars as it marks the POV of the sender and receiver. If they gave each other normal barnstars for pushing nationalism those would blend in, and there would no longer be a warning that this marked editor might edit with a POV. Passionless -Talk 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem closed

An arbitration case regarding Monty Hall problem has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the sanctions that were enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Monty Hall problem (broadly interpreted)
• Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.
• Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year.
• Rick Block is restricted to 1RR on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Need admin intervention for a virtually baseless RfC

The discussion is here. I have provided sources, out of which at least one repeatedly calls them "pop-rock" (quote: "pure pop-rock entertainment"), and the other user keeps beating around the bush with sources that either mention "pop/rock", which he claims to be something entirely different, or do not mention it at all; he does not have a single source that specifically claims that they are not pop rock. He also uses self analysis of their lyrics to assert that they "despise" pop-rock. There is an obvious WP:COI here, and the RfC is much too long to begin with. Any admin involvement will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "obvious WP:COI" here. Are you saying the other editor is actually in Bon Jovi? Dayewalker (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying he is clearly a fan, a fact which obscures his supposed neutrality. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Being a fan doesn't really constitute a COI by Wikipedia's terms. If they're pushing a non-neutral point of view, or proposing original research that can be dealt with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

...which is exactly the case, please read the aforementioned thread. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

US EPA employees' union spam

The United States Environmental Protection Agency page has been spammed with the link to its union's website (nteu280.org) for over a year now. Originally it was a registered user who has been banned for sockpuppetry (User:Hereherer) and since then it has been added by several anon editors. The link meets WP:ELNO criteria #13 (indirectly related) and fails to meet standard notability criteria. (User Hereherer made a WP page for the union but it was deleted due to non-notability.) The long-standing consensus on the talk page is that it is not appropriate. The most recent IP address (112.140.185.250) to add said link is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Wikidrips and User:Freedom5000. These users and various associated IP addresses have made many disruptive and non-NPOV edits to the EPA page and related pages (see Water fluoridation controversy among others).

I'm posting here to request administrator input. If this link is allowable (my opinion and consensus opinion is that it's definitely not) I apologize for wasting your time. Otherwise, I'm requesting that something be done to protect pages such as the US EPA, water fluoridation, etc. Is there a way to keep this link from being added to any WP article, or do we just ban the anon IPs that keep adding it? I have found it spammed on several pages, never appropriate. Bdc101 (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be added to the spam filter. See: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear if there are "several" IPs (looking at edit history for the most recent "2", it seemed to be the same individual). One of the involved editors has claimed it's already blacklisted. TEDickey (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

nteu280.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Yep, it's already blacklisted. The spam blacklist doesn't work against this type of linking, so you will need to use the abuse filter. MER-C 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I put a notice at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#nteu280.org. Thanks for your input. I'm still learning how to go about this process.

MER-C, can you elaborate on why its presence on the blacklist does not keep it from being added again? - Bdc101 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The spam blacklist only works on live links. MER-C 01:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is the proper next step? Page protection? Bdc101 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the abuse filter, other options include PC (when enabled), long IP blocks, long term (semi)protection and rangeblocks. But let's try the options with the least collateral damage first. MER-C 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked?

Is Leraconteur blocked? I cannot find evidence. Please write the evidence here and at The user's talk page. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The account is not directly blocked. But it appears though that he/she is editing through a blocked open proxy (hardblocked) to get through the Great Firewall of China. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Giving them an IP block exemption would allow them to edit, but I'm not sure if we do that for very new users. Hut 8.5 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We could try for a month and if it works and he's good for wikipedia, we could keep it. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and gave the user an IP block exemption so he can edit. –MuZemike 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing speedy tag by the author

Resolved

 – Filing editor blocked indef for sockpuppetry and other abuses

User:Rmzadeh repeatedly removes speedy tag from an article which has been created by himself.--PSOILFHJFHFDF (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

SFD backlog

While there is a backlog at SfD, there is also a backlog in the holding cell. Could an admin please delete/process these empty cats/unused sorters?

• Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#To delete

And could an admin familiar with the French Republican Calendar merge these templates and pages? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology bannings

People may want to look over this. Briefly, there has been a big astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the Astrology article, detailed here, resulting in a whole bunch of single-purpose accounts arriving to edit-war, some of them new, some of them not. These are Aquirata (talk · contribs), Petersburg (talk · contribs), Costmary (talk · contribs), Erekint (talk · contribs), Apagogeron (talk · contribs), and Gary PH (talk · contribs) (this particular account participated in the last edit-war before this one, which I picked up on after seeing this ANI report).

I am banning all the accounts linked above from Astrology, its talkpage, and any pages that relate to Astrology, broadly construed, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

People may also want to keep an eye on Robertcurrey (talk · contribs), a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter which may also prove ultimately incompatible with continued editing of the article. Moreschi (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why Robertcurrey isn't included in that list? If you read the blog post (mentioned below), it makes comments to an "RC" who participates in the blog postings....just saying, since without proof it's him, it's just his behavior here we can use. He happens to be one of the pushiest of all of the ones you mention above, although Aquirata is the nastiest. So, why isn't RC included? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• All now notified and logged. Moreschi (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, could you please explain on what grounds you took this action against me? I am a long-standing neutral editor with a spotless record, interested in a wide range of subjects. Petersburg (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in a wide range of subjects then please do edit in those other areas. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. I think the concern is that for the last 3-4 years you have a couple of dozen sporadic edits, then in the last week you have equally many, all focussed on this astrology issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy, guideline or rule will indicate that an editor needs to be banned for taking an interest in one topic? Petersburg (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point. You claim to be a "long-standing neutral editor ...", but the reality is that you were almost totally inactive on the project until you showed up to join a cavalcade of SPAs many of whom were probably enticed to come here from those offsite blog posts. It makes sense that you would be treated as one of them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And you misunderstand my point. No, it doesn't make sense from a neutral perspective. No, it doesn't make sense in light of Wikipedia policies, rules and guidelines. No, it doesn't make sense given my history of posts and edits. Why is it you who is answering my posts, by the way? Petersburg (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Our consensus-based wiki process usually gets pretty good result, but it can of course be gamed. A large influx of editors who all have the same background could easily shift power in inappropriate directions, if we allowed this to happen. This is especially a problem with editors who have certain types of minority backgrounds. For more information on our general way of dealing with such situations see WP:MEAT. In addition, the whole pseudoscience area is contentious, and due to a number of past Arbcom rulings, additional rules ("discretionary sanctions") are in place for that area. You are not going to shift the article in the long run, anyway. The purpose of the bans is to get to the end result without the otherwise inevitable massive disruption. Hans Adler 11:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and explanation, Hans Adler, but you're not addressing my points and not answering my questions either. Moreschi, who took the thus far unexplained and ungrounded drastic action of a ban, has chosen to remain silent to this point. Petersburg (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of those named in this action, can I ask if there is any recourse for appeal or arbitration? Please take the trouble to read my posts to see that I have not pushed a POV - in fact that appears to be the real problem (to those who want to see the sceptical innacuracies go unattended). I am not interested in the pseudoscience issues and have constantly striven to move the discussion beyond that. The suggestion that I am part of an organised plan is offensive - I have no idea who most of those other users are and no one has influenced my posting behaviour in any way. I thought it demonstrated Petersburg's neutrality when s/he supported the call for arbitration, since it is crystal clear that s/he is not pushing an astrology agenda. It seems that anyone who does not obviously use the page as a debunking exercise to undermine the subject rather than explain it is now under censorship or suspicion. I know of Robertcurrey but have not been involved in any of his discussions - its amusing that he has to be watched too. Is it his knowledge of the topic of the page which gives cause for concern? This is shameful for Wikipedia - it appears that anyone who is knowledgeable on the topic and can see the innacuracies that need attention is going to be censored now, for fear that the consensus of opinion that has been reached through discussion is allowed to impact on the content of the page.

No doubt now you will get a stream of applause from those who didn't want to discuss it anyway - even though it was the administrator's recommendation to negotiate consensus, following my earlier request that the disruptive actions of a skeptical editor be monitored for intentional vandalism of approved content correction (see first editing break after "ironically not the stars"). There has been an agenda here to avoid discussion or neutrality, and to refuse the call for arbitration from those who would hopefully not be biased against appropriate content Costmary (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. Brilliant. The circus has been going on for long enough. Hans Adler 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Costmary - if you fail to get the consensus of uninvolved sysops here to overturn my decision, the final court of appeal, so to speak, is WP:RFAR. Moreschi (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hate to be the obnoxious bureaucrat here, but I do want to point out that a number of these editors had not even edited since I informed them of the pseudoscience arbitration. As such, I'm not sure how valid implementing any sanction is... NW (Talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See [22], which is where this is all coming from (linking to google cache because the original blogposts and replies have since been deleted). These people know the system, and the arbitration case, very well, and are quite carefully trying to game it in a suspiciously successful manner (I wonder what a checkuser would turn up, incidentally). Plus, the pseudoscience arbitration case is actually linked to, in big bold letters, in the header of Talk:Astrology. I don't think a pointless round of formal warnings will get us anywhere. Moreschi (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. NW (Talk) 18:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• The page history makes for interesting viewing as well...all the accounts revert in sequence, nobody breaks 3RR...hmmm. There might actually be closer coordination going on here than meets the eye, but I suppose we'll never know, beyond what the cache of the blog tells us. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for that information on the appeal process Moreschi. Since your ban immediately followed NW warning that he would ban me if I continued my comments - can either of you indicate where I have supposedly pushed a pro-astrology view? The intention behind my contribution has been to correct inaccuracy and misrepresentaive distortion by offering typically encyclopedic information supported by up-to-date, respected, academic secondary sources. I have argued that the page should be neutral and seek to define the subject appropriately *and also* include appropriate discussion on the valid criticisms - and I have personally offered references to support the use of the statement that astrology is regarded as a pseudoscience, even though I believe the exaggerated promotion of that point in the lede is bound to cause continued dissent. I have also asked others who object to the skeptical stance to compromise in order to help the move towards consensus develop. So at what point do you consider my efforts to have been part of an "astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the Astrology article"? What suggestion have I made that has not been a sensible one, clearly motivated by ther desire to improve the quality of the article?Costmary (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly, I think people can judge this for themselves. As a minor gripe - apart from the obvious - "Eastern nations"? Really? All of them? Are you sure you don't mean Hindu astrology? Because Medieval Islamic astrology tells quite a different story. That particular edit was - at least in part - low quality, anti-consensual, and disruptive. It also quite heavily pushed a particular point of view, removing as it did all explicit mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede, leaving some token weaselling behind Moreschi (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have stomped into action without checking the history of the discussion, or being involved in it. The example edit you gave (“I think people can judge this for themselves”) was the result of a long consultation process which had definitely gained general consensus that it offered improved text – much of this discussion has now been hidden from view by WLU’s personal decision to categorise all that discussion as “a waste of time”. Even now, remaining editors are calling for most of those suggestions to be retained (though not without some alterations which destroy the accuracy of the quotations). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Can_we_save_some_of_the_pro-astrology_contributions.3F

As for your “minor gripe” (which could have been accommodated in the discussion if you had involved yourself in it before banning most of the active participants) - that was not my suggestion but was subjected to lengthy debate. For my view see my opening remark under the now hidden “Proposed Introduction: Collaborative v.4” where I express the opinion that it should be included “because this makes an important point about astrology’s global standing too. But again, this should be done without making too much out of it, or trying to present that as a dominant viewpoint either; or leaving the impression that this answers or removes the need for scientific criticism.” (04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I repeatedly asked for constructive criticism and proposed alternatives, and the only editor to rubbish the whole proposal (and all the previous discussion) was WLU (who then hid all the previous discussion). I don’t see how it is low quality being a matter of globally reported fact – scientific journals have included coverage of this in neutral terms, and if anyone had queried the quality of the text or references I could have cited these and would have followed consensus. However, there was no constructive criticism of that point proposed.

As for the supposed removal of “mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede” – check my (now hidden) post today of 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Proposal where I explained the non-controversial element of the edit that I then made, whilst stating:

At this point we have a choice between adding an extra comment which says something like “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences.[1] Or we can link this through to the existing comment which currently states “Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific".[7]

How is “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences (citation)” “token weaselling”? The page does not need two separate discussions of the pseudoscience issue within the lede, and the discussion was dealing with this when you censored it.

Unfortunately the page on Medieval Islamic astrology contains many significant flaws. The suggestion that “Muslim astrologers defined a new form of astrology called electional astrology” makes the page look ridiculous – electional astrology is demonstrably an important branch of practice in the ancient Babylonian and Hellenistic period (cross ref with the history sources on the ‘electional astrology' page). It is equally ridiculous to suggest that “The Muslims also developed a system called Arabic parts by which the difference between the ascendant and each planet of the zodiac was calculated. This new position then became a 'part' of some kind”. It is firmly established that the so-called ‘Arabic Parts’ are a misnomer, being an important, integral part of Hellenistic astrology practice. The example of how the part is interpreted is also incorrect and does not reflect historical practice. Alos, most of those listed as “refuting” astrology were actually famous astrological practitioners who published renown instructional textbooks on the subject, and there is a confusing mess of information at the end where the view of modern Muslim scholars are not differentiated clearly from those of historical philosophers.

The whole of the astrology section is in need of improvement and better quality up-to-date references, but how is that going to happen when anyone with real understanding of the subject is banned for suspicion of having an agenda to push a pro-astrology POV? Costmary (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia's coverage of astrology is just gonna suck for a while. Ah, well. Good bans, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur, good decision. I have zero faith that accounts recruited and coordinated off-site via a pro-astrology blog are here because they wish to see neutral, unbiased content on Wikipedia. The protestations of those accounts that have responded above are unconvincing. EyeSerene^talk 09:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was concerned, earlier, that we had a long string of reverts but none of the astrology SPAs ever went over 3RR; but that in itself isn't very good evidence of offsite coordination over and above the blog. Assuming good faith, it could just be that editors all respected 3RR, even whilst leaning on some other policies. bobrayner (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• @ various - people, the court of appeal is thataway. My reasons are perfectly clear; meatpuppetry, edit-warring and POV-pushing are not permitted. If you don't like it, take it up with the arbitrators, since the only uninvolved editors to comment here have raised no concerns. Over and out. Moreschi (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, Could you please give me a single specific reason why you banned me from the Astrology page? As a so-called "uninvolved" administrator, you could have no direct knowledge of the background unless you had taken the time to pour through pages and pages of Talk and Edit history. Since it seems to me that you are having trouble finding the time to answer my simple question, I somehow doubt that you would have done that. The above generalization clearly doesn't apply to me, and I believe you will have to demonstrate the basis for your unwarranted action. This is not something that can be taken lightly. Groundless banning is abuse of administrative power, which is an issue you will have to deal with eventually. Petersburg (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, I believe you will see that I am a fairly patient editor. I have asked you repeatedly for a specific reason for your action against me here on the noticeboard and on your talk page. This you didn't give before or even after the ban. I have highlighted the fact that keeping silent following an unwarranted and drastic action such as this one does not appear to be in line with your administrative privileges. Your behaviour belies any explanation. Why was I so important to you one day that you actually took the time for disciplinary action, and then for several days following you are not even responding to my queries? Do you realize that replying to someone you "hit" without reason is not only courteous but also characteristic of a good administrator? Do you even care about your image on Wikipedia? Well, I think you should because your interactions with other editors will be tainted by bad impressions. As an administrator, you should also be aware that you are a role model for other editors, especially those aspiring to be administrators. While I am not one who is quick to judge, you certainly doesn't seem to be setting a good example here. All I am asking for is a simple explanation of your action. If the ban cannot be explained (and suspicion is developing to that effect) then it should be reverted. Petersburg (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bobbrayner - what is 3RR please? Moreschi, can you clarify the reason for my banning? I think I should be aware of this when instigating an appeal. I have stated that I am not a part of an organised plan to revise the pseudoscience issue - and anyone can see that I have not been significantly involved in those discussions, on the main page or the talk pages. Earlier you implied that you considered my last edit to be "low quality" and suggested that it "pushed a particular point of view, removing as it did all explicit mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede, leaving some token weaselling behind". I have shown that is not the case and that the discussion page proves that - is this the basis of your ban? It looks like you have decided to ban everyone who showed an agreement to the principle of making changes to the page, and I was banned for being vocal in the call to amend the poor-quality lead. It is ironic that you have now involved yourself in the discussion and have essentially shown agreement to most of the points that I spent so much time and energy demonstrating were in need of revision. Please be specific about your reason for banning me - because there are many more factual inaccuracies in the astrology section that my knowledge of the subject would allow me to highlight, and it seems a very bizarre situation that my knowledge of the subject is not welcomed in the editing process, but apparently seen as a reason to censor me. That is how I understand this now, so if there is another reason, please correct me Costmary (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• I know perfectly well that you will not find whatever further evidence I might care to give here as satisfactory. We can either have this discussion at arbitration, or not at all. You will either appeal the bannings or you won't. In the meantime, I might point out that the people who reverted you did not do so out of malice, or out of any desire to keep the unsatisfactory lede as it was (as we can now see on the talk), but simply because your changes made it worse. Moreschi (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t feel obliged to offer your evidence here (we both know that there isn’t any evidence that you can demonstrate here) but just give me the courtesy of knowing why I am banned, so that I can know what I am specifically accused of and what argument I need to defend myself against. Is it because you believe I had an hidden agenda to disrupt the page (as you seem to imply above)? Is it because you thought my edits were ‘low quality’ (as you seem to implly later on)? Is it because you failed to realise (having not read the relevant discussion point) that the edit I made on the day you banned me was only to introduce the non-controversial points of the new ledge, which had found general consensus, with the expectation that all editors could then contribute towards the best wording of the more controversial ‘pseudoscience’ reference? Or was it something else?

I am only asking for a simple but clear explanation of your reason for banning me. There are so many wikipedia policies – isn’t there a policy requirement for an administrator to explain clearly to an editor the reason why a ban has been instigated? All I have on my talk page is a message by you saying “Please see (this link) [1]. Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)". Thanks. Costmary (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation was given above by him: "My reasons are perfectly clear; meatpuppetry, edit-warring and POV-pushing are not permitted." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is hardly clear when a whole bunch of editors have been simultaneoulsy banned for a collection of reasons. Thank you, but I would like to have clarity from the administrator who took the action against me, because unfortunately you can only speculate as I can. Moreschi, are you accusing me of one of those things or all of them? Or have you banned me for another reason (such as judging my edits to be low quality)?. Please be clear and not vague, so that I can understand the reason for the ban.

Also Moreschi, wouldn't you say you have a conflict of interest in your role as administrator here, since you started contributing to the astrology discussion page immediately after banning a substantial number of contributing editors to that page, who didn't appear to share your point of view ? Costmary (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, As you all know, I have a blog that offers views on astrological theory and perspectives. As you also know, I have removed the offending pages (pages that some people find offending or conspiratorial). I am not an astrologer but I find the subject fascinating, partly because of the irrational criticism against it. To me, that is what makes it so fascinating. It certainly stirs a lot of feelings and I would like to know the causes of that better.

As a longtime amateur student of astrology, I am concerned that many of the misrepresentations of astrology and the vehemence against it that one can find online and in the media are traceable to the Wikipedia article on astrology. Often pieces from the article are copied verbatim. Astrologers are not well represented among WP editor demographics and this has resulted in a systemic bias against it. Astrology courses are not taught in Western universities and professors do not normally have any contact with serious astrologers. The biased POV in Wikipedia is attributable to the many science leaders who also fall into this category. In order to avoid an unpleasant sense of cognitive dissonance when asked about astrology, they tend to make anti-astrology declarations based solely on the weight of their own personal authority. This is a rational fallacy. I believe this habit does more damage than good and I believe Carl Sagan also said much the same thing.

The few scientists who have actually taken the trouble to understand astrology and have taken the time to examine the methods that have been used to experimentally test astrology have a very different story to tell and this very interesting and revealing story is not getting across. What Wikipedia needs is a way to counter this systemic bias. I'll quote from the last bullet of the WikiProject Systemic Bias page:

Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at high school or university, contact a professor in minority, women's, or critical studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia. Contact minority or immigrant organizations in your area to see if they would be interested in encouraging their members to contribute.

Well, my friends and acquaintances are online. I apologize, but I am a relative newcomer and I didn't know that WP does not allow an editor's activities to appear in a personal blog. Through my efforts, I managed to encourage one friend who is interested in astrology, like me not an astrologer, though reluctant, to help represent astrology and help "change the demographics of Wikipedia." That is how I myself became involved, through someone else. I guess to some types that sounds conspiratorial? The question is, how do you deal with systemic bias as an individual, or even as a small group that wants to change things for the better based on their expert knowledge of a subject?

I think that meatpuppet is offensive and inflammatory and I wish that all editors would please refrain from its use. If you read the edits to the Astrology page, you can see that I did not participate in any edit warring. To edit war, I believe you need to edit or revert the article itself. I confined all of my thoughts the the Talk page only, where I felt my input was needed, though I admit I wasn't too hopeful, as you can read in my blog. I am truly sorry for the intense focus on psuedoscience and the edit war. I could see the war coming but could not stop it. I was willing to compromise with the rewording suggested by other editors, especially when I could see that the editors involved were going outside their normal comfort boundaries to bring things together. Just when things approached a compromise, something snapped and a lot of anti-astrology editors descended.

I really wanted to edit other parts of the article and related articles. But pseudoscience is a very loaded word, many people become offended either by its use or non-use. From reading other Talk pages I see that there has been some discussion on using Paul Thagard's criteria for pseudoscience, but his criteria are no better than any of the others, by Popper, Kuhn, etc. Any astrologer who attends conferences would have no problem thinking of many exceptions. Thagard's criteria could even be humorous in a lofty ivory tower sort of way, except that the pseudoscience POV pushers want something to pin on astrologers and are deadly serious. It's not funny at all. Astrologers tend to be very liberal, open minded, inquisitive, sensitive, and inventive and this clashes with certain Wikipedians, who it seems have completely opposite qualities. There are just different sorts of geeks in the world and some of them don't like each other.

There is a well known problem of demarcation with regard to pseudoscience and the only thing the more recent philosophers of science seem to be in agreement on is that it is a pejorative word. This article will always have a major problem as long as this word stays and is rigidly and forcefully applied. People with an interest in astrology will not want to contribute to such a biased article, or if they do, even with the best of intentions, well, you saw what just happened. It will continue to happen.

The Astrology article could be a very rich source of information on history, culture, relationships, politics, war, economics, and describe the multitudes of studies, discourses, and techniques that astrologers share and use. As it is, the article is a cesspool of inaccuracy and ignorance with a hateful quality. It is very offensive and intended to be so. Apagogeron (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the mass bannings - an answer to Moreschi

Moreschi I would not suggest that you have been seriously involved in the post-banning discussions, but you have shown an involvement, and that shouldn’t have been the case, since you’ve now lost the right to present yourself as an uninvolved administrator.

But finally – thank you – you have specified your cause of complaint against me. Although actually, by saying that this collective offering is only about a 10th of what you could write, you are not being specific at all, but vague again, pulling together a collection of individually-groundless criticisms to propose an argument that we are all ‘in’ on some kind of mass conspiracy that has led to a concerted campaign to edit-war.

Well you are wrong, but I have found that people tend to see what they choose to see here, so I guess your version will remain the official one. I’ll state my case for the record, as I have no doubt that an appeal to arbitration will be comparative in its judicial discrimination to your standards.

I openly admit to asking Wendy Stacey to comment in her official capacity as Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, since those "reams of text" that you say "don’t lead anywhere" in the talkpage, were not designed to lead nowhere, and it’s actually shameful that they did. This was the result of some editors preferring to censor discussion rather than engage in it. I had offered clear arguments against a ridiculous point that needed to be removed from the lede, which maintained that astrologers "‘read’ the stars but don’t actually make use of them" or some such. The point is so ridiculous that there is no defense for it except the contorted, out-of-context inversion of the references I supplied after being requested to do so by an editor whose obstruction has definitely negatively affected the quality of the page content. Even in his admission that he lacked the necessary knowledge, this author demanded to define astrological practice in a way that would not be recognised by any astrologer. Not knowing that anyone could consider it to be a breach of policy I asked Wendy Stacey to comment, to bring that point to an end after the numerous references I offered were all ignored. The matter should have ended at that, since the debate concerned contemporary practice and she spoke as a representative of a professional body of astrologers - but it didn’t!

What I now realise is that it wasn’t for me to provide references to disprove the obstroculous editor’s ridiculous and unsubstantiated point – it should not have existed in the first place since it wasn’t reliable knowledge attributed to a credible source. There should have been no ‘edit war’ there, and if there was, then take to task the editor who insisted on making that discussion as long and as drawn out as it was, simply to make sure that his factually incorrect point of ‘irony’ got expression.

You have indicated 6 instances of suspected policy breach on my part – this point probably underlies most of them. You are wrong. Look at that page with your eyes open to what was really going on there: bigotry, bias, clinging to corrupt content in order to push a non-neutral POV. Being a new user I asked for administrator assistance at that point, and was told to “thrash it out through discussion”. That is what I tried to do and this is what generated what you now describe as a ‘time wasting’ discussion. In the process I asked for mediation – the obstroculous editor refused. I asked for 3rd party assistance – someone came in and said that he couldn’t get involved because more than two editors had contributed (but only one was being obstinate). Upon recommendation I raised an alert to ask for more editorial contribution from other Wikipedia editors – that’s why we got an influx of interested parties with widely differing POVs, and that’s why the astrology page (which anyone can see is full of flaws and badly put-together text, being the summary of territorial in-fighting of past editors) became so controversial again and full of new activity.

Your assumption of bad faith on the part of everyone who expressed a certain POV is like a witch-hunt based on unfounded allegations and negative speculations. Here we go with eagle-eye. I have no idea who eagle-eye is, but already smell the unpleasant aroma of someone being about to be censored for daring to express an opinion on the discussion page (!). Why don’t you include a notice “new discussion that we haven’t already had and agreed upon ourselves is not welcome here”? Why don’t you do a little tinkering with the wording of the 2nd principle of the Wikipedia ‘5 pillars’ policy so that it actually reads as it is being interpreted on the Astrology discussion page:

“We strive for articles that advocate a single point of view. Sometimes we need to pretend that we are representing multiple points of view, but by presenting other points of view inaccurately and out of context, we can then present our pseudoskeptic point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

You have failed to make allowance for how I have shifted in my position to try to gain consensus, beyond what I personally believe. You have pointed to edits I made on the first day I joined as an editor, when I didn’t know the policies and made mistakes I later recognised and apologised for. You pointed to mined examples of edit changes that are disconnected to the discussion where my reasoning was justified. You have proposed that I have a non-neutral POV, when I do not. Your only assumption for this reduces everything I have contributed (as everything ultimately is reduced on that page) to an issue over the pseudo-science reference in the lede, and my argument that this was relevant but not such a dominant factor that it needed such stark notice and contrived highlight, so that it was mentioned twice in the lede, whilst the historical, cultural and philosophical significance of astrology, and the proper definition of what it is essentially is, was being wilfully ignored (except in dismissive terms that underlined the obstroculous editor’s need to express an imagined irony).

In short Moreschi, you have contributed to the reason why Wikipedia struggles to be taken seriously as a credible (or 'academically-approved') reference of information, which I hope one day will be corrected.

I am going to leave a few suggestions for administrators below, in the full knowledge that they are likely to be met with the familiar chorus of guffaws and one-line insults that come from those who have learned how to quote policy procedures in such a way that the policy-intention can be evaded. Sorry if my comments lack the undertone of politeness and good faith requested, but I am frustrated, angry, and sad, that all my genuine and well intentioned efforts have been reduced to this. Costmary (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What a joke!

You self-appointed, misguided, pseudo-skeptic, pseudo-scientific "editors" and "administrators", so called, ganging up on and bullying subject matter experts whose only desire is to improve the quality of the article! It was interesting to see how the game developed when you realized you were losing a battle you had been fighting for years. You will of course deny that the sudden appearance of twice the number of debunkers such as yourselves involved on the page prior to your call for help was orchestrated. You will also deny that you have an agenda, which is to keep pushing a particular point of view that you call "scientific". Well, you probably don't even know what the word "science" means, let alone understand the intricate issues on subjects you are "editing". For that matter, you have no idea what a true skeptic is because that is what you are calling yourselves so proudly while it is obvious for all involved that your closed mind testifies to the contrary. You notify users of the three-revert rule and then innocently ponder about these users suspiciously adhering to it. You have the balls to quote the five pillars when it is yourselves who should be locked up for treason. You are questioning the edit practices of reasonable users while yourselves are reverting any change on the article within a minute and dumbing down the page without using talk. You keep rehashing old arguments mindlessly and then hide discussions that are leading toward consensus for reasons of "irrelevance". When users start talking about going to arbitration, you suddenly ban them. When consensus starts developing on adopting a sentence from a policy word for word, you start a temper tantrum and throw in all the misinterpretations you can come up with. How wonderful is your sandbox where your mommies will support your bullying behaviour to keep you in control and to ensure that you end up with all the toys! All I can say, farewell kids, enjoy your populous solitude and the hellhole you built for yourselves. Send me a note when you find the light at the end of the tunnel. Aquirata (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No joke at all

As a non-admin, ordinary editor, I fully support Moreschi and colleagues for intervening. Do you ban protesters here all really think that rational observers couldn't see your strategies for hijacking the astrology article and tying up all rational debate in tautological, syllogistic, never-ending re-statements of nonsense? What do you think you achieve by spreading your irrational bile here?

Right now your acolyte(s) is/are demanding that no changes are made to the article until you are all unbanned. Why would that be? Why not just engage in reasoned discussion about changes that meet the pre-requisites of the project and increase the quality of the article? Why not reach sensible resolutions to all the contentious issues? Could it be that the previous tag-team obstruction suddenly no longer has the critical mass necessary to sidetrack, obfuscate or derail the Wikipedia purpose?

Criticize away at the admins all you like. To me it looks like any detached assessment would vindicate their reasons and actions.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Peter, read Apagoreron’s statement above. There was no collusion here. Honestly I have no idea who most of the other’s I am associated with are, or anything about their backgrounds or identities. The only discussion I have had with them has been in public, on the Talk page. It is the controversy that has brought editors to the page, and an administrator's recommendation that I publish a request for editorial input to break the impasse (on points like Kwami’s silly star denial; which I am pleased to see you objecting to too). I am really pleased to see that new editors such as yourself are still entering the page to pick up and attend to this mess, but people have to stop suspecting every new contributor of having a subversive agenda. Anyone that is banned should have a clear understanding of the reason for the ban; there should also be warnings; and administrators who ban a significant number of contributors, should not then try to steer the discussion down their preferred path (COI). Aquirata's post is inflammatory and I whinced at it myself; but that shouldn't detract from the fact that this banning action needs to be critically assessed.
• Aside from that, before I remove myself from this whole discussion, I do want to say that I have seen your recent discussions and pretty much agree with every point you have made. I hope you keep a strong involvement in that page because it needs your input. I certainly don’t want the page to remain closed, I want to see the recommendations you are making implemented, and I think it is great that you have the experience and strength of mind needed to help that very difficult page find improvement and consensus. I do believe that the restrictions on the others should be immediately ended, but I don’t want to return to that page myself – certainly not in the short term whilst I feel such a sense of outrage at what has been done here. But please hang in there yourself, whilst you can, and keep pushing for those improvements.Costmary (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I think there's a bit of plain old socking going on here. Some of these redlink accounts have very similar ways of speaking... just an observation. Perhaps a checkuser is in order? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly. EagleEye (talk · contribs) would appear to be another member of the circus who is cutting it very close to the wire. Moreschi (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean by assumption and bias Moreschi. I am not a sock puppet. As an admin, you banned six (6) people at the same time, then you insinuate that I am a "member of the circus" who is "cutting it very close to the wire." Meaning what? What "circus" are you talking about? I am a newcomer, a Wikipedia editor, and by your own comments you are not showing 'good faith' to newcomers, nor to the editors of this Wikipedia community. I have read all your comments and assessed your actions on the Astrology Page. In my opinion, you are not performing the duties of a neutral Wikipedia admin, but are playing personality games - especially on that encyclopedic Page. There is simply was no reason for you to ban six (6) people at the same time from being able to edit the Astrology Page or take part in discussions on the Talk Page. It shows a lack of good faith, ideology and bias which no admin should ever have. You have also started a controversy outside of the Wikipedia community on this issue which brings more bad press to Wikipedia. Is that what you want? I don't. I want Wikipedia to always be seen in the best light possible and you are threatening that at this very moment. The actions against Costmary and the other five editors was wholly out of line and you need to correct this rather than making things worse. Debate and discussion is always the best way for things to work out. You have made things worse by causing dissension, using hostile words, banning, start needless arbitration and then making insinuations that led to this mess in the first place. How does all that improve the page or to make newcomers feel welcome? Eagle Eye 01:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

Why keep making these sinister insinuados? Just do a checkuser or whatever it is you suggest is 'possibly' necessary. Amazing to me that you hesitate to check a few facts, whilst not hesitating for a moment to chuck out half the contributors to a page discussionCostmary (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Discussion now continuing at my talkpage...Moreschi (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A call to fair-minded administrators – don’t be blind to what is going on around the astrology page and similar pages

If anyone wants to know the reason why I joined Wikipedia when I did, and the reason why I absolutely refute the accusation that I have colluded or pushed a non-neutral POV, please see the responses I have made to correspondence and criticism left on my talk page. I’m leaving Wikipedia today in the expectation that the arbitration process will be non-neutral to me. Here, for what they are worth, are the constructive criticisms that result from my experience:

I was unfortunate to join up through attempting to edit the content of a particularly bad page (possibly one of the worst), not realising that the discussion history of that page was loaded with internal politics and hostile assumption of bad faith.

Please ask yourself, how is it possible that the astrology pages are as bad as they are, and as full as they are of incorrect, misleading information? Consider the very long history of incredibly intense attention that the main astrology page has had. To have that much attention, and yet remain as bad as that … well, there would have to be an active will amongst those who ‘hold control’ to make sure that the content is not accurate, not written with a sense of neutral detachment, and not supported by good quality citations.

I have seen some very disingenious attempts to maintain this, and to ensure that anyone who does not declare their ‘neutrality’ by expressing disgust and ridicule of the topic is subject to vilification of their motives, both overtly and covertly. Note for example, the subtle underlining of my supposed non-neutral POV, by the editor who created a section on the discussion page called “Can we save some of the pro-astrology contributions?” This editor attributes most of those suggestions to me, although I think less than half of them were mine. Not being allowed access to the discussion page I cannot personally remove the negative assumption of bias, by clarifying that none of these were ‘pro-astrology’ suggestions – if they were then they would lack Wikipedia’s necessary neutrality, so why would he or anyone else then recommend they be retained? If any administrator would, I would be pleased to have the bias in that statement corrected.

The collective bannings were unfair and representative of the real problem – most of the long standing contributing editors to that page don’t actually have much interest or understanding of astrology and don’t actually want to enter into discussion on anything beyond the pseudoscience issue.

Please take notice of how the pseudoscience discussion continues to rage on and on, and compare this to the fact that barely anyone has actively contributed to the discussion of a page edit as dramatic as the one that Peterstrempel is currently proposing?

This is a revision of massive significance to the page, and yet the only attention it has received so far has been from one other editor (who has been ‘marked’ by a need to be “watched”, since his admitted knowledge of and interest in the subject has generated a COI concern). If all of those who have been banned for showing a real interest in the subject were still participating, then there would certainly be more participation and polishing of the content. So note how most of the remaing editors who claim to care so much about the page, are practically indifferent to every non-pseudoscience related proposal, even if it means that most of the page content is stripped away to nothing (I don't think this is a bad idea, because I think Peter's intention is correctly attached to his correct understanding of Wikipedia policies, but I would certainly have had things to say about such dramatic edits, and suggestions and citations to offer on various points if I had not been prevented from doing so). Apart from Peter and RobertCurrey, there is just a short, non-committal remark from one editor, which is not placed on the actual workpage; and based on my experience with this editor, I have concern about this particular comment for the following reason.

I tried to encourage discussion on new content suggestions, and asked others to propose alternatives or solutions that might find consensus (as I was told to do); those comments got no serious attention either (except from the users who were then banned for supposedly pushing a POV by engaging in such discussions). The only attention came from most editors when I tried to ‘be bold’ and publish comments that the (now disputed) consensus agreed to. I therefore have concerns that the published non-commital remark “Yes, there is some good info there, but …” will later be used as an indication that the proposed edits never got consensus, because only the proposer and an editor with a suspected COI even bothered to discuss it. This is what happened to me – I invested a lot of time and energy into making a properly supported case for text edits, which were later hidden or used to make accusations of ‘time-wasting’, along with suggestions that I sought to push a POV too strongly.

Surely discussion pages and work pages are designed to explore collective knowledge, competing theories and alternative points of view, so that the ultimately published page content can be reliable and address all valid points? Some points are necessarily rejected in the process, but if there is no engagement in the solution-finding process then a consensus can’t be reached, and then there is no weight of authority behind the proposed changes, and the shabby content stays the same as it is, some editors (I suspect) preferring to have the page locked down with controversy to maintain the unsatisfactory content, rather than being required to put in the necessary negotiation, discussion and citation work that would allow the page to become improved.

Please don’t be blind to what is happening there. It should take a lot before an editor is banned from participating in discussion, and editors should be allowed to express their points of view freely, without accusation that by stating it they are pushing it, as if everyone else needs protection from being hypnotized into submission. Since there are ruthless cuts being made all over the astrology page right now, make sure that you also look at the history of past contributors who have contributed negatively by pursuing a pseudo-skeptic agenda which has skewered the focus of the page. If one administrator can ban a whole bunch of editors who have some shared-opinions, then please don’t be innattentive in your scrutiny of the long established editors, who must surely hold some responsibility for the shabby state the page is in.

Please consider locking down the perpetually on-going pseudo-science discussions, as irrelevant and disruptive, and force the contributors to give any attention that they want to give to the actual content of what the page is to say, rather than the endless policy disputes about the way to go about giving attention to the content of the page. It’s all so ridiculous that I am now glad to be out of this – but someone should step in and place at least temporary suspensions on those who have been involved in previous participation, except for a small number of editors whose neutrality is obvious. Most of them, like me, have had their chance and failed. So give the page a chance of a fresh start by supporting the fresh initiatives that Peter Stremple is recommending, and keep your eye on it for a while - making sure that proper neutrality is observed there. Thanks.Costmary (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on video game articles

There has been a recent and coordinated vandalism attacks on several video game related articles from various IPs, recent examples being Dead Space (video game) and Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game). Anyone know anything about this? 4chan attack? Rehevkor ✉ 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There appeared to be a 4chan attacks a couple of weeks ago on the same topic. Do you mind posting the affected articles? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's /v/. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more examples, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Mass Effect 2, Half-Life 2, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, Half-Life (video game). Most appear to be protected currently. Rehevkor ✉ 16:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Made a couple of protections. The ones that haven't been edited today I'm watchlisting. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Elockid. Rehevkor ✉ 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there/has there been a significant discussion about the 4chan /v/ board attacks that anyone knows about? They seem to be pretty frequent. The Interior (Talk) 01:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if there has been, a) The pages reset at a massive degree and b) Wikipedia attack invitations get deleted soon after they're posted. Generally, if particular pages receive an influx of random IP or "new" account vandalism for no apparent reason, it's usually 4chan, especially if they all use the same vandalism pattern. HalfShadow 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete my CSS Files

Hello Admins, can you delete the CSS-Files User:Labant/chick.css, User:Labant/monobook.css, User:Labant/modern.css, User:Labant/cologneblue.css, User:Labant/myskin.css, User:Labant/nostalgia.css, User:Labant/simple.css, User:Labant/standard.css? I need this files no longer. Thanks --Labant (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 08:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan uprising/civil war/conflict page again

Hey folks, could an uninvolved administrator please close the RM at Talk:2011 Libyan uprising#Requested move? It's been open for 10 days now, and the "natives" are starting to get restless. I closed the last one as "no consensus", and I've expressed a preference for "Libyan conflict", so I'm reticent to do anything more. If I were to close it again I'd probably say "no consensus" again though, mostly due to the confusion about which name to change it to. Note however that with events continuing as they are, I don't foresee any decision now as being permanent, regardless.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Wikindia24x7

Resolved

 – Wikindia24x7 (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia under any identity. Will inform user and log ban at Wikipedia:List of banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikindia24x7 (talk · contribs) is a long-time problem user who has engaged in sockpuppeting, copyright violations, and systematic hoaxes. He has had several blocks but strangely was allowed back every time until now. After more of his hoax activity came to light recently through the detective work of Bobrayner (talk · contribs), I have increased his current three-month block (imposed by SpacemanSpiff in February) to an indef one, and I now propose to make this a formal community ban.

Wikindia24x7 has been active under this account since July 2009, and under several other accounts earlier. Among the problem activities we know of so far are:

• several confirmed sock accounts active since June 2008 (Anas999 (talk · contribs)) and May 2009 (VikasJain (talk · contribs)) and for block evasion during Wikindia's first long block in January 2010, discovered and blocked in February 2010.
• A further sock, Rizwan123 (talk · contribs), created recently to evade the current three-month block
• Extended hoax activity promoting the town of Khurai and the city of Indore, India, with fake attractions, for instance:
  • File:Khurai Mahakali Temple.jpg: using a copyvio photograph [23] of a temple in Delhi, photoshopping it to change the colours of the towers, and then claiming it was a temple in Khurai.
  • File:City Centre Indore .jpg, a copyvio photograph of a building in Bangalore, claimed to be a building in Indore
  • File:Khurai Civil Court.jpg, a copyvio photograph of a building in Lahore, claimed to be a building in Khurai
• Creation of multiple articles on non-notable train connections and railroads in India, some of them probably also hoaxes (promoting normal train connections as if they were special named intercity services)
  • using crudely photoshopped images of train signage to fit his hoax train connections (several items currently listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 20)
• Creation of hoax articles on non-notable private airfields, presented as if they were actual airports, with fake ICAO codes (currently discussed at User talk:Bobrayner)
• Multiple other copyvio images (e.g. File:City Bus Indore.jpg from [24])

All these activities were conducted persistently over several years, with several accounts, and despite multiple blocks and warnings.

Let's close the lid on this one and throw away the key. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Hoaxes and copyvios? Not to mention the crappy Photoshop work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ouch. Yeah, a ban is definitely warranted given the evidence presented here. With how long these problems have persisted, there's little to no hope for reform. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still investigating (there's a long checklist) but further problems include:

• Duplicate articles on train services (typically there would be an article on the "A-B Express", and a separate article with copypasted text called the "B-A Express").
• Large number of unsourced / minimally sourced articles of very variable notability, often with hastily copypasted content (the fastest way for me to find them is by searching for an odd sentence with a typo which is repeated in most of them).
• After being warned about creating many unreferenced articles, it seems they started creating articles with any old URL, presumably hoping that it would pass a cursory inspection (which obviously worked for a while). A Youtube channel, or www.indore.com, is little use for verifying the details of a train service. A minority of articles had good sourcing.
• Apart from the copyvio images mentioned above, at least one instance of combined copyvio & deliberate deception in article text; note how this resembles this, except with the numbers changed...
• Looking at article histories, I think there might be one or two socks more out there, in addition to the ones found by Fut.Perf.

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, I created Category:Train services in India; it now contains about half the affected articles.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The only reason I didn't impose an indefinite block earlier is because it was easier for me to clean up when the accounts were known. The particular user's contribs have been flagged at WT:INB more than a couple of times but unfortunately it hasn't attracted any attention. Now that there're probably more eyes looking at this set, it might be a good idea to ban and get rid of these contributions forever. —SpacemanSpiff 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support When you have so many images of fake places put for deletion and have failed to defend yourself on numerous violations, that's when you know you're no longer of any use to the project. If the editor in question is from Indore, that's also another case of COI IMHO. Get him out of here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread got archived without a former closure. Can somebody please do the honours and call a consensus on this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close an AN/I thread?

Could an uninvolved admin pop over to AN/I and take a look at this thread? I was a participant, so I'm not unbiased, but I think action should be taken or the thread closed, one way or the other. It seems to have been left hanging. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Caste Articles

I happened upon an article about a Sri Lankan caste called Govigama. Long, well written article, but very few citations. I tagged it, left a message on article talk, and was about to move on when I decided to check the similar articles at Category:Sinhalese castes. It has 24 articles, all of them pretty well written, but containing almost no citations. They all look like blatant original research.

I started tagging them, and realized they aren't the regular articles where different anons add unreferenced content. It's like someone wrote all of these with a very specific agenda. I'm not too familiar with the topic, but the Govigama article for example looks clearly biased. The main Caste system (Sri Lanka) article has had a multitude of tags since last year, so the subject is clearly disputed.

Should I just tag the rest of them and leave them? I don't really want to, because it looks like all of those articles are merely one persons take on a subject, that is at the very least pretty ambiguous.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, you should fix them (rewrite or just remove the unsourced stuff). But I'm wondering if, the parentheticals like "(EZ V.293, EZ I.246, 53 fn 7 etc.)" or "(Codrington.27)" are references? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"EZ" evidently refers to "Epigraphia Zeylanica (EZ) Colombo Museum, Sri Lanka", listed under "References". There's an entry called Codrington there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, this may sound radical, but you could try engaging with the editor who added the info. That person may be able to point you to the source, and proper citations can then be added. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to go through all those articles and try and fix them.

"Codrington" refers to this book, which is perfectly fine to use as a source. I'm not saying the articles are 100% wrong. Just that it's likely they have a certain bias, which would obviously be bad. And up to the original editor to cite?

I left a note on the talk of the editor who seems to have written all of these in 2006, User_talk:Wikramadithya. He hasn't been active since 5/09 so I don't know if he's still around. His name was familiar so I took a look at his talk/contribs. I've prod'ed some of his articles in the past and listed one at AFD. I don't know why I didn't catch these back then.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetical citations scattered throughout these articles are legitimate WP:Inline citations, absolutely equal to any <ref> tag, despite being presented in plain black text and regular size type. Since the articles began with PAREN, the couple of WP:Footnotes should probably be converted to the original style, per WP:CITEVAR.

"A certain bias" is not really the same thing as "original research". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wahumpura. Zero references, of any kind. I that's not the only article. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Community ban request: User:Δδ (91.155.234.89)

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.

Δδ (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia per the consensus reached here. He may appeal to either the Arbitration Committee or the community, though he is advised to follow the standard offer first. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Related threads: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive682#User 91.155.234.89 making allegations of 'criminal deeds'

Read the thread linked above, which describes the behavior of this user in a nutshell. In the few days since then, 91.155.234.89 has had his block upped to a month (for threats to evade block and personal attacks comparing users to Neo-Nazis on its talk page), had his talk page both semi'd and revoked, and five times evaded his block with these socks, in the following order:

• Δδ (talk · contribs) (Hence the name of the thread)
• BackInDisguise (talk · contribs)
• RelevantQuestions (talk · contribs)
• StopCharacterAssassination (talk · contribs)
• StopCharacterAssault (talk · contribs)

Since it seems overwhelmingly obvious this user isn't going to go away short of the nuclear option, I am suggesting we community-ban this user. None of the edits he's made under his socks have been constructive, and Relevant's, Assassination's, and Assault's edits have all been attacks on users who I believe opposed them in the underlying content dispute prior to the block on the IP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. We may also want to mail the CUs to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock on the underlying IPs (don't know if it's possible?)>. 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. He often repeats his responses when making an unblock request. I'm not convinced of possible reform. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This user is seriously disturbed. The socks keep on coming (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 91.155.234.89 contains the ones I know of), so a rangeblock would be most welcome. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – The user is abusing open proxies, so obviously rangeblocks are not possible. –MuZemike 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There seem to be strong grounds to suspect that the user may be Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde herself. Since the problem seems to have started with the article, and her notability is somewhat questionable, I wonder whether deleting it might solve the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment On the bright side, every time they show up again the proxy they use gets blocked for a minimum of a year because it's a proxy. This dope only appears to have three or four targets; why not honeypot him? It'll be that many fewer proxies for others to use... HalfShadow 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Proxy abusers are, unfortunately, some of the worst. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This user is also causing a huge disruption on Finnish Wikipedia around the Finnish version of the article there. (Translated page)- LuckyLouie (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Should someone let them know what's going on here? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Anyone here fluent in Finnish? Certainly'd make things easier for everyone. HalfShadow 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  KFP (talk · contribs) does; I poked him.  Chzz  ►  10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  To summarize: What this same user seems to be largely doing on fi.wp is extensive edit warring to include questionably sourced statements to the article fi:Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, as well as various quite hostile responses to people who've reverted the edits. Some of it may be due to a genuine misunderstanding of WP's principles and guidelines, though. The IP was previously blocked there for a few days for edit warring but not currently. --KFP (contact | edits) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I briefly stuck my nose in that mess, including trying to explain our policies, and am debating whether to draw more ire by doing so again or tiptoe away . . . but I think someone needs to point out that there is a BLP issue here. There's even a long paragraph supposedly by the subject of the article sitting on the talkpage: [25]. --Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming someone's here, should this stay open longer for more views or closed as consensus? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Should be closed, I think. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nolander Thread at ANI

Resolved

 – Arbitration case opened

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Would some on mind moving the Nolander thread to Sub-page? Its causing my pretty up to date browser to slow to trickle when loading the page. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

thanx The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow that was fast... Popcorn any one? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jews and banking

Resolved

 – Userfied.

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, considering ARBCOM is in the process of accepting a case on the matter, but I wanted to bring this to the community's attention, and if this is the wrong venue, I apologize. I'm not requesting any action, but rather some guidance as to what (if anything) I should do. If the answer is "nothing, let ARBCOM sort it out", then that's fine with me.

1. On March 25, I nominated "Jews and money" (now "Economic history of the Jews") for deletion as a POV content fork. That discussion is ongoing.
2. In the meantime, multiple editors have been documenting and in some cases removing serious misrepresentation of sources in the article.
3. This morning, doing new page patrol, I saw that Jews and banking had been created, essentially as a copy-and-paste from an early version of Jews and money that included the misrepresentation of sources that had been removed from its "parent" article.

Rather than just slap it with a A10 speedy tag I thought it would be best to bring it here for broader attention. 28bytes (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeh... I had my doubts about creating Jews and banking and Role of Jews in the development of capitalism. However, there is a case to be made for these articles; certainly the case is stronger than for Economic history of the Jews (which was formerly titled Jews and money). My perspective on Wikipedia is that I am an inclusionist and so I am trying to salvage whatever is encyclopedic in Economic history of the Jews before it gets deleted. And, if it doesn't get deleted, then it should be a summary style article of which Jews and banking and Role of Jews in the development of capitalism are subsidiary detail articles. I see why my actions might be of concern to some editors but I don't think this is something that warrants admin attention. I made clear what I was doing and why at Talk:Economic history of the Jews and there is some discussion opposing my actions which I will respond to shortly. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, right? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page: to the degree this article is fixable, I think this needs to be fixed in user space first, rather than putting it up in the mainspace with all its admitted false and misleading statements. I urge you to move this article to your userspace. Its presence in the mainspace is damaging to the project. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• ArbCom aren't likely to decide whether an article is going to be deleted or not so there's not much point in waiting on that. If it's part of a conduct problem, it might help if an admin could alert ArbCom's attention to it during the evidence phase (particularly in the event the article is deleted). It seems to me that you are going about it the right way: trying to persuade that it be moved to the userspace, and failing that, using standard deletion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Just before closing this, I want clarify that in my above sentence, "standard deletion" is not limited to AFD. Ncmvocalist (talk)

• It's totally inappropriate to copy and paste the article in contention, with an ARBCOM case pending, and a nomination for deletion, into two new articles. They should be deleted. The editor can copy them in his user space if appropriate, but this certainly seems to be inappropriate run-around. Jews and banking and Role of Jews in the development of capitalism indeed. Nominate it deletion. Dave Dial (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Copy-paste recreating content form an article that is as obviously contentious as Jews and Money AND which is being considered for AFD is a very inappriate action that I think warrants a strong reprimand. It is disrespectful for the consensus building process. Very bad idea. I have nominated both for POV-check. I also strongly recommend userfying. And I would certainly endorse deleting them right away if the main article is closed as delete.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Ncmvocalist. The proper venue for your concerns is an AFD. As stated in the RFARB on Noleander, 99% of the time ARBCOM rules on conduct, not content. Content disputes should be resolved via the dispute resolution process. At issue in the ARBCOM case is User:Noleander's tendentious style of editing and his alleged anti-semitism. I think you would have a harder time making that case against me. (Frankly, I think that the case against Noleander may also be less than bullet-proof but I don't have as extensive a history with him as other editors do so my assessment of him may not be as complete as theirs.) I have attempted to salvage the valuable parts of the article under AFD and I have done so openly by placing a comment on the article's Talk Page. If there is a sense that the copied text should also be deleted, then that can be done by separate AFD's on the newly created articles. Yes, I know it's a pain to do three AFDs instead of just one but deciding to delete Economic history of the Jews is a different decision from deciding to delete Role of Jews in the development of capitalism and Jews and banking. IMO, the biggest problem with Economic history of the Jews is that it strings together several related topics together in a way that can be interpreted to push an anti-semitic POV. My personal opinion is that Economic history of the Jews is unsalvageable but that some of the individual topics in Noleander's original version of the article can be encyclopedic articles. In any event, this is the wrong place for this discussion as there is (IMHO) no cause for admin action here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• This would seem to be a bit of an issue under Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#General_advice: "AfD participants should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally, before the debate closes...." (It goes on.) As that document says, if you think that the content in an article up for deletion should be moved to a new article, you should propose that and wait for consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeh, thanx. As it turns out, another editor referenced the same text to me on my Talk Page a couple hours ago and, acting on the above text, I userfyed the two articles in question. I think this ANI thread is ripe for closure now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Warwick (disambiguation)#Requested move and Talk:Nanyue#Requested move

Would an admin (or admins) close Talk:Warwick (disambiguation)#Requested move and Talk:Nanyue#Requested move? Both discussions have been open for more than a month. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Cunard (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research by G-Zay

User has continued to post original research and interpretations of published material ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) despite warnings and reverts by multiple editors. Some intervention, perhaps with a final warning, might be helpful. Prime Blue (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems he's locking horns with Jonathan Hardin'. Don't know who's right. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Hardin has not shown the best behavior in their disagreements (reverting on principle without solid explanations, using profanity once), but the addition of original research by G-Zay is a separate issue in most cases. Maybe letting him get off one last time, perhaps he has learned his lesson? Prime Blue (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Series of RFC's need closing

The whole "family" of WikiGuide RFCs have been open for well over a month:creating new articles; CSD criteria for new articles; being templated; socialising on WP; and being welcomed. Several of them will be no-brainer closes as the results are obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I knocked out the welcoming and IP article creation ones, but I participated in the others so someone else needs to close them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I looked at the revision histories, and it looks like they were all created over a month ago but not made public until March 11 or 12... – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ooh. I went by the first timestamp. I had figured the uptick in activity co-incided with when the were listed at WP:CENT. I'm pretty sure the two I already closed would have the same result if they were left open, but I guess we should leave the other ones up a bit longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- I don't think there is any harm in leaving those two closed. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may tiptoe in here with a non-admin observation, I'm fine too with leaving them this way, but I think it may be useful to point out that it doesn't look to me like these were proposals to implement a particular change, so much as requests to generate ideas about the issues raised, so it may not be as simple as "implement" or "don't implement". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves backlog

The wp:Requested_moves#Backlog is now more than a month beyond the nominal seven days, despite being templated. Could some additional admins please step up to cut it down to size? TIA, LeadSongDog come howl! 18:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In light of this SPI

In light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales I propose community ban for User:Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia for 1 Minute! {{humour}} (template commented out to prevent this page from showing up in Category:Wikipedia humor. jonkerz♠ 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

In support

1. Support As proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Support I knew it!!! Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Support Why not? Bejinhan talks 04:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Support Yesh. Phearson (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Support on wheels! tfSile (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Support Finally some humor in this place. lol Pass a Method talk 09:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Support Probably a sock after 10 years, I mean, how many long time editors don't have them, and he caused loads of disruption by making that "ArbCom", obviously a way to organise his socks, as suspected by SPI. --123Hedgefool456 : Create an account! 18:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Support I always knew ArbCom was a 1 man band :P —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:03pm • 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In opposition

• Comment 1 minute is not long enough! I would support if it was 2011 seconds. Just to home in the point. – SMasters (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I say 1 minute per admin! let everybody have a go, we need a big block log to make an example of :D  Rmzadeh  ►  05:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose I am concerned that WMF and Wikipedia will fail if we disassociate, even for a minute. My76Strat (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose He's done nothing wrong. Also, I'm a bit worried that he might press the unblock button himself before the minute's up. Minimac (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• We'd be lucky if Jimbo pressed that button. I'm more afraid about the NUKE button. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm more concerned that he might realize that there's life offline, and NOT hit the unblock button. That would be bad. - Philippe 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Even more frankly, I am not too concerned that he may not know about life outside Wikipedia. [32] (45.4% active days over 10 years; average edit count per active day: 4.4; highest daily edit count: 43 in September 2005.) I think it would be worse if he started editing all day long and neglecting his real life job. Hans Adler 09:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral', I have no strong opinion one way or the other so as not to ruffle feathers. Magicperson _{(Politically correct)} 03:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Neutral I don't have any opinions, but I love to vote. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I have lots of opinions, but I hate to vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Neutral Someone said there were going to be snacks. That's why I'm here. HalfShadow 04:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Neutral Excuse me, is this the way to the men's room? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral Damnit Ken, we're already in the mens room, when will you learn all our important meetings are always in the mens room...newb. Passionless -Talk 04:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
7. 请勿靠近车门 Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
8. /popcorn Protonk (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Yes another edit towards my edit count! — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 07:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Where is the damn cake? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why don't we rename to User:BlockedUser, User:Sockpuppet or User:God instead? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral All I know is my gut says maybe. Reach Out to the Truth 16:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Voting is EVIL!

1. It is long past midday, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1. 1. I concur Pass a Method talk 18:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

i liek mudkipz

1. and pie. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I concur Pass a Method talk 19:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

THE WORLD MUST PAY

1. Eat the automobiles of the unbelievers! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. With guacamole. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

   Note: I have blocked both of the above users indefinately per WP:TOV. April fools is not an excuse to make terroristic threats.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

CUBE LURKER MUST PAY

1. Let's pull him right out of that cube he lurks in. And then have someone tidy it up. Or at least vacuum the place. Sheesh. HalfShadow 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Ok, but I'm not gonna eat him, guacamole or no guacamole. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopening case, since it's been hanging for a few days now

Again, please put an end to this RfC here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a glance. The thing about the never-ending genre wars is that most persons not participating in them find them to be a pointless waste of time. This one appears to have been going on for years and would probably not be stopped by this RFC anyway. In any event RFCs usually last up to thirty days or whenever a consensus becomes clear. No consensus is clear to me at this time so I would say it should stay open in the hope that there will be broader participation in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two editors in support of the addition, vs. one editor (the nominator) that opposes it. There are sources calling Bon Jovi "pop rock", but not a single source stating that they are not (a few not mentioning the subject matter, which in the nominator's opinion constitute proof of sorts). Seems like a consensus to me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Two opinions against one is consensus? Hardly. I believe (without looking into it at all) the discussion should focus on the quality of the sources, not whether a source says it is pop rock or not. Of course sources that say Bon Jovi is pop rock are more readily available than sources that say "Bon Jovi is not pop rock". Sources generally state facts, not non-facts.--Atlan (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the thread and respond accordingly. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – User:Duchamps comb's topic ban from all articles and discussions related to Barack Obama will expire 1 April 2015. Due to repeated near-identical unban requests, showing a lack of understanding of the problem, Duchamps comb is limited to one unban appeal per year. To avoid a Catch-22, this decision to limit unban appeals can be appealed directly to ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment without falling afoul of the limitation on unban requests. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an "indefinite topic ban" for what was believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. It has been 8 months now, I believe that time served is more than sufficient. Wondering if this can now be lifted? [[33]] --Duchamps_comb MFA 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You weren't banned for 3RR or incivility, you were banned for inserting original research, synthesis and outright fabrication into a BLP, as well as edit warring. Relevant links are here and here. This user has requested the topic ban be lifted twice before, both times using the argument that they haven't committed 3RR violations or incivility: [34] [35] I can't see any reason to lift it at this time. Hut 8.5 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair I was working on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories If you look at the log you will see how I have been treated. There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given an indefinite.

The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist.

I believe I have shown that I can walk away from all Obama articles for 8 months now and follow the wiki rules. Is imposing an heavy handed topic ban forever really necessary? Is making me an example? Is giving me a more harsh ban? How long do I have to pay for a simple mistake of thinking worldnetdaily.com was proper source? --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To have your topic ban lifted it is essential that you understand why you were banned, why your edits were inappropriate and demonstrate you won't engage in such behaviour in the future. From your comments here I don't think you even understand why your edits were inappropriate. Every one of your three unban requests has started by stating that there was no 3RR violation or incivility, as if that means the incidents must have been minor. You don't accept that your behaviour was disruptive, only that it was "believed" to be disruptive. Using WorldNetDaily as a source was one of your offences, yes, but it wasn't the only one or even the most serious one. And the fact that you were working on an article about a fringe theory absolutely does not give you licence to misrepresent sources, tenaciously promote fringe theories or insert fabricated material into a biography of a living person. I also note that a few months ago you threatened to repeatedly appeal this ban until you got it reversed [36], and that you appear to have a history of disruptive behaviour. Given all this I don't think you would be a positive influence on Obama articles and can't see any reason to lift the ban. Hut 8.5 10:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Some 50 edits have been made since the last unban request, most of them in October 2010. If Duchamps is under the impression that only the passage of time is required for the ban to be lifted, they are mistaken.--Atlan (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with Atlan. I see no reason to lift what was obviously a vital topic ban. Should be permanent, based on the history, but I'll be willing to be open-minded in about 5,000 non-contentious articlespace edits or so... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's like this-- You guys seem to want me to prostrate myself and beg you like a dog to lift the topic ban, to tell you what a bad boy I was, to promise you to never act so badly ever again, to whip me into line. well it ain't happinin'... My offence was minor. I have stepped out from editing to gain some peace and clarity. If my eddits were so bad and misrepresent sources. Please show me and the others. Apparently you can snoop pretty well so lets all see my errors. I am trying to play by the rules here. It is really easy to have 10 accounts you know, just sayin'... Only a person who respects the way wiki works would keep coming here to try to have the restrictions lifted. Seems like you haters would want to give me some rope to hang myself and get myself banned all together. I'd be happy to impose a 1R restriction on my self on Obama articles, or something else like that. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I don't want you to do any of the kind. All I want is from you is to go edit Wikipedia in other areas while your ban is in place. Between the previous unban request and this one, you have hardly done that. Furthermore, you come here with a clear lack of understanding of why the ban was enacted in the first place. No one wants you to beg, but a simple acknowledgement of any misbehavior in the past would go a long way. I perfectly understand if you don't see things that way, but don't expect the ban to be lifted anytime soon if you take a stance of denial.--Atlan (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My two cents. From the language in your posts, it seems you still want to expect people here to let you off the hook for something you did wrong. It is better for you to make useful edits somewhere else, not insist on working on the one article you've been locked out from. Why don't you try looking over your work and see the misrepresentations instead of you asking to be spoon-fed them? If you can't understand the rationale behind the ban and try to deny everything you did, then there's no place for you here in Wikipedia.--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Per your statement of intention in this diff, I am changing this ban from an indefinite one, to a ban of fixed duration. The topic ban will expire on April 1, 2015. I am not joking. Further, if you disrupt the noticeboards by making ban appeals more frequently than once every year, you will be blocked for disruption. This is not a game of nomic, it is an encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (p.s. waiting to make sure there's consensus for this before adding it to the appropriate page...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Floquenbeam there is no need to break up in here and be a gang buster. I'm not trying to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. I admit I was pushing the flag pole, on a fringe topic. I was not trying to be a bad editor with malice or intentionally slander the POTUS. I do have a personality and interest in topics that to some puts me in a bad light. Example: I was the first one to add the word "climategate" to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, it was an epic content war, now the entire world knows climategate. That is who I am. I also admit feeling not welcomed and slapped around by cabals and tag teams in the past. My time here has been quite a solo one. Weather you guys want to admit it or not wiki has a bias pov. Honestly I dont really want to edit any pages at the moment nor do I even want to touch an Obama page. As this new war makes want to puke... It seems to me some people (no names mentioned) can get away with murder here and others get the wiki-law thrown at them. On the issue of topic banning it has become an under the radar way to silence some editors. Just see Dog meat [37] I'm sure there is many more.. I just want to be treated fairly and go about my business. I think a 12 month topic ban and a self imposed 1R on all Obama articles in the future is way more than fair for my transgressions. --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban: I see no evidence that the user understands the reasons for their topic ban nor any evidence that they will not engage in similar conduct in the future. N419BH 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Since Duchamp brought up the ANI thread I started on another user, figured I could thrown in my thoughts here. See, the difference in that situation was that an admin declared a topic ban without any sort of backing; the article you were topic banned on was under discretionary sanctions, and thus admins have the authority to make the call they did. In any event, if you don't "even want to touch an Obama page", it sounds like everyone is in agreement--the community doesn't want you to edit Obama pages, and you don't want to edit Obama pages, so we're all settled, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry to edit Obama pages, thus why I asked for 4 more months of the ban (does that sound like a a mad man with a obsession). However at some time in the future I may, and would like to have the choice/option. --P.S. I might add I had no warning before the topic ban, no talk page warning, no previous block related to Obama pages, nothing at all so to jump straight to a topic ban seems a little heavy even if I were a Klan member or Natzi (which I am not)...--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. Before the ban was enacted you were given several warnings telling you that your edits were inappropriate, and one of these warnings threatened you with a block. You carried on making problematic edits after these warnings were issued, and your response to one of the editors leaving the warnings was less than helpful. Hut 8.5 12:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Duchamps, I suggest you put away the shovel to prevent digging yourself deeper. If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia, then don't. If you want to edit other articles, fine, go right ahead. If you want to edit Obama articles, you cannot. That's the reality of the situation. Right now, you're just making yourself look bad. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I misspoke I meant to say I was not warned by an admin, true I was warned by user DD22.

here is the correct time line.

My first edit as of 00:04, 4 July. [38]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [39]

First warning from user DD22 00:13, 4 July 2010 [40]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [41]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July.[42]

Second warning from user DD22 00:35, 4 July 2010[43]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [44]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [45]

AIN filed by user DD22 02:01, 4 July 2010[46]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July.[47]

I stopped editing the article as of 01:37, 4 July after seeing user DD22 second warning.; I was blocked as of 08:00, 4 July.

So for 6.5 hrs. I had no activity, I walked away with consensus from the talk page to not add any of my information or refs. Is this not how wikipedia is supposed to work?--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Well, can't say I didn't try. Deeper we go... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's plain to see that the OP here should NEVER edit an Obama-related article again. Good topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I know whereof I speak. I put myself on an unofficial Obama topic ban nearly two years ago, from the frustration of having to deal with the conspiracist looneys. Unless the OP is willing to repudiate his previous edits, he needs to remain Obama-banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• No one has objected to the ban modification I proposed last night, so I've enacted it. Ban expires 1 April 2015, and no more than 1 unban request per year. I've informed Duchamps comb that he is no longer to post to this thread, so in fairness I'm closing it to others as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mediation concluded

Following up on the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Mediation anchor, Tony, Sven, Adam & I have reached a mediated agreement that resolves the outstanding conflict between the signatory parties. The agreement only deals with the disagreements between the four signatory parties. The agreement is private, however it can be made public if any party breaks the agreement. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I, Sven Manguard Wha?, acknowledge that the above statement is accurate and that a common document has been agreed upon. With the mediation concluded, I also have unretired from Wikipedia. 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to work that out, John. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

92 articles which as a class all seem to me to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY

The category is Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. Each of these articles consists of a mere listing of the chapters of these fraternities, sororities, etc. How does this not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered taking them to wp:AFD? I honestly do not see why you chose to bring this up at the administrators noticeboard. Yoenit (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's a quasi-philosophical aspect involved that needs more eyes than an AfD discussion draws. If you'd really rather do a Mass AfD for this, go ahead (I'm not able to use Twinkle at the moment). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You might be right about that aspect and perhaps an RfC could help, but you would probably need to think about its precise scope before setting it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "Mere listing" is very much not true. Many of them include the chapter name, school, dates of activity, level of school recognition, and location in the organization structure. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities has designed templates to make creating these pages easier. There has even been an effort to encourage that for fraternities with a decent number of chapters that it be moved to a separate page to keep from overwhelming the page that it is currently on. Another guide is that this section of Wikipedia should reflect the best (and only) encyclopedia on Fraternities and Sororities: Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. Naraht (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Eyes needed...

If only because people aren't always the brightest people in the world, The Onion (Motto: We're more accurate than FoxNEWS) just ran this little fun story: [48]. Given the distinct possibility we may see an uptick in vandalism at the relevent article, a few more people may want to add it to their watchlists... --Jayron32 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

92 articles which as a class all seem to me to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY

The category is Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. Each of these articles consists of a mere listing of the chapters of these fraternities, sororities, etc. How does this not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered taking them to wp:AFD? I honestly do not see why you chose to bring this up at the administrators noticeboard. Yoenit (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's a quasi-philosophical aspect involved that needs more eyes than an AfD discussion draws. If you'd really rather do a Mass AfD for this, go ahead (I'm not able to use Twinkle at the moment). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You might be right about that aspect and perhaps an RfC could help, but you would probably need to think about its precise scope before setting it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "Mere listing" is very much not true. Many of them include the chapter name, school, dates of activity, level of school recognition, and location in the organization structure. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities has designed templates to make creating these pages easier. There has even been an effort to encourage that for fraternities with a decent number of chapters that it be moved to a separate page to keep from overwhelming the page that it is currently on. Another guide is that this section of Wikipedia should reflect the best (and only) encyclopedia on Fraternities and Sororities: Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. Naraht (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Eyes needed...

If only because people aren't always the brightest people in the world, The Onion (Motto: We're more accurate than FoxNEWS) just ran this little fun story: [49]. Given the distinct possibility we may see an uptick in vandalism at the relevent article, a few more people may want to add it to their watchlists... --Jayron32 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes Needed

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.

User:Greenbay1313 has been forum shopping at COI/N, editor assistance, and even arbitration requests. Closing this instance of forum shopping in an attempt to contain any discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Ronn Torossian 2. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

---

BLP violations on locked page. Ronn Torossian--greenbay1313 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sheesh. No. These are not BLP violations. After one editor removed this Greenbay's complaint at COI, because there are already two conversations/complaints at the BLP noticeboard, they decided to come forum shopping here. I would have hit rollback on this one, but that would only set me up for more wikilawyering. Someone please close this, and let's move on. Nothing to see. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More eyes at AIV please

More admins helping out at WP:AIV would be appreciated. It's relatively clear now, but it's been backlogged on and off for the last few hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock

I have range-blocked 124.49.0.0/18 but after some careful thought have realised that I did not need so large a range and have blocked a smaller range instead. I want to unblock the /18 range but this is the first time I have needed to do this and now realise that I don't know how to do it. Help please! SpinningSpark 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. The way you do this is you go to Special:BlockList, input the range you blocked into the prompt, and then unblock like normal. Courcelles 18:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ta SpinningSpark 18:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

General query re privacy

I've been out of the loop for a while on this. What is current policy/guidelines on very young editors (12/13) putting their biographies (real names, parents' names, educational history, etc) on their userpage? I don't want to splash this over AN and add to any existing privacy problems, but if someone's more clued up than I am, I may want to email you the details. In this particular case there is also a severe problem with what I can only describe as immature editing - not malicious or unserious, but deeply lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, to the point where I do not think the best mentoring in the world would help. Feels like I could use some advice on handling this. Moreschi (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete it and email oversight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What HJ said. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Anyone up for providing advice on the competence issues? Moreschi (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to email me; I've dealt with these and they usually end up in blocks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow up

I emailed oversight. It is Re: "[Ticket#2011033110004992] Personal information" Their reply indicated I should ask the question here. I noticed in an article I was editing, this reference. I also noticed it had an address label which would be someones personal information. I also noticed this source, which expresses copyright, and may indicate the referenced image is itself some form of a copyright violation. Anyway the many questions created can not be answered by me accept that I followed the ticket advice and reported the information here. I have no more input than that, but will monitor the discussion for the value of knowing how this situation should best be handled. Thank you for your time and consideration. IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I do want to add one thing. When I sent the email to oversight, I was told that my email displayed my real name. I intended to maintain a high level of anonymity. If it is possible to safeguard that piece of my personal information, I would be very glad. An introduction on my page tells more about that. If it is possible for you to tell me, to what extent my real name is known on this site, I would appreciate that. If it is common knowledge, I would rather just make a whole new account. So please answer this question also. IHaveBrownEyes (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you with the first part as I'm not knowledgable with copyrights at all, but your real identity is not shown on wikipedia, but if you used your real name for your email account and email someone, than your naem is shown to them. I suggest you do like I did and make a new email account just for wikipedia and use a fake name (my email name is Abe Lincoln). Oh and oversight people are all trustworthy so I don't think you have to worry about them knowing your name. Passionless -Talk 05:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'm following the question correctly, it involves the link to the magazine cover being used at Elizabeth Taylor. Copyright in the magazine covers belongs to Harper's Bazaar; the photograph may be owned by the magazine or by the photographer. For that reason, even if the Flickr page that displayed it indicated public domain or compatible license, we could not accept their word on this without some proof that they are an official outlet. While it could be possible for that image to be used somewhere under a claim of "fair use", its obvious not fair use as it is. The personal information adds another dimension for concern, but the WP:LINKVIO policy issue really nails it. We cannot link to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work. I've removed the link. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

82.8.192.142

(takes in mouth and trots over to proper venue) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 11:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Wales page listed for deletion

Resolved

 – NFL Freak -SINCE 2011- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24 hours by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Proudly anti-April Fools') 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No April 1 joke (the day has passed where I am). NFL Freak has listed the Jim Wales user page for deletion. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

Where the NFL freaks live it's still April 1. God help us all.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Where I'm at, 1 April has a little more than 14 hours left. And for the folks in Hawaii, add 3 hours to that: the day has barely begun for them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I shouda known better. It was real early, eyes bleary, synapses slowed to halt. Besides, everyone was all over it like a cheap suit. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi

Having discovered that User:Iaaasi has gone back to his old ways and is socking again, I've instituted a anonblock on 79.117.96.0/20. Feel free to loosen it if it causes problems, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of non-abusive IP editing from there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

oops, wrong range....fixed it...79.117.160.0/20. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked and added it to Special:AbuseFilter/395. Currently it is still a full block, but I intend to loosen it up (based on examining the log) to only topics he edits. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd support more than a rangeblock here. My logic is simple: you blow a second chance, you're gone. Edit-warring and socking is not on, but committing those offenses after being let back in from the cold? We need a community ban. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Iaaasi was given a second chance, and has comprehensively blown it. A ban seems in order if he's socking so that socks can be blocked on sight. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then, consider this a formal community ban proposal. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support as uninvolved. Iaaasi has exhausted community patience through tendentious editing, and further socking when blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but not sure why it's necessary to have such a ban to block his socks on sight. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE Guys do you remember that? Who proved that he is not User:Bonaparte? He didn't exactly seem too stressed while pushing the admins' patience. What if he took this so lightly, because he will travel somewhere else in the coming weeks and therefore might use another — probably already existing — account "legitimately"? Millions of Romanians work abroad as guest workers.
In short: serious anti-Hungarian bias is more telling than IP ranges. Banning User:Bonaparte wasn't enough in the long term, he kept showing up. Squash Racket (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So what do you recommend? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. He already pretended to be a Serbian, so who knows in what forms and incarnations he is present currently on WP. I repeat: the only thing that is common in these accounts is the strong anti-Hungarian bias. User:Khoikhoi, an admin became quite an expert on dealing with Bonaparte socks, but he is not much around nowadays. Squash Racket (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually he also pretended to be Hungarian and Slovak as well (IIRC he didn't do these only once either). Therefore I agree with the fact that it's fairly hard to guess his next form. His "favorite articles" always betray him though. So watching articles like John Hunyadi and Transylvania might do some good. CoolKoon (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A community ban doesn't necessitate a rangeblock. It just means when he socks, he gets blocked, no warnings 1-4, etc. Bans just mean taking out the trash without the fuss. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is this: how many times do you need to ban the already banned User:Bonaparte? If Iaaasi is his sock, then why do you need a process like that? If WP can't prove that Iaaasi is Bonaparte's sock, then what prevents him from showing up with yet another account from another IP range? Squash Racket (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a miscommunication here. There's a difference between a WP:BAN and a WP:BLOCK. A block is when an editor/IP has been prevented from editing Wikipedia through the software. A ban is more like a big warning sign, telling the editor they are not allowed to edit. If they sock or IP to get around it, a ban allows Admins to block on sight, without going through the rigamarole of warning the user, seeking dispute resolution, or going through ANI. In other words, bans make it easier to enforce blocks. If Iaaasi pops back up, a ban allows admins to block him immediately. That's all. There's nothing we can do software-wise to completely block him, but a ban makes admins' jobs easier. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Squash understands that but is saying that Bonaparte was de facto banned well before Iaaasi, yet because Iaaasi wasn't detected/confirmed as a sock of Bonaparte, Iaaasi managed to get the whole DR system started from scratch as if he is some new user who isn't de facto banned. And now if Iaaaasi becomes banned, de facto or otherwise, he may show up under another account and start the DR system from scratch if he isn't detected. This would then create an unfortunately endless cycle. Not that I have an answer to that concern if it is justified...but just trying to clarify what Squash seems to be saying (or at least, that's how I read it). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's it, sorry if my English wasn't clear enough... Squash Racket (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If a banned editor has become recalcitrant after being unbanned, it means the unban request itself was not made in good faith, and the editor who granted that has been totally had. A site ban would work best? --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Cut out the intermediate steps between a sock's creation and its block. A community ban will help keep all of his reincarnations (socks) blocked. However, I do agree with Sqaush Racket's point above: If he manages to leave to somewhere else, we (unfortunately) have to restart the process from scratch, but for now, a site ban should keep his socking at bay. —mc10 (t/c) 16:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's been past 48 hours

Do we have a consensus to ban, or should there be more discussion first? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 22:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the discussion above is unanimous, I've closed it with a finding that he's community-banned.  Sandstein  06:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

RM closure requested

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Botched page move?

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Formation of the Committee of Public Safety.

Screw WP:AN and all it's corruption, I am moving back to the COPS. Join the new AN at User:Takeo/Committee of Public Safety. Takeo™ 11:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I vote for kittens. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Then kittens you shall have. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the puppies?? Basket of Puppies 15:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Puppiez! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Yips, wags tail happily, and pants) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, you could be arrested for wagging your pants. Corvus cornix_talk 04:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

sigh Panting, Corvus. I wasn't expecting to make any double entendres yesterday. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 07:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Messy MOS proposal subpage

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to discuss WWI genocide issue

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD discussion getting out of hand, need an uninvolved admin to hat some nonsense

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Image cleanup needed

Bear PIG man 2 (talk · contribs) uploaded a non-free logo for an article he created which is now at AfD. However, he uploaded it on top of an existing file, File:Ride.jpg, which is free and used in Gotcha Ride. I reverted and he reverted me. Since the image isn't used to represent his article anyway, I reverted it back. Could an admin delete the non-free revisions? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 13:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done The non-free logo is at File:RideLogo.jpg now; he seems to have gotten the idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of block

Hello everyone, I have just blocked my first user, Allen345 (talk · contribs). I chose to indef him because this user appears to only be here to advertise himself. Review is welcome; if you believe I was too heavy-handed, feel free to modify the block settings. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good block, though it is possible that a quick unblock should follow if the user communicates clearly that they understand why they were blocked, and shows a clear intent to stop the behavior. --Jayron32 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review and reply! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Buon giorno! Wow that's a lot of work spanning six weeks, Salvio. He had to make the userpage in the manner of an actual article. REALLY. And he doesn't even bother to state his case. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#requiring autoconfirmation to create articles

Per the requests at #A suggestion, would an uninvolved admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#requiring autoconfirmation to create articles before a formal RfC is initiated? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

WQFC

Someone moved QFC to WQFC against consensus — I find no evidence that it was ever called WQFC. Can someone revert the move and delete WQFC? (Also, you might want to check the edits of User:VH2, who has done nothing but vandalize since being unblocked.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The move was incorrectly done via cut-and-paste, so I was able to undo it (you could have too). I've restored the status quo ante and left a message on the editor's talk page telling him not to do cut-and-paste moves and to discuss moves in the future before making them. An admin might want to take a close look at the editor's contributions as there seem to be a lot of warnings on the talk page.

BTW, this should have gone to AN/I.Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

need unblock of valued editor

There's a good, regular editor blocked erroneously by a bot, for something about an open proxy, but with no bad or questionable edits in contribution history. The editor's unblock request has received unreasonable demands that the editor must fix problems in the system and its messages or wait until May 28. This is crazy. Would an administrator or 2 or 3 please see User talk:EraserGirl#Unblock and apologize, and of course immediately unblock. Whatever are the errors in the bot and its messages, this user should not be held hostage until May 28. Please discuss, fix other problems later. --doncram 16:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As you have been advised, the account was blocked per WP:PROXY and is thus correct - as noted, a good editing history is irrelevant since it is the open proxy that is being blocked and not the contributor. There is nothing to apologise for, this is a matter of policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't intend to block good contributors though. The block is a good block, but I'm trying to assist the user in figuring out what is going on. There seems to be no intention of using any proxy solutions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course we block open proxies, but I was under the impression that we had no prohibition of registered users editing through them. Why can't we simply grant IP block exemption? Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's necessary. The easiest explanation is that she got a dynamic IP address that had previously had an open proxy. At the moment the blacklisted IP address isn't up, so presumably when she is back she will have a new IP address and everything will be fine. Hans Adler 18:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Port scan doesn't currently find any open ports. (Not that I know anything about how these things work, but at least my scanner wasn't finding anything.) I'd agree the most likely explanation is a dynamic IP that's now safe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked, in the interest of ending the collateral damage quickly. If I was wrong about the technical analysis, please feel free to re-block if you consider it necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the future, why can't we simply softblock the proxies? Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Proxies are frequently used for block evasion by banned users. Softblocks would be trivial for such individuals to bypass, ergo a hardblock. However, one legitimate concern is that proxies blocked by Procseebot are often pretty dynamic and quickly roll over to new IPs, as there have been several requests along similar lines in recent weeks. Perhaps the duration of its blocks should be shortened? Sailsbystars (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Having investigated some more re the request at WP:OP, I think that the user in question needs to run some hardcore anti-virus software. The machine was still listed as a proxy as of earlier today. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If proxies blocked by Procseebot "are often pretty dynamic and quickly roll over to new IPs", I think the best solution may be:

1. The bot will give an initial 24 hour block (or maybe even shorter).
2. Near the end of this period, it will doublecheck that the IP is still an open proxy, and the give a longer block.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think ProcseeBot gets it about right on average, but there's also some code somewhere which checks if it's blocked the same IP before so it can lengthen it. I'm sure that's all in hand. I'd just like to add that at times like this admins should also generally think about handing out some short term IPBE first. Email a checkuser if you need a third opinion, then list the IP somewhere so it can get checked out and unblocked if necessary. WP:OP is pretty slick these days, but there's often a deliberate delay while IPs (especially dynamic IPs) come and go. Meanwhile an editor can wait for days. Obviously don't extend this courtesy to banned sleeper socks.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs tend to be a bit of a problem, especially when they're zombies, because of two main reasons: 1. many people tend to turn their computers/laptops off when they're finished using them (thus making the scan turn negative for the dark period), and 2. client builds of commercial operating system kernels like Windows XP tend to have severe limits on the TCP backlog in order to prevent a home user from using their PC as a server, which makes scanning them difficult. As a result, an IP can seem to be positive one minute, negative the next minute, positive one day, and then negative the next...then positive once again a few days later, etc etc.... Because most people use a router of some form (whether it be transparent/handled by a broadband modem or a full-on wireless home router), the IP tends to be pseudo-static on many broadband ISPs for a given period of time (e.g., until the router loses power or the ISP intentionally or as part of regular maintenance re-allocates new addresses at each DHCP lease expiry), simply because reassigning an IP while there's an open connection/stream will drop those connections/streams. Thus, when the bot verifies a proxy, it assumes "2 months" is a good period of time to minimize the load of (re)-scans on my end while minimizing splash damage if there's a re-allocation. Right around the time that the initial block is set to expire, it will re-scan to see if it can still get a positive, and if so, re-block for longer, presuming that if the same port on the same ip is open for that long, it'll be open longer. It seems a good tradeoff to blanket-scanning, continuously, a database of a hundred-thousand-plus ips. :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Petty naming dispute with potentially widespread consequences

I think this deserves wider attention than just the policy & guideline pages. The issue is not the article in question, but the effect that the logic being used would have on the rest of WP.

There has been a petty dispute over whether Mexican-American War should have a hyphen or, per the MOS, an en dash. The admin moving it to the hyphen argued that this was indicated by TITLE because most sources use a hyphen, and that TITLE as policy trumps the MOS.

It's not clear to me that TITLE intends that title style and formatting of a particular article should follow a majority of RSs for that article, rather than following other WP articles. Indeed, the numerous exceptions in TITLE are largely matters of style and formatting.

My concern is this: If the 'follow sources' provision of TITLE is to cover style and formatting, and is to mean following the example of sources for individual articles rather than of English style guides, then the MOS does not apply to titles. Since we generally want the title to be in keeping with the text, that means that we may need to abandon any attempt at having a uniform style for WP, as other encyclopedias have. Indeed, that is an argument of some of the editors in this debate, who want the MOS scrapped. However, we even reformat quotations to fit our style guidelines, which to me at least suggests that a Wikipedia style is seen as having some importance.

So, as an encyclopedia, do we want coherent formatting across articles? Do we want an MOS? And do we want a decision as to whether to have an MOS contained in TITLE? — kwami (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please indicate where this is being discussed? (I can't see it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All) There doesn't seem to be a need to have multiple discussions of the same issue, and a single discussion would be best (this also isn't the kind of issue admins have any particular influence over except for where it spills over into user conduct problems). Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A Requested Move discussion is at talk:Mexican-American War, if any admin is willing to close it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But it is also being discussed at WT:MOS and WT:TITLE. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

...and at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War where all the same arguments are being hashed over. JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that this is extremely important to some editors, but I am left stunned that 170,000 characters of discussion has occurred around this issue on one article. It just seems like an outrageous amount of time to be spent on such an issue. Maybe it is just me but it's disheartening every time I see something like this to think what that kind of time and effort could have achieved toward improving the project for the readers. Camw (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think the MOS should be revised to say that petty disputes over hyphens vs en-dashes fall under WP:BOLLOCKS, and that from now on, any further disputes will be settled by an uninvolved admin, by the toss of a coin. Contributors who are unhappy about this may of course create their own forks of Wikipedia, and enforce the style they prefer. I wish the creators of Endashopedia and Hyphenopedia well in their new efforts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't mean to rehash that dispute. It isn't even a hyphen-dash thing. I have a more general concern: should our MOS be abandoned every time we have sources which use some other MOS? Should it be abandoned only if the title includes the stylistic point in question? That is, do we or do we not want a consistent style for WP? — kwami (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question to be answered at WP:AN. The issue of MOS vs other sources is a question for all uses and should be discussed at the appropriate venue. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking for it to be answered here. I am simply calling attention to it, because it has greater implications than what we call that one article: Do we or do we not want to be stylistically consistent, as an encyclopedia? That's a matter most of us probably have an opinion on. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This question should not need answering at all because it has been answered a long time ago, and in the only reasonable way: Where an arbitrary decision needs to be taken and the only thing that really matters is consistency across the project, the MOS takes this decision and then everybody follows it. The problem is that the "follow the sources" extremists are getting out of hand. Verifiability and NPOV means that we use the reliable sources for what they intend to say. It has never meant that we engage in automatic writing controlled by the sources, even down to minor accidents of spelling or typography. All extremism is bad, stupid and disruptive. Wikipedia has way too much tolerance for such nonsense. Some examples:

• The Beatles article, where some editors have decided for no good reason to simply not follow the MOS as to capitalisation of the definite article in "[T/t]he Beatles".
• The editor (I forgot their name) who engaged in widespread plagiarism because they thought anything but literal copying from random sources was forbidden by WP:V. This editor, at least, was banned.
• The article Wife selling, where some editors insisted to use the obsolete long s glyph, which is routinely transcribed as a normal s in far more than 99% of all modern editions – a tradition that started circa 1800 when the long s fell out of use and has been unbroken since then. But according to these editors it is somehow original research or even a misrepresentation of a source to replace each ſ by an s. (Of course this ignores the fact that most of our sources are filtered through modern editions where it would be OR to undo the replacement of ſ by s. OR because one would have to decide which s was originally an ſ and which was an s. These editors actually insisted on having one text with ſ/s and one text from the same era only with s, simply because one was copied from a contemporary source and the other from a modern source.)
• And now this stupid -/– matter. As if the random house styles of our sources were to dictate our house style, so that we have to choose sometimes one convention and sometimes another, depending on which publisher happens to have published most on a topic. Hans Adler 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Your phrasing "these editors" in reference to the discussion that took place on the wife selling article's talk page about the use of the long s in direct quotations seems unnecessarily combative. As I recall only one editor was strongly in favour of retaining it and the rest either weren't or thought it was a minor storm in a rather small tea cup. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean it to be combative. As I remember things, one editor was strongly opposed to fixing this anomaly, and unfortunately this editor got support from one or more others, so that what should have been a quick consensus decision became a huge war that could only be resolved by drawing in a lot more editors on the MOS talk page. I am not interested in warming this up again, just in showing there may be a general trend that needs to be nipped in the bud.

It has always been clear that the general rules of publishing and more specifically our house style apply to Wikipedia in the same way that they apply to other written publications. With some specific exceptions due to our humungous size and our internationality. (E.g. ENGVAR.) But it appears that more and more clueless new editors who overgeneralise WP:V are negating this long-standing consensus. We are asking for trouble in the future if we are not careful to educate them, or if we even allow them to enforce idiosyncratic deviations from the MOS based on their misunderstandings of policy. Hans Adler 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That was my reason for bringing this here. It's not a matter of using en dashes in the names of wars, but whether we have a house style or not. There is currently a discussion on eliminating the MOS altogether, and saying instead that we should simply follow whichever style guide we decide on for a particular project or article.

However, users Blueboar and Septentrionalis, who've made that proposal, are not clueless new editors. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the trivial issue of dashes and hyphens, there's this point: "I have a more general concern: should our MOS be abandoned every time we have sources which use some other MOS?"

Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. Wikipedia's first - and overwhelmingly most important - task is to accurately document what happens in the outside world, rather to veer away from what sources say in order to line up hundreds of articles with a similar particle of text at the top: A feat which would not be visible at all to lay readers (except where they notice that the name used on wikipedia differs from the name used in the real world); a feat which is solely for the benefit of some wikipedians who for unfathomable reasons want exacting consistency between the titles of articles on many different subjects.

The real world, and sources, have varying usage. If you want lots of identically formatted strings, I'm sure there are appropriate projects for you to work on, but a project which holds up a mirror to the (complex, messy, and inconsistent) real world is not the place for it. Rejecting what sources say because they don't spell bits of text in the same way as an internal wikipedia convention? That's no way to build an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia is a project to build something like Encyclopedia Britannica, only better and bigger. Of course in the outside world sources use different typefaces: some with serifs, some without. Some use slanted/italic typefaces, some use upright typefaces. Some sources are even in black letters. That does not mean that the choice of a typeface for a Wikipedia is up to local consensus. Some sources are written as lipograms. One or more editors once tried to insist that the lipogram article should be written as a lipogram. They lost. Books are usually printed black on white, or black on some other light colour. A few books have different colour schemes, and a lot more websites do. Also layout can be handled in very different ways. That does not mean that editors are free to choose their own layout for individual pages.

What makes an encyclopedia more useful for quick information than a library is its predictability and its cross-article consistency. For technical (scope) and NPOV reasons (ENGVAR) we have to make some compromises regarding consistency, but it is in no way necessary or helpful to give up the MOS. In fact, having a manual of style means that most editors can write without worrying about it at all because breaking it is not a big problem and someone will eventually fix any problems uncontroversially. And we don't have to discuss minor style issues at thousands and thousands of articles instead of improving the encyclopedia. If this was just a huge game of Nomic it would be acceptable to keep everybody occupied with discussing minor style issues. It is not. Hans Adler 11:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to answer, since you appear to be responding to an argument very different from the one that I actually made. The MOS isn't going to vanish any time soon. However, I would merely advise that in the minority of cases where the prescriptions of wikipedia's internal style guidelines conflict with the facts that sources provide, perhaps we should err in favour of accuracy instead of a petty inter-article consistency which would never be seen by the average reader. Where the requirements of the MOS are consistent with what sources say, then it's a non-issue.

In fact, quite often these conventions aren't even a result of a grand consensus at all; sometimes they're the result of one or two editors who decide on their own that having exactly the same title formatting (or the same headings, navboxes, ELs &c) is more important than accurately reflecting what's happening in the outside world. As kwami appears to have done recently. Let's set aside the typeface strawman and consider some real examples: Railway stations in Burundi, Chad, Niger, Yemen, &c.

• Somebody decided that we should have a "Railway stations in ..." article for each country in the world. So far, so consistent.
• Obviously, you then need the same section headings and the same conventions in each article. Use the same UN country maps, and so on.
• Many of these countries don't actually have any railways; but that's nothing to do with the convention. Put the same standardised sections and links in the article anyway. In some cases, one might mention that there are no railway stations, but it's pretty much an afterthought - it doesn't fit into the conventional structure.
• Midway through the editing spree, one might find that the UN doesn't have a handy online map for some countries. Well, we've already decided that each of these "stations..." articles has a UN map, so the most consistent solution is to take a map from a different source and relabel it as a UN map. If you don't actually know where stations are, look for a line on a map and find the nearest towns to that line, to get a list of towns which looks similar to the other articles.
• Railway stations have altitudes. Since hundreds of these stations are fictional and the remainder are undocumented, the best option is to use fallingrain.com for an altitude figure for a nearby town. Fallingrain is an unreliable source, but how else are we supposed to maintain consistency?
• A small minority of countries have so many railway stations that a list article would be wildly unmanageable. The consistent solution is to create the article anyway and put in the names of a few towns so it looks like the other articles.

At each stage, these thousands of edits were consistent with the style and layout of many other articles of that type. However, the end result is a hundred articles that make a mockery of encyclopædic content, because consistent style was favoured over sources. Personally, I don't mind consistent treatment of many different articles, and it allows some folk to bump up their edit count by a few thousand, but I draw the line where consistency and sources diverge. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What you describe there is the other extreme, which of course is just as bad if not worse. (If it really happened as you say it's much worse.) But this doesn't change the fact that where arbitrary decisions must be taken to get consistency, we must follow the MOS rather than study what the sources do. If (almost) all sources disagree with the MOS then (1) there aren't enough sources to give an accurate picture and we should just ignore them on such trivial matters, or (2) it's a huge accident, or (3) something is wrong about the MOS rule in question and it should be fixed, not ignored, or (4) the MOS is intentionally doing things in a slightly different way because for us articles on ancient history, Pokémon, genetical engineering and York should all be more or less consistent with each other (otherwise there would be a fault line somewhere) and it's easier to have one uniform rule with no special exceptions for certain subjects. We are mostly talking about very minor points that most readers will never notice. These must be handled as efficiently (in terms of editor time) as possible. Hans Adler 13:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In terms of efficient use of editor time, perhaps it would often be appropriate to stick with the status quo - names which article authors have copied from sources - rather than subsequently changing the name because wikipedia's internal conventions overrule how a placename is written on a government document, or how a medical condition is spelt in a medical journal - and then dealing with occasional drama, redlinks &c caused by these additional changes which (we seem to agree on this point, at least) most readers will never notice.

Undiscussed mass moves to fit some structural convention rather than to fit existing content can be problematic in other ways, too. [50] [51] [52] and so on - if a process takes huge numbers of edits as an input, and delivers drama (and various article-space confusion) as an output, as well as guaranteeing that some articles will differ from what sources say, maybe it's best to stop running that process absent some really big benefit. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The present title of Mexican-American War was the result of amove request, with a 8-2 discussion, in which the two presented no substantive arguments; their procedural argument was that insufficient respect had been paid to their favorite guideline. It was closed by an admin, quoting WP:TITLE, the governing policy. Within a few days thereafter, the initiator of this thread proposed to move back, and the three dissentients have been forum shopping ever since, along with attacks on the closing admin and other turbulence.

This is not a matter of whether we have a house style; several editors have looked at the Manual of Style and seen no requirement of the style Kwami prefers. One editor changed his !vote on this ground.

Part of the problem is that WP:RM now has over a month's backlog, leaving disputes to curdle. Could some admins have a look at some of these? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 11:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have known that you are involved. Your fight against cross-article consistency is occasionally useful for keeping the encyclopedia NPOV over all, but in most cases it's just pure disruption. If you don't like a guideline, try to get consensus for abolishing it in an RfC. Going around encouraging editors to break it for no good reason falls under WP:POINT. You have been doing this for years, and maybe it's time now to do something about it.

The close of the move request started thus: "The result of the move request was: move; MOS is only a guide and the Wikipedia:Article titles is a policy overiding it." This is the kind of idiocy that I was talking about above, and in this case even from an admin. What happened at that move discussion is absolutely shameful. I am not happy with the current MOS rules on hyphens, n-dashes and m-dashes. At all. But we can't have silly discussions about them spreading over the entire encyclopedia just because some people decide to ignore them. If you don't like them, help change them, don't disrupt the project. Hans Adler 11:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I had to strike the first paragraph because I am stupid. I believe the second paragraph still stands if it's read as not addressing anyone in particular. Hans Adler 15:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MOS:CONSISTENCY, the manual itself says that articles don't have to be consistent across the project. You and Kwami are defending an idea that goes against the MOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This just says that intra-article consistency is crucial and that inter-article consistency is not quite as important ("not necessarily"). For many things we cannot have inter-article consistency anyway. This discussion is about those cases where we can. Hans Adler 15:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How odd. I wrote, and defended, the consistency clause of WP:TITLE; I have defended consistency -er- consistently; that's what I'm usually attacked for. What Kwami wants, however, is not the "rules on hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes"; WP:HYPHEN 3 says that "compound adjectives [and that's what Mexican-American is] should be hyphenated. This is something three editors have made up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am stupid. You are absolutely right. You made a convincing MOS-based argument, most other editors followed your reasoning (as do I, now) and it is not your fault that the admin misread everything and came up with a stupid justification for the close. Hans Adler 15:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hans, Anderson knows full well that his argument is nonsense. I'm surprised even he continues to repeat it after it's been so thoroughly debunked. In the clause "compound adjectives should be hyphenated", the term "adjectives" clearly means attributive modifiers of any part of speech (OED definition A), as the examples and all English style guides make clear. The section then goes on to say "In some cases, ... the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen", which is why we dash the names of wars. It's fine to want to change the convention, as it's hardly universal, but twisting what the MOS says to support an opinion as if it were fact is simply BS. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is, of course, a personal attack. The claim of telepathy is not uncommon in such attacks; as usual, I am not thinking what Kwami supposes.

The rule of interpretation that "X" means not X, but "some Y I would prefer it to mean" would make all written conventions useless. (What Kwami quotes refers to WP:ENDASH 5.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, what I am referring to is WP:HYPHEN, just to the part that contradicts your argument and which you consistently ignore. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Deeply obliged.

I also happen to think Graeme was reasonable; if MOS had contradicted policy and usage, we are likely to be in a case where it would have an occasional exception (as {{style-guideline}} says); those arguments were also made in the discussion. What boggles me is that this is still continuing after a month, with three strikes and a closure against Kwami's preferred title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, WPMED's getting complaints about Kwami's discussion-free page moves again. The current discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#.22Non-small-cell_lung_carcinoma.22_vs_.22Non_small_cell_lung_carcinoma.22. I would like to have a long-term solution for this needless problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That has consensus: we should not say a tumor is small when it is large, or large when it is small. Certainly not when people may be coming here because of a diagnosis of a loved one. — kwami (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That is an argument for not having medical articles. It is no argument for not following reliable sources.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study

Hello all!

We bring together the forces of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and Sciences Po Paris to conduct a large-scale research project on the microfoundations and dynamics of online interactions and behavior. To this end, we invite internet users with many different profiles to fill out a survey on LimeSurvey which combines decision making involving money with substantive questions about attitudes and practices. As a part of our research agenda, we would like to achieve the highest answer rate possible among Wikipedia contributors.

For this purpose, we presented our research goals and methods to the WMF which agreed to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians (to make sure, please check out the list of research projects which have the Foundation’s recognition or contact Steven Walling). We planned to invite Wikipedians to participate in this broad study by posting individual invitations on the users’ talk pages through an automated procedure.
So this message is both to let the community of admins know about what we intend to do (as our aim is surely neither to bother people nor to disrupt the editing process of Wikipedia!) and to ask for some clarifications and advices about some particular aspects of our invitation protocol, namely:

1. Is there a risk that our account could be blocked while we are in the process of sending our invitations to participate and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
2. Is there a risk that the external link to the study that we will include in our invitation messages could be blocked and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
   

At the end of the study, research outputs will be made available under an open access license and we intend to share them at a Wikimania conference. If they wish to do so, participants from Wikipedia have the possibility to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation.
We remain at your entire disposal for any further question or precision about this research project (if you like, please consider that you can also reach us by e-mail at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr).

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Many thanks,

The Harvard / Sciences Po research team. SalimJah (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi SalimJah, I'm from the Wikipedia Bot Approvals Group. The correct place to get approval for mass message delivery using an automated process is WP:BRFA. Alternatively, you can look at getting a bot which already has broad approval for message delivery, such as User:MessageDeliveryBot, to do the job for you. Getting an approval like this reduces the risk of the bot or link getting blocked, if you use a bot without approval it will be blocked as soon as possible, for violating the bot policy. However, users often object to mass messaging which they have not specifically opted in for, as many consider it spam. An alternative would be to use a watchlist notice, or one of the other three site notices explained at the top of this page. Using this method would completely remove the risk of the link being blacklisted or the bot being blocked, as it would not be editing repeatedly. Hope that helps, feel free to contact me or any other BAG ember if you have further questions. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you please provide more details about how you will be contacting people? (ie, the exact text of the message and which groups of editors you will be sending it to). As this is a WMF-endorsed study I don't see any generic problems, but you obviously need to make sure that your approach is appropriate (and posting this message here is a great way to start things off). One problem I see with your current approach is that posting access codes in publicly-viewable user talk pages will mean that these codes a) won't be private and b) are very likely to be used by people other than the intended editor in some cases. This will obviously impact on the quality of your data and may cause some privacy problems. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kingpin13 and Nick-D for your precious input and advices!

We are currently in the process of technically validating a bot that will have two specific purposes: (a) posting our invitation to participate in the talk page of several thousands of Wikipedia registered users (according to the number of Wikipedia participants that we will be able to fund) and (b) retrieving automatically participants' agreement to participate (we intend to ask participants to confirm their agreement to participate on their talk page as an answer to our invitation before they actually participate). I hope that this solves the privacy problem mentioned by Nick-D. Then, the text of the invitation will be almost the same as in our research description page on meta (i.e. a brief description of the goal of the study and how to participate in it). This research project is a large scale one that aims at understanding the dynamics of online interactions and behavior. So we intend to send our invitations to participate to all kinds of Wikipedia contributors, not restricting ourselves to one particular profile or group.

About the issue of having our bot or account blocked while we are in the process of sending the invitations, I thought of asking Steven Walling to leave a note on my talk page in order to "whitelist" me and link to our research project page on meta. Would this prevent efficiently the risk of being blocked while sending the invitations? Do we still have to go through the whole bot validation process if we do that? I must confess that we would like to move fast and open the survey for Wikipedians to participate as soon as possible.

Thanks again for your helpful guidance! SalimJah (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The text at m:Dynamics of Online Interactions and Behavior is around 3700 bytes (after deleting the misguided <br /> html). My guess (I am not an admin) is that anyone delivering that page to thousands of users would be blocked (or is there some benefit to the encyclopedia that I have overlooked?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you consider the evocation of thousands of orange banners a benefit. No talkpage spam, please. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

I second that, I'm sure interested people and pretty much everybody reads this board anyway, amongespecially admins. At most, if one really wants to reach thousand of admins, a feature in the Signpost (if its editor think it's a good idea) might be a less intrusive way of reaching out to a wider audience without spamming templates to everybody. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, thanks for sharing your concerns with us. Our research project aims at making a significant contribution to the field of human interaction systems design in order to inform the design and organization of online social spaces (if you like, please visit the webpage dedicated to this research project). We expect that current and future Wikimedia community projects could benefit a lot from the insight of such research, which is precisely why we will make it available under and open access licence and intend to share it at a Wikimania conference. Another benefit to the community is that all Wikipedia participants are given the opportunity to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation (each participant can earn as much as $50 upon completion of the survey).

From our side, we consider it important to get Wikipedia users to answer our survey, as the Wikipedia project has grown to achieve a prominent status on the internet. For validity concerns, we do not want to invite only admins to participate. We would like to be able to invite all types of Wikipedia contributors equally, ranging from the admin to the contributor who has just registered his Wikipedia account. So one reason why we finally opted for the talk page option is that this is the most widely shared discussion medium across all types of Wikipedia contributors and the only one available for recently registered users. We totally understand that this may appear intrusive to some. We are trying to figure out the best way to make our recruitment process valid and return our results to the community while not disrupting its editing process. Posting an invitation to participate in a research project on the user talk pages has already been done before. In response to this trend (and maybe because some researchers may sometimes not invest a sufficient amount of time trying to understand and abide by community guidelines and principles in their recruitment processes), the Wikimedia Research Committee and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group are currently trying to come up with a formal procedure and define best practices for researchers willing to recruit subjects from Wikimedia projects. While this is still work in progress, we totally committed ourselves to respecting them all and are happy to do so. Regards, SalimJah (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well unless someone has a way that can achieve the same result as asking lots of editors directly (watchlist notice wouldn't), I think we (/BRFA) should approve either a new bot or an existing bot to deliver this one-off request. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd suggest an existing bot, as that would also bring an experienced bot op into the discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rd232 and UltraExactZZ for your comments! So to be very specific and totally transparent about how our invitation protocol is planned to work so far:

1. We intend to use a Firefox plugin to post our invitation to participate on the Wikipedia talk pages. This plugin simply opens the talk pages that we would like to reach in turn (for instance in my case: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SalimJah&action=edit&section=new), posts our invitation on it and simulates a click on the “Save page” button. As this is not a web service, I’m not sure it can be turned into a regular Wikipedia bot.
2. Then, we wrote up a crawl in Python that has two purposes. First, it collects the agreements to participate in the study that participants will post on their talk page (see Nick-D’s privacy concerns above). In case we did not reach a sufficient number of participants after a first experimentation round and are able to fund more Wikipedians to participate, we would like to be able to open the survey again for a second round (in any case we will not do more than two rounds in order not to be too intrusive!). So upon reception of the first invitation, Wikipedians have the option to opt-out of potentially receiving a second one (according to the Wikimedia Research Committee’s proposed guidelines on how to handle the subjects recruitment process). So the second purpose of our crawl is to collect the list of those Wikipedians who explicitly opted-out of receiving a second invitation message. If this is deemed useful by the community, we would be very happy to provide the source code of this crawl (maybe this could benefit the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group in his current effort trying to define formal procedures for researchers willing to recruit subjects from Wikimedia projects).
   

Alternatively, I guess that functionality 1 above could also be fulfilled by using the MessageDeliveryBot, as suggested by Kingpin13. However, I wonder whether this bot would be suited for posting a very high number of invitations. First, it would require some tedious manual checking work from community members on an issue not directly related to Wikipedia’s editing process. Then, according to the edit rate indicated on the bot’s user page, it could take several days to complete the invitation process while we intend to open the survey for Wikipedians to participate for about a week. I also wonder whether some overload problems could arise. But we remain totally open to this possibility if the community thinks that this option could work well!

For organization purposes, we would really like to be able to open the survey for Wikipedians to participate as soon as possible, ideally in the course of next week. I hope this is feasible from the community’s side. Best regards, SalimJah (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that with the edit rate of message delivery bot (10 epm) it will take several days, exactly how many invites do you plan on sending out? Yoenit (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have a privacy concern to raise; as you appear to be proposing to give unique codes to users who will participate this will allow you to link user accounts to IP addresses (when they come to fill out your survey). Have you got an agreement with the WMF regarding how you will store or user this information (if at all). In addition do you have a) a privacy policy and b) clear explanation to users of the fact you will be exposed to their IP address directly? Apologies if I missed any of this in the above :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Yoenit’s question: our prior experience at online based surveys indicates that response rates tend to be very low (roughly about 1%). While we could expect this answer rate to be higher for some profiles of Wikipedia contributors (namely the most experimented ones), the answer rate could well be below this number for newly registered users. There are about 60 000 newly registered accounts on Wikipedia each month. So if we want to achieve both validity (i.e. a representative coverage of all Wikipedia contributors’ profiles) and statistical power, we will have to contact many of those users. I think that all in all, contacting about 40 000 users would do the trick (which would take about 3 days for MessageDeliveryBot to do). I know that this is asking a lot from the community’s side. But I sincerely think that the benefits from this large scale research program in terms of practical lessons could be worth it. I see this being especially true according to the current debate about how should the community address the issue of the declining trend in newbies’ editing behavior, an issue that WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner considers to be the top priority one to solve for the community in her march communication. Note that this is precisely one of the reasons why the WMF accepted to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians.

Responding to Errant’s question: yes, this is a totally relevant issue! Thanks for asking! :) Our survey is based on the open-source survey tool LimeSurvey. LimeSurvey generally records participants’ IP address when they login. However, this is part of our privacy policy not to record or use participants’ IP addresses. So what we do is that when participants click on the link to the study, they are directed towards a proxy that redirects them to the survey. This way, each time a participant is loggin in, we do not store his IP address but the proxy’s one. More generally, our research procedures are subject to European privacy protection protocols, under the supervision of the European Research Council and the French ethics committee (CNIL). This entails notably that (a) all the data collected in this study will be used for research purposes only and (b) individual answers won’t be made public. Regards, SalimJah (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can I clarify a few things:

1. You want 40,000 people to take the survey—do you want Wikipedia readers without accounts, Wikipedia readers with accounts, Wikipedia readers and active editors with accounts, etc., or all of them? Because there is no way you will be able to get 40,000 actively editing (experienced) Wikipedians (I doubt there are even close to that many) unless you want to conduct this survey across different language versions of Wikipedia as well. So if you want users who don't edit much, I don't expect that posting on their talk pages will be useful at all if they don't check them. So that leads to question two:
2. Are you saying that every survey-taker has to have their own unique access code? If so, this is to me the biggest obstacle. Firstly, how will Wikipedians be given access codes—on their talk page, via email, through a separate site? If it's on the talk page, anyone could use someone else's access code. If there is any way that the survey could be done without the need for special access codes, it would be simple to set up a sitenotice (a banner at the top) and/or a watchlist notice that invites users to participate. I believe this could be adjusted to show only for logged-in users, logged-out users, or both, as well. It would be the least intrusive method, IMO, and reach a broader audience.

Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the other people that would get this message, but if I were to get what is essentially a spam message on my talk page I would be extremely upset, both with the people that placed it there, and in the event that it was sanctioned by the WMF, with the WMF as well. Quite simply, mass mailings are unacceptable. Every automated message bot on Wikipedia either a) delivers newsletters/periodical messages which are signed up for in advance by the recipients and are only delivered to those that signed up, or b) delivers messages informing editors that they have made a mistake or broken a policy and asking those editors to fix that mistake. Wikipedians, like most normal people, have historically shown a low opinion of unsolicited mass mailings. There must be another way to do this that would be less problematic. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fetchcomm and Sven, I have the feeling that the answers to (at least some) of your questions can be found in the above, but I can try and make it clearer! :) We are only interested in Wikipedia registered users (the majority of those who participate in its editing process). Although we have the means to fund many Wikipedians to participate and are happy to give them the possibility to donate their final earnings to the WMF (which we see as a means to contribute to the Wikipedia fundraiser), our financial means are not unlimited. So, as noted above by Rd232, the reason why we have to invite individual editors directly and not all registered ones through a watchlist notice or a sitenotice is that if we did the latter, we could well end up with a sample that is not at all representative of the many profiles of contributors that can be found on Wikipedia. If this was to happen (and statistically it can!), this would significantly alter the validity of our results and thus make them unusable by the community. What we do is that we invite a subsample of Wikipedians to participate according to the answer rate that we expect given their contribution profile. Among them, we are obviously interested in getting many admins and experienced contributors to participate (and I sure hope that as many as possible will!). But we also want to reach a significant number of newbies, because those are very important both for the success of the community itself and in terms of the practical lessons that we will be able to draw from their participation in terms of how to enhance the design of online social spaces. So among the 40 000 users or so that we will invite, many will be newly registered users, specifically because we expect their answer rate to be very low (our response rate estimations are based on previous surveys conveyed to Wikipedians which used similar subject recruitment methods as the one we designed, but I would be delighted to have you all prove those statistics wrong! ;) ). The survey in itself is fun and entertaining, so I think those who will see the invitation and decide to participate will definitely like it!

Fetchcomm, the access code privacy concerns that you raise are very similar to those raised above by Nick-D. We will indeed provide the access codes directly on the invitation messages. However, the privacy protocol we subject our research procedures to demand that we ask participants to confirm their agreement to participate in the survey before they actually participate. A consequence of this is that the wiki-signature that goes along with the agreement post will uniquely identify participants, thus preventing any user to use someone else's access code.

Again, we totally understand that some may consider that receiving an invitation message directly on their talk page is intrusive. But I don’t see another means to do it in a valid way. We are not inventing anything new here, as subject recruitment for research purposes in Wikipedia is a relatively common practice. If anything, the novelty is that we deeply try to make our subject recruitment process valid while respecting our community commitment (please check here, here and here for more on how our recruitment process respects community principles). Then, one also has to take into consideration the benefits that such research can provide to the community, both in terms of practical lessons for enhancing its organization and efficiency, and in terms of the visibility that such research generally provides to the Wikipedia project at large. We do not only conduct this study with Wikipedians (as I said, it is a very large scale research agenda), but we really consider it important to have Wikipedians as a part of it, as the Wikipedia project has grown to achieve such a prominent status on the internet. Receiving an invitation to participate in your talk page may happen. If you don’t like it, you will never hear from us again (unless when we will present our results to the community!). So this will be the only cost you’ll bear for making this research possible.

We are currently facing very stringent schedule constraints, so if it is ok with the community, we will try to open the survey for Wikipedians to participate in the course of next week. Best regards, SalimJah (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Harvard is top-notch and Berkman is top-notch. Whatever they are doing deserves the benefit of the doubt.
• The timeline is short; one week is not a lot of time to get consensus. Two would be better for something which can set precedent.
• WMF support is not sufficient, since the WMF supports us, and if editors revolt, it's a wash.
• A watchlist notice is better than a bot post. It will attract registered editors who use their WP:Watchlist. It will have a lower overall participation response, but they will be more involved editors. You may need to target new users individually.
• The incentive that survey-takers might make money from the survey is not necessarily a plus, since Wikipedia operates 'almost' entirely in a non-commercial, non-pecuniary, voluntarism mode.
• Your need for validity is not our problem. We want to help, but we are first here to build an encyclopedia, not be guinea pigs for research.
• It's not yet clear how this research will specifically help open source movements, online community collaboration, wiki-editing, or attempts at discourse-based consensus. At the risk of compromising your study, you might hit a little more at what the benefits/relevance would be. Ocaasi ^c 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To comment on the technical issues with a delivery bot: Your proposed Firefox add-on would be a bad idea, for a number of reasons. Firstly, bots - especially message delivery bots - are expected to obey {{bots}}, which allows users to opt-out of "bot-spam", this is of particular importance here, considering the concerns that have been raised. In addition, the 10epm rate is self-imposed, following our bot policy, but in actual fact, a "proper bot" is technically capable of running at a much higher speed, and in a much more efficient manner, than the Firefox add-on. This is because the add-on is using the user interface, whereas bots would normally use the application programming interface, which removes the need for page rendering etc. So it may be possible to get the limit lifted for this specific case, but would be almost impossible if you're not using an efficient bot (because we (BAG and the community) would not want a bot which is that inefficient to be running at that kind of speed, when there are better alternatives, because it's a waste of resources) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the validity, I don't see any reasonable way to achieve the desired number of results with talk page posts unless you use a site notice. What if you put a few extra questions at the beginning or have the notice ask specifically for the type of Wikipedian that you are looking for? I agree that posting to 40,000 users' talk pages is extreme and unlikely to generate anything but criticism. Perhaps someone could find a way to go through Special:ActiveUsers and figure out exactly how many active users there are, but I doubt it's 40,000 (due to a lot of new users/blocked users being on the list as well). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Approximately 150.000 according to Special:Statistics. That is only one action in the last 30 days however, which means there is a high chance the user will never even see the message. I we count only users with >5 edits per month we have approximately 36.000 users and 3500 with more than 100 edits per month.[53]. If they expect a 1% response rate and want to post 40.000 messages they want a sample set of some 400 users. Yoenit (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• As people are indicating, spamming people's talkpages for an off-Wiki research project would not go down well, and it would harm any future research projects who would like to do a survey. There are various ways that people publicise projects. I would suggest MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. Write a short notice, linking to a page you can create, where you can give more details. The advantage is that people will read the notice in the background when they are ready. A talkpage message puts a yellow bar over what an editor is doing, and calls for attention. It has the tendency to draw people away from what they are doing to check that someone is not raising an urgent concern. To be drawn away or distracted from an involved editing session for something like this would really not be appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 10:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW a bot needs to be implemented properly - a FireFox plugin isn't appropriate because of a potential lack of oversight on the process, using a pre-existing bot and upping the edit rate temporarily is the best approach IMO. I think the optimal approach here might be:

• Implement an obvious watchlist notice directing people to a page where they can "sign up" to recieve an access code (if that is how they still want to do it). This makes it largely opt-in.
• Put a posting on some of the main noticeboards; say, here and on the village pump

And then allow targeting of individual users on a smaller scale basis (which can be discussed). From a practical perspective getting occasional editors involved by sending a message to a super-huge number of people is non-optimal. It is unlikely to get you any better cross section anyway; the data is flawed, period, and not much can be done about that (as one of my better professors once said "any time you collect data on the internet remember, it's 99% inaccurate, at least according to Google"). As also mentioned above; I personally am willing to allow more margin here given where this is coming from & the WMF support, but it still needs to cause minimum "disruption" to the process. A research posting messages will cause massive complaints; I remember when I was first around here a legit researcher (I think with WMF backing) started posting to a a few hundred talk pages (it had been vaguely discussed prior to that I think) and the fall out was pretty large, even involving a short block. Not saying that will happen here at all; but do not dismiss the likelihood of a lot of people complaining. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Reading through the above discussion, this reminds me of Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group which planned to bot-spam users for research purposes. Researchers will continue to want to take advantage of the Wikipedia community, so this would not be a "one-off". We don't wish to block researchers from gathering useful data from Wikipedians, but nor do we open to open the flood gates to spam bots. Some people quite enjoy doing surveys, or are willing to help out some research projects. Rather than rush now into creating a "one-off" bot for one specific research project that might (WILL!) create a negative back-lash, it might be better to take some time building support for the general notion of research on Wikipedia, and to recruit a body of Wikipedians who would be willing to take part in this and any other future research activities. A sustained period of publicity via SignPost, Cent and the various site-notices would draw people's attention to a research page where people could register to receive notices about this and future research projects. Gaining site-wide consensus first would generate a whole bunch of good will which would benefit future researchers. There is the opportunity here for Berkman Center for Internet & Society to be thanked by future researchers for being involved in setting up a workable scheme, or to be cursed for messing things up! SilkTork *^YES! 11:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, let me make a few comments:

• First of all, thanks for granting us the “benefit of the doubt” as regards our intentions :) Saying that we may consider Wikipedia editors “guinea pigs for research”, however, is very far from the deep respect I have for this community, its members and what they have accomplished so far!
• Our approach could set a precedent, that is true. But in my view, this precedent should be that no research program should be conducted within Wikipedia without proper community discussion and consensus building (which is initially why I wanted to make this post here before starting the project, even if we had WMF support: in this I totally agree with Errant and SilkTork’s comments above). True, we face stringent schedule constraints. But there is no way we start this project without the community’s agreement.
• I see all of your comments as a clear sign that you all want to help, and I’m sure we can find a way to make this research program both valid and respectful of community principles. It will be a deep success I’m sure!
• I understand all of your concerns and remarks. Your feedback is highly valuable! Let me speak with our team at Harvard and Sciences Po. I’ll try to see what we can do to make things better.
  

Cheers! SalimJah (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea, despite the fact that this proposed survey is being done by a respectable university that most likely has no malicious intentions whatsoever. But because of this reason, I am neutral. Now if this was not the case, this discussion would have hit the fan the second it reered it's head. Takeo™ 02:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Re Salim's comments just above. Salim, you seem prepared to go on "discussing" and "consensus building" indefinitely, so let me be frank. "No" does not mean "go ahead". Negative comments are not a clear sign that we all want to help. Your tireless praise of our feedback while apparently failing to notice its content is not respectful of community principles. Respectful would be to pay some real attention to what we say. Reminding us that you have WMF support is not necessary. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

While I think many people have raised very reasonable points above, it is important not to forget who and what we are discussing here. We're talking about real people from a real (and very prestigious) university, who want to use real money in a fashion which is of benefit to Wikimedia and to this project. While it's quite right to consider long-term issues and the 'bigger picture', I'm afraid the "it would annoy me, so don't do it" attitude doesn't get very much sympathy from me. The fundraiser annoys people every single year; there have been numerous technical and social changes (Vector skin, for instance) which have been 'annoying' to many longstanding users but which are considered necessary to advance the 'bigger picture'. Ocaasi above is half right: the WMF exists to support our content, not this community per se; 99% of the time the best way to achieve that goal is to satisfy the community's whims, but not always. This is an opportunity which should be carefully handled, but one which should not be missed, even if it does "annoy" some people. Let's be honest, it's probably not going to be as annoying as Jimbo's face was last Christmas. Happy‑melon 10:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Happy-melon, complaining about getting a "new messages" bar is petty in the face of what is trying to be achieved here. Especially when we have a system for users to opt-out of "bot spam" - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'd also add that the "where will it end?" argument is easily countered: (a) we don't have to approve future requests just because we approve this (b) the handful of people who are actually bothered by it can be given an optout mechanism. Most people, I think, will be happy to be asked or at least interested in hearing about the activity and certainly not bothered by an occasional request. If anything, the sense that academics are willing to put such effort into this sort of study ought, for most people, to boost their sense that contributing to Wikipedia is valuable, which is surely a good thing. Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's be blunt Kingpin, the no bots template solution/argument is bullshit. There is a huge difference between bots that tell me that a non-free image was orphaned and bots that ask me to do something for an off-wiki organization. If I were to use the no bots template, I'd block useful, Wikipedia related messages in the process of blocking glorified spam. That's not a viable option for most people. If Wikipedia is going to start mass mailing people, even for just this once, it needs to be opt-in rather than opt-out, and the default setting needs to be "no". Anything else is unsolicited mass mailing, which is unacceptable. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The nobots template is designed to allow users to specify what they want to opt in/out of, for example you could use {{bots|allow=orfud}} to opt-out of everything except the orphaned images notices you mentioned. It would also be possible to set up a category for this particular task, which would allow you to only opt out of it, or a category which is specifically for messages about off-wiki events, which would again allow you to opt-out (or opt-in, the nobots template also supports this). The template itself is very well designed. "Mass mailing" as you call it, happens all the time on Wikipedia, most of the time it's opt-in, occasionally it's not, it's an area where discretion is applied. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The template may be well designed, but that doesn't mean user-friendly, intuitive, or reasonable to expect 40,000 editors to figure out. Opt-out puts a burden on editors. Opt-out with any template rather than a simple click is an additional burden. Asking users to individually configure a bot to only deliver the kind of messages they want is basically a pipedream. If this kind of messaging is going to become common, the opt-out mechanism needs to be simpler, or it needs to be opt-in, or it needs to go through a watchlist notice rather than a talk message. On the other hand, if this research is a one-off, then we need a bit more information why this study deserves such treatment. Ocaasi ^c 00:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Kingpin the issue is this, in reality I have three choices: 1) I could allow no bots at all (bad idea) or 2) I could allow all bots (meaning I'd get the spam) or 3) I would use nobots but allow all of the current options (which is weird as hell). The issue is that it seems rather difficult to block a bot that hasn't been created yet from posting messages on my page. If there's a template that'll block this non-yet-bot but not disrupt any of the normal service bots, I've yet to see it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

? What are you talking about? All we need to do is amend the template to create a new category, so users who want to opt out of this kind of thing can add {{bots|deny=studies}} to their user talk page. The message itself can include the instruction to how to opt out of this type of request (whilst making it clear that this particular study won't issue any more), so it'll be easy for people to do. And we can reasonably presume that no-one will be so traumatised by the delivery of a single message of this type that they leave Wikipedia. I mean really, what's the big deal? Rd232 ^talk 10:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is clearly request to spam. I can't believe it's needed all this discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolute nonsense. I can't believe anyone objects to facilitating an academic study of Wikipedia because - the horror! the horror! - they might get the orange "new message" bar flash up if an invitation to participate goes to them. Indeed, I can't believe that all this discussion is needed. Rd232 ^talk 10:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll assume you're being sarcastic and you'll be more than happy to deal with all the complaints following the shit-storm this creates. Lugnuts (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
      • (a) I don't think many people will object and indeed many will see it as a good thing that it's happening even if they choose not to participate, and will make them feel better about contributing to Wikipedia (b) see above - if the message includes intructions on opting out of future requests of this type, then the handful of cantankerous curmudgeons who can't bear anyone actually talking to them if there's no direct benefit to them can immediately see how never to risk being bothered ever again. Rd232 ^talk 12:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am prepared to take part in this study even though the severely obfuscated language used in its "description" leaves almost completely open what it is supposed to be about. ("The ultimate objective of the study is to contribute to the development of a field of human interactions systems design aimed to improve the design and organization of online social spaces. We will combine the behavioral outputs of the study with the rich data publicly available from the web on social interactions. We will then interpret this aggregate data in light of the work on social software design and the rich qualitative work than anthropologists and sociologists have done to study the dynamics of online interactions." -- The vague language used suggests to me that you don't know what you are doing other than getting research money.) However, I will not do it if the study is advertised by talk page spam. If you want to study aspects of a community, you have to stay inside the community norms. By the way, do not rely on the "Subject Recruitment Approvals Group". I can see no indication that they are backed by anything approaching a consensus of Wikipedia editors. This is in contrast to the Bot Approval Group, which has a track record of ensuring that large-scale activities on the site do not disrupt work on the encyclopedia. Hans Adler 10:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry, but this is just not okay, and my personal concerns go far beyond "the orange message bar will pop up". The precedent that this idea, a community-sanctioned automated mass spamming, would set is highly disturbing. Sure, we all love to hate the donation banner. But notice how even the WMF does not spam users en masse with messages. Ever. The only unsolicited mass postings that are acceptable, are ones directly related to editing and editing privileges that require urgent attention of the users in question. And even then it's somewhat debatable whether those are "mass" postings. While I don't doubt there are good intentions behind this study, I don't care if it's being done by a "prestigious" and "respected" institution, or if it's an "WMF-approved" study. No one on Wikipedia has the right to bombard users with unwanted and unimportant messages. Period.

I'm also willing to bet that such mass mailing would actually put users off participating in the study. --Dorsal Axe 20:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose (the proposal, not NicholasTurnbull's suggestions). If this has the approval of the WMF, I'll wager a reasonable amount that whoever approved it from the WMF either didn't realize what you were proposing, or wasn't authorized to give such approval. As has been said above, even the WMF themselves never send out talkpage spam, but rely on watchlist notices and page headers. If this were to go ahead, then it would (a) result in such a distorted sample as to render any findings virtually meaningless (as you can see from the above, many if not most "regular Wikipedians" are extremely hostile to this, so you'd be surveying that subset who don't tend to have the "Wikipedia mindset"—you'll probably end up with vandals and trolls giving joke responses overwhelming the genuine answers), and (b) cause such a logjam of "why am I receiving this message?" queries and complaints across multiple venues as to logjam Wikipedia's internal processes and waste the time of a lot of people who could be doing something more useful, as your bot is repeatedly blocked, unblocked and reblocked, accompanied by a lengthy discussion each time. – iridescent 20:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose with suggestions. I do not approve of the idea of mass-spam beyond project limits, no matter how well-intentioned the purpose of that spam, being permitted for specific preferential projects such as the one above with the WMF's blessing. Why? Because, it's a precedent, a form of action-based WP:BEANS. If this group of researchers get some sort of exception to mass-spam, other researchers will be able to say, "But you let the Berkman Centre do it! You see, you're just in it for the money; you're discriminating against researchers with lower budgets..." and before we know it, the toothpaste will be out of the metaphorical tube and we will have spam bots permitted lest we be accused of offering other research groups second-class service. I also disagree that the community's way of doing things is being respected, judging from the tone of the researchers posting here. They seem to say, "We're going to do things our way, using Firefox plugins instead of tried-and-tested Wikipedia bot platforms with community consensus, and mass-posting talk page messages instead of other means, even though we find your non-academic objections rather cute and lovely." How about:

• Support only after alteratives have been tried I think one yellow bar popping up is a pretty small price to pay for a useful academic study on the nature of wikipedia's community. That being said I don't think a mass spam is really even necessary, as the SiteNotice/CentralNotice and/or Watchlist notice should be just as good for getting word out or better (with notices you could use the marquee tag with blinking red text and 64 point font if you wanted to, not that I would support that, but still it'd be possible). If that doesn't generate the responses needed I think a precision mass spam to a target audience. But really I don't see how this is any worse than all the notices we get for things that you may have edited once 5 years ago or for things like RFA thank spam that you most likely don't care about. At least this has a purpose that can benefit the community --nn123645 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull's alternatives to bot spamming

Alternative 1: Site notice plus pre-selection

1. The researchers compile their list of selected users by crawling Wikipedia passively, applying whatever criteria they want to it, then storing this selected user list on their servers.
2. A site-wide banner notice directing users to a page on Meta (which must be able to be dismissed) is set.
3. The Meta page describes the study, and links to the offsite project URL.
4. For those users who opt in to clicking on the URL via the Meta page describing the study, the system would prompt for their Wikipedia username.
5. The system would then send them a verification e-mail via Special:EmailUser to their Wikipedia account's registered address, which they would reply to in order to confirm their ownership of the Wikipedia account.
6. After users identify themselves to the external site in this way, the Centre's site would compare against the eligibility list and accept only those users who were selected in the initial processing.

Advantages: For this approach, no bots are required, but specific selection based on editor demographics and statistics is possible in exactly the same way, and there is no need for talk page messages to be sent at all. In addition, none of Wikipedia's internals need to be touched, and no Firefox plugins or mass messaging bots are required.

Disadvantages: Possible editor frustration if they are not one of the selected editors. Possible statistical self-selection effects as per the ratio of users in each category that click the site notice link that have been chosen, vs. median rates in that demographic.

Alternative 2: Special:EmailUser notification

1. How about just using Special:EmailUser to notify selected respondents? Its syntax provides an HTTP POST email form for any valid username passed to it after a forward-slash.
2. The process would then proceed as above, where users would verify, etc.

Advantages: Permits the Centre's protocol to remain intact.

Disadvantages: 40,000 messages sent via Special:EmailUser ain't pretty. (MW devs, I think you will want to crucify me if I suggest this and they try it without suitable throttling.) Also, this really is spam.

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on the alternatives, I think alternative 1 is the more realistic. Using what are apparently perceived as less intrusive methods such as a site notice, watchlist notice, or/and Signpost stories seems to be the only way to get a message to the community on this. Emailing would not be at all appropriate, and would be arguable worse than the talk page postings. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally rather get it in my Wiki email. That way I know what button to press if I don't want any more in the future. Then again, the group of users who have email accounts is even more particular and selective and experienced than those who will see a site-notice on their watchlist. Ocaasi ^c 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative 2 is not viable because it would dramatically distort the sample, since most users don't have email enabled. Rd232 ^talk 11:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion that we can close this thread for now

Hi everyone. So since I've offered to help this research group out however the Foundation can (see the list of all research projects we're aware of) I wanted to jump in and make a quick statement. The early discussion here seemed vaguely supportive of the bot idea, but clearly that is not the preferred option right now. I'm going to reach out to the research group to explore alternative options, such as what NicholasTurnbull suggested above and others. But for now, I think we can close out this thread, because:

A) it's clear the community would not like to see 40,000 user talk pages messaged about a survey

B) there are a variety of other methods available and that can be discussed

If it turns out the project doesn't need 40k responses, then maybe we'll come back and propose the bot delivery option, but for now I think it's safe to say that there's no immediate danger of it just happening without further community input. In the meantime, please feel free to offer up more suggestions for alternatives either on my talk page or SalimJah's. Is that okay? Steven Walling at work 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Babasalichai

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.

Babasalichai (talk · contribs · count) is banned by community consensus. Courcelles 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Pursuant to the numerous violations detailed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Greenbay1313_forum_shopping, and the history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive, I think it might be time to community ban Babasalichai, thus freeing up everyone's time in dealing with this in the future. I'm not an admin, and I might not be doing this right. Please feel free to tell me if I goofed somewhere and/or correct the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't notify Babasalichai of this thread, but otherwise you did everything correctly (and you don't have to be an admin to propose community bans, BTW). I'll notify him after this post. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 13:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely support a measure of this kind. I have been dealing with this user since November 10, 2010, when I noticed him adding unsourced information to Rabbi Pinto while I was patrolling. It's been a long six months. His endless circular arguments, refusal to get the point, and sock puppetry are eating up time of myself and many other editors who have been watchlisting this group of articles. On the Rabbi Pinto article, he was attempting to link to a rumour that the rabbi had put a curse on someone who later met an untimely end, had some sketchily sourced stuff about mafia connections (sample diff), and wanted to put in material that implied that the rabbi and his followers are idol worshippers (sample diff) etc etc. The action has now moved to the article on to Ronn Torossian and the most recent sock, Greenbay1313 (talk · contribs · logs). On March 31 he posted on nine different notice boards and the talk pages of several users in an attempt to get some support for the edits he wishes to make. He is presently not blocked as the SPI is still open. The sock puppetry may go back as far as Emetman (talk · contribs · logs), who was originally blocked in 2008. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia and is eating away at the time and resources of others who are trying to protect the encyclopedia from harm. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - We need not to waste any more time on this guy. Community ban him so his socks can be blocked and reverted on sight. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Possible support - However I would like to see the results of the SPI first. If the SPI shows he has been socking, then consider this a support. Night Ranger (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - This has gone on for far too long, and the barrage of socks makes it almost impossible to figure out what exactly needs fixing in the article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Not only has the user socked, he has committed the cardinal sin of wasting everyone else's time. If I see a request related to him at EAR one more time I may eat a leather or felt product in frustration. Danger (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- There are so many past admin discussions of this guy and the related articles you should open up this search and scan down all the reports at noticeboards. The article on 5W Public Relations has been at the center of this activity, which goes back to 2008. We are at the point where any non-sock editing of that article would be noteworthy. Lately the articles on Ronn Torossian and Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto have been the subject of fishy editing. The people making these questionable edits are constantly defending themselves at noticeboards and complaining about those on the other side. Anyone who has tried to explain Wikipedia policy (including BLP) to these folks is probably disappointed. The value of a ban on Babasalichai is that it may help slow down the flow of new socks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- as one of the other editors working with Dianaa on Pinto, I concur that this editor is a significant problem. In particular, if User:Greenbay1313 is found to be a sock, then it's clear that this user is not only socking, but making use of a whole variety of wiki-processes to try to enforce a certain set of viewpoints, most of which seem to revolve around Ronn Torossian, the public relations company he founded (5W Public Relations), and people whom I believe are either clients or opponents of the firm. It seems likely to me that the company (or one employee of the company, perhaps) is treating Wikipedia as a place that it can legitimately use for advancement of its own public relations work. On the one hand, I would think that this would make it difficult to actually ban them, as you'd think a sophisticated PR firm could learn to get better at socking, but xe seems to fall into similar patterns over and over again. One note though--I thought that the "original" editor in question was User:Jonathangluck, so wouldn't we make that the "official" banned editor, with the rest listed as socks of Gluck? Or is it more appropriate to use the name that caused the most problems? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Jonathan Gluck acct (created 6/19/10) was originally thought to be the oldest but it is actually Baba that is to be considered the master (created 2/11/09). I will fix up the userpage templates to reflect this. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It is my impression that he has become more sophisticated in his socking, in at least one way - he has been careful not to reuse computers that have been already marked for puppetry. I would like to suggest an hypothesis for possible action. I am guessing that all the IPs involved in socking have passed through one of two servers, one probably in Los Angeles and the second in New York. I am also guessing that those servers are privately owned and serve only those people involved in socking. Would it be possible to assume that all IPs passing through those servers and focusing on the articles in question are socks, and then automatically block them? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

He's also made attempts to change his writing style and leave out some of the giveaway stylistic tells, although he quickly gives himself away once he stops concentrating. In addition, there may actually be two separate sockfarmers involved here - a couple of the accounts do actually appear to be able to write coherent English, even if it's English that has a strong helping of PR-speak. It's also possible these more-coherent accounts are actually the same person but their output gets copyedited by an employee (or even translated from whatever the sockmaster's first language is!)

I don't have access to all the technical data, but regarding the IPs, I don't think it's as simple as you hope. There's been a variety of IPs involved, including an ordinary domestic broadband line and something that looks like it may be a club or similar type of organisation so not privately owned as such (although with a possible link to the Los Angeles area as you say). Certainly it's worth being aware of the pattern of usage so that it can be considered (privately, perhaps) next time something duck-like appears. A couple of the IPs now have owner notes on their talk pages, so those are the ones worth keeping a link to.

Right, now I have the thorny decision of whether to support or not :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Having read the SPI and noting the intensive meatpuppetry he's doing like agreeing with Beobjectiveplease, not to mention butting in at the Clerk CU and Admin comments section in one SPI report when editors who are none of the above should not, I don't think he's psychologically and mentally capable of editing constructively on Wikipedia. If he's become good at socking, a site ban and semiprotect on Ron Torossian, 5W, and the Pinto article is in order. Dianaa, those circular arguments you're talking about are really the signs of pigheaded editors. What a tool that guy is. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• This same user is up for a CCI for close paraphrasing. I haven't had time to look at the CCI request yet but if this is true there's another reason for banning. MER-C 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - more legal threats: Somehow I seem to bring out the best in these guys. At some point in some discussion (I am beginning to lose track), Greenbay mentioned libel, one of you responded that we don't like legal threats, and I chimed in that I thought Greenbay was talking about legal action by Ronn Torossian, not by him. Well, I have revised my opinion in light of his latest post on my talk page. I think the statement that "If you think that libelous content will continue to exist you are sorely mistaken" is a clear threat of legal action. Greenbay should be blocked. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support I only have recent experience with these accounts, but have already observed multiple abuses. Sock puppetry, legal threats, copyvio, forum-shopping, and personal attacks just off the top of my head. Much time has already been wasted in attempts to help these accounts along. Can see no benefit to allowing this behaviour to continue. The Interior (Talk) 21:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

May I ask does sockpuppetry permit use of undue sources like on Torossian page, and allow user: Ravpapa to out someone on his page (and apologize for it), and then insult someones personal appearance ? Have you reviewed the Torossian page ? There's a ton of Israel stuff, but no mentions of major clients: Foreign Ministry and Tourism Ministry of Israel and Likud Party and current Mayor of Jerusalem: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 has also represented Israel Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback Trained Israeli government officials for media appearances. http://www.prweekus.com/israel-branding-effort-aims-to-humanize-nations-image/article/56167/ But some no name Reform Rabbi criticism is included ? Work with ruling Israeli government of course some frings Israeli official will criticize. Its undue balance and should be fixed. Noone is seeking to upset Wikipedia rules but its a hard system when editors seem to gang up together. greenbay1313 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the above editor Greenbay1313 has now also started deleting positive material from other, competing PR companies [54] [55] [56]. Dayewalker (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this needs a ban, it will really make life easier for the copyright people who have to clean up all the stupidity from dozens of accounts over several years now, and also the rest of us who have to clean up the paid bias inserted by these socks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Up until now, I would always have said, what's the point, it's not like he's going to wear us down just by keep creating more sockpuppets, right? OK, I was wrong. Creating three sockpuppets per day, every day, and keeping up this nonsense for years now... well, it's more than I can easily handle. Ten or more noticeboards addressed in one day? More than once? Too much. I would be totally relaxed about all this, except that what the various sockpuppets originally wanted to do was not to remove some unfair representation from their own Wikipedia article; no, they wanted to use their sockpuppets to defame some personal opponent of theirs in their local area. Sad? Sick? No comment, but a ban is needed in a big way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, this is getting out of hand, enough time has been wasted, it's time to pull the plug, initiate the ban, and flush greenbay1313 down with the rest of the waste generated by all this nonsense. Any admins want to officiate? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do any of you people review what you actually say ? The content removed from other PR firms is it allowed on Wikipedia ? Are there sources ? The answer is no. I can and will return them if thats what you'd like. Its quite confusing why some things are allowed without sources and others arent. There was no sources thought am supposed to remove. have any of you bothered to actually review Torossian page before commenting here. Do you think a ban will mean Internet cafes will be closed ? be reasonable folks. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Translate that last sentence to us. Is that a threat? –MuZemike 03:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

of course not a threat simply saying its better to address the issue and review the content rather than enforcing rules which may not be understood. No one is trying to "game the system". You asked not to post to multiple forums, havent. Simply asking to review the content. No threats at all just asking to review the content. (and tell the truth - The edits of other companies above review the edits there were no sources. They arent competitors. User Ravpapa has outed people, insulted personal charteristics and offended families in this process its a 2 way road... just some dont know Wikipedia rules. They should be helped not attacked. Anyway have you been able to review the Torossian page. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord. "Do you think a ban will mean Internet cafes will be closed?" is a clear and obvious announcement of intention to sockpuppet if blocked. How many legal threats (here's a quick list [57]) and instances of disruption is it going to take? Dayewalker (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support with a but - the user is not impossible to work with. They seem to have a real concern that the article's current state doesn't portray the subject neutrally, and have been working (as I suggested) on an alternate version of the Torossian article on their sandbox. If Greenbay1313 abandons their threats of legal actions and is willing to discuss the merger of the current article and their version civilly and respecting the policies and guidelines, I'd give them a chance to do it. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- The disruption by this person pushes far beyond the bounds one should have to deal with, and administrators should have the tools a community ban provides. The amount of socks, threats and disruption need this action. Dave Dial (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Not here to contribute in a collective manner. Threats, legal and otherwise, are an unacceptable response. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This is absurd. We've nuked users from orbit for far less than what's going on here. Let's bring down the banhammer and allow ourselves to deal with this user more efficiently. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long outstanding CFDs

Declaration of interest: I am the nominator of both CFDs. However as they have been running for so long it's best that somebody brings it to wider attention.

Wanted: Administrators with thick skins, the patience to read one of the longest discussions imaginable and a willingness to defend their decision in any resulting DRV.

There are two category discussions that have been open for nearly two months now. They are about naming conventions, and the current lack thereof, for categories for former pupils/former students/alumni/people educated at schools in the United Kingdom and Australia and involve a very large number of categories:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Former students by secondary school in Australia
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom

Most of the comment is on the UK discussion but some of the issues also affect the Australian schools.

The discussion has been extremely lengthy and heated with a lot accusations flying around. It's also been declared in the discussions that whatever the close outcome it's very likely to be taken straight to DRV - see [58] & [59]. Anything based purely on headcounting is going to be especially controversial.

The situation is also complicated as the most contentious issue does not apply to every single category.

Virtually all the regular closing admins at CFD have been sucked into the discussion either directly or through closing earlier, more limited nominations in the same area. Various potential outcomes have been listed by one such admin at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#closing the UK and Australia alumni discussions; note this raises some of the potential technical consequences of whatever outcome is decided.

My best wishes to anyone willing to take this task on. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. To be honest though, the Australian one would be pretty easy for an admin to close (if the UK one is not taken into account; if it is, it would be more difficult). Also Tim, you may have more luck finding a closer if you move this thread to WP:AN, which is where I have normally seen these types of requests made. Jenks24 (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved. I was confused by some of the other entries that implied AFD & CFD related requests had been moved the other way. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Closed both of these but now there is a big cleanup: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Former students by secondary school in Australia, who will change all those categories on the articles? and for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom it will need a bot or someone as persistent to detag categories. That last one was nearly too big to edit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As nominator I'll produce the list for the Australian schools now. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice for a fresh editor.

I have recently come across a editor that appears to be churning out article after article on questionably notable people. Most of his articles over a year or so history have been proposed for deletion or speedy deletion. The main problem appears to be his references. For example many of the articles are about employees of the Mormon(LDS) church, and the majority of them seem to only have references to the website of the Mormon church itself. This is equivalent to writing an article about a businessman and then citing the businesses website only. It seems like time and time again his articles are saved from deletion while the references remain unchanged/lacking. The author of these articles does not appear at all to even be responding to the discussions about his articles or updating the references. Instead he continues to churn out articles about dubiously notable people with poor sources. What should I do? Aquabanianskakid (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A link to the user would be helpful. Unless other people can analyze and assess the situation directly, we have no way to know what the proper course of action is. --Jayron32 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

His page is [[60]] Perhaps I am taking it a bit too seriously but it seems problematic for him to move on to new article after new article without properly fixing the old ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquabanianskakid (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This description of the articles I create is debatable on multiple levels. The articles on William R. Bradford, Larry Y. Wilson and Durrel A. Wolsey all contain references to pages in no way controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Beyond this the articles I have created on George B. Handley, James Arrington (in March of this year), J. Kirk Richards (also in March), also are exceptions to this. In fact this is best described as the situation in the last day, but even then describing men like Jose L. Alonso as employees is misleading. They are religious leaders. While this may not effect assesments of their notability, it conveys their positions much better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, leaders in the LDS Church are volunteer in every sense of the word; for example, the ward bishop will generally have a full-time job that's no more related to the church than are the jobs of other men in the congregation. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think User:Johnpacklambert is correct in adding articles on high ranking LDS church leaders, William R. Bradford and Jose L. Alonso for example. They are members of the First Quorum of the Seventy (not employees), which is the second highest group in the LDS Church hierarchy. They are sort of like a Cardinal in the Catholic Church... responsible for large geographical areas. In alot of cases, references from the LDS church will have to suffice as there will not be alot of press on them. Anything below, such as Second Quorum of Seventy member Larry Y. Wilson is iffy. Personally, I would say no, they are not notable, but I would ask User:ARTEST4ECHO for his opinion as he is THE person in Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement.

Adding most of the BYU professors such as George B. Handley should not be added. He should not create any other BYU professor article.

Others, such as James Arrington, should be added, but from the article you wouldn't know it. I think this is a major problem on Johnpacklambert's part. There needs to be more referencing and more reason on why the person is notable. I'd be glad to help Johnpacklambert in any way I can. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"In alot of cases, references from the LDS church will have to suffice as there will not be alot of press on them." No, this violates WP:BIO big time. A cardinal, to take your example, will in many cases be interviewed or profiled in non-catholic, neutral media. If no or not enough such sources are available for some of these people, they shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, yes, but no. You are going to need to throw out a ton of articles on Catholic Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops as the only source is from Catholic sources... but you can't because bringing a Catholic Bishop to AfD will not pass because the position is presumed to be notable or inherently notable. In the case of First Quorum of Seventy member, I'm advocating the position is presumed to be notable, same as a Catholic Cardinal. I'm not sure about anything lower on the LDS hierarchy, which is why I recommended asking User:ARTEST4ECHO. Bgwhite (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that people may vote as if some positions have an inherent notability, the concept is usually not accepted on Wikipedia. There are guidelines which assume that for all members of a certain group (e.g. professional soccer players), there will be enough independent sources to pass WP:BIO, but there are no groups of people where the position is that even when there are no independent reliable sources, they are presumed to be inherently notable anyway. Having said that, for the vast majority of cardiansl and so on, such sources are available anyway, at least for recent times (which is relevant when comparing with LDS people). Fram (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is not about Catholic Cardinals, it's about violations of WP:BIO on Johnpacklambert's pages. Regardless of what you want to call them employees/volunteers the references provided for MANY of the articles (not all) are from the LDS church website. The only difference between an employee and a volunteer is that a volunteer doesn't get paid. It doesn't mean the the person has any less vested interest in the organization or vice versa. Some of the ones that aren't from the LDS church website are from personal blogs or sources the could be edited/maintained by the person they are about. If they are notable more sources need to be added instead of moving on to new articles repeating the same problem. In my opinion it's better to have 1 well sourced article than 6 articles with irrelevant sourcing. As I said before Johnpacklambert's talk page is littered with notices for proposed deletions and such, it seems like this is not a new problem.Aquabanianskakid (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BGWhite has a very good point here: there's no significant difference between these positions, and contrary to what's stated above, we generally consider Catholic prelates to be notable because of their office, so I don't see why the same should not be in force here. Moreover, we're talking about leaders in a significant worldwide religious organisation; it's not as if someone's writing articles about the apostles of the Strangite church. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is an example of the kind of stuff I'm talking about, [[61]] . The sources are identical, all copies from the church source. I don't think it is ok to assume notability, I think it needs to be proven. On top of it all my point is that many people in the past have found problems with his articles, yet someone seems to be dismissing these problems in the end even though nothing has changed. Aquabanianskakid (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There about supposedly one billion catholics, and about 200 cardinals, or one for every five million. There are supposedly 14 million members of the C of LDS, and 70 members of the first quorum, i.e. one for every 200,000. Stating that there is "no significant difference between these positions" ignores this simple math. A member of the First Quorum is in this regard comparable to a Bishop (Catholic Church), of which there are about 5,100, i.e. one for every 200,000 catholics. Is every bishop of these 5,100 notable? Fram (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention this article, George_B._Handley , where the bios appear to be submitted by the subject and one reference is something the subject wrote. A lot of these references are questionable at best. Perhaps mormonwiki.com is a better place for these articles. Since the targeted audience at that site is LDS the notability requirements should be less stringent.Aquabanianskakid (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

<----------

Don't judge George B. Handley as Mormon only. He is an author of three non-Mormon books such as Post-Slavery literature and another on Poems. Does that make him notable? I don't know. I'll say it again, "...I think this is a major problem on Johnpacklambert's part. There needs to be more referencing and more reason on why the person is notable." This should be a major point of this entire thread. I've already left a message at his talk page saying I'm available if he needs help.

As for Fram's comments. It has been rehashed many times over before, but yes every Bishop is presumed to be notable, not that I agree with it. Don't use numbers to compare a Catholic Bishop to a LDS Church Seventy (btw Seventy is a title not how many there are). An Australian league basketball player is presumed notable just as an NBA player is. You can use numbers to make an argument here also. But, this should not be for discussion here and can be argued elsewhere as the thread should be about Johnpacklambert's editing. Aquabanianskakid is right when he says, "...editor that appears to be churning out article after article on questionably notable people". Adding articles with little to no references or statements to why they are notable needs to be corrected. I'll leave another note on his talk page, work on editing some of articles to bring them up to snuf and bring a couple to AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on the Bishop part. Mormon Bishops are called to their position for a matter of years usually 4 or 5 years, at least in most areas. Now imagine somewhere like Utah with a large population of Mormons. Can you imagine the number of Bishops we would have to consider notable if we went by that rule? In my town alone there are 4 bishops and it isn't even a large town. It isn't like Ministers,Priests,and Bishops in other Christian congregations where they may well serve a lifetime in the position. My issue with the George B. Handley like you said, has more to do with the terrible sources. Aquabanianskakid (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant Catholic Bishops not LDS as that is what User Fram was talking about. I personally don't advocate anything below First Quorum of Seventy in the LDS Church unless they are notable for another reason. 71.195.251.191 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this whole method is wrong headed. If people object to specific articles, they should address those specific articles. Considering other articles I have created include those on Tory Rocca, Sal Rocca, Sue Rocca, Doug Carl and many others I think this attempt to claim all the articles I have created are misguided is without merit. Then there are articles on people such as Marie Cornwall, who clearly meets multiple notability guidelines. Sometimes it really does feel like articles I create are held to a higher standard than those by others. I have seen articles that have as their only source the university bio of an individual. I would also point out the general assumption is that any Catholic bishop is notable. Also, there are not 70 members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, that is the maximum, but it is below that number. The question is not employee verses volunteer, the question is employee verses leader and also the fact that The Church News is not "the Church's website", it is a publication run through the Deseret News, under the direction of the Church, but far more formal and actually a publication than a website, so calling it a website is just misleading and misrepresenting the case at hand. There are also the articles I have created on James Rasband, H. Reese Hansen, James D. Gordon III and Carl S. Hawkins. I have a strong sense that my contributions are being portrayed in far too narrow a light. I guess I should not go so much on the defensive, but the claims about the articles I have contributed to wikipedia are just off base.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed out specific articles that had problems. At no point have I said all of your articles are flawed (although it seems many are) but even the ones you just provided have pretty poor quality references. You have some articles that are a great start but it seems like you are popping out many articles before finishing the previous ones. This just adds to the pile of articles that are sitting around without sources. "The Church News is not "the Church's website", it is a publication run through the Deseret News, under the direction of the Church". I'm sorry but under the "direction of the Church" means it is a church controlled source no matter how you spin it, as is BYU news. They are fine sources in addition I suppose to perhaps The New York Times, but not alone. Better sources are needed, that's it. Add better sources and I personally won't have an issue with the state of many of these articles. Aquabanianskakid (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that the third party guidelines state, "To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia." That is exactly what Deseret News, BYU news, etc. are. Also, "Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials." We need to avoid using self published websites and closely affiliated websites for our references . Aquabanianskakid (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Request advice concerning involvement

• Selphyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have written an article about Selphyl, a product and procedure used for cosmetic purposes, which is also colloquially called "vampire facelift", according to the New York Times. On the article talk page, Runels (talk · contribs), who identifies himself as a person holding a trademark on "vampire facelift" for a slightly different but related procedure, has objected at great length to the article's use of the words "vampire facelift" in connection with Selphyl, because he believes that such use violates his trademark. He has now made what I believe are legal threats in this regard. I would appreciate advice from fellow administrators about whether I am too involved editorially to take administrative action against Runels. If yes, I would appreciate it if a colleague were to take appropriate action. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

On the involvement question: meh. It's probably best if you don't block him, but it's clear enough that it doesn't really matter. On the legal threat question: yes, that's a legal threat, indeffed as usual. T. Canens (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If he has a trademark issue, he can file a takedown request, because the WMF complies with even the most ridiculous of them. Otherwise, I'd ignore it; I don't see a major problem. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but did someone direct him to OTRS? That's probably the correct venue. I've mentioned this on his talk page, in case it hasn't been brought up before. Also, as a "someone besides me should fix this" type aside, we need to work on our legal threat block template. It comes across as a slap in the face, treating it much like we treat vandalism, even though the person behind the legal threat is often acting in good faith. If we're going to block for a comment like that (I don't think we should, but that's another discussion I suppose), we at least need to try to decrease the antagonism, rather than increase it. I could have sworn I've seen a kinder gentler legal block template somewhere, but can't find it at the moment. But we should either make that the default template, or if I'm confused and it doesn't exist, we should make one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You should suggest some wording. I agree - there are a subset of editors making legal threats who actually mean "this has some real life implications which might be legal" rather than the "I'll soo u for lible and my dad's a lwyer so ther!" variety, where we ought to be advising them of OTRS or other methods of resolving the issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action. I'm not certain that a referral to OTRS is helpful in this case, because I'm not sure what an OTRS volunteer (I myself am one as well) could tell Dr. Runels other than what I've already told him on the talk page: Wikipedia's content is not determined by trademarks, but rather by coverage in reliable secondary sources. But in general I agree that our legal threat block template is, er, not very nuanced.  Sandstein  15:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My main reason for suggesting OTRS was that if they mention their lawyer sending a letter in an email to WMF, the OTRS volunteer would probably tell them where to send it, rather than invoking NLT and blocking the account, the way we tend to do on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember that if someone doesn't take action to try to protect their trademark, they can lose it. It's not really fair to penalize them for that. Disruption beyond trademark protection attempts, though, should be actionable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically, it is fair from Wikipedia's point of view not to allow "trademark protection" actions, because one's desire to protect one's trademark represents a conflict of interest with Wikipedia's purpose to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and may be detrimental to that purpose.  Sandstein  17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, AFAIK legalwikimedia.org is the right address. OTRS can be backlogged at times, so depending on urgency, might not be best. In this case, someone should direct him to email the legal address (can someone verify that it's correct, first, though?). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While certainly not the only factor, I believe Sandstein's incorrect reading of "verifiability, not truth" has contributed to the escalation:

"Our motto is 'verifiability, not truth', as defined in our core policy, WP:V. This means that we write what reliable secondary sources say, even if we believe them to be wrong as a matter of fact."

I know that Sandstein actually misunderstands policy, as opposed to writing unclearly in this instance, because in the past he actually argued for libelling Sam Blacketer based on this idea that truth does not matter. [62] In past discussions at WT:V (see WT:Verifiability/Archive 38#The meaning of "verifiability, not truth")) I tried to get the policy clarified to make it clear that the idea that we knowingly publish things that are not true just because they are "verifiable" is a misconception. But this task seems impossible because too many editors simply deny that anyone subscribes to such a fundamentalist reading!

I guess this even has legal implications, because in terms of the law it surely makes a difference whether our policies tell us to make a best effort to publish the truth or whether they tell us to knowingly publish lies in certain situations. In the second case the Wikimedia Foundation would be vulnerable to lawsuits because while under the DMCA it has no obligation to micro-manage the content of the encyclopedia before any particular problem has been pointed out directly to them, they would be directly responsible for any damage arising out of such an absurd policy, once they are aware of it. (I am of course not a lawyer, but I have followed a lot of American court cases pretty closely.)

It's annoying that misleading formulations in policy cannot be fixed once they have existed for a number of years and a lot of people are in love with them. Hans Adler 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand both the policy and my application of it. Nobody argues that we should publish untruths, but in WP:V, we have agreed to accept as true for our purposes only what is published in reliable sources, both because we do not want to engage in original research and because we would otherwise constantly disagree about what is true. Consequently, WP:V says that we include what has been published in reliable sources, irrespective of "whether editors think it is true". Any futile attempts at changing that core policy, however, are best made at WT:V, not here.  Sandstein  17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then let me put it differently: We do not publish lies because they are "true for our purposes". As soon as every reasonable editor must know that something is not true, we must stop claiming it, reliable or not. "In our internal bureaucracy we have redefined the word 'truth' so that for us it was true even though of course we knew that in the ordinary sense of the word it wasn't" is not a defence that any judge is going to accept when push comes to shove. Hans Adler 18:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've always interpreted "verifiability not truth" as "we aren't going to publish what you say just because you say it's true; we need a reliable source to confirm it. No offense to you, not calling you a liar, that's just our policy". Not "we will publish something we know to be wrong, because our hands are tied by a mistake in a usually-reliable source". That's crazy, and I don't think Sandstein believes this, in spite of his unfortunate phrasing of it above (assuming for now Hans is quoting him somewhere, I haven't checked).

The problem is that if we change WP:V, then this allows the kooks to come out of the woodwork, and say that the normally-reliable New England Journal of Medicine made a simple "mistake", and the truth is that 9/11 was actually a conspiracy of Freemasons born in Kenya, or whatever. It would give them a foot in the door. But the solution is not to lock in known mistakes to be consistent when fighting the kooks; the solution is to fight the kooks with WP:V, but occasionally IAR if we know that a fact is wrong. "We" being a bunch of thoughtful uninvolved people, not just taking some guy's word for it.

In this particular case, I don't think it's as clearcut, because in spite of Sandstein's wording, I don't think we know that a "fact" is wrong. If it is, I still think a letter to OTRS from the editor, or even, (gasp) from their lawyer would be more productive that arguing with other editors about "truth". But in general, we really need to shy away from implying, by the way we word our summary of WP:V, that we will intentionally publish something we know to be wrong because a reliable source said so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How do we know the reliable source is wrong? Because another reliable source said otherwise? If so, we have policy: give them due weight. Or because we just know? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Sam Blacketer case we knew that the reliable sources were wrong because they said the precise opposite of what our server logs showed. Hans Adler 18:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)In this particular case, I think the editor is saying the US Patent Office shows he's right. Like I said, this isn't as clearcut a case of "publishing info we know is wrong", and it may indeed be the case that it would require OR to determine who's right. I'm arguing the more general case.

But in general, obviously we "know" it's wrong in different ways, depending on the specific situation. For example, I think there was an issue a while ago where Jimbo said his birthdate was different than what it said on his birth certificate (or something, I forget the details). I also recall a conversation where almost everyone involved in a talk page discussion agreed that the only reliable source available, an article in a music magazine, was mistaken when it placed an artist in a music genre. Another editor disagreed, not because he thought the article was correct, but because "that's what it says so there's no use arguing". I guess the biggest problem is in cases (like this one), where there only appears to be a mention of a fact in one single reliable source, and no other reliable sources confirm or reject the statement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I totally agree with you in every respect. I think the reason you think you are contradicting me is that you didn't follow ther links. (E.g. at WT:V I made the point that we can only slightly clarify "verifiability, not truth" because otherwise we lose an important tool against the kooks.) The above is a literal quotation from Sandstein which I would have ignored if I had not been aware of this. It appears that Sandstein is categorically against applying IAR when we know that something that is "verifiable" is not true. Hans Adler 18:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that this is not a case where we know that a fact is wrong. In this case, the NYT says that A is called B, and the trademark holder says that no, the NYT is wrong, I have a trademark on B, and that trademark says that B means C (which I have invented), and therefore you may not refer to A as B. To which we reply, your trademark does not determine how we refer to A; we follow secondary sources, even if you believe the sources are mistaken in referring to A as B.

But with respect to the issue Floquenbeam raises, while none of us will or should by ourselves write something that we know to be wrong, we need to accept wrong information written by others in cases where the only available reliable source supports what they write and so we cannot prove, within the confines of WP:V, that they are wrong. For instance, if I write an article about my city, I may note that a certain pub has closed because I have seen it close. But, per WP:CHALLENGE, if somebody doubts that, I would have to remove it, because my personal knowledge is not verifiable. And if the other editor then writes something about the pub as though it were still open, based on a 2010 newspaper article mentioning it, I would have no basis on which to contest that addition.  Sandstein  18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't need to publish something just because it's "verifiable". Verifiability, not truth is the (what we really mean is: a) threshold for inclusion. Want to include something? It has to jump over this threshold first. It does not mean that we have to include everything that passes this threshold. As I said elsewhere, if a reliable source publishes Obama's shoe size we don't have to go looking for an article where we can add the information. We are not breaking policy by leaving it out as irrelevant. And the same happens with "verifiable" information that we have good reason to believe is false. Hans Adler 18:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's of course true that we can and do remove verifiable information because, no matter whether true or false, it is irrelevant, such as Obama's shoe size. But we may not remove verifiable and relevant information just because we believe it is false. That's the core meaning of WP:V.  Sandstein  18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. The fact that you don't understand this is the reason why I have created this subsection. Hans Adler 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Editorial judgment always plays a role. That's why there is WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR. But I think I understand Sandstein's concern too since it does happen that groups of biased editors can produce a tyranny of the majority and suppress information without Sandstein's kind of interpretation as protection. Maybe it is better to accept Sandstein's reading of WP:V but then have challenges declared under WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS. Lambanog (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete CSS File

Resolved

Dear Admins,

I need the css-file User:Labant/vector.css no longer. Please delete this file. Thanks. --Labant (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I was about to tell you about {{db-user}} for future use, but I'm not sure that would work on a css page... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Though the template will not expand to display properly, it will place both .css and .js pages in the proper category for deletion. —DoRD (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You can also use the talk page to post the {{db-user}}. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda closed

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

• Lsorin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

• The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Third call to provide closure for an RfC

The link is here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

CSD G5

Copied across from Village Pump (Policy) - now removed from there. Clarification required: If a user creates and edits an article, and then later gets blocked, does G5 apply or not? If it doesn't, what is it for? I can only see sockpuppetry as surely they can't create an article in their own user name while blocked. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support a speedy deletion criteria for articles created within a week of the creating user being blocked. 117Avenue (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

end of copy Peridon (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, G5 is only for pages created in violation of a block/ban. Courcelles 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. While I think on, what is the db-reason thing for if only the various categories of CSD are valid reasons for speedy? It's been puzzling me for a time. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, for G5 blocks/bans aren't applicable to prior contributions, i.e. "ex post facto". And db-reason exists for rare cases when some special case might apply (though, to be honest, every time I've ever needed a custom rationale, it's been with a G6 tag). elektrikSHOOS 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was right on G5 - declined a G5 speedy on grounds of timing. I used to try db-reason in my earlier days (when the summers were sunny and you could have a good night out with a girl and still have change from a half crown) but always (or almost) got knocked back. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The only caveat I'd mention is that the contributions of an editor who is subsequently blocked might be eligible for deletion under other criteria - G3 Hoaxes are always popular, for example. As for db-reason? It's a legacy template, and predates the existing numbered templates ({{db-a7}} and the like). Back in the day, you'd have to say why the article is speedy deletable, just as we have to justify PRODs today. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have once used db-reason, before I was an admin, to get rid of a page I wandered across that contained nothing but an account of the author having sex with his underage brother. Sort of db-ewww really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The one place where G5 arguably should retroactively apply is for a user blocked or banned for copyright violations. There it makes sense, because copyvios can become legal matters, and preemptively deleting it would be good just to stay on the safe side. As to using a db-reason tag; I think I've successfully used it twice, here and here, although today I'd tag them as hoaxes or PROD them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You actually got me curious enough (how the page could have stayed so long undetected) that I checked your deleted contribs to find the page. Eeeeewwwwwww. Big mistake. (It was a user page that apparently slipped past NPP.) T. Canens (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. It might not fit any recognised category, but what the hell was it doing on our servers....Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like that would fall under G3, but I obviously can't see it, so I wouldn't know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'm misunderstand a question way up, I'm sorry, but literally, db in the templates is an old historical artefact- it means "delete because"... Courcelles 10:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder. It was the -reason bit I was actually asking about, not having found much use for it. I think I'd have used db-attack on that page (which I haven't viewed) to get shut quick (now I'd probably delete on that ground and worry about categories later if anyone objected...). Peridon (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Really confused

I was taking a look at Euro coins which contains a total of 301 files, of that 115 of them are labeled as non-free and 186 that are tagged as free. A full summary of images and their status are at User:Δ/Sandbox 2. Can someone who knows image copyright better than me please take a look and figure this out? I think all the images should be tagged as free or all as non-free. either way I dont think there should be the current mixed bag. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Different countries have different rules in relation to their coinage. Thus the "anomaly" may in fact be correct. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

However these are euro coins created by the central banking system, and not local currency. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Euro coins are not "created by the central banking system"—I don't know where you've got that idea. Each country mints its own coins; "single currency" means the coins of one country are (for the moment) identical in value with those of the other participants and can be used interchangeably, not that there is literally only a single form of currency. As Mjroots says, each country's coinage will be subject to different copyright laws. – iridescent 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The country specific side will in most countries be copyrighted. The other side, which is identical for all countries, appears to be copyrighted by some central european bank. Apparently they licensed them quite freely, but I have my doubts whether their terms are truly compatible with our license. Most images appear to be incorrectly tagged as free based on the central bank license, when in truth country specific copyrights apply. I will also note that none of the images appear to have NFCC rationales for that specific page. In short, it is a total mess. Yoenit (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. Although it doesn't look active at the moment, if anyone should have the answers it would be someone either associated with it -- or looking at its talk pages because they have an interest in the subject. An issue like this just might spark it back into life. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Resolved

 – closed --Errant ^(chat!) 14:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirty days have passed since Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities was initiated. Would an admin close and summarize the RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for hist-merge: TriMedia

Resolved

Graham87 13:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2008, someone did a cut-and-paste move of TriMedia to TriMedia (Mediaprocessor). Both have multi-user edit histories, so the result is a copyvio. Can someone history-merge the two back together, ideally with TriMedia (mediaprocessor) (lowercase m) as the final name. 91.125.65.44 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting us know. Graham87 13:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to possible confusion with titles (see Trimedia International), we might want a disambig at TriMedia. I've added a hatnote to TriMedia (mediaprocessor) for now, but I don't like the solution. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur, so I've made TriMedia a disambig. The name is also used by the producers of Bitag. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Two different pages for General Richard Marshall

Hello. This is my first time using the Admin noticeboard, so please bear with me. There are currently two pages for General Richard Marshall: "Richard_J._Marshall" and "Richard_Marshall_(American_general)". They both appear to have the same information. However, if you search for "Richard Marshall" only the "Richard_Marshall_(American_general)" page appears in the search results. I attempted to place a redirect on the "Richard_J._Marshall" page, and I received a message stating that I should post a request here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glumpist (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard J. Marshall is already a redirect to Richard Marshall (American general). - David Biddulph (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You can confirm that by clicking on Richard J. Marshall, and then at the top of the "Richard Marshall (American general)" page it says "(Redirected from Richard J. Marshall)". - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC closure

Could someone please take a look at Kraft Dinner and close that RfC? I am involved in it and it would be improper for me to do so. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please create page: "FCC Commissioner"

Resolved

 –  Done as requested. –xeno^talk 19:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to create an article called "FCC Commissioner", but it was restricted to creation by Administrators only. Would one of you please create the article, and insert the below REDIRECT text:

1. REDIRECT[[63]]

(Note that I have NOT used any "nowiki" coding, so you will have to look at the text in the editor mode.)

Tanks, LP-mn (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

p.s.: Please note the singular term, I intentionally did NOT type "FCC Commssioners".

FYI: The correct syntax for redirects requires a wikilink rather than a URL, so this one becomes #REDIRECT [[Federal Communications Commission#Current chairperson and commissioners]]. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bot edits

Can someone explain to me the benefit to the system of a bot making changes such as this? I mean, I guess I can see them as just generally tidying up for the sake fo tidying up, but if {{WPNYC}} and {{WikiProject New York City}}, or {{WPBS}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} are functionally equivalent, what is the reason for changing the former in each pair to the latter? Are the resources used by making such edits justified by whatever savings they provide -- indeed, are there any savings?

If a human editor was making such edits I'd be tempted to say they were just churning up their edit count, but with as bot... Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the first parameter of the template must start with 1= in order to avoid parameter confusion. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjectBannerShell used to require the "1=" parameter, but I don't believe it does anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A discussion on VPT a while back dealt with the resources used in template redirects, if I recall correctly. The end result was the techies telling us regular joes that template redirects take up effectively zero resources, just like other redirects. So, no, there aren't really any resource savings in these edits. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you contact the botop before coming here? T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am here. If the 1= parameter is missing an AWB plugin stucks when processing the page. There has been discussion in the past. I periodically do some edit to add the parameter until we fix the bug. Take note that WPBS uses a mixture of named and unnamed parameters. An extra pipe may cause problems to the template too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, which doesn't, however, cover why WPNYC is being changed to Wikiproject New York City, or why other similar edits, where no parameter is being added, are being made. In any case my comment was a general one, about what appeared to me to be unnecessary bot edits, which is why I didn't frame it as a Yobot issue -- that just happened to be the edit that caught my eye at this moment, so I used it for an example. I see other bots making other kinds of edits which look to me to be unnecessary as well. I'm more than willing to be shown to be wrong, and I'm not accusing anyone of any kind of malfeasance or misconduct. I'm genuinely curious about whether these edits are, in general, a net plus or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered this issue as well, a bot went through and changed all of the {{WPFOOD}} tags to the longer {{WikiProject Food and Drink}} without explanation--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

• I don't see anything about that operation at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot. Is there a newer BRFA? IMO unnecessary bot operations are bad because of update bloat among other things. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty - take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 2 through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 20. ^Avic_ennasis @ 10:40, 5 Nisan 5771 / 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Site ban proposed for User:Racepacket

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.

This hasn't quite had the standard 48 hours for a ban discussion, but I think it's pretty clear there's no consensus in favour of one and further discussion will only be to the detriment of the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Racepacket has been an incessant disruption to Wikipedia, and I propose he/she be site banned and blocked indefinitely. Here is a list of admin intervention regarding Racepacket in just the past few years:

• Links for Racepacket: Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

2011

• Blocked for one month for disruptive editing by User:Ironholds
• Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing by User:Hawkeye7
• Blocked indefinitely by User:Fuhghettaboutit for continual copyright violations after a large scale CCI investigation
• Reported to WQA by User:Purplebackpack89 for incivility
• Reported to ANI by User:Kumioko for disruptive editing
• Reported to ANI by User:Kumioko for harassment

2010

• Blocked by User:Eustress for edit warring
• Topic banned and interaction banned by consensus for ownership issues and for harassment
• Reported to CCI by User:Moonriddengirl for pervasive plagiarism
• Reported to CCI by User:Moonriddengirl for image copyright violations
• Reported to ANI by User:John E. Rhea for persistent vandalism

2009

• Subject of RfC for disruptive editing
• Topic banned from editing Dane Rauschenberg
• Reported to ANI by User:Ryulong for edit warring

2008

• Blocked and topic banned at SPI for use of multiple sockpuppets and edit warring

...

How many chances should an editor be given, especially one who has edited here since 2006? Racepacket is sapping up community resources (as reported by several different editors), has been given numerous chances (including a comprehensive RfC in 2009), and continues to disrupt Wikipedia. —Eustress ^talk 17:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2. --Rschen7754 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Although to be fair, I've been following that RfC and it doesn't appear to be likely to reach any mutually-satisfactory conclusion, if it manages to reach a conclusion at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is correct. --Rschen7754 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Has there ever been an RfC that reached a satisfactory conclusion? :P — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, several. I admit that RFC/U's are rarely concluded with everyone satisfied, but occasionally it does happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, Racepacket has been a prolific and productive contributor and editor. Where he attracts controversy, I think, is in being bold and in not being as tactful as he ought to be. Eustress is angry because Racepacket suddenly resumed contributing to a low-traffic article, List of Cornell University people, and reversed certain major changes Eustress had made earlier. This looks like it should be a simple case of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, except that instead of "discuss", we're looking at a proposed site ban. Eustress is a good editor and administrator, but this feels like an overreaction to a situation in which Eustress is directly involved. Also, note that several of Racepacket's blocks have been mistaken or inappropriate and were either withdrawn or else overruled by other administrators- this makes the block log look much longer than it really "ought" to be. —Bill Price (nyb) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you've been a staunch defender of Racepacket, in a way that is uncanny. (You'll be on Wikibreak but somehow manage to come back at times when Racepacket is under scrutiny.) My recent run-in with Racepacket, which I in no way reacted to angrily, served as the impetus for my investigation, and what I found, I believe, overwhelming points to a site ban. There is a big difference between being bold and being disruptive, and Racepacket's run-ins with the dozen editors listed above insist the latter is the case. He is constantly the subject of admin intervention and shows little or no change, despite years of coaching, blocks, and local bans. My opinion is that a site ban is best for the encyclopedia and for the community. —Eustress ^talk 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I will assume you don't mean to insinuate anything with your first comment, but regardless: declaring a hiatus from major contributions does not prevent me from following my watchlist, and Racepacket's user talk page is included on that watchlist. I've butted heads with him myself before, but he's had my respect as an editor, and some of the blocks and accusations of misconduct he has been on the receiving end of recently have been clearly absurd or exaggerated in my opinion. One of the more bizarre and dogged accusations is that he accused another editor of plagiarism, when the public, easily-viewable record shows that he did no such thing. Seeing nonsense like that has incited me to keep tabs on these issues. —Bill Price (nyb) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not work on his principal recent topic area, nor do I work at GA review. I examined the RfC, and I do not think that the direction it is going is towards a censure or suggested restriction on Racepocket. He seems to have a good deal of support from some other established editors, In that circumstance, a ban of block here would seem entire uncalled for on any GA issue. (I believe that's the only aspect of his work specifically covered by the RfC, though the desired outcome is worded in very general terms.) Given that he has just come off from a long block, another block now without serious evidence of disruption would be costing us a potentially positive area. Even if he is shown to be disruptive, the next step would bea longer block, not a ban. This is unwarranted escalation. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is higher-level than the current RfC issue, and Racepacket has been blocked twice since his indefinite block (which lasted about a month) was lifted. —Eustress ^talk 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If so, this is not the appropriate place to be having this discussion. "The community" outranks "whichever admins happen to be watching this page". See the "These pages are not the place to raise content disputes or reports of abusive behaviour" at the top of this page? – iridescent 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, AN is a pretty typical place to propose a community ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BAN says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard," which is why I brought it here. —Eustress ^talk 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

DGG, I don't think that Eustress' complaint has anything to do with the GA-driven RFC/U. I'm not convinced that Eustress was even aware of its existence.

I disagree with your guess at the results. Racepacket has himself proposed editing restrictions that he is willing to accept to resolve the dispute. I believe it highly unlikely that dispute will be resolved without Racepacket accepting editing restrictions. The only questions left seem to be what those restrictions will be, and whether they'll be negotiated at the RFC/U (my preference) or imposed through AN or ArbCom (increasingly likely, as Racepacket's self-proposed editing restrictions have been rejected as insufficient by two prominent disputants, while Racepacket steadfastly refuses to either accept or reject their broader proposal for editing restrictions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is right, I was unaware of the GA-related RFC/U until Rschen7754 pointed it out following my initial airing of grievances. (Which reminds me, Seinfeld is great!) —Eustress ^talk 21:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Per Rschen7754, and various responses - let us ensure that the RfC/U has failed before opening the discussion here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• This thread and this thread may be helpful. Geometry guy 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There have been several recent RFC/U's which have been highly productive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this as premature, I was particularly impressed by the maturity shown today over my GA review of the WMATA. Rackpacket is clearly capable of being a strong and highly positive member of the community. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is appreciated, but it only reflects an isolated experience. If you will review the track record above, plus the RfC currently in progress, you will find that Racepacket is constantly disrupting the community. We can continue to pursue topic ban after topic ban, interaction ban after interaction ban, but we will waste precious community time in the process. I myself am not a perfect editor, and I am inclined to coach other editors to help them become great, but Racepacket has had lots of chances and the destructive disruption continues. —Eustress ^talk 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - the user also has beneficial aspects to his/her contributions. - There are many stops on the route of good faith before this extreme position. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I ask, how many stops are there? I believe this is a very fair proposition given the numerous chances extended to Racepacket and the continuation of the disruptive behavior. —Eustress ^talk 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are some issues, hopefully the RFCU will find some solutions less drastic than a site ban, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This looks premature given that RfC/U has been initiated just a week ago. Is this a two-pronged approach (or forum shopping?) to really get someone with good contributions banned from the site? Also, I found that some of the "evidence" (the word "evidence" in quotes because I found indications to dispute them) were cherry-picked in favour of advocating User:Eustress's views. The first two bulleted points explained two blocks in 2011. Eustress said Racepacket was "Blocked for one month for disruptive editing by User:Ironholds" and "Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing by User:Hawkeye7". The 48 hours block from Hawkeye7 was found to have violated WP:INVOLVED and the block was rescinded by Ironholds, who immediately slapped a month long block on Racepacket for sockpuppetry because User:LauraHale, so-called "uninvolved party" according to the ongoing RfC/U, suspected that Racepacket engaged in block-evasion through IP.[64] Another admin demonstrated technical evidence that Racepacket could not be socking because the IP has already been identified as a sock of an unrelated sockmaster. Therefore, in my opinion, the first two 2011 block "evidence" should get a big strike line right through the middle because those are blatant blocking errors made by block-happy admins. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you- I tried to point this issue out earlier, but compared to you, I was very unspecific and ineloquent. —Bill Price (nyb) 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Eustress was unaware of the second RFC when he started this section. --Rschen7754 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@Bill Price" I was watching this case since it started in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles but I can't keep my silence anymore because people are now on a witch-hunt against good reviewers who stand firm and refuse to pass a sub-par GA without significant improvements. @all: Ok, I found one more blocking error. This one was listed under the 2010 heading and Eustress said "Blocked by User:Eustress for edit warring". After a click away, I landed on this page[65] where Eustress himself was caught violating WP:INVOLVED. Now this one Eustress has to know because he's the one who administered the block. I don't have time until tomorrow to examine other claims made by Eustress but I suspect some of them may not hold up to scrutiny. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the issues. Racepacket has done some good reviews. I hold my GA reviews to the highest standard, for one, and I've quite frequently talked to reviewers who blindly pass USRD articles when the article clearly wasn't at GA standards. It's the manner in which Racepacket acts when he makes a mistake in the review; he always assumes he's right, regardless of whether he is or not. --Rschen7754 06:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now (without prejudice). There is clearly a problem here as I am fully aware of filing the RFC. However, I don't think we've reached the point of "exhausted the patience of the community." If Racepacket is not willing to listen to criticism, then we may wind up back here, but for now, this isn't the time. --Rschen7754 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I strongly oppose this ban. Racepacket is one of the elite contributors of Wikipedia. He has made plenty of good faith edits and created more than 180 articles. I'm not judging mindset of proposer, but this is very harsh to appeal for this type of ban. I don't know much about previous bans on racepacket, but recent accusation made on him, regarding his review of Netball was completely baseless and tactless. Bill william compton^Talk 08:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Is he trouble? Yes. Is he more trouble than he's worth? Not really. There is much room for improvement, but I prefer bans only for people that a) use sockpuppets and b) primarily cause damage. Without "a", a ban has little benefit over a block. Without "b" incremental blocks are preferable to throwing the kitchen sink at the person. I don't see "a" at all here, and "b" is questionable at best at this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

abusive administrator activity

Resolved

 – The boomerang found its target. —DoRD (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

How might we find help with handling a problem with an administrator who has been issuing excessive unwarranted blocks on users and ip computer addresses to effectively curtal any effort made to contribute to a particular subject area on the site? There is no way for anyone to improve the articles or create new, related articles without having their work reverted or deleted outright. The administrator has been actively tracking this specific subject /topic area for years, continuously using assertions and claims of "banned user" activity to justify their questionable actions. It would be nice to solve this situation. Please advise! Desertdiscs (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC) User's first edit. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to name the administrator, and give diffs for examples of the "questionable actions". WP:ANI is the more appropriate location for such a report, and remember to notify the administrator concerned. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you'll have to name the admin concerned. Unless you're a sockpuppet of a banned user, in which case don't bother. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

okay thank you. I'm not "screaming" about admin abuse by any means, I am just trying to find a solution to a legitimate problem. I'm not a puppet for a banned user, nor am I a banned user myself. As I stated before, the problem centers around the extreme misuse/overuse of "banned user" claims to justify user/comp.address blocks, and thus, the removal of any+all associated content without question. Is there any branch of wiki administration that offers more direct oversight and review of issues if necessary?Desertdiscs (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, this or (better) WP:AN/I is the place to make such a complaint, but nothing can be done while it is so general: you will have to say which admin or admins you mean (and notify them) and give diffs to illustrate the problem. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you're complaining about Wknight94's protection of Travers Island, whose protection notice explains concern about socks of Jvolkblum. Jvolkblum is a prolific contributor of false or doubtful information who's banned from editing. You've neither notified Wknight94 nor have you attempted to discuss the issue. Please start there. Acroterion (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of notifying Wknight94; please discuss the issue with him before you make further complaints about "abusive administrator activity." Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Acroterion, how did you deduce this is Jvolkblum? Checkuser input? Wknight94 ^talk 15:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not quite saying that, but I do expect someone with good-faith concerns to discuss the issue with you first and to avoid shouts of "admin abuse," especially given their appearance here wih no previous history. Desertdiscs first edited this thread as 64.255.164.34 (talk · contribs), who complained to Tbhotch about Travers Island; he came back logged in and modified the sigs above. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh, that's what I'm missing - the initial edit as 64.255.164.34. Yes, then you are correct. I'll go ahead and block then. As you were. Thanks again! Wknight94 ^talk 15:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Humour the idiot child. Can I have that again in English, like I was a human being instead of some Wikipedia robot? — Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, what was that saying involving the words "hoist" and "petard"? Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@Peter S Strempel: What part wasn't understood? Whose comment? Wknight94 ^talk 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter, a number of admins are quite familiar with Jvolkblum, who has been socking forever. Travers Island is in the town of New Rochelle, New York, which is the center of Jvolkblum's interests. The Travers Island, New York article has been edited in the past by socks of Jvolkblum. (More evidence is in the deleted revisions). It is not a surprise that Desertdiscs would be coming here to complain, because Jvolkblum is known for complaining about the censorship of his edits, in every possible venue. He is well into the WP:RBI stage by now. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(EdJohnston, I only saw your comment as I previewed my edit, bear with me while I have a look)OK. While listening to Ave Maria I formulated the following: I did ask for that, Mjroots. So let's go about hanging me the most efficient way possible.

1. Why do you need to name an administrator? Just so that you can refrain from actually looking for yourself, and thereby forming your own opinion?
2. Don't call people sockpuppet or meatpuppet without explaining what you mean. You and I might know what that means, but no one who's not used to that term does. Telling me that this is an administrator board doesn't help because peoople look here for guidance.
3. Desertdiscs might be guilty of everything y'all imply, but spell it out without adminsitrator code. If no one but you can can understand you/me it's code that oughn't to be here.
4. Acroterion got there, but discussed the isue only by talking to fellow admins. That's not helpful for anyone else. Can't there be some kind of agreement that we don't talk about people like they aren't right here? The first principle about being a human being is surely being recognised as one. No???

Regards - Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Desertdiscs was right there participating until I and others asked the obvious questions: "who are you complaining about and why?" After that, there was a general sound of chirping crickets. The pattern matches Jvolkblum's three-year history. While I'm not convinced that it was intentional, the creation of the thread as an IP, then the change to a signature from a previously-unused account that had no previous contact with the article in question made tracking down the actual problem quite difficult, given the complete absence of specific facts. Any complainant on AN or AN/I may expect to have their own activities examined, especially when they bring nothing but innuendo to the table. I don't understand what you mean by "administrator code." We are frequently guilty of discussing in shorthand, but I see no such obscure language here - the only obscure matter was the nature of the complaint and its originator, which I eventually deduced. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin code is language that assumes that people know what you mean. Assuming stuff is usually about being in some situation long enough not to see anymore how it doesn't make sense to someone who just passes by. People do pass by to see what is said here. What we do here isn't second nature. All I'm asking for is language that anyone can understand. Hell, I had to ask someone the other day what a neckbeard was. I don't think you could get that meaning by writing the King's English. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter, the AN and ANI boards are genuinely sucky places for volunteer admins to put their time into. I’ve tried off and on over the years, and inevitably get frustrated and give up again. So if there are mature, knowledgeable admins who are willing to put up with the crap that comes from volunteering here, I am not going to get upset when they don’t carefully articulate each and every decision they make and action they take in “layman’s terms”. All that will serve to do is increase the workload and drive more of them away. If you have the time and energy to be that kind of admin, then please put your name in the hat and do it. More power to you! But as they say, it’s often harder to row the boat than to rock it. — Satori Son 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example from this thread? I'm not seeing what apparently you're seeing.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing: "excessive unwarranted blocks". Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Excessive unwarranted blocks" was used by Jvolkblum. A banned user couldn't care less who can understand his vernacular. Regardless, can this be split off into another discussion somewhere. We are way off topic. Wknight94 ^talk 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Excessive unwarranted blocks" was not used by an admin so can't be admin code .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see your post prior to my last one, Satori Son. I guess you're right. Consider my objections here terminated for the time being. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Left-right politics special dash garbled by Google

The special dash in the Left-right politics page poses a problem in Google searches. Example search is left vs right. You'll notice that when you click on the first result, some encoding issues direct to a dummy page. I tried to create this page to redirect to the proper article, but it is of course restricted to administrators. -- Brwmmice (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Works fine for me. The "special dash" is called an en dash, see WP:MOSDASH. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Whitecirius

Resolved

 – Page deleted as a copyright violation

User:Whitecirius has added themselves many awards on their talk page here, pretending to of been given them by many users, this is despite the fact nobody apart from themselves has edited this section of their talk page. Awards include the 100,000 and 200,000 edits award, but they only have 231 edits. Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss this with the editor first (which I note you don't seem to have done) before taking it to ANI. It seems like odd behavior, but it may be an honest mistake or there may be a perfectly good reason for it. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars etc are completely outside formal policy - there's nothing to stop someone plastering a hundred on their page. Exxolon (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but they are using some other people's names as having giving the awards. Fake awards may not be wrong, but naming other people as having given them is, policy or not. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a copy of User:Skier Dude/Awards. I will tag it for speedy deletion as this breaks our attribution requirements under the license we operate under. Exxolon (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Now deleted, marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

An eternal RfC that's been hanging like a sloth

Please, for the love of God, provide closure to this nonsense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Catholic schools in New York

List of Catholic schools in New York contains a lot of redlinks/no-links. Not having articles for them, what is the value (not to mention notability) of these? Ok, schools are not speedy material, but why should there be such a list, when many/most have no article and are probably private/for profit businesses anyway? Should it stay, or most of them go? I'd prefer some consensus before doing the work, or at least somebody telling my why not to go ahead and be bold. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

the accepted practice is that individual elementary and secondary schools, public and private, religious or non-religious, are merged or redirected into a list of combination article. For private schools it's normally the place; for US public schools it's normally the school district; for Catholic schools it's normally the diocese. New York State is too large --the list needs to be subdivided. But many of the schools there are high schools, and they normally every one of them should have an article. Its just the common practice, not a formal guideline, but it's been almost 100% consistent for several years, which is more than I can say about most formal guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. I am always more of the thought of any entry in a list should have an article first. The list is too long as it is, and should be cleaned up. Thanks for your comments. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm more of the "if it's redlinked, then it must be notable enough to sustain an article" school of thought myself. As the State of New York is quite large, it may be better to list the schools by the next administrative division down (county?) Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Diocese would work better, as it would be actually useful in the context of Catholic hierarchy, and only leave you with eight lists rather than 62. (Though of course, the larger ones, such as the Archdiocese, might need another split, there's no way this requires 62 lists.) Courcelles 04:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute/ownership of article

• Get Sleazy Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• L-l-CLK-l-l (talk · contribs)

What this person is arguing over is including four dates on the Get Sleazy Tour

• 4/3/2011—Kuhl Gym
• 4/29/2011—Tom Lee Park
• 5/14/2011—Cricket Wireless Amp
• 5/14/2011—Staples Center

This person wants to use the excuse of "the dates are not on the official website" to justify his ill-found claim as the dates are not a part of the singer's tour. However, this person has provided zero reliable sources to support his claim. This person is assuming the dates are not a part of the tour, which violates WP:OR and WP:BALL. This (more or less) comes down to a matter of ownership. The editor states he has made nearly 6,000 contributions to Wikipedia. Many of which are Kesha related articles or falsely warning editors concerning Kesha related articles. Furthermore, this person is on a "kick" to have articles become FA or GA. Previously, the user started a lame argument over using "Keshaparty.com" versus "Kesha's Official Website" here. He/she stated for articles to be nominated for GA or FA, citations must say the website's URL and not the name of the website. When I advised the user articles are not create to be nominated, he threw a tantrum, deleting all of my comments on his user page, leaving edit summaries that stated "Go away" or "leave my page". This was followed by the user being blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. He proceed to beg and plea with several editors (on and offline) to removed his block playing the role of a "shrinking violet", which is what this user has done the previous two times he has been blocked.

On April 8, 2011, the user made a false warning on my talk page concerning adding unsourced material to the "Get Sleazy Tour" article and also so MOS violations on citations. Correct me if I am wrong but where on WP:MOS does it mention anything about citations? If you see here, the user reverted edits based upon MOS, when actually the only changes that were made was the inclusion of quote marks for citations. Again, there is not style to how citations should be presented in Wikipedia.The user will create edit wars over style, over showing a date as "2010-01-01" versus "01 January 2010", again citing it as a violation of MOS.The user edits were reverted citing WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. (which he has blanked from his talk page). He proceed to ask other editors to to watch other the page for him (here, and here), again confirming his pseudo-ownership of the article.

Official websites are not "up to minute" news sources. There are various of reliable sources releasing factual news before it is available on "official websites". Again, the editor is solely editing the article to be FA or GA as stated here. The purpose of Wikipedia is a collaborative community and its difficult to be collaborative when there are users going "tooth and nail" over articles, not allowing it to have a neutral point of view. This editor needs a timeout from Wikipedia and Kesha's articles Itsbydesign (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't deal with content disputes here. Has a discussion on the article's talk page resulted in any outside views on the dispute? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This will be my only comment, dispute has been resolved, edits have been kept and formatted correctly. Now lets clear a few things up, you were also blocked and ive been blocked once, not three times. WP:OWN has nothing to do with this, maintaining high standards does. "The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for Wikipedia articles that encourages editors to follow consistent usage and formatting" (this includes references). Your addition caused alot of MOS violations and you should show good faith by following how the rest of the article is already written, as you said its a collaborative effort and clean up is a pain. As for the dates WP:MOSNUM, "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason." Article uses YYYY-MM-DD not the written form Month, Day, Year. One style throughout is to be used. Reference formatting violations, such as WP:Manual of Style (text formatting), only online magazines and newspapers should be in italics, not every website. I apologize for losing my cool (and for being incorrect about the OR, that was my mistake) but you need to read WP:MOS. Your edits have been kept except that they have been corrected, properly formatted and changed to be consistent. If there is nothing else please do not comment here again, we can work this out by our selves, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted title page

I have tried to create a redirect page from 'Bushman art' to 'Rock art', but a tag pops up telling me that the title is blacklisted and requires the intervention of an administrator. Androstachys (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done I think now that the page is created, you can edit it yourself, so if you want to modify the redirect to a specific section or something, you should be able to now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - can you supply some details as to what exactly led to a blacklisting and why? cheers Androstachys (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I really have no idea; I don't know much about title blacklists or edit filters, I just know I have a magic wand that lets me create pages non-admins can't. If I had to guess I'd say some troublemaker in the past had a habit of creating pages with "bushman" in the title somehow, but it's only a guess. If you're curious, you could ask at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist, which appears to be populated by people who (unlike me) know what they're talking about (assuming it was the title blacklist, and not some other filter of some kind). --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the blacklist, and I can't spot which line is causing this problem. Some other filter in other place probably believes that you are using a misspelling of "Cock". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like paranoia hitting WP....Androstachys (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted the page and tried reproducing the error with my (non-admin) alternate account. I had no problem creating the page at all. T. Canens _II (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that some tweaking was done in the 12-hour period before your test. Androstachys (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no edit to the local title blacklist since March, and the global blacklist since December. you did not have an entry in the edit filter log, either, so it can't be the edit filter. I'm frankly perplexed - do you have a screenshot, by any chance? T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bushman art does not match anything on the local or global title blacklists. --Carnildo (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Range block

Hello,

I would like to request a range block. For over a month, this page has been vandalized by a certain anonymous user. Since this was all done by one user with a dynamic ip, a range block seems like a proper solution to me.

Regards, VR-Land (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked 91.54.128.0/19 for a month. There have been no constructive edits from that range going back as far as the start of March. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps me a lot in maintaining the article I gave as example. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei? Certified on 2 March, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei is now a week past the normal closing date for RfCs. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And should Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (created on 29 March 2011) be deleted for not receiving the required two certifiers? Cunard (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done on the Richard Arthur Norton one; looks like another admin took care of the Tenmei one. --Jayron32 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for an administrator's opinion on how to handle a possible edit war situation

I apologize if this is not the correct section to request an administrator's opinion. At WP:MMA, it has been decided to remove unjustified flag icons according to the guidelines established at MOS:ICON. Some IP editors and newly registered users sometimes revert edits back to versions with flag icons. Before requesting a bot to automatically remove unneeded flag icons from MMA biographical articles per the consensus reached, some editors would like to hear an administrator's point of view on on how to handle this possible edit-war. So, I would like to request the opinion of an administrator on how to handle this situation. If possible, please post that opinion at WT:MMA#Bot request for biographical articles. Jfgslo (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Based on your summary:

1. At first, some editors decided that articles are better without flags
2. Then some new editors turn up and feel that the articles are better with flags
3. Therefore, all the edits of people in group 2 should be reverted automatically, in order to conform with the decision of group 1.

I'm not sure that's ideal. Perhaps it would be appropriate to invite people from group 2 to a fresh discussion over at WP:MMA. Stylistic matters like this which affect many articles should be taken by consensus; it's entirely possible that a fresh discussion would yield the same result, but consensus can change. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If this had been phrased in terms of WP:MOSICONS &c I'd be more sympathetic - "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". However, I had a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and starting earlier in 2011 there's a moderately long debate among several editors which does not appear, at first glance, to have reached a clear consensus. Certainly not clear enough to justify having a bot undo all the edits of people on the "wrong" side. It seems inappropriate to start from "there's as many people putting flags back in as there are taking them out" and conclude "Half the editors are wrong, so we need a bot to undo them". That feels rather uncollegiate. (Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, just a passerby) bobrayner (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. If you pay close attention, you will note that the consensus was reached before other users started posting their concerns. In fact, there are two different discussions for flag icons, one about redundant flag icons for locations (which is the one that started at the beginning of 2011 and that already has a consensus) and one about flag icons for nationality (which is the one that is proposed to be enforced with a bot).

Also, note that, while some editors express their support for flag icons, only one of them cites a valid reason based in policy instead of aesthetics (which is basically the main argument from editors who wish for flag icons to remain). The discussion started on March 22 and consensus on this one was reached on March 31, when the project page was updated and, once it started being enforced, other editors have expressed their support for flag icons but without giving arguments as to why they are needed. I do not want to go in full detail here because I don't want to make this page convoluted, but to summarize, editors that feel that flag icons for nationality are needed base their arguments on aesthetics instead of an encyclopedic reason, and most of them prefer to ignore MOS:ICON without giving a reason why. There are several reasons why flag icons are not considered acceptable, from an encyclopedic point of view. This is why some editors feel that the point of view of an administrator is needed, because several random IPs and new editors revert any change that they feel looks ugly without even giving an argument and most of them have been invited to participate but almost none have done so. Before taking any further steps, we feel that the external point of view from an administrator that knows the policies and guidelines will be useful to determine any further step. Jfgslo (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing the merger proposal on Myth of Skanderbeg

There was a merger proposal on the article Myth of Skanderbeg on March 24, 2011. Since after more than two weeks there was no clear consensus about the proposal and there is no discussion about it for some time, according to the Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger ("If necessary, one may request that an administrator who is not involved to close the discussion and make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred; such a request for an administrator to close the discussion may be made at the Administrators' noticeboard") I invite an administrator to close the discussion and to make a determination as to whether consensus has occurred.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussion & the articles involved. No sense in closing the discussion since there is no consensus & nothing to decide. It would help if this discussion were clearly more than you & Gaius Claudius Nero in a deadlock over the matter. (And if Myth of Skanderbeg were a half-way decent article. I believe the subject worthy of a separate article, but the article on Skanderbeg explains what the "Myth" is supposed to be about far better than this article does. But if we deleted/merged articles based on content reasons, over half of Wikipedia would be gone.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

At some point (but I agree not yet) we do eventually have to close a merge discussion. WP:MERGE sagely says "After a period of time when discussion has ceased" and roughly puts that time at "normally 1 week or more". In this case the last substantive contribution to the discussion was around six days ago. There's no clear consensus, so there's no harm in waiting a few weeks for one to develop. I do think, however, that we leave many merges around long long after the subject is dead and buried on the talk page: there are over 15,000 articles with open merge discussions older (and surely almost all staler) than this. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC on adding certain userrights to the CheckUser, Oversight, and Bureaucrat user groups

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient. –xeno^talk 15:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple spoofer hacking accounts?

• Spoofer vishal hacking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (registered March 2)
• Spoofervishalhackingas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (registered April 12)
• Spoofervishalhackings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (registered April 13)
• (admins can see deleted contribs for 113.193.98.133 and 124.125.249.167)

I don't know what this is but it doesn't look good (and are there more)? – Athaenara ✉ 06:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The kid keeps posting to his "blogs" which are just links to other blogs, apparently about hacking. Doesn't seem to be any actual threat, will hopefully move along once he understands there is nothing for him here. Beach drifter (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, threat, no threat, whatever, there's no need for three or more accounts for this. I'd like to hear from experienced admins about it. – Athaenara ✉ 07:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) His user page User:Spoofervishalhackings claims some outrageous things: CERTIFIED ... Verified Wikipedia Account ... ✔ Verified Wikipedia Official Spoofer Vishal Hacking ... ✔ Wikipedia V.I.P Account ... ✔ Wikipedia Certified no such things exist; then worse, he claims 2011© All Rights Reserved. © Wikipedia Original & Spoofer Vishal Hacking Official®' he cannot claim "All Rights Reserved" on Wikipedia because he agreed to a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license upon submitting his edits. Elizium23 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• As said above, the kid will drift away eventually. Meanwhile I have blocked the two more recent accounts. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Richard Trevithick

This page is seeing a great deal of activity today, due to the subject being linked from Google's main page. It's recently been subject to edit warring about Trevithick's nationality, so I've fully protected it for 24 hours. As I won't be around this evening, could someone else keep an eye on it please. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the 240th anniversary of Trevithick's birth, hence the link from Google. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lummee, is it the usual battle between Cornish and English/British nationalists...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm *sigh...* LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the usual bollocks and the usual single-purpose IPs. DuncanHill (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

User [user:Solofire] made this [[66]]. If you find it bad do something about it. (p.s. I find it bad!)Kazemita1 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment: This is not the place for reporting this. Have a look here: Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism. The user has been warned for vandalism by the reverter. This is normal procedure. If the user continues, he will get more (and sterner) warnings, and eventually he'll get blocked. That can happen pretty fast if the user keeps vandalizing. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistake on Something Short of Paradise Poster

I misspelled the file name: "Sometting Short of Paradise." Now I want you to put on the one with the technical file name from www.movieposters.com -- File:MPW-51222.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by W. Arnold Holmes (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by the second part of your request, but I have moved the file to the correct spelling of the title. I also reduced it in size to bring it in line with our fair use practices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp

Resolved

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LiteralKa/Gay Nigger Association of America and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nmatavka/N0rp? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done by Graeme Bartlett and The Anome. Jafeluv (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

repeated lesser attack by User:194.17.116.224 despite warning

User:194.17.116.224 persistently tried to get his/her favourite quote on Portal and Portal 2. This was reverted, with explanation, by several people. I pointed out the issue on the article's talk page. I also pointed out that Portal is not a prequel to Portal 2 in the edit summary. This was met with this entry, with a harmless "tongue out", which I ignored (in the sense that I didn't complain about it anywhere; I did acknowledge it in the reply on my own talk page). Then, all I received was another "tongue out", to which I replied with an "only warning" regarding personal attacks. A while after that, I got called a "Dansk bastard". Again, fairly harmless, but a notch up from "tongue out". Since personally attacking me is pretty much the only thing the IP does at the moment, I request either an indefinite block of my talk page, or a user block of at least a week (the IP only seems to come in once a week; a shorter block would have no effect), or just a stern warning from an administrator, or any combination. Seems to be harmlessly misguided more than badly malicious, but something should be done. I put my request here because the other ones, like etiquette noticeboard, didn't seem to apply. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• 194.17.116.224's block log shows previous blocks of 48 hours (April 2009), 3 months (December 2009), and 6 months (May 2010). We could move on up to a one year block (I don't see much in the way of constructive contributions and messages such as this aren't encouraging) or be mellower about it with another shorter block, I suppose. Other views? – Athaenara ✉ 07:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just block us, we mean, we're like this huge school that has been annoying Wikipedia for the last three years. If we get a blocking, then the problem is solved. There are different persons each time. Therefore, block us!

Sincerely, 194.17.116.224 (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • Sounds like a reasonable request. Block indef, account creation allowed, and perhaps a more precise notice on the talk page like I have seen for other schools. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. 194.17.116.224 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

bump. -- Nczempin (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

At Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis, there's a merge discussion going on. Is anybody watching it? B-Machine (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does it need watching?  Sandstein  18:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To see the progress of the votes. B-Machine (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You can request an admin closure here, but I don't think admins routinely watch such proposals. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is now Oh Internet

Resolved

 – No action required. Horologium (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone please move the article to it's new name. Takeo™ 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You will likely find that, while Oh Internet is produced by some of ED's "dignitaries", ED still exists. It is just currently down for maintenance. Bielle (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC) And then again, maybe not. That's the last time I believe what an ED admin assures me. Bielle (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica hasn't been renamed. Oh Internet is separate pet project of ours. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, we'll have to fix all the thousands of references linking to it, what a nightmare--Jac16888^Talk 00:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Oh Internet is a new encyclopedia. Unlike ED, it doesn't document Internet drama. Instead, it documents the fun and interesting facets of the Internet. Oh Internet uses new software, such as Semantic MediaWiki, and it incorporates new social networking features. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And even if ED had changed names, Encyclopedia Dramatica would likely be treated the same as Blackwater Worldwide-kept as the most common name used by 3rd party sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Protected edit request backlog

Hi,

Could an admin look at the backlog on Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done I think a few admins have gotten the backlog down to a manageable number. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Page move assistance

Could someone move Northrup Rand Knox over Northrup Knox. His middle name was rarely used.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM is the best place to ask for this. Ravendrop 02:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Huge backlog at WP:Requested moves

The backlog at WP:Requested moves is quite extensive. I know some of these closes are difficult calls to make but could some admins see what they can do? Thanks in advance. –CWenger (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a look, but if someone could have a look at Talk:Maoist Communist Centre of India that has experience merging page histories, I'd appreciate it. :) The Helpful One 11:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

I think the merge discussion here should be closed. Agree or disagree? B-Machine (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC) ‎

Need 1 brave uninvolved admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wait for "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute" to close before doing anything on this. Sven Manguard Wha?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...to close the very lengthy Request for Move Talk:Battles_of_the_Mexican–American_War#Move.3F. WP:RM is backlogged, nobody has commented in more than 10 days, and it's getting in the middle of this closely related CfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (And, when you close, could you clarify if the decision at this RM can be applied to all the related articles that use "Mexican-American War" in the title? Mexican–American War campaigns Battle of Santa Clara (Mexican–American War) List of U.S. Army, Navy and Volunteer units in the Mexican–American War. These moves are going to be contested, and I would rather not be forced to open 3 new RMs, one for each related article, and rehash the exact same arguments. Please assess this if you can.) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC) There's no reason "Mexican–American War" should be punctuated differently than "Spanish–American War" or any of the many other "X–Y War" articles that follow our MOS conventions. If WP:TITLE is really intended to supplant the MOS, and to say that we need to follow our sources for style and formatting and not just for naming (italics? underlining? curly quotation marks? long S?), then we need to discuss it there and make that policy explicit so we don't have these arguments. — kwami (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Enric Naval's post cries out for comment: The editor is not making a neutral call for closure, but a flagrant call for partisan support. An admin closing this case would do well to attend to the issues raised, and to note the count of supports and opposes. The matter is highly complex, and involves broader issues that are being addressed at WP:TITLE concerning how punctuation (as opposed to the raw choice of name for an article) is settled at WP:MOS; but if the RM were closed in a way consistent with the last closure at Mexican–American_War, the deciding factor would have to be "no consensus for change". Enric Naval, and the other proponents of moving to a form with a hyphen (against the great majority of similar articles that follow WP:MOS and retain their en dash), were invited to consider jointly ALL of the articles with "Mexican~American War" in their title: collegially, in a correctly formed multiple RM. They refused to negotiate. If they now want to parlay a single RM into a multiple one (without proper procedure, and proper advertisement to the community), that is an abuse of the mechanisms of WP:RM. NoeticaTea? 11:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I collapsed this. No need to move forward on this while there's a bigger related issue being discussed. The way said issue is going, we'll have a resolution of some kind soon. It can't escalate any further without someone getting {blocked/banned/sent to ArbCom} at this point Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The proposal below is not serious. The proper action would be to close the RM in one way or other, and then block the @~@#~#@~ out of the people who try to edit war against the closure, per MOS:STABILITY. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no. You don't like it, therefore you say it isn't serious. That isn't judgment, that's an incredibly immature and transparent way of trying to sway an argument. Also, if we topic ban one person on that list, we should topic ban all six, and that would include you. Be careful what you wish for. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-Class Reviewer needed

Resolved

 – Wrong forum. --Rschen7754 20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell, the reviewer for the Frank Buckles article, is having computer problems and is "unlikely to be able to get back to the ACR before the 28-day window is up". If another A-Class reviewer with military experience could give the article a look-see and then re-review the article here, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick-D is going to be the substitute reviewer. If anyone still wishes to give the article a quick once-over and let me know of anything that needs fixed, please feel free. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is on the administrator noticeboard because... --Rschen7754 06:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

...HJ Mitchell is an admin. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the special qualification of admins that makes them more eligible as A-class reviewers of a MILHIST article? Is it that the admin force is our closest equivalent to a military force, or is because admins are often said to have lower content standards? Hans Adler 14:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet unblock review

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

I have moved this discussion to the more trafficked ANI, which will hopefully lead to more input from the community about this unblock. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Belchman

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

I have moved this to to ANI, which suddenly seems like the more appropriate place. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

School Project

Just some advice about a school project - User:Pmedward has a large group of what are presumably students who up to now have been been making peer review comments on each others pages, they now appear to be making comment on articles in mainspace, mainly on the talk pages (Talk:Darts) but sometimes on the actual articles like Comp Air Jet. Not all the comments make it clear it is a school project and look like vandalism by adding peer reviews that dont allways appear to relate to the article. Should these comments be made on a project page rather than in the actual articles or talk pages, and secondly will they tidy up after themselves or should we just remove what appear to be be random comments, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the best traction in solving these problems occurs when you contact the teacher directly on their talk page, and/or via the "email this user" function. Simply include diffs and account names of the good-faith but problematic edits, and ask the teacher to work with his/her individual students to work within the Wikipedia framework. Teachers can help correct these problems easier by providing individualized instruction to students who are having trouble working within Wikipedia. You can (and should) also refer the teacher to Wikipedia:Ambassadors/For instructors and Wikipedia:School and university projects for additional help in incorporating Wikipedia into their instruction. --Jayron32 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander closed

An arbitration case regarding Noleander (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Noleander (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.

   Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.

   This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.

2. The attention of editors and administrators is drawn to the "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)" clause of Race and intelligence that was recently adopted, as its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case. For ease of reference, the amended remedy states:

   Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Zombie433 discussion closed without formal archival

Resolved

 – Community-banned; thanks go to Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for enacting the ban. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive687#Zombie433 - a community ban and a rangeblock were being discussed there. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So it shall be written so it shall be done. Ciao. --Jayron32 19:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary and Secondary Sources

If a 21st century historian writes about an event taken place in 19th century, is his book considered a primary source or a secondary? Thank you.Kazemita1 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP definition of "primary" is not all that logical. Basically, if a person is writing about an event happening now, which he is directly involved in, it is primary. Once there is some degree of separation, then it becomes "secondary". And sources which meld together secondary sources are "tertiary". I think that covers it -- so the new writer's account of old stuff is a "secodary source" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS for the official version. Note that some sources do not fall neatly into one category or the other. In Kazemita1's example, the book could be secondary or tertiary.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Further questions or discussion on this topic would best be held at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's how to think of it. Lets say that I am writing a book about John Q. Public. I go to the birth records where he was born and find his birth certificate to fix his birthdate. The birth certificate is a primary source for his birthdate. My book, which reports his birthdate, is now a secondary source. If someone uses my book to find his birthdate, and not the birth certificate itself, and then publishes another account of John's life based on reporting in my book, that makes HER book a tertiary source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and strives to base its research on reliable secondary sources for most things. --Jayron32 00:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For a while now, several editors have been edit-warring on various pages about whether Mexican-American War should be written with a hyphen (-) or an en dash (–). The pages being edit-warred about include

• Mexican-American War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , including move-warring until move protection on 18 March 2011
• Talk:Mexican-American War (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) – yes, the talk page! See the archived box on my talk page.
• Wikipedia:Article titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a policy, now full-protected because of the edit war (I processed a WP:PER request there)

The dispute has spilled over into various noticeboard threads (only the still-open ones: AN, AN3) and CfD.

The issue is entirely too lame (officially!) to waste any time on discussing who exactly bears which degree of blame, let alone who is "right". Simply as a measure to stop these edit-wars and unproductive disputes (and not intended as an accusation of misconduct against any particular editor), I propose that the editors who have recently made punctuation-related reverts to these pages, namely:

• Avanu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enric Naval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are, for one year and across all pages, topic-banned from the issue of the punctuation in "Mexican-American War", including any related changes to or discussions about policies or guidelines. I also propose that uninvolved administrators may impose the same restriction on any other editor who continues the edit wars mentioned above.  Sandstein  20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

All named editors notified.  Sandstein  20:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment and Request -- The idea that good faith editors will be banned from anything is probably one of the most problematic things I have yet seen on Wikipedia. Sandstein, if this is the way you feel about things, I don't see how it is productive of you to remain involved. For the most part, I have seen people behaving themselves and being civil. I myself have been largely apolitical in the dash/hyphen dispute, and to see this kind of thing even proposed seems simply wrong. It is arbitrary and without any real guidance, and with the intended goal of stating simply that this is a 'lame' discussion. While I would agree that it isn't the best use of time, I hardly see how your approach is a solution. I would ask you to let a different admin take over here, and ask you to drop this. -- Avanu (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that all of the people I've named above act in good faith and more or less civilly, but this does not make the edit-warring and the proliferating page protections, noticeboard threads and sanction requests less of a problem. Two involved editors, including you, have asked me to do something on my talk page, and, well, here is my proposal. It may not be very fair in that it treats everybody alike, but it will stop the multi-page edit-warring, which is the main problem (rather than the obscure style and policy disputes) from an admin point of view. If the community doesn't like the proposal, fine. WP:DR has many other options, and all are free to try to apply them.  Sandstein  22:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this would indeed stop the edit-warring altogether, that's for sure. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would, but I feel it also directly assaults one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, namely Civility. If we are to be a community edited encyclopedia, sometimes we endure what others might label lame. (And FYI, that was nominated to the Lamest Edit Wars in a spirit of fun, not to belittle people). Strong unilateral actions like what is being proposed by Sandstein above were *NOT* what this editor was seeking when he initially sought out Sandstein's help. Taking things here only shows me, that Sandstein needs to let it drop, and let an admin who is willing to shepherd this issue take over. -- Avanu (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation: "I didn't get what I want, so I want someone else to make a decision." Topic-banning (oops should that have been an endash? or an emdash? Perhaps someone can enlighten me) will stop you lot from fighting, thereby upholding the idea of civility. → ROUX ₪ 03:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proper Translation: First, you need the facts, Roux. And 'Assume Good Faith' is not what you are doing. Second, I asked for Sandstein's help in a *very* minor thing a few days ago, which he quickly remedied, and seems now intent on punishing people instead of helping. It was never about me getting my way, my point of view on the dispute has consistently been one of neutrality and urging the parties toward resolutions. Before you or anyone else jump to conclusions, get the facts. And don't you dare lecture me until you start with those facts. -- Avanu (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact: This is a stupid editwar

Fact: a bunch of people protecting their pet causes are causing much ballyhoo over something monumentally fucking stupid

Fact: Topicbanning you lot ends all of that

Everything else is irrelevant window-dressing. → ROUX ₪ 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

'stupid', 'pet causes', 'monumentally fucking stupid' - is this the sort of commentary we need to expect from uninvolved editors who are assuming good faith and acting in line with Wikipedia guidelines? If we can't expect civility here on the Administrators' noticeboard, how can we expect a reasonable conclusion? -- Avanu (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of calling a spade a spade, and not succumbing to mealy-mouthed BS in order to maintain illusions. This debate is stupid. Period. It does precisely nothing to enhance utility for the readers of this encyclopedia. Period. Act stupidly, and you will get commentary calling out that stupidity. Act not-stupidly, and you will see that commentary disappear. Either this is important--which you claim it is not, despite how many times you've commented--in which case I invite you to explain, in one hundred words or less, how this argument does anything to make the encyclopedia better, as opposed to simply wasting time that could be more productively spent elsewhere. → ROUX ₪ 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What *is* important in this forum (Administrators' noticeboard) is that there is a fair hearing and a group of editors working toward *solutions* and not simply abusing other editors.

"lame, stupid, monumentally fucking stupid, monkey business, just shut the fuck up, overly-passionate editors intent on protecting their little fiefdoms, troupe of third-rate clowns and their petty slapstick" (my fellow editor's comments here in Admin noticeboard)

Is this the kind of stuff you feel we need to behave more like? As I said, I was long a neutral party in the article's discussion and I *NEVER* saw this kind of vitriol or anger directed at each other. You guys are gathered to pass judgement on other editors, and this is the example we get. What am I supposed to say to this? -- Avanu (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Back in the day, people who acted in buffoonish ways were often pilloried for a short while so that the public could mock them and perhaps chuck some overripe fruit at them. I'll put away my mushy tomatoes (and I'm sure others will) if the editors involved would accept the topic ban, serve their time, and go back to productive business. Wriggling around and hollering only chafes the wrists and attracts attention. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And how precisely have I acted in "buffoonish ways", Lothar? Did you stop and look at the situation? Did you assume good faith? Did you try and come up with alternatives? I know that a lot of the editors who have been discussing this issue have done all of that. But in deference to common courtesy and honorable conduct, which was prized in those same days you mention with the pillorying, please let me know where I was this "buffoon". Please let me know what I should have done better in order to avoid this fate you want to impose on me. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In the dispute itself, you acted fine. I've pursued mediation in similar conflicts (though I haven't been involved in any dealing with minor typography). And while I stand by my support of the initial characterisation of the debate as "lame", I wouldn't have put your name down on a sanctions list. However, in this here AN thread, you've been behaving in a manner that does invite the ire of the people that you have waxed poetic complaining about. You have not consistently made it clear that you are defending you yourself. Some of what you say makes it seem like you are trying to justify the actions of the whole silly lot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I *do* justify that whole lot. They've generally acted like adults and professionals, and nothing in Wikipedia says we have to impose artificial limits on how fast people resolve their discussions. I agree and have told them that the debate is a bit silly, but as long as THEY ARE WILLING to be civil and debate this amicably, why do a group of impatient or cross editors need to come in and *demand* they stop? I don't particularly care which way the debate itself goes, but I will be damned if I let our Wikipedia Pillars fall simply because a group of editors gets their gruff up and begins making demands, rather than being based on community participation and consensus, which this group has generally been doing. I've politely given my 2 cents to this group for ideas to resolve the disputes and so have each of them, but one thing I have never done is demand they act like I'm their boss. -- Avanu (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. If a page is put under full-protection, that's generally an indication that editors are not effectively resolving debates. It's typically a last-ditch effort to keep a page from being torn apart (speaking from my own experience). That y'all come over here and say that no action should be taken as repercussions to such shenanigans is really rather risible. Edit warring has consequences. Punkt. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely hard to argue with a truism. But again, how precisely have I acted in "buffoonish ways"? And to be clear, I did not ask that no action be taken. In fact, quite the opposite. But rather than looking for people to pass judgement on the crowd, I am looking for people to actually propose useful mediation or discussion points or any number of positive approaches to solving this. -- Avanu (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to do a topic ban, it should probably be extended to the en dash versus hyphen question in general, in MOS, in Title, in articles, etc. Otherwise, PMAnderson will just take his campaign to the next place and it will be business as usual. On the other hand, it does seem to be a rather unprecedented approach, just because some people see the issue under debate as less important than the debaters do. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But actually, this is about as lame as it gets. I really don't think such broad measures are warranted; I think we should trust that the editors involved in this depressingly mundane conflict to not spread this monkey business about the encyclopaedia. A single topic ban should drive home the point that this is really not worth fighting over. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I am sure this would only result in a shifting of the battlefield to Spanish–American War. A one-year topic ban sounds a little harsh anyway. What we need is not discipline but somebody with authority to make a final decision on this that everybody agrees to abide by, hence why I recommended mediation. –CWenger (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are several issues here, which are being fought piecemeal across numerous articles. The MOS prescribes en dashes for certain situations; the move at Mexican-American War was based on the argument that TITLE overrides MOS. However, it's not clear that the two are in conflict; they certainly weren't meant to be. If we're going with mediation, we need to answer whether TITLE intends for us to copy the style and formatting of our sources as well as their terminology, and if so, that needs to be made explicit in the policy. The follow-up argument would be whether the style and formatting of the title per TITLE (if it does address that issue) needs to be incorporated within the body of the article, overriding the MOS entirely. I don't think that's ever been the understanding, but we need a conclusion either way, or that reading will just be argued again in this crusade. Perhaps a third debate is whether we need explicit RS sourcing for the MOS, or if, as a style guide not in Mainspace, citations can be left to the talk page. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Add to that a fourth debate about whether the MOS really calls for an en dash in Mexican~American War. Some would argue that only Mexico–America War would. –CWenger (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Some" is PMAnderson. That appears to be a spurious argument, as style guides contradict it and he has never been able to give a source for that claim. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some is (as this tempest in a teapot goes) a large number of people. For example, CWenger, to whom you reply, changed his !vote because he does not believe MOS requires the en dash; only Kwami and his two allies seem to believe it does. CWenger's sensible action is one reason I deplore Sandstein's suggestion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And add the real non-lame background debate: should the MOS follow the common usage in English language RS, just like MOS:FOLLOW says. Or should it follow the recommendations of style guides as chosen by a small group of vocal editors. The same vocal editors that have been edit-warring to insert their chosen punctuation over that used in RS.

(Also, collateral damage from too-broad carpet banning. Topic banning the guy who bothers to get consensus via WP:RM and WP:CFD (me), along with the guys who misquote MOS:FOLLOW and MOS:CONSISTENCY and put MOS over policy WP:TITLE in order to edit-war their preferred versions (mainly Noetica and Tony1). And topic banning poor Avantu, whose only revert was a very common sense undoing of a revert made in undefensible and tendentious grounds[67]) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So, instead of dismissing the whole matter as "lame", some admin should go close the dangling RM, block the guys that keep edit-warring against the closure of consecutive RMs. And then maybe some sort of order will be restored in WT:MOS, and it will slowly become a style guide that really follows the usage in real world and not the desires of the guy who shouts the loudest and reverts the most. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Common English-language usage is to put a short horizontal line between the words "Mexican" and "American". The length of that line is a dispute over typography. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with a hyphen because I think that ndahses and mdashes between two words with no spaces just looks awkward and because almost no one is going to search for something using an ndahsh or mdash, they're going to use a hyphen. However a stronger statement needs to be made here. We are all out here to build an encyclopedia, and yet continuously we wind up arguing over incredibly stupid trivialities. With the amount of time wasted on this incident, an article could be brought from stub quality to B quality at least. At some point, perhaps after three or four users become involved and hit an impasse, you just need to start an RfC, follow whatever outcome comes out of it, and move the f**k on. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Something really does need to be done about this general area: there are editors that were removing {{singlechart}} from articles on the basis that it accurately quoted hyphens from source titles when our MOS insists on en-dashes. The last time an editor went through and made the sources inaccurate, I just gave up. That sad thing is that I have to do a hex-dump of a file to be sure which one I have, anyway. I can't for the life of me figure out why this issue has the importance to some that it seems to have achieved. I vote for doesn't matter. Perhaps the best thing to do is to request a Wikimedia change to render both punctuation characters the same way (flip a coin to choose which), and then the whole issue will die.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we just take the example of the guy who wrote this[68]? PhGustaf (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At this point, tempting as that is, no, I don't think that'll work. They'll wind up debating the rules of rock paper scissors... "does scissors cut sheet rock?", "if the paper is a cardboard, would it really cover the rock?", "that user waited until after I started to move before casting his handsign. I declare it invalid and get dynamite the next round." and so on and so forth. No, I'm more in favor of a binding RfC on the issue of dashes in titles. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And I think you're silly. First you jump in with your opinion on the dispute that they're trying to suppress. Then you declare it trivial. Then you argue against a joke. Then you call for a binding RfC. Surreal. No waste of time here, no sir. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Between the attitude and your utter inability to follow logical arguements, I can see why you're a party in this increibally stupid issue. Yes, the longer this goes on the more in favor I am of banning you from the issue. Here's a very basic explanation of my points, bulleted, so that even you can understand it.

• That it got this far means that least one, likely more of you is unable to work constructively as part of a group. When people prove incompetent at basic social interactions, the community tends to lose patience with them, hence the topic ban proposal.
• This is a trivial argument. The length of a dash is incredibly unimportant compared to literally hundreds of other factors in an article. None the less, the argument is ongoing.
• I weighed in on the discussion because I figured that other people would as well in some desperate attempt to end this nonsense. I have no stake in the mess, I just want it, and at this point you, to go away.

Thank you for your time. Now if you excuse me, I have a "support topic ban" vote to go cast. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is a very inappropriate 'drive-by' application of power. There is no "incessant drama", there is no "spilling out", the request I made of Sandstein originally was no different than I would have made for any other situation with an article. Again, this really simply needs an admin who is willing to *care* rather than a simple "this is lame" and drive on. Most of the comments of support I am seeing are by people who have little involvement and are simply taking this at Sandstein's word. I have been a bystander in this debate for a while asking for the parties to come to various conclusions, and have been in the middle of the road, and I don't appreciate the threat of being banned from a topic for having done nothing more than act in good faith. My suggestion is to close this now, and if not, and this proceeds down this path, I can only say that my faith following our Wikipedia Pillars and in allowing the community to resolve issues is misplaced here. -- Avanu (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Response This seems a very odd time for such a proposal; the matter is virtually settled.

• There have been two requested moves at Talk:Mexican-American War, both have been closed by admins to the same spelling.
• There is a textual proposal at Wikipedia_talk:TITLE#Edit_protected, which (after some discussion of two words: please and typographical) is now waiting for some admin to add it to the text. So far, every one concerned accepts the substance; everyone who has spoken (Blueboar, Noetica, myself...) appears to be willing to tolerate the proposed wording at the bottom of the section.

I would welcome more discussion of the several substantive issues involved here; but a topic ban will hardly help that; it will merely ensure that those of us with strong feelings on the matter don't participate or benefit.

I do think that there are degrees of responsibility here: one editor (I'd name him if I were asking for penalties) responded to having an 8-2 RM closed in the way he didn't like by alleging corruption in the closing admin; Avanu, on the other hand, merely wants Talk:Mexican-American War to be on Polk and Santa Anna rather than typographic minutiae; I hope I fall somewhere in the middle.

But none of these rise to the level of a topic ban; and if they did, this would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is PMAnderson's rampage. He completely misrepresents it when he says "There have been two requested moves at Talk:Mexican-American War, both have been closed by admins to the same spelling." The first was his move request, one of his several attempts to roll back progress of recent years in consistently using en dash where appropriate, and it his move was approved even though there was clearly not a consensus to do so, and those of us who had opposed him elsewhere were unaware that he had taken his campaign there. Then someone argued that it should be moved back since this decision was improper; not surprisingly, still no consensus, so it was closed as no consensus. You can't in good faith cite these two as precedents to do more of same. Things would settle down if the one improper move was fixed, putting everything back into a consistent state. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check your facts, and read my comments here. The first RM was announced in WT:MOS the day it was opened. One AN thread didn't seem to have any problem with the way the RMs were done. If you think that the RMs were improperly closed then challenge it somewhere instead of re-stating that it was improper while giving zero proof. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the temperature is too high here, too: it is most unhelpful. I have posted a strong suggestion that everyone at Mexican~American War take a cold shower, tone it down, slow it down, and depersonalise all posts. A topic ban in this case is most inappropriate, as pointed out by several editors above: it would be pointless as currently conceived. An interim solution is to let be for quite a while. The matter should be sorted out in a calmer and more collegial environment ... some time down the track, not next week. We all have better things to do than get steamed up. Can we see if this issue will self-settle for the moment? It would require just the smallest cooperation by all, as a community practicality. (I have had little time for WP over the past weeks, I regret). Tony (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

New policy candidate: WP:Short horizontal line

With apologies to Carnildo, I submit my new policy candidate: Wikipedia:Short horizontal line.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support and urge implementation on a bold, emergency basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Support If this fails to resolve the problem, I suggest we commission a ShortHorizontalLineRandomiserBot to chug its way around demonstrating our total lack of concern over the whole pointless argument. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Support Common sense dictates that all article titles must consist of the ASCII characters any common keyboard would be expected to produce. As for how the text of the article should appear -- eh, whatever. Let them beat each other senseless & the winner gets to decide. -- llywrch (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Contrarian support. We don't need this incessant drama over hyphens and dashes, over and over again. If anybody has a burning desire to "fix" thousands of articles, that's commendable, but there are more important things to be fixed. We can worry about fine-tuning our horizontal lines after cleaning up the fiction, BLP violations, nationalist battlegrounds, spam, and banning anybody who has ever editwarred over music genres ever. On the other hand I would disagree with llywrch because (a) sometimes it's appropriate to have diacriticals in the names of foreign subjects, and (b) I like opening cans of worms. bobrayner (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment This means we should consider editors over readers, substitute hyphens for minus/negative signs as well, and substitute double hyphens for em dashes, like in a mimeographed newsletter. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply I don't think you read the proposal carefully. When would an em-dash be used in a title or a likely search term?—Kww(talk) 00:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Very weak support. WP:TITLE says (before all this started, now, and if the edit-protected text is installed) that there should be a redirect using only keyboard characters. In principle, that would be better than using nothing else in the actual article titles; but if it produces peace... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I've been watching this fight about the size of a dash from the sidelines for months. This has to be the LAMEST fight I've seen in my last 3 years here at WP. If a ban will get rid of this fight and all of the proliferating noticeboard threads, then it has my full support. Heiro 01:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not the section for supporting or opposing the ban. This is the section for supporting or opposing the dash in title policy proposal. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Wehalt. and suggest that all editors must now purchase a tape-measure (or would that be tape—measure?). re: llwrch "Let them beat each other senseless" .. it appears that this has already been accomplished? — Ched :  ?  01:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support My ;ndash key is broken... oh wait... Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support As (*gasp*) common sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Well, one, I don't think this is a serious proposal (because it's in the wrong forum), but my sense of humor might just be off. Two, we have redirects for a reason. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course it isn't serious; but it's not the worst idea available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Rainbow Dash does not support this proposal. (sorry, I had to say it). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:WHATICANTYPEONMYKEYBOARD. Mjroots (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Revised – I revised it, as it had falsehoods in it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I fixed your revision, as your revision seems to have missed the point. I've got a Computer Engineering degree, have been working with the things for 30 years, and have no idea how to type an mdash on a standard keyboard. Expecting a typical user or editor to know how doesn't make much sense. Sadly, I'm approaching 3RR on a guideline about dashes and hyphens that was intended to show how silly it is to edit war over dashes and hyphens.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• That little edit war is strike two. (Changing the meaning of a half-satirical commentary on a lame dispute only makes it lamer.) Strike three, & the Battle of the Dashes gets its own lame entry. -- llywrch (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – See Pmanderson's comment. WYSIWYG has made people HTML-ignorant. I could understand using hyphens in redirects and links, but I believe that en dashes make this encyclopedia more presentable. If they can learning to use wikitext and templates, then learn to type – and — should be relatively simple. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Avanu's comments and Rivertorch's comments in the "common sense" section. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• How many angels can dance on a very short horizontal line? - don't care. The occasional editing irritation caused by using something other than a hyphen in a title is precisely matched by the minor benefit of having correct typography (when non-hyphens are correctly used). That delicate balance is blown out of the water when arguments about correctness get out of hand; but sometimes that's life Wikipedia for you. In sum, the specific application of this minor thing has got out of hand, but completely dismissing the issue sui generis is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Rd232 ^talk 03:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Kww's wording, and also support adding Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) to the list of proposed topic-banned editors, for completely reversing the meaning of Kww's post. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest that if this incredibly misguided idea is for real, it needs community-wide attention. Rivertorch (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—it is just too bizarre for words, and is not the kind of topic that is appropriate for discussion here. The issues it raises are so broad, involve so much of the whole style-guide policy interrelationship, that it defies belief anyone would approve it. The Mexican~American thing should have been debated on style-guide talk pages: that is what the style guides are for, to prevent drama on actual article pages. We can thus expect a bit of heated debate at style guides. Best place for it. Tony (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Which of the horizontal lines to use is essentially an arbitrary decision. The current rules are pretty good by aesthetic criteria, but they are wrong in the sense that by being too complicated they cause disruption, and also because they are impractical. In our computerised era there is a tendency towards one horizontal line to rule them all (the shortest one), and by trying to stop it we are setting up technical difficulties for readers (who search for specific expressions in their browsers) and editors. Let's stop using dashes right now (this is just a first step in that direction), and revisit the decision if and when computers begin to support them properly. Hans Adler 10:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in this form. Baby-to-bathwater proportion too high for my taste. It's also not something to be decided at WP:AN. You don't solve a style guide issue by writing a parallel new style guide in competition with the first, and ramming it through with a vote on AN. I sympathize with an effort to cut back on some of the outgrowths of WP:MOS, but this can only be solved at MOS itself. What I would welcome would be a new discussion there, from which, however, those editors with an overly entrenched involvement in the conflict should (voluntarily?) abstain, in the interest of everybody's sanity and to let other voices be heard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. This is starting to get ridiculous. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Is this a serious proposal? If so, well, "oppose." Both hyphens and endashes have their places. Franco-Prussian War has a hyphen, Iran–Iraq War has an endash, Mexican American War will wind up with one or the other once people sort it out. I see no need for a blanket "hyphenate everything" policy when 99+% of the existing article titles with endashes or minus signs or whatever are utterly uncontroversial. If this isn't a serious proposal, but rather a way to highlight how silly it is to generate kilobytes of heated discussion over a single punctuation choice... well, I'll "support" that. 28bytes (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support in Strongest Possible Terms* policy proposal Wikipedia:Short horizontal line, by Kww(talk) or, in the alternative, something very close to that, to be decided on after seeking the CONSENSUS OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, AND NOT JUST A FEW EXPERT LINGUISTS. With great respect to these linguists, in my opinion the presence or absence of the "various forms of horizontal lines" in various places is EXTREMELY unlikely to generate ANY significant reduction in the net quality and quantity of knowledge gleaned from reading any given article. In addition, when one also weighs the quality and quantity of aggravation and time expended on the arguing and fixing problems generated by these types of issues, the overall net result is a TREMENDOUS WASTE OF TIME AND EXTREME AGGRAVATION for many, many people. Lastly, and generally, I also strongly agree with the comments made (above) by Wehwalt (talk), Heiro, SarekOfVulcan (talk), Hans Adler, and I respectfully disagree strongly with comments made by kwami (talk), and TONY. Best regards to all:Uploadvirus (talk).
• Comment – This encyclopedia would be ten times better if users spent more time discussing how to make it more accurate and more professional-looking. I don't see these discussions as wasteful. If one doesn't believe these discussions to be worthwhile, then one shouldn't drag themselves into them. I'm not sure why people who could care less take sides. Do they enjoy fighting on the Internet? Are they opportunists seeing a vulnerable debate that they could "win" by screaming "trivial" or "keyboard"? Do they see an opportunity to involve themselves in a topic ban discussion and gain Internet reputation (wikipoints)? My advice would be to leave these discussions to those who truly care (the experts). You aren't obligated to participate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Question – How do we handle other characters that aren't on the keyboard (eg. "é" as in "cliché")? The British pound sign (£) isn't on American keyboards as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • With redirects, usually. For example, jalapeno redirects to jalapeño, Paul Erdos redirects to Paul Erdős, etc. 28bytes (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Then why not create redirects with hyphens, and redirect them to pages with en dashes in their titles? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That's indeed been the long-standing practice and is also already mandated explicitly by the MOS. But of course it doesn't solve the issue of when to use the dashes in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That's currently being done. Whether you type Mexican American War, Mexican-American War or Mexican–American War, redirects will take you to where you want to go. The question under debate is whether the actual article title should have a hyphen, like Franco-Prussian War, or an endash, like Iran–Iraq War. 99% of people don't care, of course. 28bytes (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
        • You're missing the point. We're discussing Kww's proposal, and the logic behind the proposal is: If a Wikipedia editor is expected to be able to type it, a hyphen should be used. The proposal says that articles should have titles that are convenient to type. That's what I'm arguing against. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
        • This really doesn't scale well when you combine it with our normal alternate capitalization redirects. Assume a hypothetical song titled "Cold–hearted Man". Should we have redirects at "Cold–Hearted Man", "Cold-hearted Man", and "Cold-Hearted Man"? "The Cold-hearted Man Sings the Blues" would get about 8 redirects, and I dread to consider "The Cold-hearted Man Sings the Blues About His Hard–hearted Woman".—Kww(talk) 16:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Does extra redirects hurt the wiki? Will it corrupt our databases? Will it collapse and fall into anarchy? The only harmful redirects are the libelous ones. Now I'm wondering who's truly making a big deal out of the trivial? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
            • (ec) The phenomenon that co-occurrence of several possible points of variation in the same title may lead to proliferation of mathematically possible combinations and multiple possible redirects is nothing new, and nothing specific to the issue of dashes. Think of capitalization, ENGVAR spelling variants, alternative transliterations of foreign names, accented and unaccented characters, etc. We've had all of these for years, and each of them can co-occur with any other, sometimes at multiple points in the same title. Yes, we sometimes do 4, 8, 16, … redirects in such cases. Redirects are cheap. We've always handled this. In practice, not all mathematically conceivable combinations usually need to be done though – given the way the autocompletion function works in the search box, what's usually needed is just one redirect each for every possible spelling of the first n letters, up to the point where the string becomes unambigous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Kww's example might be a little contrived, but I think I do agree with his underlying point. If there were a proposal to change the underlying software to treat all dashes equivalently in article titles, similar to the way uppercase and lowercase letters are treated equivalently in the first character of a title, I'd strongly consider supporting that. I can't imagine a case where "X-Y" and "X–Y" would be separate articles rather than one being a redirect to the other one. Which, I guess, is not terribly different from his proposal, but in either case, there would need to be a software change to allow the title to be rendered with the correct punctuation, analogous to the magic word that renders EBay as eBay. 28bytes (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
            • That's a good point. Even though I know of at least one example of "-" vs. "–" in titles that actually are distinct targets: the pages "-" and "–" themselves. (One is in fact a dab page, the other a redirect to Dash). I sincerely hope those are the only ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
              • Good point about the pages "-" and "–". I think merging those two pages would be a small sacrifice to make. Unless I'm missing some other legitimate reason where "X-Y" and "X–Y" should be separate articles, I can't really think of any reasons not to consider a software solution that would essentially end the titling problem once and for all. There would still be debates on how to display the title, but it would completely eliminate requested move debates, since the article title would be the same regardless of how it displayed. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
                • I could strongly support that as well. If there was ever a content-based reason to distinguish the articles, we would still need to use special handling simply because the difference between the two titles is not easily perceptable.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps someone database-savvy could run a query to see if there are any cases where a pair of pages "X-Y" and "X–Y" don't point to the same place. Other than the -/– case, I can't think of any cases in which that would be desirable, but empirical evidence is always good. 28bytes (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is silly to require that WP editors use any characters not rapidly and readily available on standard keyboards. Though I am thinking of replacing all the "Y"s in "Ye olde" with proper "thorns" Þ. Not. The amount of energy spent on using a multitude of symbols is absurd IMO. Collect (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Opppose: This isn't a terrible idea, but it wouldn't solve the underlying dispute. It would just move it from article titles to article content. Not sure that is an improvement. And it seems unnecessary, as we already provide redirects for non-standard keyboard characters. Would this apply to diacritics too? It would actually make more work because we would need some way to change the appearance of the article title like in iPhone, or have one of those unsightly {{correct reason}} tags like at C Sharp (programming language). –CWenger (^ • @) 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support At least article content is meaningful for us. Just use a hyphen, it's the only key that everyone, be they American, British, Australian, Canadian etc, has. (also, no right minded user would ever say: "Oh man! They should have used an en-dash instead of an em-dash! How dare they?!") --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If most users can't see the difference, and even fewer care, just use a bloody hyphen. Jonathunder (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

omg common sense

I think it's funny that people are arguing over a dash versus a hyphen. Will this really affect our readers' learning about the subject or comprehension of the article? It's a single character; we're not five-year-olds, here. Can one or both sides just drop this completely silly dispute, stop making nonsensical claims about its wide-reaching significance about which policies/guidelines to follow, and just shut the fuck up? This sort of debate is what makes Wikipedia the laughingstock of academics—more time is spent figuring out the damn dashes/hyphens than actually improving the article".

There are quite a few unsourced paragraphs in the article. Someone should start sourcing them. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Something something deck chairs something something Titanic. → ROUX ₪ 02:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On a more serious note, this whole furfurrah quite neatly epitomizes so many of the problems facing Wikipedia: small groups of overly-passionate editors intent on protecting their little fiefdoms; ignoring what readers (you know, those millions of people every day who use Wikipedia as a resource) need, and don't need. viz, they don't give a tinker's damn whether it's an endash, an emdash, a hyphen, or a squiggly line as long as the semantic meaning is clear; prizing form over function and style over substance; and finally, raising the barrier to entry for new editors even higher than it already is by forcing them to conform to some bizarrely arcane typography instead of actually, y'know, editing the fucking encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 02:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a copy editors guild, among its many specialized groups. Each editor brings something different, unique, and often helpful to Wikipedia. If we were to simply focus on content, without regarding to grammar or punctuation, I assure you Wikipedia would be laughed at and dismissed out of hand. It is the kind of dedication that we see among these editors that are willing to endure such a subject and its minutiae that makes Wikipedia outstanding. Flippant comments without a firm foundation in the overall situation do not. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But actually, comparing this frivolous battle over the length of a horizontal line segment to copyediting is almost insulting to those who copyedit. Nobody really cares if there is a hyphen or endash in the title; it does not affect readability one iota. Spelling and grammar mistakes within the articles themselves do. Please, stop fluffing up your feathers to make yourself and this pathetic edit-war seem more important than you and it actually are. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, since most of you seem intent on lecturing people about this instead of getting a background on the situation, let me clarify. In many ways, I agree with you that the dispute is not terribly important. And I have consistently taken that position in this, one of neutrality and levity and just having fun with Wikipedia. The idea that "Nobody really cares" is completely inconsistent with the facts here. There are many editors who have spent days discussing things and debating points, and now we have a group of people who seem to be going right along with an overbearing request by an admin, and yet these people haven't taken more than a few seconds to dwell on why this issue has been important to these people. This isn't *my* edit war. That is one thing that I find terribly inappropriate about Sandstein's request. He didn't bother to really look into this, he just pronounced it "lame" and damn the lot of them. And it seems the community, who I consistently turn to and regard as the backbone of this encyclopedia are acting like a kangaroo court, pronouncing judgement with a bare whiff of the situation and damn to whoever might be caught in the tempest of your fury of apathy. This is so far in opposition to the Pillar of Civility, I simply have to wonder if those who quickly 'vote' to condemn even really believe in it. -- Avanu (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a handful of Wikipedia editors spent wasted days of their lives time quarrelling about something so flat-out inane as hyphen-vs-endash in an article title does not mean that anybody really cares. The community's time is being wasted by this troupe of third-rate clowns and their petty slapstick; that is why we are all so dismissive of this. This can hardly be pushed under the umbrella of 'encyclopaedic improvement'. Instead of improving the article, editors warred across several pages over the length of a small dash. A goddamn dash! Those are the "facts" of the situation. Sandstein's judgement was impeccable in denouncing this conflict as "lame". In this case, the edit-war was so unproductive and so utterly useless that the motives of the editors are quite immaterial. As for "civility", this would not be a problem if the topic bans were accepted and everybody moved on. No, instead, the participants in this farce had to try and indignantly explain why their risible, reprehensible behaviour was somehow justified. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It unfortunately does affect readability if apparently similar titles on different pages look subtly different--this is especially noticeable in scanning a large number of pages, as it checking each item in a category or a list. In most languages, compromises are made on the strict rules for titles and headlines, which are designed for maximum recognition rather than exactness. It would be perfectly reasonable in my opinion to have a rule that all hyphens and en dashes in titles automatically convert to hyphens, regardless of the rest of the article (It would in my opinion also be logical to have a rule that accent marks are not used in article titles). It's the same sort of thing as the rule (originally technical) that titles begin with a capital letter. Article titles are an organizational feature, not content. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It has no effect on the content of the article. It does not change or muddle meaning. Perhaps it is a minor annoyance to those with sharp eyes. Nothing more. Certainly nothing worth edit warring over. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment As a non-admin who got caught up in the hyphen/endash issue when the latter was improperly and arbitrarily applied to a certain series of articles (Category:Regional districts of British Columbia), only to discover other articles where in normal English hyphens are the norm (the debate focussing on Poland-Lithuania), and faced with the "consensus has been that endash should be used in all XYZ cases", when in fact DASH wasn't even read or applied properly in the first place, it's very clear that there was NEVER a consensus on the blanket across-bthe-board "extermination of the hyphen wherever possible because we're Wikipedians and we know better", and it's clear from the mere existence of this discussion that it's now more clear than ever that the pro-DASH crowd enjoy no conensus other than their own. To this date, while having had to conceded the Poland-Lithuania "can" have a hyphen, they have stonewalled that the adjectival form of same MUST have an endash because of their interpretation (and apparent control/OWN of DASH), even though this is not ordinary English, not used at all in ANY source...."we don't have to obey the sources because they didnt' ahve advanced typographical techology like we do" and "people who don't use the ENDASH are just lazy" etc....the debates to get the simple LEGAL names of the BC regional districts returned to their proper legal form took exhaustive energies on my part and very nearly drove me from Wikipedia altogether (as POV/SOAP/SPAM problems with Canadian poltiical/electoral articles are about to again, though for more legitimate and less trivial reasons)....during those debates I was insulted and degraded while at the same time being accused of personal attacks (attackers often do that to their victims, bullying is like that y'know...), and it was even suggested that British Columbians were backwards and not sophisticated etc etc....finally I consulted with the Legislative Counsel of British Columbia (the government's lawyer, and also the maintainer of the official style guide) and it was only with citations of teh actual legislation that the hyphens were - only begrudingly - restored. This was utterly inane, took weeks of energy and time, and left a bad taste in my mouth to the point where MOSTALK definitely has a "keep away, this is our playground not yours" sandbox feel to it; somebody's own little empire, where "consensus" means "us, not you". So how this affects your little discussion here I'm not sure exactly, as I'm only a non-admin interloper, but I'm providing testimony about exactly how inane and extensive this hyphen/dash thing has aggravated at least one busy editor, who really had better things to do, but had to get the legitimate names of articles (and associated categories( restored by complicated and argumentative processes that never should have been changed without discussion/notice in the first place and which didn't actually cite DASH properly to start with!!!. Others monitoring this know how pithy I can get so I'm holding my tongue, and sorry, I'm not capable of that "100 words or less" nonsense, and was confronted in those debates by that same demand, and also insulted by "Too long did not read", which to me is just someone who doesn't want to admit the legitimacy of an argument and wants to ignore its existence. But that this is still stuck in my craw is a sign of how rabid this particular pack of control-freak admins behaved, and if a topic-ban is what's being called for against them, I'm all for that; it might be a good idea to ban them from MOS for a season too and get them working on actual articles - instead of coming up with new and creative ways to drive away those who DO. No doubt some might argue, also, that "topic-ban" should have an endash and not a hyphen....if the silly quasi-grammatical breakdown of common compounds were applied as if cast-iron or carved in stone, which is how DASH was treated (while ignoring HYPHEN, or even what DASH actually said).Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) To the best of my recollection, I have never edited the article about a certain armed conflict between two North American countries, nor do I belong to the Guild of Copy Editors. I have no dog in this specific fight. However, as someone who copyedits frequently and extensively, I do care about the use of standard punctuation in Wikipedia articles. Avanu is quite correct: punctuation is important. Despite their similarity in appearance, hyphens and the two kinds of dashes have different functions; they are not interchangeable, and their misuse absolutely does affect readability for many readers.

One of the reasons I was moved to begin editing here (as an IP, six or seven years ago) was because I kept encountering articles with superb content obscured behind a shroud of careless or ignorant misspellings, errors of simple grammar, tortured syntax, and, yes, misemployed punctuation marks. A hyphen is no more equivalent to an em-dash than a period is to a comma or a colon. Substituting one for the other can distort or eclipse intended meaning some of the time; it will make the content look sloppy and unprofessional all of the time.

Creating an en-dash using Mac OS requires pressing a grand total of two keys—the same number of keys it takes to get a question mark. It's a little harder with Windows but still no big deal. It isn't "arcane typography" at all, just typography—and available to the masses for over a quarter-century now. I don't mind cleaning up other editors' punctuation—actually, I rather enjoy it sometimes—but I don't think I'd care to put much time or effort into the world's first encyclopedia that formally allows nonstandard punctuation. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how use or misuse of these characters effects readability for a significant numbers of users? RxS (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can try, but I'm a little reluctant to add to the clutter here. It's sort of beyond the proper scope of AN, you know? Let me just specify that I was referring to these punctuation marks in general, not just in titles. If you'd still like a reply (here or anywhere), let me know; I don't usually watch this page. Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think if you're backing up a certain point of view here with a claim about usability here, I think an explanation here is appropriate. RxS (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, then. RL intrudes, but I'll try to gather my thoughts and post something here later. Rivertorch (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I can try to explain. I like the way this guide puts it, since it applies fairly generally, doesn't arbitrarily restrict the joined items to be nouns, etc. The hyphen is a joiner, the dash a separator. If you want to indicate a war of Mexico against America, for example, the en dash is appropriate, whereas if you want to speak of a Mexican Amercan as an adjective, you hyphenate it; alternative with neither, as in "Mexican American War" is also acceptable, since punctuation is often omitted from compounded names; if you wrote "Mexican American culture" it's really not clear what that means, whereas "Mexican-American culture" would be culture of Mexican Americans, and "Mexican–American culture" or "Mexican–American trade agreement" would be related to the two separate countries. Doing it wrong conveys the wrong meaning, and for people who are used to reading things with careful typography, it offends the "ear" of the reader in the same sense that misplaced commas do, when they signal a meaning that conflicts with the ultimate interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the best point I have heard in a long time: Mexican–American culture (culture of Mexico and America) versus Mexican-American culture (culture of Mexican Americans). That is an actual, realistic distinction. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Recommend topic ban proposal be dropped

Its entirely my fault for even asking Sandstein for advice on this article (Mexican-American War) in the first place. I had hoped my appeal to an admin for assistance would provide a strong, clear voice, willing to shepherd things and help all of the editors in coming to a resolution that had broad community support. The real problem with the debate is that both sides have strong cases for their positions. And we only get to have 1 title. So you're left with a less than perfect solution either way.

This group of editors may not be perfect, but they have been a lot more civil to one another than several of the editors here at the Admin Noticeboard have been to them. My suggestion is that we find an admin who is willing to actually look at this and find a *positive* solution. Not labeling or wanting to ban, but truly interested in taking this to a place where consensus, or at least contentment can be had.

I now regret involving Sandstein in this, and would kindly ask that he let this go and instead let an admin take over who is willing to be neutral not only on the issues, but also on the editors. That has been my general approach to the article, and I see no point in abusing a group of editors who have been working in good faith to collaborate toward a solution. -- Avanu (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC) If you plan on commenting in the section below, I would politely ask that you not simply 'vote', but actually provide a reason and rationale.

Oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I understand that the issue is important to a select few people; however, it appears to be a very minor issue with most folks. That being said, if the constant back and forth is going to continue as it has, then it falls under the disruption clause of your contract. Eventually we try to put an end to that. — Ched :  ?  16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. A ban seems like a really odd way to settle a style dispute. Banning everyone who's been involved so far assumes no one else will pick up the hyphen or endash banner and resume the fight later, and back here we'll be. Seems like the sensible thing to do would be to start an RfC to settle the matter conclusively if there's any remaining contention about the title. If any editors refuse to honor the result of the RfC, then start handing out bans. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support—I agree, it's very odd. As conceived, a ban would simply invite the involvement of other similar articles. Please see my request that editors cool off and back down as a practical measure. I believe this boring little issue might be seen for what it is in a cooler light, and that it should be given a chance to settle, if editors can depersonalise and leave off. Dare I say it, this would be more likely to work than a misconceived ban (do you not see the scope problem with it?). Another RfC ... possibly, if people are really not willing to give it a rest ... run by an uninvolved party. Tony (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC) PS I see that Mr Anderson has already reacted positively to the "cool off, slow down, depersonalise" idea. Tony (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support I have not taken part in that discussion, but am quite familiar with it, having used WT:MOS frequently to ask questions. I must say that I feel strongly that none of the involved parties have done anything to warrant being topic-banned. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: Not a productive solution. –CWenger (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would hope that, were I to ask a group of informed Wikipedians to comment on a dispute I had with another Wikipedian, a large number of them told me that the dispute was trivial, stupid & lame, I would consider the possibility that maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- the dispute was truly trivial, stupid, & lame, instead of whining that I was being misunderstood. And maybe -- just maybe, mind you -- there might be one or two other Wikipedians who would consider that same possibility. -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban

Withdrew my vote and associated discussion. See below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At this point it is quite clear to me that at least some of the users listed as involved are incapable of the most basic of group communications. This simply will not be resolved until the editors are forcefully removed from the dispute. Therefore I say that yes, we should topic ban at least some of the parties from all hyphen/dash related activities. Support Topic Ban Judging only from the spillover onto this page, right now I only support it for the first three, Avanu, Enric Naval, and Dicklyon. Of the other three one has been constructive and the other two absent. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC) What did I do? -- Avanu (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Through aggressive arguments and continued pushing of your views on this forum, you helped to escalate a quagmire that is already out of control into something that is even more out of control. I will admit though that of the three that I believe should be topic banned, my support of banning you is the weakest. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I find a suggestion that I be topic banned in the first place to be awfully agressive. My impression of Sanstein's bringing this here is to make it into a quagmire. I sincerely asked for his help and he responded with a slap in the face. As I said to another editor, it makes no sense at all for a person to be topic banned from a topic that he has been *neutral* on. Shall I just go on being more neutral? My issue is those editors here who didn't take the time to review things and get a deeper understanding and think that the only way to fix things is to punish people. -- Avanu (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC) My comments here haven't been constructive? Oh, well, I tried. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I don't think we need three separate sections for this. 28bytes (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Screw it, this isn't really the answer. I gave a long explanation at my user talk page as to my thoughts on the matter, but here's a nice excerpt. "...at this point anything short of a siteban is just going to be a delay, because I can just see this thing exploding again continuously until it winds up a smoldering putrid heap on ArbCom's doorstep...". That being said, I guess the best answer going forward is a binding RfC, which was suggested above somewhere. Either way you all choose, have at it, I'm done with this mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC

• I think a binding RfC would be the ideal solution. Among the complaints I've seen from the participants are that the venues in which the issue is being argued (e.g. the talk page of an article) are not broad enough, so a well-advertised RfC would be the best means to ensure a result that everyone can consider legitimate. Any takers? 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: I like this idea. If it fails we can go to mediation and show them we tried this first. –CWenger (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Support a binding RfC iff it is supervised in such a way that new voices won't be drowned in the shouting by the old disputants with their entrenched positions. Interested parties get to present their position in one paragraph each plus supporting evidence, then a phase of endorsements. No threaded debate beyond that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that approach 100%. One paragraph per editor would be an excellent way to encourage the interested parties to put their best case forward and let others comment, instead of a back-and-forth that spirals out of control. 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What is a binding RfC? Why not mediation? Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think mediation would run the danger of personalizing the issue even more between this core group of editors with entrenched positions, would encourage even more back-and-forth between them, and would have the effect of excluding rather than encouraging the input of new outside voices. Frankly, what we need is less of you guys talking, not more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And by binding, I mean that the participants agree that, whatever the community decides, that lays the issue to rest, and we don't see a bunch of move requests two weeks later to put it "the other way". 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, it must be crystal clear that the results of this RfC apply to everything in Wikipedia concerning the Mexican~American War, and possibly also similarly named wars using multiple proper adjectives, e.g. Spanish~American War (we'll have to get an agreement on that before we proceed). –CWenger (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of adjectives, the best style guide that I know of includes en dash connecting adjectives (possessive–genitive dichotomy; not proper ones, though, unless you want to count Marxist–Trotskyite as adjectives); but trying to settle this in the context of the Mexican–American War is probably not a great idea, since as many have pointed out the predominant usage of that one doesn't follow the style guides. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(Speaking as an interested part), looks like a good solution, I would gladly accept these conditions. What do the other parties say? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If this RfC is only about articles and categories related to the Mexican–American War, I'll happily stay out of it. But if, as some suggest, it's part of the larger campaign to rewrite the MOS to avoid en dashes, then I don't think I'm ready to turn that over to mob rule. Normal consensus processes at wikipedia that have been ongoing for years have got it into a good stable state; we can talk about it, but let's not precommit to accepting some kind of vote to change it just because most editors don't know much about en dashes. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK guys, the joke's gone on long enough

I have not commented on this whole jesting thread because I have no time for such frivolity right now. But Sandstein, it is probably time to bring it to an end. People seem to be taking it seriously! The very idea: that commenting on your suggestion should itself count as grounds for a ban of any sort! :) That did raise a quick laugh for me, I admit.

Apart from all that, it is unsettling to see the word fuck thrown around quite so freely. By Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTCENSORED) they are permitted to post like that. But it is doubtful that they are immune on other grounds. "They're cunts," someone might say – if I can fabricate an example in the tone that they have set here – "those petty tyrannical admins who refuse to spend time understanding the issues and simply choose to swat everyone in the vicinity, including innocent bystanders." That would be out of line, right? Of course, it could not be censored: but there would be behavioural guidelines against it, surely.

So, everyone: how about calling this off, and getting back to serious business? The Project has enough problems at the moment without jokes that are left to get out of hand.

Noetica^Tea? 03:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What, you would pass up the opportunity to topic-ban a random set of people for being too interested in a trivial topic? Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on, Dicklyon. I know it's all rollicking good fun: but let's just get back to work now. Noetica^Tea? 05:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Noetica, what do you think of the RfC proposal above? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Enric! Still with the jokes, eh? Not bad, not bad ... but a little subtle for most of the audience here. You see, they will miss the deep irony in your putting that question to me, of all "participants" in this dispute ☺. May I suggest you keep the tap-dancing in your routine, because the comedy is not quite working yet. O, and study Sandstein's dead-pan delivery. Sheer mastery! Noetica^Tea? 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Noetica: As someone who is not on particularly good terms with anyone in this dispute, I must say that the only way I can describe your posts here thus far is "dickish troll". It is painfully clear that there is bad blood abound, but right now everyone else is actively looking for a solution and you are actively trying to thwart it. Consider being very quiet for a while, because every time you open your mouth, peoples' opinions of you drop sharply. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Important question

Discussion on whether to use en and em dashes or not aside, how does one type it with a Mac OS keyboard? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See Dash. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Appended Notes

Appended note: Having sought advice on the talkpage, I add this according to the customs of this page as I now understand them. The editor who closed this discussion did so immediately after making a comment about me. I do not counter that here, and am happy to see this thread closed. But I reply, as I have a right to, at User talk:Sven Manguard, where the exchange may be read in the history. (It has been redacted by the editor.) Noetica^Tea? 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I had already closed the conversation on my talk page, becuase I do not believe I was dealing with a user acting in good faith, and I do not want the issue in general to be on my page. I consider Noetica's actions here to be those of a troll, as I explained on my talk page, and refuse to allow a troll to use my talk page as a forum. Therefore I removed Noetica's comments as I would removed the comments of any other vandal. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am new to this page and its unprecedented viciousness, and perils lying in wait for the innocent; so I ask for editors' indulgence if I make a wrong step.

Sven: you called me a "dickish troll", and attempted – by a demagogic appeal – to silence me and belittle my few words here (which were intended to treat the whole thread, most charitably, as a joke that got out of hand). You then unilaterally closed the discussion, imposing your editorial summary at the top. "Troll" is not a word I use, but editors will decide to whom it is best applied in these circumstances.

Now I find that you still want the last word, after you have closed the discussion in such high-handed style. I have discussed this with you at your talkpage, and anyone can look at the history there (since you deleted my last response to you) to see all that was said. Next we find that an admin has warned you at your talkpage, and I have been urged at my talkpage to take firm action to "do us all a favour and shut [Sven] down once and for all". You can consider yourself fortunate that I have never taken such action, and am not about to start. If this continues, I may have to reconsider that stance. Please: can we leave this? Without repeated accusations? Noetica^Tea? 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.