Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179

Unblock-en-l help needed

We could use some fresh blood on the unblock mailing list. Any admins that would like to help can sign up at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l. John Reaves 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help (though I'm not around that much), but is there any way to prevent duplicate responses and make sure all emails are handled? Is there an unblock-en-l manual somewhere? Making people use the unblock request template seems a lot easier, for us anyway. --fvw* 00:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the confirm-i-am-a-wikipedia-admin special:emailuser link on the signup page doesn't work for me (the </a> and </div> are in the wrong order, which causes opera to not link). Probably not the source of the lack of volunteers, but it can't be helping either. --fvw* 00:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Link fixed. Prodego ^talk 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that wasn't actually the cause of the problem (I thought it awfully picky of opera), there's a stray " in the <a> tag, just in front of the href. --fvw* 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There isn't a way to prevent duplicate responses, but they aren't too common because you are supposed to cc the list on every reply. I've alerted the site admins to the problem you described. John Reaves 00:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed again. Prodego ^talk 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fvw, there's not really a manual as such, but the closest thing would be this - m:User:Isotope23/Sandbox. Sarah 03:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also a link I just added at the bottom of that page to a Google documents page User:Crazycomputers wrote which contains some email templates people can use when replying to emails. Sarah 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Must be more Kentucky dialogue: "I would like to subscribe to the Unblock-en-l mailing list, and am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I have applied on the main page, and am sending this email to identify my username." :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

213.197.27.252

I see that 213.197.27.252 (talk block log) is blocked for a month because the SixXS's IPv6Gate automatically appends ".sixxs.org" to all URLs, breaking pages. Couldn’t we instead blacklist sixxs.org or remove it from edits with a bot? That would protect the project without the collateral damage. (If the bot solution is used, the bot should give a special edit summary so that it doesn’t look it was correcting vandalism.) —teb728 t c 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically it's an open proxy if I've read their description correctly. On the one hand I'm all for encouraging ipv6 adoption by making vandals get it so they can vandalise, but on the other hand I do kind of like our block open proxies indef policy. Your suggestion would be the very least yes. --fvw* 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocks on IP addresses are not policy but an ongoing cleanup task. I think I read a different description for this service, and the IP's admin seem to take abuse seriously. The real solution here is for the IP's admin to fix the problem, and I have been in contact with them to that effect. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course the ultimate solution is for SixXS to fix the problem at their end. But unless that solution is immanent, why not make a more targeted fix at our end than to block all SixXS users? —teb728 t c 10:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

They have only recently been made aware of the problem, and their response seems promising. The quickest and most effective way to get the problem fixed, with the least collateral, in my view, is to block the IP and ask them to fix it. The majority of its edits would not stick if it was allowed to continue. Your proposals are definitely interesting though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Underage User, uploaded self image

Resolved

 – User blocked indef, file deleted on Commons.  Sandstein  17:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ricky_Oliver (Currently a SSP), claims to be 14 years of age and has uploaded an image of himself which can be located here. I don't know what to tag it as. Requesting immediate delete of the image. I have blanked the userpage and stated why I did it in a way the user could see. Rgoodermote  02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehmm... Why? He's been vandalising yes, but I'm sure we have plenty of wikipedia users who are under 18 and have pictures of themselves on wikipedia. In fact, quite a few of our articles have pictures of under 18s on them too. --fvw* 02:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I honestly just do not trust this particular account. I myself had one from when I was 16. But that isn't the case. Because it is suspected to be a sock I am leery as to whether this is truly the person in question. You guys can decide that one. I just want to get back to being a gnome. Rgoodermote  02:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is at Commons, here, so you'll have to request deletion there. We generally delete personal information related to minors on Wikipedia, but I'm unaware of Commons' guidelines on this matter. Cenarium (Talk) 03:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there even a guidelines here for this? I know of an essay. Rgoodermote  04:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Misread your comment. I went to commons and brought it to their attention. Rgoodermote  05:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and indef'ed the user. Clearly, his pattern of edits (after running a comparison tool) indicates that he's Nimbley6. seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, should I tell the editors at commons this? Because I really do not like the image name and I do not trust that that is the editor. Rgoodermote  06:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a very swift google suggests that the editor is who he claims to be. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the previous socks made it appear that the person was another child of similar age with the surname Nimbley. All we know is that the i.d. we have here (rickyoliver) seems apparently consistent with a person who can be found on google with similar characteristics, just as it was for Nimbley, who had a very different name of a child (the surname was "Nimbley" in that case, not "Oliver" as this person claims). However, we don't know whether the person behind the i.d. here (rickyoliver) is really the same as the person behind the person uncovered in this latest google search, let alone "Nimbley", whoever that person is. Given the similarity between editing behaviour that others have pointed out, and the apparent age of the persons involved, I think we need to err on the side of not wanting an image name of the sort that Rgoodermote is drawing our attention to: this isn't some kind of social-networking site, and so any description of oneself that includes "sexy" as a descriptor in the name needs some attention, particularly with the age of the person involved.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Creating a page which is blacklisted

Resolved

Hi. I am unable to create an article under the name Allan Everett as it appears to have been blacklisted. I wish to make an article for someone by that name who played Australia rules football with and coached the Geelong Football Club. Would it be possible for an admin to unlist it? Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Have we got a page name blacklist? I thought we just protected them (and the redlink you gave isn't protected). Are you sure it's not the URL blacklist you're hitting with an URL in your attempted article? If you could put the article somewhere else I'd be happy to move it to that name. --fvw* 11:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the following message - "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on either the local title blacklist or the Wikimedia global title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse. If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do." Jevansen (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Golly, we do have a title blacklist: MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Live and learn. This seems to be what's causing the problem: ".*Everett.* # Used for harassment username and page creation - remove end Dec 2008". Could you create the article or a stub for it somewhere else, say at User:Jevansen/Allan Everett? Then I or another admin can move it into place. --fvw* 13:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't difficult enough I'm even unable to create a page under that title lol. I've created a stub under User:Jevansen/Draft, if you or someone else could move it to the correct title then that would be great. Thanks for your help. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Page moved. Redirect deleted. --B (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Only remaining problem is that the talk page remains unaccessible as the same message appears when I try and add a project tag. Don't know if it's possible to move talk pages but I you can then I've added the tag to User:Jevansen/Talk:Draft. Thanks again. Jevansen (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops ... didn't think about that ... done. --B (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexandros Grigoropoulos

Resolved

 –  Sandstein  17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the reference to the petrol bomb, it is false and defamatory. Despite being mentioned in the first reports as an 'official police statement', it was actually only a leak that later proved to be false. It was the first account of the events as told by the police guard. In his statement to the court he makes no mention to a petrol bomb and refers being attacked by "rocks, bottles, and other objects."(he wouldn't obviously forget a petrol bomb, would he? This is reported by eleftheros tipos(mainstream, conservative newspaper [1]). The radio conversation records released by the police also disproves this claim as mentioned in this article by elefthorotipia(again mainstream, left-wing newspaper [2], 3rd paragraph reads "no molotovs were thrown, there was no danger, only minor damages to the police car"). Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources in english, but you can run the articles through google's translate or ask a greek-speaking admin to verify my translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.215.60 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a content issue and does not belong here. At any rate, the (protected) article in question, Alexandros Grigoropoulos, has now been merged to another article pursuant to an AfD discussion, so I think this request is moot.  Sandstein  17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Appealing User:Apovolot

I find it ironic that the original administrator "Doug"'s MFD decision re deletion of User:Apovolot because Doug's decision was done without regarding the fact that "no consensus" was achieved during the MFD discussion. So I appealed that MFD decison by raising WP:DRV issue re that. But in closing that WP:DRV, the administrator Aervanat used "no consensus" reason to stay that wrong ("no consensus" based) MFD deletion decision? So I am now appealing both:

a)The original (administrator "Doug"'s) MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot (because Doug disregarded the fact that there was no consensus to delete)

b)The DRV discussion decision (by administrator Aervanat) to "stay" MFD decision to delete User:Apovolot

I am requesting to restore User:Apovolot because its original deletion decision was done in violation of WP consensus rule. Apovolot (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is only one part of the equation. The closing administrator took into account the discussion and the policy implications of your page. His close was based on policy. The DRV was likeiwse based on a review of that application of policy. You are not prohibited from having a user page, just not that one. JodyB _talk 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the MfD is here and the DRV here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A DRV is a call to impel or compel an action. That requires consensus. We require consensus to delete article and user pages because we have some preference for content rather than against it. A DRV is explicitly not a content discussion but a discussion of the merits of the deletion. The conclusion of a DRV requires consensus to overturn that deletion. Absent that consensus we cannot say to the closing admin "We think you screwed up, so we are going to reverse a decision of your which you refuse to reverse on your own". The notion that "consensus defaults to keep" carries over to DRV is false and misleading. Further, absent some misconduct in the DRV, an appeal here might be construed as forum shopping. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second Protonk's assessment here. No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existance of the article. If a DRV is discussing a currently deleted article, the status quo is a deleted article, so a no-consensus DRV would keep the article deleted. There is no expectation that "no consensus = keep" in all situations. Its "no consensus = take no direct action to change the current situation"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But the principle "No-consensus in any discussion should ALWAYS preserve the status quo. In an MFD, the status quo is the existence of the article" was not obeyed in the User:Apovolot MfD decision - so what could be done to correct and undo that deletion mistake ? Apovolot (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

you've missed my point. Your user page violated policies. Consensus never trumps the policy. JodyB _talk 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• CommentTo clarify two points, 1) What I believe JodyB is saying is that if consensus appears to call for a result contrary to policy it is not the true consensus, consensus is the consensus of the community, not the consensus of the five who show up to an MfD - a result contrary to policy would normally require a change to policy which can't be done by five editors at an MfD (IAR results excepted); 2) The closer of the DRV suggested this as further appeal here, so this should not be considered forum shopping by the User:Apovolot, even if it is a bit excessive. (note I'm the one who closed the original MfD and deleted the userpage) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

  Five was an arbitrary number, there were actually 11 who showed up to this particular MfD I believe.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

JodyB recently said in this discussion: "Consensus never trumps the policy". This statement contradicts with the FIFTH PILLAR of WIKIPEDIA, which says: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Also - please note as Doug mentioned - there were 11 participants in Mfd discussion. Take out the submitter of Mfd (Nsk92) and myself (due to being possibly subjective) - this still leaves the number of independent opinions to be large - 9. Those 9 were roughly split in half between KEEP and DELETE. Such 50/50 split tells me that the policy is not clear on this subject and therefore due to no consensus, the KEEP decision should off been chosen. Apovolot (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You have the fifth pillar interpreted completely wrong. The fifth pillar, WP:IAR, says rules can be bent "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" (emphasis mine). There has to be a good reason fulfilling the above conditions to suspend the rule in question. It does not mean suspending rules because you want to. —kurykh 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't realized already, simply reading WP:5P doesn't help with understanding the nuances inherent in those pillars. It only serves to depict a general picture or scheme of things. You might want to read the policies themselves rather than just rely on 5P. —kurykh 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by closing admin of the DRV - The reason I told Apolovot to come here is that I wasn't quite sure where one went to appeal a bad DRV decision. I guess you could file a DRV to review the result of the first DRV, but I wasn't sure if something recursive like that would fly. I figured he could come here and get some other admins to take a look, as I am open to the possibility that I made a mistake and mis-read the consensus (or lack thereof) existing in the DRV discussion. I don't really want to say "Well, DRV is the end of the line and that's it", because I feel that there should be a recourse if a DRV is closed incorrectly. If that outlet is DRV itself, I guess that's fine, since DRV is for reviewing the results of deletion discussions, and DRV is technically a kind of deletion discussion. I'd appreciate some other editors' input on where you should appeal a DRV decision.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We have actually had DRVs for DRVs (most notably for Encyclopedia Dramatica and shock sites like that). The recursion makes for a chuckle but most reasonable discussions are given some attention. But after a while new DRVs opened with no change in the underlying article/image/page get snow closed quickly. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am mostly appealing the Mfd decision due to the reason that there was no consensus between large number of respondents (9) and the opinions splitted as 5 -to KEEP in one form or another and 4 to DELETE. That contradictory split tells me that the policy is not quite clear on that case (otherwise why half of the people interpreted policy in ONE way and other half - interpreted policy in OPPOSITE way  ?????!!!!!). Now given that the policy is not quite clear on that case and no consensus - why Mfd closing admin desided to go with DELETE ? I understand that in Afd discussion the leaning towards DELETE is reasonable but in the Mfd discussion regarding innocent user page (as most of Mfd responders pointed out) - the tilt should go towards KEEP. Apovolot (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth are you still arguing this? By continuing to argue to have your userpage undeleted, you continue to look more and more like someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. So far, all of your contributions to articles have been either deleted or reverted. After the articles you created were deleted, you moved the content onto your userpage, and that was deleted. If you want to look like a serious contributor, I suggest you stop arguing and rules-lawyering (at least you dropped the "free speech" argument) and actually contribute. Mr.Z-man 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

@Apovolot: I guess I wasn't clear. You can't appeal the Mfd decision again. I directed you here so that other admins could review my decision on the DRV, not Doug's decision on the Mfd. You already appealed the Mfd once, to DRV. You can claim that my DRV decision was in error, which I would not take personally, and the admins and editors who watch this board would probably have a good idea what to do about that error. However, the original Mfd decision is essentially off-limits at this point. I know you disagree with Doug's reading of consensus, but that is water under the bridge as far as the community's concerned. You'll have to accept it and move on. Sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Block needed for Apovolot?

I had a look at this as a completely uninvolved admin. What I see is a user with only 350 edits since signing up in April--only 25 of which (counting deleted edits) were to article space. The great majority of them were to project space and talk space. Is it just me, or is this someone who isn't here to edit an encyclopedia? I was about to summarily indef this user as someone who isn't here to help the project, but wanted to seek other opinions. Blueboy96 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached that point quite yet. He's been quite careful about following proper channels to challenge the results of the Wikipedia deletion processes. The fact that the majority of his edits have not been in article space is due to the simple fact that the articles he was first working on were all deleted, and he has been spending all the subsequent time trying to get them undeleted. This is not somebody who's wasted the community's patience yet, this is somebody that needs to spend some quality time at WP:OWN and WP:NOT, and then start poking around some WikiProjects or CAT:BACKLOG, looking for something to help out on that won't get deleted. He is not a vandal, nor does he some to be a troublemaker. He's a somewhat confused newbie, that's all. Let's not WP:BITE him quite yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool to the prospect of blocking a user indefinitely due to a lack of contributions to the encyclopedia. As arevanth says above, he isn't actively exhausting peoples' patience and he isn't being a troublemaker. We should just let this progress along normally. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - No block necessary, user just needs to WP:CHILL and read a few policy pages as suggested above. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kwiboo

Can someone with more patience than me keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwiboo? I declined an A7 request on this based on an extremely tenuous assertion of notability, and am now beginning to wish I hadn't, as the National Association of Single Purpose Accounts appear to have chosen the AFD discussion as the venue of their annual general meeting. – iridescent 22:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Those single purpose accounts are probably all employees of the company trying their best to make sure it stays on the pedia. The boss will probably give them a payrise :) Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 12:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Payrise? Ha! There's a bribe of free mints going for anyone cunning enough to seize it. --fvw* 12:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Added notavote templates to this and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Marshall (kwiboo), and added spa templates to the latter. Black Kite 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts requested

Could a few other people look at the discussion at Template talk:POV. I would like to make the proposed change but obviously this is a widely used template and WP:BOLD doesn't allow for my fundamental cowardice. However, if no-one comes and objects, I'll likely grow a pair and change it anyway. Fair warning. CIreland (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Plug and play

I moved the page Plug-and-play to Plug and play, however the talk page didn't move. I merged the content from the Talk:Plug and play into Talk:Plug-and-play and turned it into a redirect, but the move function still refuses to move the page so the talk page is now completely separate from the article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done --Stephen 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones

I haven't taken the trouble to see whether any previous AN or ANI threads have dealt with Smith Jones (talk · contribs), but a number of his/her edits seem problematical. Just tonight, the user has managed to delete two other users' postings to ANI, and those aren't the only recent and similar incidents. In addition, the user has created what seems to be an inappropriate redirect, which I've nominated at RFD, and a category that seems to me inappropriate, though I haven't yet nominated it at CFD. The user's recent edits to the mainspace don't seem very helpful either, and a look through his/her talk-page archives shows what seems to be a recurring pattern of problems. Is this someone against whom any action needs to be taken? Deor (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this type of behavior has been discussed before but I can't recall when/where. It was awhile back though (at least this summer, if not before). The user does not seem to resolve edit conflicts when they occur (placing his text in favor of the old text rather than merging) and displays communication skills that make it hard to understand what's being said on some occasions through the errors. I'll see if I can find where it was discussed previously, either way (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this archived thread is the one I'm thinking of right now, either way (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones can be a little hard to fathom, but he means well and in his own way he's one of Wikipedia's treasures. The "crazy den of pigs" comment alone wins him a place in the pantheon of heroes. Notice your first two examples of deleting others' postings were edit conflicts: most likely he overwrote the others' comments in confusion over the edit conflicts. I also seem to recall that he suffers from a disability of some sort, which explains his rather unusual approach to orthography. Suggest gentle guidance and correction rather than serious discipline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec, how ironic) Nonetheless, users whose edits (particularly to mainspace) have to be monitored constantly to get rid of the bad ones tend to sap the resources of other editors. I know that I am keeping an eye on a handful at the moment, and I'd rather be doing something else. (Plus, the other "inadvertent" deletion I linked to, which also had the effect of restoring an irrelevant talk-page comment, clearly didn't involve an edit conflict.) If this guy can't edit in a productive manner, perhaps he shouldn't be editing at all. It's harsh, but there it is. Deor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that I've had to suggest to him many times in the past not to insert himself into random discussions on AN/ANI and make a bigger mess with his typographical errors and no knowledge of the topic at hand. He just seems to delete these from his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Twice today he removed very well-sourced, non-controversial information from an article (here and here), invoking WP:WEASEL, WP:IAR, WP:BLP as his rationale, and in the process inserting inaccurate information. And with all due respect, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't consider this the behavior of a "treasure" or a "hero". Ward3001 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Smith Jones several times to watch his spelling and typos, though he's never said anything to me about a disability. Despite the occasional hilarity from his comments, he's not malicious just misguided. He can certainly be irritating, but he makes some good contributions and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMate 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My attention was brought here by this misleading edit,[3] certainly some of the contributions appear to be more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustration but ask that if anything is done with regard to blocking etc. that we do our best to leave his dignity intact. While such action may be necessary to protect the goals of the project, when doing so it costs us nothing to be sensitive and humane, especially when dealing with people who have disabilities. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many good contributions. On several occasions, though not very recently, I've seen him come up on my watchlist due to edits to pseudoscience/paranormal articles. Convoluted, poorly explained, non-NPOV edits mind you. After clearing that, I usually sift through some of his recent contribs to clean up other articles he's edited. I don't think there's an malicious intent, but he just doesn't get it. I'm not strictly in support of a block either, I don't know what should be done here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree he doesn't seem to get it. And let me make some comments about the disability issue, again with no disrepect to any of the editors commenting above. I am a strong advocate for disability rights. I am involved in that issue every day of my life. But I also strongly believe that attributing every improper behavior to a disability not only is a weak excuse, but that "acceptance" of inappropriate behavior is itself disrepectful to the vast majority of disabled people who live their lives without this kind of behavior. It also encourages the inappropriate behavior. I'm not arguing for or against a block or other sanction against Smith Jones (nor would I if disability was not an issue). I am stating, however, that unacceptable behavior should be addressed and dealt with rather than swept under the carpet. If he were a 12-year-old (and some of his edits are typical of many 12-year-olds), we would explain, persuade, and (if necessary) eventually become firm and even block if the softer means were not successful. He states on his user page that he is a lawyer. He also states that he is an admin on Russian Wikipedia. He should know better than to make some of these edits (and I'm talking about the ones that appear to have less than honorable intent, not the ones that result from typos or careless errors). We should handle this like we would for anyone else on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I perceive we have great difficulties with communication with some editors here, and I remember User:hopiakuta appearing here multiple times, and hasn't been around for some months. However, with regard to User:Smith Jones, he is capable of cogent editing (in written language terms) and claims no disability; if he did, perhaps the rest of us would be able to adapt to that. However, the question is how we should enforce standards when perhaps overall the balance is that he is a well-intentioned contributor. Has anyone suggested some kind of editing partnership? (I won't suggest mentoring because that would be patronising) He is clearly strong-willed, but on balance, unless he is supremely disruptive, I don't want to lose him as an editor here. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that a mentorship would be patronising, but apparently something needs to be done. I find interaction with him in Wikipedia space and talk pages to be extremely irritating, but that's hardly blockable. I see several troubling examples above, but even those put together don't seem actionable. If there is some persistent POV pushing or ongoing disruption, I think some diffs would be helpful. As it stands, it appears we have an enthusiastic, well intentioned, strongly opinionated user who doesn't understand what the "show preview" button does. Unless there are diffs that show otherwise, I don't think this is actionable, and he's really not so active that undoing his problematic edits is too much of a hassle. AniMate 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply remind everyone of my favorite essay, WP:Competence is required, and move on.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Smith Jones isn't just his refusal to push the correct keys on his keyboard, but his repeated "mistakes", as noted above, with regards to deleting other comments, altering discussions at AN, and things like that. The refusal to attempt to spell words correctly is merely annoying. His frequent, non-sequitur comments and the fact that he frequently screws up talk pages (apparently innocently, but it still happens too much for my taste) is a problem going back months, probably years, and borders on disruption... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But is there anything that we can do about it? I've seen him constantly insert himself into situations where he just does more harm than good, yet it's all done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The essay cited by KWW above is particularly enlightening, and also remember that good faith is not a suicide pact. Where granting good faith to other users results in a net negative for the project, over many months and years then something needs to be done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32. As for what can be done about it, I'll be the devil's advocate. It has been said that mentoring might be patronizing. Why? I've seen editors with less problematic behavior be asked (sometimes insistently) to seek adoption. If he truly doesn't get it, the only way to help him get it is to have some individual coaching and guidance. I believe it has been argued that this might not fit well with his personality. My devil's advocate response to that is, which is more important: Wikipedia, or going along with his personality quirks? Let's face it. He knows about this discussion. He is capable of seeing what we have to say about him. So why not talk directly to him? Having said all that, I truly don't want to alienate him needlessly, but I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond and related pages

Resolved

 – Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond has created the pages A Second Life multiple times after speedy deletion. He also creates pages for the founder of this movement, Christian Schoyen, which was also SD'd, and then Christian schoyen, which is up for speedy deletion. This user has been notified of his violation of WP:RPDA. I'm asking for a block on his account, along with page protection for Christian Schoyen, Christian schoyen, and A Second Life to stop all of this ruckus. Mononomic (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned, pages have been deleted, and A Second Life has been indefinitely protected. Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones

I haven't taken the trouble to see whether any previous AN or ANI threads have dealt with Smith Jones (talk · contribs), but a number of his/her edits seem problematical. Just tonight, the user has managed to delete two other users' postings to ANI, and those aren't the only recent and similar incidents. In addition, the user has created what seems to be an inappropriate redirect, which I've nominated at RFD, and a category that seems to me inappropriate, though I haven't yet nominated it at CFD. The user's recent edits to the mainspace don't seem very helpful either, and a look through his/her talk-page archives shows what seems to be a recurring pattern of problems. Is this someone against whom any action needs to be taken? Deor (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this type of behavior has been discussed before but I can't recall when/where. It was awhile back though (at least this summer, if not before). The user does not seem to resolve edit conflicts when they occur (placing his text in favor of the old text rather than merging) and displays communication skills that make it hard to understand what's being said on some occasions through the errors. I'll see if I can find where it was discussed previously, either way (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this archived thread is the one I'm thinking of right now, either way (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones can be a little hard to fathom, but he means well and in his own way he's one of Wikipedia's treasures. The "crazy den of pigs" comment alone wins him a place in the pantheon of heroes. Notice your first two examples of deleting others' postings were edit conflicts: most likely he overwrote the others' comments in confusion over the edit conflicts. I also seem to recall that he suffers from a disability of some sort, which explains his rather unusual approach to orthography. Suggest gentle guidance and correction rather than serious discipline. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec, how ironic) Nonetheless, users whose edits (particularly to mainspace) have to be monitored constantly to get rid of the bad ones tend to sap the resources of other editors. I know that I am keeping an eye on a handful at the moment, and I'd rather be doing something else. (Plus, the other "inadvertent" deletion I linked to, which also had the effect of restoring an irrelevant talk-page comment, clearly didn't involve an edit conflict.) If this guy can't edit in a productive manner, perhaps he shouldn't be editing at all. It's harsh, but there it is. Deor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that I've had to suggest to him many times in the past not to insert himself into random discussions on AN/ANI and make a bigger mess with his typographical errors and no knowledge of the topic at hand. He just seems to delete these from his talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Twice today he removed very well-sourced, non-controversial information from an article (here and here), invoking WP:WEASEL, WP:IAR, WP:BLP as his rationale, and in the process inserting inaccurate information. And with all due respect, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't consider this the behavior of a "treasure" or a "hero". Ward3001 (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Smith Jones several times to watch his spelling and typos, though he's never said anything to me about a disability. Despite the occasional hilarity from his comments, he's not malicious just misguided. He can certainly be irritating, but he makes some good contributions and I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. AniMate 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My attention was brought here by this misleading edit,[4] certainly some of the contributions appear to be more nuisance than help. . dave souza, talk 09:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the frustration but ask that if anything is done with regard to blocking etc. that we do our best to leave his dignity intact. While such action may be necessary to protect the goals of the project, when doing so it costs us nothing to be sensitive and humane, especially when dealing with people who have disabilities. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many good contributions. On several occasions, though not very recently, I've seen him come up on my watchlist due to edits to pseudoscience/paranormal articles. Convoluted, poorly explained, non-NPOV edits mind you. After clearing that, I usually sift through some of his recent contribs to clean up other articles he's edited. I don't think there's an malicious intent, but he just doesn't get it. I'm not strictly in support of a block either, I don't know what should be done here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree he doesn't seem to get it. And let me make some comments about the disability issue, again with no disrepect to any of the editors commenting above. I am a strong advocate for disability rights. I am involved in that issue every day of my life. But I also strongly believe that attributing every improper behavior to a disability not only is a weak excuse, but that "acceptance" of inappropriate behavior is itself disrepectful to the vast majority of disabled people who live their lives without this kind of behavior. It also encourages the inappropriate behavior. I'm not arguing for or against a block or other sanction against Smith Jones (nor would I if disability was not an issue). I am stating, however, that unacceptable behavior should be addressed and dealt with rather than swept under the carpet. If he were a 12-year-old (and some of his edits are typical of many 12-year-olds), we would explain, persuade, and (if necessary) eventually become firm and even block if the softer means were not successful. He states on his user page that he is a lawyer. He also states that he is an admin on Russian Wikipedia. He should know better than to make some of these edits (and I'm talking about the ones that appear to have less than honorable intent, not the ones that result from typos or careless errors). We should handle this like we would for anyone else on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I perceive we have great difficulties with communication with some editors here, and I remember User:hopiakuta appearing here multiple times, and hasn't been around for some months. However, with regard to User:Smith Jones, he is capable of cogent editing (in written language terms) and claims no disability; if he did, perhaps the rest of us would be able to adapt to that. However, the question is how we should enforce standards when perhaps overall the balance is that he is a well-intentioned contributor. Has anyone suggested some kind of editing partnership? (I won't suggest mentoring because that would be patronising) He is clearly strong-willed, but on balance, unless he is supremely disruptive, I don't want to lose him as an editor here. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that a mentorship would be patronising, but apparently something needs to be done. I find interaction with him in Wikipedia space and talk pages to be extremely irritating, but that's hardly blockable. I see several troubling examples above, but even those put together don't seem actionable. If there is some persistent POV pushing or ongoing disruption, I think some diffs would be helpful. As it stands, it appears we have an enthusiastic, well intentioned, strongly opinionated user who doesn't understand what the "show preview" button does. Unless there are diffs that show otherwise, I don't think this is actionable, and he's really not so active that undoing his problematic edits is too much of a hassle. AniMate 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I simply remind everyone of my favorite essay, WP:Competence is required, and move on.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Smith Jones isn't just his refusal to push the correct keys on his keyboard, but his repeated "mistakes", as noted above, with regards to deleting other comments, altering discussions at AN, and things like that. The refusal to attempt to spell words correctly is merely annoying. His frequent, non-sequitur comments and the fact that he frequently screws up talk pages (apparently innocently, but it still happens too much for my taste) is a problem going back months, probably years, and borders on disruption... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But is there anything that we can do about it? I've seen him constantly insert himself into situations where he just does more harm than good, yet it's all done in good faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The essay cited by KWW above is particularly enlightening, and also remember that good faith is not a suicide pact. Where granting good faith to other users results in a net negative for the project, over many months and years then something needs to be done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron32. As for what can be done about it, I'll be the devil's advocate. It has been said that mentoring might be patronizing. Why? I've seen editors with less problematic behavior be asked (sometimes insistently) to seek adoption. If he truly doesn't get it, the only way to help him get it is to have some individual coaching and guidance. I believe it has been argued that this might not fit well with his personality. My devil's advocate response to that is, which is more important: Wikipedia, or going along with his personality quirks? Let's face it. He knows about this discussion. He is capable of seeing what we have to say about him. So why not talk directly to him? Having said all that, I truly don't want to alienate him needlessly, but I think we have to draw the line somewhere. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond and related pages

Resolved

 – Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ianbond has created the pages A Second Life multiple times after speedy deletion. He also creates pages for the founder of this movement, Christian Schoyen, which was also SD'd, and then Christian schoyen, which is up for speedy deletion. This user has been notified of his violation of WP:RPDA. I'm asking for a block on his account, along with page protection for Christian Schoyen, Christian schoyen, and A Second Life to stop all of this ruckus. Mononomic (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User has been warned, pages have been deleted, and A Second Life has been indefinitely protected. Resolved to the best of my needs. Mononomic (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Shinas and OTRS

Unresolved

There has been considerable debate about her date of birth, leading to my protecting the page. As you can see from the talk page and from a comment on my talk page here [5], a change was made through protection on the basis of something via OTRS, which no one has since been able to verify and which is still being challenged. In order to avoid further edit warring, I'd like to know what to advise editors such as the one who posted on my talk page how to best proceed. And I'd like to get to the bottom of whether this edit through the block was actually justified by incontrovertible evidence. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned. If it can't be verified through the location of the respective ticket at OTRS, the information should be removed. Caulde 17:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

otrs:2164024. Mr.Z-man 18:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't access that, so it's of no use to me. dougweller (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just tried to have a look, but it's not in one of my queues so I can't see it either. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I can verify that the ticket says "1974" and that it comes directly from Sofia Shinas. John Reaves 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how it can be verified that it comes directly from Sofia Shinas. And also, even if that can be verified, do we then simply take their word for it when it is not completely impossible that an actor/actress might have an interest in claiming to be younger than they are. The Los Angeles Times seems to disagree (maybe the solution is to put in two dates?), there is a claim that it is actually a cousin with the same name that is supposed to be born in 1968 according to friends, but then if there are two people with the same name...(apologies, forgot to sign this) dougweller (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the issue, besides how one would know it is from the actress Sofia Shinas. A Windsor Star (Canada) article lists biography information on the actress in an article they wrote about her, which included an interview. In the article (from May 28, 1994) she was listed as 26 years old. The article also report that "Toronto-Born Shinas grew up in Windsor, where the rest of her family - parents James and Lela, and brothers Gus, Chris and John - still live. She attended Roseland elementary schoool and spent part of her high school years at Kennedy Secondary School before finishing up at Sandwich Secondary School." She graduated high school. Another article from the Los Angeles Times, the abstract of which is here, stated Shinas went to college for a little less than a semester, worked on a Detroit TV show, was in New York working, before moving to Los Angeles about two years ago (from the date of the article in 1992). So let's see, two years in LA, plus a semester in college plus time in Detroit and New York. Even if the college semester and Detroit and New York time only totalled a year, then she started college when she was 15? And left and went on to work when? Late 15 years old, early 16 years old? Moved to Los Angeles at age 16?? It seems much more likely that OTRS was given misleading information and the 1968 birthdate is much more likely and 1974 would be next to impossible. If Sofia Shinas had been some sort of prodigy, it would seem likely that the interview would mention that. Oh wait. The interview says she's 25 in 1992. Oops. Wouldn't one think had the Los Angeles Times overstated the age of an 18 year old prodigy by seven years, it would have been corrected? Since there seems to be other women named Sofia Shinas in Canada, perhaps information from that person is what was submitted. In any case, this still seems dubious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't verify anything without a copy of a birth certificate. Speaking of which, I understand the lengths people will go through to hide their age because I've actually handled a case where someone sent in an obviously forged birth certificate. In regard to the article issue however, I suggest simply not putting a birth date at all. Without a definite source, it is better to have nothing than to have all of this kerfuffle. John Reaves 07:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Resolved

 – This doesn't require admin attention Viridae^Talk 00:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hi, I am having difficulty with this user and even having a conversation had proven to be a challenge. I have tried to reason with him despite his past but it seems like my attempt was futile.

In all fairness he hasn't done anything truly disruptive on my dealings with him so far but his past history is of concern. It may be time to review his contributions elsewhere. He seems to be trying to enforce MOS issues and treating MOS like the law. He is also seem to be quick to revert or semi-revert.

I am not necessarily calling for administrative action as I am not certain one is warranted. I hope this thread will determine it.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Telling Andy to slow down on his editing because you had an edit conflict with him doesn't seem appropriate to me, nor does this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a single edit conflict. It was many ([6], [7], [8]). And the problem is not the edit conflict itself but his tone trying to dictate everything without giving the hint of compromise. I believe that was why he was banned from the site for a year but I am not sure. -- Cat ^chi? 00:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that it's better for other people to wait on you than it is for you to use the preview button?—Kww(talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we lack the technology to review edits to templates and their effects on the transcusions. -- Cat ^chi? 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't. Create a userspace version and preview it's transclusion in other articles (or even better perhaps, copy an article into your userspace for testing; but I prefer keeping two tabs open, one with a preview I can refresh, and another where I can perform my template edits). FWIW, I also don't see the problem here. Edit conflicts happen, if you'd like to avoid them consider testing your changes in userspace first, then moving them to the template when you've verified they work. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an {{in use}} template, no idea if it works for other templates but it can certainly be useful. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that even relevant? Using that would probably break the template! I was making minor alterations only. You do not make edits right after the second other people make! I for example typically give people a good 5 minutes and expect others to give me that much time after I make my edits. This general courtesy of mine of course does not extend to pages like ANI which gets many edits in five minutes. Seriously, what is the rush?

SqueakBox have you actually reviewed his contribution or will I be subjected to brutal criticism yet again before someone actually reviews my complaint?

-- Cat ^chi? 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very aware of Andy's contribs, indeed its because his page is on my watchlist that I picked up on this. As someone who uses my watchlist extensively to edit I would never wait even 5 seconds to edit an article that someone else has just edited, I see an article on my watchlist and I edit it, often my edit has no relation to the edit asomeone else just made. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said the request was to review his over-authoritarian tone. Not because he edit conflicted. You are missing the entire point. -- Cat ^chi? 00:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So take it to WQA, instead of trying to get a user blocked (or whatever other administrative action required posting on ANI) over fairly minor incivility by dredging up his unrelated arbcoms. I agree that Andy overreacted a little here, but so did you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bbcody

Resolved

 – Request retracted. TN‑X-Man 16:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bbcody was blocked by Ryulong after only two warnings. I had talked to Bbcody about his vandalism (we had a long discussion), he had promised to me to not vandalize anymore. Since our discussion he has not vandalized again. I believe that the block was unfair and that he did not receive fair warning. Could someone please help. Mygerardromance (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, let's see. He's tried to get an autoblock lifted and was denied by User:FisherQueen. He then tried unblock again, saying that he had been blocked a year ago for vandalism, and was denied by User:Kevin. I'm sorry but I agree with Ryulong. Have him write an unblock request that doesn't play the "yes, I vandalized on 10 articles in 20 minutes but you only gave me two warnings" game. Two other admins have ratified Ryulong's decisions. He can try again but I would really really suggest he wait a while and try an better request. Also, the whining to you on his talk page in general, combined with your drama of "if he isn't here, I don't see the point of staying", is not helping the situation. He can appeal directly to the unblock email list if he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was going to take this down after the first appeal had been denied, but was too busy. So you can just ignore this now. Sorry Mygerardromance (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shared IP templates nominated for deletion

Resolved

 – Debate is now closed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This message is being made as a matter of courtesy to inform you that the shared IP templates {{ISP}}, {{MobileIP}}, {{SharedIP US military}}, {{SharedIPCERT}}, {{SharedIPEDU}}, {{SharedIPPublic}}, {{SingNet}}, and {{AberWebcacheIPAddress}} have all be nominated for deletion via TfD. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 14#Template:Shared IP Templates for the discussion. Please also note that I am not the nominator for deletion, and I have not weighed in on either side of the discussion; this is purely an informational message. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP backlog

SSP backlog is at what I think is an all time high. Several cases have been there for weeks. Any help is appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Kyoko Okazaki.jpg

Resolved

This image was placed at WP:IFD on 30 November 2008 [9]. A significant debate regarding the suitability of the image with respect to our policies of fair use images of living people in biographies has taken place. See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_30#Image:Kyoko_Okazaki.jpg. The IfD page has been archived with all other IfDs on that page being closed, and this one remaining open.

An administrator familiar with our fair use policies needs to review and decide. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done —Angr 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kmweber community ban proposal (3rd)

Resolved

 – Kurt has elected to leave the project. No need to continue this.

// roux   03:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

---

In the just-concluded ArbCom elections, Kmweber (talk · contribs) (hereafter, "Kurt" or "Kurt Weber"), set a new record for votes in opposition to an ArbCom candidate and, indeed, in opposition to any specific editor for any position of trust within the community. As the oppose votes mounted quickly, it was reported that he had been contacting his opposers on IRC, if they were there, and asking them his catch phrase question: "Why do you hate Wikipedia"?

Having read this, I appended to my oppose vote a suggestion that he be banned due to the continuing disruption he causes here. Two other usersSecret and Mike.lifeguard, made the same suggestion (the latter amending a previous oppose to include it, as I had), and Sceptre, Sandstein, CComMack and Angr all expressed surprise that this hadn't happened yet.

Wikipedia hates Kurt. Or enough of it does that I think, per my own comment, that we cannot not have this discussion (One was opened up two days after the vote began, but closed quickly on the grounds that it was not good timing to start that discussion while the vote was open and Kurt had not withdrawn). Rereading the oppose votes, I cannot help but conclude from them that the community has lost its patience with Kurt Weber.

I have not followed this long-running drama closely, but I am certainly aware of it from a distance. I have no personal stake in this: I was not a self-nommed RFA and Kurt did not vote in mine. Other than a fleeting recent exchange between us(him, me), we have no personal contact.

But I can nevertheless think of several reasons to ban Kurt:

• Chronic failure to assume good faith and personal attacks. Every single oppose vote to a self-nommed admin candidate that stated that self-nomination was prima facie evidence of power hunger was a bad-faith personal attack (if it was purely about principle, he could have just voted neutral, or not voted at all) violated both policies. Every single "Why do you hate Wikipedia?" to someone he disagreed with was an assumption of bad faith. And this has gone on for a very long time.

• Chronic disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. All the RfA votes, which I was told by a bureaucrat at a meetup were routinely discounted, and this recently-concluded ArbCom candidacy.

• Explicit statement of intent to disrupt Wikipedia in the past, and the future. The past part of this is the WR thread (I can't find the link right now) where Kurt offers to help Karmafist sock Wikipedia. There is absolutely no defense to this. The future is his very recent declaration that a civil war is the "only way to save Wikipedia at this point".

• Duplicity Admitting that "an honest answer would get me banned" means all good faith is forfeited. And to have that as your edit summary and a sole response to a set of very pointed and personal questions from a well-respected current ArbCom member when you blank those questions is the height of incivility, as well.

• Off-wiki harassment. The aforementioned IRC trolling.

Ask yourself, if you were a manager and you had an employee who had, despite progressive discipline, carried on and continued to carry on the way Kurt has, would you not fire him? How would you explain yourself to your superiors or the company's lawyers if you didn't?

Yes, I respect that Kurt has his virtues. He isn't a vandal, doesn't sockpuppet as far as I know and has respected at least the letter of past sanctions. And he has a great sense of humor. Yes, especially that, he does (But do consider this shining morsel of Weber wit, cited by no less than three oppose voters).

But I think that's the most telling symptom of the problem. Kurt has a great sense of humor because, deep down, he doesn't take Wikipedia seriously. Durova was spot on here, and his response on her blog suggests someone seriously out of touch with the messy but ultimately beautiful business of creating quality content (This followup isn't encouraging, either).

Kurt's disruptive effect is, ironically, best illustrated by a discussion in which he himself took a negligible part: the Plasticup RfA. Here a self-nommed candidate immediately begins with a joke relating to Kurt's oppose votes, resulting in a discussion about the propriety of such jokes and oppose votes on that basis that might not otherwise have been cast, an "It is not all that funny" essay with the shortcut "WP:KURT" and an MfD. Amidst this sideshow, the nomination fails (though partly for other reasons; see my oppose vote among others). All this in an RfA where Kurt only posted his usual oppose along with a complaint that people should lighten up.

Shortly afterwards, it was agreed mutually between Kurt and the community where he accepted a ban from project space. I would like to think that was enough, but as we now know it wasn't. Kurt's not an asset to Wikipedia.

This discussion should not be seen as a referendum on Kurt's views on the RfA process or the ArbCom. The place to make a statement on that basis was the vote just closed, and that's done. This discussion is about Kurt's chronically disruptive presence, and whether we will allow it to continue, particularly given his recent statement of intent to continue such disruption for his own ends. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef ban - Wikipedia is not therapy. Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to this impeccably presented evidence, Kurt's last 50 mainspace contributions as of this post go back to September 25. This is not someone we need to keep around, and this would be far overdue. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 01:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nice canvassing, Daniel.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This seems to be an attempt to capitalise on Weber's lack of support in ACE 2008 to banish him, despite the fact that little has changed since the last time you tried. Skomorokh 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support--I don't like seeing people banned unless they're just straight-up vandals, but this gave me pause. If the math in that diff is solid, it's really something to think about. Furthermore, this still makes me want to vomit every time I see it. GJC 01:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Kurt does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. At best he's an annoyance, and at his worst he seems to be actively working to bring disruption and drama to the project, merely for its own sake. None of his actions show any desire at all to improve the encyclopedia, indeed every word he utters here shows utter contempt for the project and for all its members. As he doesn't seem that interested in working with us to build an encyclopedia, it may be time to show him the door. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Kurt's entire AC run was predicated on disrupting the entire AC process if he were elected. He also claims that references 'aren't necessary', which is more or less completely missing the point of WP. // roux   01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• support strongly. He was foolishly given a last chance. He's wasted it. For all the harassment, trolling, and disruption, lets rid Wikipedia of him. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Just a point: the harassment has been going back months. I sent ArbCom some evidence while I was blocked, as he kept continuing. Another admin affected, who I won't name unless he/she comes forward, separately forward evidence to them back in August. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - he clearly does not belong here and should have been shown the door some time ago. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Opposewikipedia is about content. I checked a few of his contributions to real articles in the last few weeks. They were all good.Mccready (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Kurt? Contributing? I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a comedy club. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me a content edit of his which wasn't good?Mccready (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much that his contributions are bad, it's the fact they're so sparse compared to his trolling... Sceptre ^(talk) 01:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - strongly. Enough is enough. ayematthew ✡ 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Propose block of Daniel Case for abusing the arbcom voting process to find people to canvass. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Strongly. Sam ^Blab 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• He still makes constructive edits. He still collaborates on talk pages. However, there's a clear and persistent social incompetence that is demonstrated repeatedly and, unfortunately, to the detriment of Wikipedia's collaborative environment and community cohesion. It's very unfortunate - Kurt is clearly a bright man - but if he refuses to change despite enormous pressure to do so, he needs to go elsewhere. If not by choice, by community judgment. Unrelated - Duncan, puh-leeze. If you're going to do that, do it in a formal manner, not as a backhanded "fuck you" in this debate. Tan | 39 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I have asked Daniel to withdraw his proposal because of the unethical way in which he canvased it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Canvassing is not the big issue here. This issue has been discussed before so it's not something that's suprisingly new and WP:AN is a page where a lot of people have on their watchlist that canvassing won't even make much of a difference. What matters is the big picture really. Y. Ichiro (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I believe that such canvassing shews bad-faith on the part of the person making the proposal. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  but if he refuses to change despite enormous pressure to do so — I don't think that's true. For example, someone made this exact same proposal a few months ago. To settle it, a set of conditions were delineated--not all of which I was totally happy with, but which I accepted, and have abided by since. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Except, when asked for the elections whether you were bound by sanctions or the like, you said "none that I consider legitimate". Nice try. Stop bullshitting. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Has the user done anything productive in the past 15 days? That is the date when voting started. -- Cat ^chi? 01:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

yes, like I say. check his content edits. Those who oppose by saying he should have more content edits also miss the point. Can anyone show a content edit that wasn't good? Mccready (talk)

• Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. You want to ban me because of my opposes on RfA, even though I was repeatedly told that they were fine, and I haven't even done it in several months anyway? That's absurd.
• Posing a single question to some people constitutes harassment? That's absurd.
• The mailing list post was over a year and a half ago, was a one-time thing, and is the one thing I've done that I truly regret and was totally out of character--something I have expressed many, many times. There's a reason nothing like that has happened since.
• I've done everything that was asked of me the last time this came up, except for one minor digression that was quickly and cleanly handled, and nothing new has come up since.
• Seriously, this is patently absurd. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• To add to that: I realize that people can change their minds on what is and is not acceptable behavior. But when I'm told what I'm doing is fine, then to say "We've decided it's not fine anymore; goodbye" is ridiculous. The proper course of action is to see if I actually stop first. Everytime a situation like that has come up in the past, that's what's happened, and with positive results. If the general consensus is that what I've been doing and have been told is not a problem, is now a problem, then fine, I'll stop. But it's absurd to hold it against me for doing it during the time I've been repeatedly told it was not a problem. Nothing new has come up since the last time this was brought up; when it comes to light that there is a consensus against what I'm doing, I always stop doing it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Kurt, instead of going on a sort of a ranting defense, perhaps you could give diff links to show some ways in which you have significantly helped Wikipedia, like a good-quality, referenced, and sizable article or article expansion; or perhaps some discussion in which you actually helped the community to reach a productive consensus.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Because I had figured my contributions spoke for themselves. I don't typically reference articles for several reasons: I don't think it's necessary—other encyclopedias don't provide references, after all; a lot of times what I write is stuff I know off the top of my head, so I don't have references readily available; and there are others who are better at that sort of work than I, understand the system more thorougly, and seem to enjoy it—so I let them do it and I continue doing what I do; it's specialization at its best. And I don't have a lot of experience reaching consensus on controversial articles because the subjects I work on just typically aren't terribly controversial (although recent discussion on Talk:List of NCIS characters may be relevant here). But if you want significantly-sized articles, Princeton, Indiana, Head gasket, Gibson County Courthouse, Indiana Marching Band State Finals, Testor Corporation, and Russell G. Lloyd, Sr. come to mind off the top of my head. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps I'm missing something, but WP:BAN#Community_ban says "If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has blocked the user long term or even indefinitely, and where no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user is considered to be community-banned. In some cases the community may have discussed the block on a relevant noticeboard, and reached a consensus not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" and listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users.". Call me a process wonk, but since Kurt isn't currently actually blocked/banned, isn't this discussion out of process? Black Kite 01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  He's not banned for several reasons. For one, he's a "critic" and blocking him would be "censorship". Secondly, I've talked to several administrators, who agreed he should be banned, but they couldn't (Coren because he was an opponent in the ArbCom elections, Ryan Postlethwaite because he was involved, some because they couldn't act on the evidence as it was confidential)... as I've said, ArbCom are aware of the problem, but they haven't made any decision yet. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  There's an arbcom case? DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  ArbCom have been given the evidence and they're considering it, last I heard. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Has Kurt been told about this and given the opportunity to question the "evidence" and make a defence? DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I haven't heard anything other than that they're considering it. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Did the person or persons who presented this "evidence" to arbcom have the courtesy to inform Kurt about it? Or has the memory of a recent arbcomfubar slipped everyone's minds? DuncanHill (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I refused to deign to informing him. And I really didn't want to give AC more fuel than neccesarry. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Well I hope you get treated with more decency than you choose to extend to those you are trying to get banned. DuncanHill (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I only extend decency to those who deserve it. And incidentally, I didn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Overdue. Eusebeus (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this is absolute nonsense.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support- Kmweber is not here to build an encyclopedia but to cause drama and ill-feeling wherever he goes. Reyk _YO! 01:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Ahhh....I feel like echoing BK here. Kurt isn't blocked indefinitely. He was previously and he was unblocked upon request. I understand that people are fed up w/ his BS, but I'd prefer that we not tally a vote to see if we want to see him gone. That's not a community process I want to be a part of. Also, making a stunt candidacy for Arbcom isn't a disruptive act. We don't have mechanisms to keep candidates like Kurt and RMHED (neither of whom will win) off the "ballot" but it also doesn't disrupt any other candidate (people can vote for as many or as few candidates as they like). I would much prefer we just give the message "There are loads of people who aren't pleased with you and so very few of us will stick our necks out to help you if you are blocked again. Don't get blocked again." rather than banning him in this discussion outright. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  No. He was unblocked on the proviso he kept out of trouble. He didn't. Coren regretted unblocking him after he was aware of the level of harassment and disruption he still continues to this day. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see why he shouldn't be banned, so make that a "support", I suppose. And since when aren't we allowed to have community ban discussions prior to the ban, anyhow? --Conti|✉ 02:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've been told that, from Wikipedia Review, Kurt Maxwell Weber has repeatedly teased, taunted, and mocked me with his (other) catch phrase: "You lose. I win." - This is not a man who cares about Wikipedia. He cares about winning his sick little battles against people he hates. He also composed a list of people he thinks should be blocked (he posted on WR, I don't care to find it). On that list are good, kind people (excluding myself, I wouldn't want to be egotistical, I'll leave that to himself) who have always looked out for Wikipedia. And, yet, he still wants them gone because they disagree with him and his beliefs. His comments on Durova's blog should seal the deal: You can't say those things and expect good, honest, hardworking community members to support you. It demeans the community when you say those sorts of things. You've disrupted the community for a long, long time and they have been so LENIENT with you, but you just kept on pushing your luck. You need to go, Kurt. Support complete and permanent ban. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is a benefit to the namespace. Malinaccier (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Being good articlt writers didn't stop people blocking me or Giano. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I never had a chance to advocate for you and I would have voted the same. And I want to see Kurt's next April Fool's prank :P. Malinaccier (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block. I can't speak for the community, but my own patience was exhausted some time ago. Some useful edits do not make it worth the chronic incivility. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban for the reasons already cited and his attempt to create list of every person that ever lived (which got up to 50MB before it was deleted) in his userspace even though it was obvious that such a thing is blatantly innapropriate. Kurt is either a bad faith troll or just fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Icewedge (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Kurt's defense of himself is convincing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I'd hate to see you vote in an election, if you believe bullshit so readily. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• So in short, nothing changed from the last series of sanctions, he's apparently respected them...the only thing that's happened is that people don't trust him for ArbCom. So if Sceptre or Betacommand were to reapply for adminship, could we ban them if they were rejected? I am sorry, this is just patently ridiculous. Oppose --Toffile (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  No. He wilfully ignored the parole. November 20 Sceptre ^(talk) 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Sceptre, please accept the advice previously given to you and avoid commenting further in this discussion. You may take it as a given that your views are well-known and will be considered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site-wide ban - Seriously, why hasn't this already happened. :/ If we don't completely ban him (topic ban will fail), he will just go back to current ways after a couple months and we will be right back to where we stand now. FunPika 02:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. This falls far short of outweighing the massive amounts of disruption this guy has caused. As to the idea that he has tried his best to change, I just don't buy it. He gets community banned from the project space in an attempt to make him focus on the mainspace...and he decides it would be a good opportunity to run for ArbCom? Sorry, I've had enough. AlexiusHoratius 02:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Let's see... disruptive activity, off-wiki harassment, persistent annoyances and point violations, modest contributions... we've banned people for less than Kurt's pulled over the years. Wizardman 02:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Please do not use ArbCom election results to make your case - behavior during the elections maybe - but not the election results themselves. Under no circumstances should any user ever feel they are risking administrative wrath for participating as a candidate in an election. To be blunt: don't ever misuse election results again, it is reprehensible. I make no comment at this time to the merits of the proposed banning.--Tznkai (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is an extremely dangerous precedent. I disapprove with what Kurt says, but I will defend his right to say it within acceptable guidelines. I support a topic ban for any problematic areas, and escalating blocks for every infraction from here on out. It is legitimate to use humor and contrarian positions to communicate, whether we agree or disagree with it. First they came... Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Godwin; we're done here. Per Special:Contributions/Kmweber, user is leaving anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think it's going past Voltairian ethics. For example: marching on a Prop 8 protest is fine and dandy, but beating up Mormons on the way isn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• What? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a reply to Viriditas. Moved it upwards Sceptre ^(talk) 03:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: And good riddens. We've banned for less. Thanks for bringing this up Daniel. seicer | talk | contribs 03:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More limited topic ban

Perhaps a community-wide total site ban is over the top. It is clear (to me) that Kurt has exhausted community patience, but it is also clear that several people have noted that Kurt's article edits are on-the-balance beneficial. Would it be better to simply ask Kurt to continue his positive work on articles by removing his distractions? What if we make this a ban into an editing restriction, whereby:

1. Kurt is restricted to editing articles and article talk pages for the sole purpose of improving content.
2. Kurt should be proscribed from editing the Wikipedia namespace, except where he is directly involved, for example, where he is called to account for his actions in content editing (i.e. edit warring, etc.)

Kurt's disruption is solely tied to his interaction with the community, especially such processes as RFA and ACE and the like. Since these parts of Wikipedia are the sole source of Kurt's problems, and not his content work, this would allow for Kurt to have more time for content work, and us to have less time discussing his behavior. A win-win by all! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We tried that exact parole three months ago. It didn't work. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. With enforcement this time. Malinaccier (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• If the community has a massive brainfart and doesn't ban him, support. A whiff of trouble, even one edit to the Wikipedia mainspace... he's gone. And for god's sake, enforce it this time. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support, so long as it is enforced. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I've never interacted with this user, that I recall. From the links here he does seem to have engaged in intentionally disruptive behavior. Regarding his positive contributions, he has made only 500 article contributions in the last 12 months.[17] At least a third of them are adding templates. A number have been the creation of unsourced stubs, like here. In short, I don't see his article contributions as sufficient to outweigh a record of disruption. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Kurt Weber

I will not take a position in this debate, and would have to recuse if this came to ArbCom again, but I would like Kurt to answer the following questions:

1. How much of what you have said both on-wiki and about Wikipedia elsewhere lately (e.g., that everyone who voted against you hates Wikipedia, that I myself hate Wikipedia, that I was part of a plot to rig the election against you by Oversighting your support votes, that you are the best content contributor on Wikipedia today, that there should be a community ban of Jimbo Wales, etc.) do you genuinely believe, and how much is just playing games and seeking reactions (intended to be a nicer wording than "trolling")?
2. To the extent it is playing games, will you stop? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think when it gets into the realm of actual harassment, it stops being a game. But I'll let Kurt answer regardless. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   Sceptre, may I politely suggest that you recuse yourself from further discussion? I think the reasons are obvious. Let people with less history handle this maybe? // roux   02:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   The bit about "me being the best content contributor" was a joke; I do happen to believe I do better work than most, but no, I don't seriously believe I'm the best. You will also notice that that comment (as well as the bit about the election plot, you hating Wikipedia) were made off of Wikipedia. There's a reason for that. I'm serious about Wikipedia, and so I try to keep a lot of the less-serious stuff off Wikipedia where it's less likely to do any serious damage. It's mostly just blowing off steam and generally being a goofball; I do some of that on Wikipedia too, but in forms where it won't actually hurt anything. The sillier stuff that might actually hurt something, but I can't resist doing, I keep off Wikipedia. As for Jimbo...no, I don't think an actual ban is necessary. That'd just be way too acrimonious. I do think his time has come, and the community should just start ignoring him and blazing its own path. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think you realize how hurtful some of your "blowing off steam" and "goofball stuff" can be. For example, it's not particularly fun for me to have, say, put a couple of hours into writing up an ArbCom decision, and then to be confronted on IRC by you asking why I hate Wikipedia over and over again. And there are a lot of other people who have less resiliency than I do. I like to think I have a good sense of humor, and frankly you have made me laugh a number of times, but you have also made a lot more people upset and angry than you have made smile. People have been begging you for months to stop this kind of behavior, and you refuse to do it, and now we will see where this discussion leads to. Except that merely by having another endless discussion, we are validating precisely the same sort of behavior, so I suppose you win and we lose again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

   Would bringing it up to me directly, and individually, not have been a better course of action? Near as I can tell, no such attempt was ever seriously made. My remarks about people "hating Wikipedia," or the AC election being rigged, etc., were so patently ludicrous that I can't possibly see how anyone would take them seriously. No one made any serious attempt to resolve them amicably; when people had a problem with it they went straight to block/ban proposals, so forgive me if I get defensive when that happens. Every time someone has had an issue with how I expressed something and tried to resolve it peacefully, it's worked. Problems have only come about when people have insisted that I renounce those ideas altogether, or have tried to resolve the situation with threats and strongarming rather than calm discussion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions, Kurt: 1) The bit about not citing your work: Why are you any different from the rest of us who do actually cite our stuff? What gives you the right to go and do that while the rest of us have to dig hard for sources? The Victor article you created was nearly deleted because your belief that citing is completely irrelevant. Hard working people had to cite it to save it. Have you even thanked them for it?! And why have you never explained that you think citations aren't needed because paper encyclopaedia's don't have them? Why does it take a ban proposal to get that piece of information out of you? Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopaedia, so that "excuse" falls through. 2) If you're just being a "goofball" off-Wiki, then why is everything you say written in an incredibly serious fashion? You offend an awful lot of people with the things you say, do you have no empathy? Are people automatically expected to have a thick skin like you? Do you not care about the feelings of your fellow human beings? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. For every bit of good he's done, he seems to be blatantly refusing to go with any of our policies, insisting that he doesn't have the time to learn such simple things as categorization, and thinks that such concepts as "notability" and "references" are total crocks, which completely goes against what we do here. He seems to think that he's different from everyone else, that he's invulnerable to our policies, and at times is prone to flat out trolling (see IRC, plus his run for Arbcom). Every time he trolls he seems to act as if he's "just joking" when his tone just doesn't suggest that. He was given another try and, decent article-space contribs notwithstanding, he's long since exhausted just about everyone's patience. Even if he's apparently leaving anyway, this could just be yet another stunt he's doing to attract attention. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• In a rare case of good faith towards him, I'm going to offer this alternate explanation which I'm thinking of: playing Internet Psychiatrist™, I think he might have some psychiatric disorder (dare I say it, something like Aspie's) which prevents him from realising he's hurting people. It would kind of fit in; I often joke that every contributor is a "clinically depressed Canadian bisexual female-to-male transexual teenage girl". Sceptre ^(talk) 03:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as no reason whatsoever to impose ban, this is ban-madness thinking. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• On his retirement, I'll be honest: I'm convinced he's faking it to win sympathy, and he'll be back in a couple days after we forget about this thread. Maybe it's the cynic in me, or the complete exhaustion of WP:AGF.. Wizardman 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KMWeber thread post-archive discussion

Um... IS this resolved? If Kurt changes his mind next week and comes back (I know, I know... no one EVER says they're leaving and then comes back!!!! that NEVER happens, but bear with me here... ) then what? It may be better to get to some resolution here. Per Wizardman... we should come to a decision. Suggest unarchiving this and resolving it. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My reason for archiving is that on the face of it, Kurt seems to be gone, and therefore any further pileon--note that I am definitely in favour of a community ban--is both unnecessary in terms of any resolution it seeks to achieve as well as unnecessary from the point of view of needless haranguing of someone who has apparently chosen to leave, not to mention needless proliferation of drama and equine sadism. If Kurt changes his mind, it is trivial to unarchive this discussion and resume where it left off. If he doesn't, no purpose is served by continuing it.

My reserves of AGF are as depleted as anyone else's when it comes to Kurt, but it's not unreasonable to allow even someone so divisive as him to retain a few shreds of dignity if he has chosen to leave. The community has effectively already said "...and stay out!" to him; to continue the pileon appears to move the discussion from a reasonable--if heated--conversation on how to benefit the project into vindictiveness. Moreover, the continued discussion turns Kurt's potential return into a self-fulfilling prophecy; he's unlikely to stay away if people keep going on about it. The intent behind WP:RBI seems applicable here.

Nevertheless, if consensus is that the discussion must continue, by all means unarchive it. I just don't see the utility in continuing it when it appears as though any possible resolution this discussion could achieve would be moot either because he's gone (in the case of a ban decision), or because he's back (in the case of deadlock or consensus against ban). Should he return, and I agree it's likely, the discussion can be restarted. It's possible that he'll take time away and come back with a new perspective which would render the whole discussion moot in any case. // roux   05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a basic tradition/norm that if a user elects to leave this project, or stops editing, then whatever discussion concerning the user (whether it's a RFC/U or a community discussion like this one) ceases - the reason is because the dispute becomes resolved; an editor cannot continue to be a party to or the subject of a dispute if he is no longer editing. In any case, if a retirement turns into a temporary or long wikibreak, then on that user's return to the project, the discussion can either restart (or in certain circumstances, can continue from the point at which it was stopped). Kurt is no exception to our norms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My view here is that while it might be a tradition, it's not always a useful tradition. This is one of those cases... we have a consensus, or thereabouts, already on what to do... his leaving is just a way to duck facing the music, if you ask me (WP:AGF notwithstanding)... and his coming back later would be a way for us all to waste community time having essentially the same discussion all over again. Meh. If he comes back and returns to the same antics I'm just going to block him, refer to this thread, and post to AN/I and see if anyone says boo. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support a block if Kurt does return, Lar. In fact, you'd probably have to beat me to it. GlassCobra 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's a flame-out. Kurt has obviously burned out, and banning him would be vindictive at this point. We should hope that he goes away for a bit and then comes back under a new name to resume the good things he used to do before he got mired in Wikipolitics. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Guy. I actually feel this outcome is better for everyone, Kurt included. Should he return under his account and resume his previous behavior, we can reopen this discussion. But only then. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I third. In this thread Kurt has received very clear feedback about how his style of humour is received. Should he have understood this earlier? Probably, especially after so many took his RFA on 1 April seriously. On the other hand he is probably used to everybody realising when he isn't serious, e.g. because of nonverbal cues. I think now he has understood the problem, and intelligent as he is I am very hopeful that he will be more careful in the future. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy, Dan and Hans. Let's all just move on. Verbal chat 16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If this were the first time Kurt was nearly banned, I might agree, but it isn't. This is what? The second? Third? "Should he return under his account and resume his previous behavior, we can reopen this discussion" - So we can have yet another drama-laden discussion about whether or not he should be sitebanned? I agree with Lar, I see no reason to waste more community time if he decides to come back, DFTT. (FWIW I support a ban) Mr.Z-man 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt kurt will return for the simple reason that he didn't leave a huge essay on his userpage about how crappy wikipedia is. Those people always return. He just wrote that he's left. Sensible if you ask me, he was a net liability. If he returns and doesn't act so political in future I say welcome back though.--Patton123 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I also agree with Lar and Mr.Z-man, Kurt was a liability to the project since '2005. But because people have mixed feelings about this, I think it should go to WP:ARBCOM instead and let them decide. Secret ^account 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since we evidently can’t resist the thrill of beating a dead horse, and votes for banning are still taking place even after Kurt has left and an attempt to archive the thread didn’t take, I’ll go ahead and register my objection to a site ban, to make it slightly harder (if Kurt ever does come back) for someone to point to this thread in the future and call it "overwhelming consensus for a ban". The whole Kmweber saga has been handled poorly on all sides, not least of all Kurt’s, but... I was all set to write more, but I won’t, since (a) it probably wouldn’t have been civil, (b) it sounded really holier-than-thou as I starting writing it, and (c) I think by now everyone’s opinion on Kurt is so hardened that no one is going to change anyone’s mind about anything. But for posterity, put this one down in the "don't push off a cliff quite yet" column. --barneca (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You can cite mine and the supports to it as opposition to a ban - I'll not dispute what Secret says because I don't have much past interaction with Kurt (albeit that much of what I've seen is clearly vexatious) but the recent behaviour follows a familiar pattern from which some recover and some do not. Most of Kurt's problem behaviour is in project space, so there is no pressing need to banninate right now, let's just wait and see what happens. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete or not

I have got to go and I can not watch this page. I would like to draw attention to this userpage. I have marked it for speedy as an advertisement. The speedy template has been removed once and as I will not be here I can't ensure it stays by the time an admin takes a look. So, do what you need to. Happy editing. Rgoodermote  17:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as copy vio of this page---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've unmarked this done, per Krista's comment here. It looks as if her recording label, broken bow, might be going around creating user pages for it's recording artist in the user talk area. That way it gets around our notability requirements. I don't have time to investigate this further, but thought I'd drop a line here if anybody else wanted to look into it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I had honestly not seen that on my userpage. How odd. Hm, well I would assume that this means we have to do some hunting. I will get on that. Rgoodermote  21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in assisting. Look for artists from this website. Rgoodermote  21:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I am perfectly fine with Krista continuing to edit. I have left a rather large note on her talk page informing her of the violations, what she can do to not violate them and asking her to tell everyone to stop what they are doing and made sure I was not mistaken for an admin. If anyone wants to comment what I said, please do. (I am leaving notes here just in case). Rgoodermote  22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For fear of being made a fool, can some one make sure that that website is the one? Rgoodermote  22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available here. Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not malware, but how do we handle this?

The first external link at article Kanpur Dehat district brings up a page that seems to launch a lot of popups. (I say "seems to" because I'm using a popup blocker and just get a lot of notices that popups have been blocked. I have not seen the actual popups, nor do I care to.) The second external link is to the same domain, but doesn't have this problem.

Should this link just be removed, should the external page be blacklisted, is it OK to leave it as it is, or what? The article does need other work, but I wanted to get some guidance on this first. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it should be removed. I left the link there, but removed some junk which had found its way in. Enigma ^message 07:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What about warning it contains pop-ups? It seems to be the best link for the subject. Many people block pop-ups anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The link opens 162 popups to kanpurdehat.nic.in/present.htm (visit at own risk). That page contains the text; "Click to View Presentation On Kanpur Dehat" which is a link to a .exe file. Doesn't look good. --TheIntersect (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

179, actually. Look, any site that has 179 pop-ups that link to an executable file has to be either bad news, or hacked. We should remove the link immediately, blacklist it, and contact the sysadmin responsible for the site. Anyone speak Hindi? l'aquatique || talk 08:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More... I can't run a whois on the domain because the tld .nic.in isn't supported, but according to Wikipedia .nic.in is reserved for National Informatics Centre web addresses, ergo this is a government site. I still recommend the above course of action, it's possible they've been hacked or there's a bug. That number of popups on a browser without pop-up protection could easily crash a computer, there must be something wrong. l'aquatique || talk 08:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the page source, this actually appears to be a case of incompetence, not malice. The .exe file is in fact a short slideshow created using the ArcSoft VideoImpression tool, and the large number of (attempted) popups is probably the result of a botched edit to the site's Javascript. (The window.open call was mistakenly inserted inside a routine that is called on a timer.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Nichalp can help us here, I'll drop a note on his page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I can help. The site is the official site. It's true that several Indian government sites are poorly coded, the best example is the site where one files one's taxes online -- Google marked it as a malware page! So I suggest we leave in a link with a warning that the page opens 100+ popups. It appears safe to navigate with Firefox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As suggested by Zetawoof the problem appears to be with the code rather than the site itself. Considering that the is site hosted by Government of India, I doubt presence of a malware. The popups direct to an .exe file which contains a small video presentation. The number of popups also seem to vary with browsers for me: Firefox had 133, Chrome one, Safari zero. Not sure about IE but less than 10. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez....179 popups? That's about 180 too many for me. Could we perhaps no-wiki the link, seeing as how people don't always read warning messages BEFORE clicking? At least if we no-wiki it, the user will have to copy-paste it instead of just clicking; the extra step will slow them down enough to (I hope!) read the warning. Just a thought, anyhoo. GJC 13:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and nowiki'd it. Enigma ^message 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just one pop-up for me (Safari on WinXP). DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

179 for me in firefox under Ubunutu.

I added a quick warning underneath the links instructing readers not to visit the sites without popup blocker enabled. I also added a commented message not to remove the nowiki tags. Think we can call this one resolved? l'aquatique || talk 19:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• That site sucks to a truly incredible degree, but it seems to be all there is. Since the article is a one-sentence stub and there seem to be virtually no other sources than that site why not upmerge to Kanpur? Guy (Help!) 21:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we've got bigger problems. The article is a copyvio from here: [18]. I'm going to have to delete it, but some of the information, paraphrased, might be able to be upmerged. l'aquatique || talk 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't nationmaster.com a crib from Wikipedia? And it's GFDL anyway. I suspect they copied us. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the nationmaster.com admits it's a crib from us "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." right down at the bottom of the page, in small-print. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And... I feel stupid. I really should get my horribly cracked monitor fixed... Also I should wear my glasses while editing! In any case, the article has been restored, but we still need to figure out whether we want to merge it. l'aquatique || talk 22:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting others posts and revising posts after they have been responded to

Resolved

An RfC is ongoing here at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Proposal_on_international_date_format. An editor User talk:2008Olympian, is changing his posts so substantially after I respond to them, that my responses are being orphaned since the original text to which I am referring is no longer there. Note these two posts (him at 02:03, 15 December 2008 and me at 02:34, 15 December 2008). Then, he changed his post to what you see here. Note how the text I was referring to Earth, Telescope, and Butterfly was deleted.

Then, another problem from another editor. This happened after I had complained about the above-mentioned violations of Wikipedia policy on posts, as you can see here. I had added The proposal has absolutely nothing whatsoever with trying to “determine what the predominant audience is,” which you stated here (difference) and then revised after I posted this rebuttal (in violation of Wikipedia policy and is exceedingly rude). Then, User:Locke Cole hand-deleted my complaint (not a wholesale reversion; a surgical deletion) difference here. Note also his edit summary: rm shortcut. His edit summary was written to hide what he had actually done. Both these editors have emotional, strident positions on this RfC so the possibility that this behavior is accidental and innocent doesn’t really pass the *grin test* here. I ask that these two editors have their behavior corrected. Greg L (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove that text, that's the way it was when I edited it. Strangely it didn't edit conflict (even though I'd been getting edit conflicts all night and hand resolving them). Please assume good faith in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• What you say you did and what the objective evidence based on the edit history says you did are two different things. Does this happen often to other editors on Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. It's easy for a comment to get lost in a flurry of editing. Edit conflicts don't always get raised (which might have something to do with the database not being in perfect sync down to a resolution of seconds). --Cyde Weys 20:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I’m not talking about an edit comment being left off; I’m talking about someone removing text that others have posted and the database says that this edit was done by a certain someone. Very well. I will have to assume that text that someone deleted was falsely attributed to Lock Cole by an error in the database. If this passes the *grin test* because it not a rare occurrence, then that’s fine.

  That leaves the first part of my complaint against 2008Olympian as remaining quite valid. He has engaged in repeated, wholesale revisions of his posts—going back and deleting the *inconvenient* text from his original post(s) that I quoted in my rebuttal. Methinks I am right to cry “foul.” Greg L (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about edit summaries; I'm talking about comments made in a discussion (like this one). The edit conflict detection code is not perfect, and in particular, I believe it relies on the databases being in sync. It has nothing to do with a deletion being falsely attributed to someone and everything to do with two edits based on the same prior revision being committed in separate database servers before synchronization has occurred such that each database server learns from the other that a conflicting edit has been made. In other words, Locke Cole was right to tell you to assume good faith, though I know that sometimes it's hard to do so when the person telling you to do so is the one you're in a conflict with. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have an idea. Let's block, for one month, any account that tries to solicit admin action against someone else when the parties are engaged in well-past-lame MoS wars. It seems to me that the less important the issue, the more hysterical and deeply entrenched the partisans become. I personally find date linking intrusive in some places and not in others, and the consensus looks to me to be no consensus, take it on a case by case basis (aka the good old-fashioned Wikipedia fudge). I have never seen an example of anyone trying to enforce a MoS guideline across all articles that did not end up being ludicrous in at least some, and leading to a shitstorm and accompanying farce. I would not mind betting that the average reader does not give a flying fuck on a rolling doughnut whether we link dates or not, and I am seriously contemplating requesting arbitration on the entire bunch of MoS warriors just because of the prodigious amount of time, bandwidth and server resources their foolish squabbling causes. Oh dear, I think that might have been one of my old-style unreconstructed rants. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  Guy, you put the entire MoS up for XfD and I'll second you. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ha! You don't know how tempting that is. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• “Rant?” Ya think?? But this is not the place for that. The RfC is a legitimate one on an issue of perceived importance to editors. Whereas you clearly worked that “I’m a *high-road kinda person*-angle really hard in your above post, the RfC’s perceived importance is precisely why editors get so emotional about it when they post their opinions on the RfC and debate others. Further, your protestations as to what you think is or is not important doesn’t diminish the fact that RfCs are difficult enough without editors ignoring Wikipedia policies. Greg L (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• And you want to us "correct their behaviours"? By blocking? Lol no. And you knew that, so why start this thread? Moreschi (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As tempting as it is to chime in here and just agree with Guy, let's just address Greg's 2 complaints and slap a resolved tag on it.

1. Greg, it appears you brought 2008Olympian's conduct to ANI without trying to discuss it with him first; did I miss a discussion somewhere? In any case, while his late revision of his own post like that isn't best practice, if you notice it happening, and it's important to you, you can add your own note after your post saying something along the lines of this post was in response to the orginal post by 2008Olympian, located [link_to_diff here] and since changed by 2008Olympian. Or, better yet, ignore it. Not a realistic option in an RfC. Greg L (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Despite your insinuations to the contrary, an edit conflict that isn't flagged happens all the time. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Locke's statement of what happened, and quite a bit of reason to believe it. If you'd like me to explain how that happened here, I'll be happy to explain further, but won't waste my time if you're disinterested.

Is anything still unresolved? --barneca (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Very well. Nicely handled. Well, yes, of course I tried to “discuss it” by adding to my post that what he did was against policy and rude. But when I saw that my addition had seemingly been surgically removed by a like-minded compatriot, I felt this was the proper step (rather than even begin to editwar in an RfC I was trying to neutrally host). Technology conspiring to add confusion and misdirection to the mix. I’d be quite surprised if 2008Oly keeps at the violations now. Please mark as resolved. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Two apparent SPAs starting an edit war

Please could an admin or two have a look at the last few edits to Duchy of Cornwall, and the contributions of the two editors involved. They appear to me to be two SPAs here to have an argument. I have already interacted with one of them, and would be happy to be tolds if I could have done better. DuncanHill (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Help please, one of the editors has been inserting material which is not supported by the reference he gives, and has managed to get me into an edit-war with him. It is a blatant spa editing to promote a POV position. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Sprogeeet is a blatant POV-pushing single purpose account, and is currently inserting speculation, unjustified synthesis and undue weight into articles. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me as though User:Jenks77 is pushing the POV, repeatedly adding a WP:FRINGE external link. // roux   00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to look at the other editor too? DuncanHill (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll choose to ignore that little tidbit of incivility. I looked at the article you mentioned, and the edits of the people involved. User:Jenks77 is trying to insert material that is WP:FRINGE at best, and User:Sprogeeet is removing it, which is entirely appropriate. If there are other problems with that user, then by all means bring them up. But the problem you brought here is not a problem, or if it is a problem, it's a problem with a different user. Yes, the edit summaries are problematic, but the actual removal of such fringe/crank information is--or should be--non-controversial. // roux   00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the more active of the two has now been blocked. DuncanHill (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano II

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.

---

Perhaps I'm missing something, but Giano seems to be on this board or Arbcom every month, and I don't think I've ever seen a discussion of his behaviour as a whole - only of the incident du jour. Now, admittedly, I'm obviously getting a biased view - I only see him when he appears here, or at Arbcom, but I'm not sure I understand the situation, as, normally, people who cause as much disruption as he evidently causes have not been treated so leniently. Can we have a quick primer for those of us who have merely seen it play out from the sidelines? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you start digging, or speak with people privately to gain a history. The insane drama that will ensue from this is.. bad. I suggest this thread be closed. // roux   01:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If this thread must be closed, that is fine, but I object to having my statements be being deleted like a vandal's.[19] I have reverted the deletion of this thread. I am an editor in good standing, and have produced large quantities of featured content.

Whether it causes drama or not, this situation has gone on for a long time, and I see no benefit in putting mere discussion of what appears to be a long-term disruption off-limits. If there are strong mitigating factors, I think we should hear them, but it does appear that we have a situation that has gone on a very long time, and which has never actually been discussed to try and figure out a way forwards, or to mitigate the problems being caused on a regular basis. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Roux I am closing this. You have every right to reopen it. But please keep in mind that drama may ensue. Rgoodermote  02:15, 16 December 2008 (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.

I need an answer

Resolved

 – User has the ability to edit articles. There is no issue. This is a new user's mistake

I need an answer as to why, within a couple days of posting my first article, does my user name seem to have been disabled? My article was placed on a copyright infringement notice and while attempting to rectify this situation my user name has been disabled. I want to contribute to this encyclopedia but it is becoming very frustrating and need an answer please. Thank you. - ConcreteCuring 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I checked your logs and it doesn't seem you are under and form of block or have been ever. Plus, you posted the above under your unsername. Perhaps a little more information on how your username was "disabled" would be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 16, 2008 @ 00:10

I am 100% sure the user is referring to the deletion of his uerpage. Which the logs say were deleted under G11 by NawlinWiki or it could be that this user is referring to another account and expects us to know about it (and in that case would get him in trouble) I am going with the former though. Rgoodermote  02:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That one I didn't see in the logs, so I agree with you, that is probably it. Should we call this resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 16, 2008 @ 02:39

I assume he's referring to Concrete curing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CIreland (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Never thought about looking there. User page deleted, this page in copyvio protection. Interesting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 16, 2008 @ 03:29

Well, I can see why he would think he is not allowed to edit. That does seem to make you think that if you are from a new user's perspective. This issue has way too many layers and possibilities. I'm marking as resolved and calling it a new user's error. Rgoodermote  06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 16, 2008 @ 06:07

Matthew Hoffman request to vacate

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

 – ? well maybe - motion 1.3 in said case appears to now be passing.

The Matthew Hoffman case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman) is usually cited as one of the worst-handled cases of the 2008 Arbcom, though it began with the 2007. I believe that I need not rehash the points that can be made about the case, it's enough to say that, at this moment, half the arbcom have voted to vacate it. (Motion 1.3)

...And there it has stood for three weeks. Christmas is coming up, and the new Arbcom comes in in two weeks, sending any unfinished business into chaos. Ncmvocalist (without my knowledge) polled the new Arbcom candidates on it, the vast majority said that it should be vacated, and most agreed that 1.3 would do.

This case is beginning to drag on far too long. As the person who was at the centre of the case - so stressful and badly handled that it sent me into a nervous breakdown that forced me to drop out of University for the last year (I'm finally restarting in January) - I just want this to be over.

I'm not sure what can be done, but the request was made over a month ago,a nd the arbcom seem unable to get the last few people to either abstain or vote, to move above 50% in favour. The case in question contains direct factual errors about me, for instance, finding of fact #4:

collapsed for ease of reading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy. As shown in Carcharoth's evidence in the case itself, I had not edited Irreducible complexity since January, as a search of the page history will show. In order to claim I was in a content dispute with him required claiming that having ever expressed any opinion on a subject, even before you became an admin, worked out to a content dispute. Secondly, only blocks with the sole purpose to make people cool down is outside policy. WP:BLOCK makes this very explicit: Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption. (The emphasis is in the original.) Indeed, the block policy also makes a clear distinction between content disputes and conflict of interest, and, while the latter is discouraged, is not actually forbidden: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

I want this situation to be over. I'm not sure of the best way to go about this, but after a month, it does seem that my best recourse is to appeal to the community to put pressure onto Arbcom to finish up the motion,or something. If anyone can advise, I am open to hearing it, but would like to finish up this case, which has hung over my head and Arbcom's for a year.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and the delaying by some arbitrators is unacceptable - I would go so far as to call it unethical, given that they have the option to mark themselves inactive. However, I think the trouble you may have in appealing to the community (and this may also be the cause of the delays by ArbCom) is that not everybody will agree with you that Finding of Fact 4 is incorrect. CIreland (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

hold fire chaps - motion 1.3 seems to be passing now, following jp's vote :-) Merry christmas! Privatemusings (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank god. A long, frustrating three weeks, but it's all over now.

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.

Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections. archiving comment, discussion seems to be over. Fram (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone counsel User:Mooretwin?

This is similar to the "end of my rope" topic here. We have a user (the one above) who's gotten five blocks for editwarring (one later overturned when it was found out that he was editwarring with a banned user), who has a thing about changing articles that use uppercase as an official designation (for example, Special Protection Area) and trying to switch them to lower case. He's been quite persistent on it, even in some cases breaking category names by switching out the uppercase letters for lowercase. He's not gone over the line in any one thing to require a block at the moment, just persistent infringement in various ways. The latest is proposing a series of Requested Moves to lower case titles, and then a canvassing violation at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Capitals.

So requesting moves - having been advised to do so as the proper course of action by another editor - is now an "infringement"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The above, combined with an almost aggressive clueless-ness at times (I had to point him at the right area three or four times (an ongoing ArbCom case) for his accusations of tag team editing by some of the people opposing him in these battles).. it's become quite vexing for myself, and User:Ddstretch, and due to Mooretwin's contention that he or I have a "vendetta" against him now (see his talk page, my talk page and Mooretwin's talk page for the gory details), I want to see if a previously uninvolved administrator could look at this and try to break through in discussion. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this summary and the reasons for this request, which I could equally well have made and which I therefore support.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I was directed by both of the above editors to [a page which didn't include any comments about me], and then accused of being obstructive because I couldn't read the comments, which were actually [on another page]. DDStretch has also been following me around and hassling me and made unfounded accusations against me [at 00:56 on my talk page], and didn't have the courtesy to explain them. Mooretwin (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with both SirFozzie and User:ddstretch. The issue of civility and personal attacks will also have to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin has repeated allegations that suggest that I am engaging in a personal vendetta against him for merely pointing out a canvassing violation, mentioned above by SirFozzie. SheffieldSteel advised him that what I wrote was based on ambiguity in Mooretwin's message, and he has once again demanded an apology, which I have given being careful not to apologise for the legitimate warnings he has been given for disruptive behaviour. I urgently ask for any different administrators to counsel him further, as myserlf and SirFozzie are too involved. He continues to post messages on my talk page despite me asking him not to, and I ask that appropriate action be taken to prevent him doing this.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

He is also continuing to reinsert a message on Talk:Sinn Féin which runs counter to WP:TALK in that it is largely a personal attack upon another editor, and which has been removed on at least two previous occasions. It is action taken to counter disruption like this which prompted him to make the allegations of personal vendetta aginst myself when I warned im about them. I think that action by some other editor to stop this kind of behaviour from Mooretwin is clearly required, since the messages on Talk:Sinn Féin are inflammatory in an area that has been subject to restrictions because of prior disruption by editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for a week. Edit warring to remove personal attacks is one thing, but doing so to reintroduce them, on the talk page of an article under probation, after being blocked five/six times for edit warring, is too much. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to create Everette Brown

I went to create the article Everette Brown today and it says that creation of the article has been blacklisted for some reason. I don't know why this is the case. In any event, Everette Brown is a college football defensive end at Florida State and is regarded as the top underclassmen prospect in the 2009 NFL Draft. Can someone help me get creation of this article unblocked?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With my leet admin powers, I just have. Article Rescue Squandron, go! hbdragon88 (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha thanks. Wonder what it was blacklisted for, haha.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't remember the details, but there was (is?) a case on ANI yesterday about a similar article, and there it was said that "Everett" was blacklisted due to G10 harassment (people making all kinds of attack pages or something similar with the name "everett" in the title). The blacklisting obviously causes some problems for genuine everett articles... Fram (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is true, it was blacklisted due to significant real world harassment of a highly respected user. So articles with Everett/Everette etc will need such assistance. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's hoping our next big vandal calls himself Baby Bathwater. --NE2 11:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Manhattan Samurai and his edit warring

Resolved

 – No, Manhattan Samurai, you can't do what you are proposing, but of course you know that. Roux and Themfromspace and Elbutler, let's try a little experiment where we ignore intentionally provocative posts instead of reacting to them, and see what happens. --barneca (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today Manhattan Samurai reverted a merge of the article List of problems solved by MacGyver into the article List of problems solved by MacGyver#Influence on culture. This merge was done as the result of an AfD debate settled a few weeks ago. I reverted his action and left him a note on his talk page explaining that he was overriding consensus. He then engaged me in a discussion on my talk page where he practically volunteered to fight in the front line of the edit war army. He asked "how can I continue the edit war going on at the "List of problems solved by MacGyver" article?" After telling him that I considered his actions to be vandalism and pointing him towards DRV (at that time I didn't know the DRV already took place for that article). He responded asking "Is there a way to gather together enough users so that we can circumvent the 3R rule and continually revert the article to its proper state?" What's the proper action to be done towards an editor who so blatantly seeks to override consensus? Themfromspace (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point, he needs to be watched. Should we see any further evidence of canvasing or the like, we can block him for disruption. I will leave a friendly warning at his talk page to cease and desist. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user to NOT pursue the course of action he lays out in the link you provided. If we see any evidence of disruption, blocks and article protections can be used to contain it. Please keep us apprised of the situation, should the user actually go through with his threats to disrupt. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Are my actions immoral? This seems like a tad bit overdone here, don't ya think? I was simply asking whether or not I could amass a crack group of Wikipedians who will each in turn revert the MacGyver-list article to its proper state? (NOTE: Anyone reading this please contact me if you are interested in this idea of mine) Since when are we not allowed to discuss future edit warring? I'm highly amused over here on my side of the screen.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: There is tons of interesting information at WP:CANVASS. There are some useful guidelines about how to go about doing this.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you're not allowed to edit-war. So planning an edit-war is obviously not allowed. Gaming the system is likewise frowned upon. Recommend block to prevent future disruption; user has clearly indicated they plan on serious disruption to the project. // roux   22:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, very funny Roux. Yes, it would be quite something if we were barred from even contemplating a future action of this sort. But seriously Roux, if we get enough of us I wonder if we could not simply revert the MacGyver-list to its proper state in perpetuity and eventually use the roster garnered in our little scheme to overturn the deletion even. That would be really something, huh?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

^^^ Exhibit B, Your Honour. Other than that, MS, the correct place to challenge a deletion decision is WP:DRV. // roux   22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think for the moment AfD and DRV have been exhausted as options. Am I able to create a Wikipedia:article from which to organize my edit war army for restoring the MacGyver-list article to its proper state? That way everyone could openly view who the soldiers are and maybe everyone will be a little less jumpy about it all?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I suggest you drop this. // roux   22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Is that a real 'No' or are you simply saying that? I'm very serious about forming an edit war army (it would be my first) to restore the MacGyver-list article to its proper state. Our rallying cry will be 'For the Good of Wikipedia'! Join me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if MS is a troll or just has a backwards interpretation of Wikipedia policies such as canvassing but I for one do not think his actions are welcome here and think a block is in due order. Also note his civility at the DRV for the article in question. Themfromspace (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just been personally attacked by Themfromspace, "I'm not sure if MS is a troll," which I find insulting as I look nothing like one. Perhaps Themfromspace has thusly named himself because he, in fact, is an ugly person and has self esteem problems. ANyhow, I have done nothing to deserve being compared to a troll.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you become fixiated on starting some rally against wikipedia, you're a troll. And secondly: your idea is crazy and will never work. And third, keep this up and you will blocked, edit war army boy. Elbutler (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But this is insane! I am not rallying against Wikipedia, which means what btw? I was talking about forming an edit war army for the purposes of reviving the MacGyver-list article. You can compare my actions to those of Batman when he wiretapped all of Gotham's cellphones to one end: to find Joker. After he was successful he had his operation dismantled. I really will disband the edit war army after our victory.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not some fictional movie, this is reality. I pretty much don't have to say anything else, i've made my point (crazy idea). Elbutler (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You won't think this is some fictional movie when my edit war army is continually reverting the "List of problems solved by MacGyver" article to its proper state.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please move a page

I need Evrett Railroad moved to Everett Railroad, since the title blacklist has a silly entry forbidding the latter. Thank you. --NE2 15:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I left Evrett Railroad as a redirect, as I figured it was a plausible misspelling. If others feel differently, delete at your heart's desire. - auburnpilot talk 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I know why this line was added but I won't go into detail:

.*Everett.* # Used for harassment username and page creation - remove end Dec 2008

This is a common surname which is clearly going to generate more false positives. It would be better to remove it and put this person's full name on some kind of non-public blacklist. — CharlotteWebb 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock needed

In the interest of sweetums. seicer | talk | contribs 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Will a sensible administrator, or one who fells they have very little to lose (I’m not picky), kindly direct your attention to User:Moreschi, where an unblock is sorely needed. Cheers, HiDrNick! 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC) In my humble opinion, any action by any admin here would only undermine Arbcom. No matter how they stand on FT2's block of Moreschi, they should be the ones undoing the harm(?) caused. If they support his actions, any unblock of Morechi would put the unblocking admin directly in violation of Arbcom's rulings, probably provoking further disputes and cases. If FT2's block was not sanctioned by Arbcom, they should be able to disagree and remedy the problem clearly and publicly. Either way they should be the ones acting to avoid wheel-warring of admins supporting and opposing the action. Regards SoWhy 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed. Can we archive this please? There's no need to generate even more drama than has already been created. Interested parties have the relevant pages on their watchlists, I'm sure, and the last thing we need is yet more Giano drama. // roux   22:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:U1234u

User:U1234u seems to exist only to spam the name of a band, The Display Team, all over wikipedia. See Special:Contributions/U1234u Zazaban (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem proper to place this here or even on AIV. Maybe you should try to talk to the person a little more first. Yanksox (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity girl15

Mostly disruptive user who constantly edits FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman. She repeatly adds the constants last names, even though we're suppose to respect their privacy. And i recently caught her removing a edit summary. A lot her edits are disruptive, but some aren't, i don't know what to do about this situation, which is why i came here. Elbutler (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Correct username is Celebrity girl15 (talk · contribs). And, without having looked at the user's actual contribs, I see she's only got one thing on her talk page, which is a warning from November. Have you considered talking to her? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be some effort shown towards communication and resolution before an admin intervenes. Yanksox (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman motion passed

The Arbitration Committee have passed a motion with regards to the final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, decided in February 2008. In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this decision are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished user." A notation to this effect has be made on the case pages, which had already been courtesy blanked.

This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The Committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

At long last. :) Durova^Charge! 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn. I had February 31st in the pool. --barneca (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Community_feedback_on_ArbCom_Members

Resolved

 – this was intended to be a notice. It's done it's job. Since it's now being used as a platform for people to be absolute complete dicks to each other, it's time to shut it down. I suggest everyone go over to the VP subpage and act like little children over there. --barneca (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Administrators may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback. DepartedUser (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. No No NONONONONONONO!. We just voted in a fresh 1/3'd of the ArbCom in two weeks filled with more drama then you can shake a stick at, and you want to throw motions of confidence/no confidence on the other 2/3???? Please. PLEASE.. let's let the new ArbCom members come in, get a bit of time to get into the situation, and see what change occurs come in before we create any more drama on this (and this is speaking as someone who could possibly benefit if more people were put in, although it would take a large leap to get to me.) SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Sir F.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) SirFozzie, I commend you on your restraint. What I'd say is: NO, HELL NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO, WHY DO WE NEED MORE FUCKING DRAMA EVERY DAY, NO, THIS IS A HORRENDOUSLY BAD IDEA, NO NO NO HELL ASS NO.

Ahem. // roux   02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like drama, I suggest you unwatch this, and the other drama pages, and start writing some articles. Majorly ^talk 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And I suggest you correct your attitude. I'm allowed to participate how I want and where I want, and the fact that I'm taking a bit of a break from serious article building is my concern. Furthermore, for such a--I'll be polite--suggestion to come from such a... shall we say, afficionado of projectspace, is a bit much. Kindly refactor your comments here and your silly accusation of trolling at VP. // roux   02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence why it's only a suggestion. It seems odd that you shout in capital letters about "WHY DO WE NEED MORE DRAMA", yet you're adding to it as we speak. As for me, I've written many articles, and have several DYKs, and a GA, but that's besides the point. Majorly ^talk 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not liking drama, and there's wanting to have a functional last step of dispute resolution. You can have one with the other, Majorly. SirFozzie (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to have a functional last step of dispute resolution in no way implies having confidence in the current arbcom. DuncanHill (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The "last" step is currently not functional, hence the need for a poll. It's a shame people insist on shooting things down from the get-go without really understanding their purpose. But it's OK, we'll just have to live with our crappy arbitrators. Majorly ^talk 02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've been disgusted (and a bit disillusioned) with this whole Giano mess the AC has inflamed, but this is premature and over-the-top. I completely understand the sentiment, but please, no. SDJ 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As general food for thought, it's fascinating to see the incredibly strong correlation between "People who did something bad and got caught by ArbCom and appropriately sanctioned" and "People who hate ArbCom." It's very nearly 1:1. Huh. // roux   02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that that is true. DuncanHill (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate. Majorly ^talk 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate arbcom, they never did anything to me -- 87.194.147.203 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you say so, dear. // roux   02:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More trolling from the "vanished" user and sockpuppeteer Hipocrite, aka DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). krimpet✽ 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong way to do this. The correct way would to be to impose on arbitrators the understanding that their status could be removed in the event that the community decides they are unsuited to it, and then to start discussion on an individual if and when the need arises -- which would likely be in very rare cases. Given that you don't actually have control over any part of arbcom's structure or operation, though (even the election results are technically only advisory) this probably won't happen any time soon -- 87.194.147.203 (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2008 (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.

Update

See Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback. This was a discussion that was archived, so turning this into a notice. Won't timestamp to prevent archiving for now.--Patton123

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman motion passed

The Arbitration Committee have passed a motion with regards to the final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, decided in February 2008. In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this decision are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished user." A notation to this effect has be made on the case pages, which had already been courtesy blanked.

This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The Committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

At long last. :) Durova^Charge! 02:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn. I had February 31st in the pool. --barneca (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Community_feedback_on_ArbCom_Members

Resolved

 – this was intended to be a notice. It's done it's job. Since it's now being used as a platform for people to be absolute complete dicks to each other, it's time to shut it down. I suggest everyone go over to the VP subpage and act like little children over there. --barneca (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Administrators may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback. DepartedUser (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. No No NONONONONONONO!. We just voted in a fresh 1/3'd of the ArbCom in two weeks filled with more drama then you can shake a stick at, and you want to throw motions of confidence/no confidence on the other 2/3???? Please. PLEASE.. let's let the new ArbCom members come in, get a bit of time to get into the situation, and see what change occurs come in before we create any more drama on this (and this is speaking as someone who could possibly benefit if more people were put in, although it would take a large leap to get to me.) SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Sir F.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) SirFozzie, I commend you on your restraint. What I'd say is: NO, HELL NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO, WHY DO WE NEED MORE FUCKING DRAMA EVERY DAY, NO, THIS IS A HORRENDOUSLY BAD IDEA, NO NO NO HELL ASS NO.

Ahem. // roux   02:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like drama, I suggest you unwatch this, and the other drama pages, and start writing some articles. Majorly ^talk 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And I suggest you correct your attitude. I'm allowed to participate how I want and where I want, and the fact that I'm taking a bit of a break from serious article building is my concern. Furthermore, for such a--I'll be polite--suggestion to come from such a... shall we say, afficionado of projectspace, is a bit much. Kindly refactor your comments here and your silly accusation of trolling at VP. // roux   02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence why it's only a suggestion. It seems odd that you shout in capital letters about "WHY DO WE NEED MORE DRAMA", yet you're adding to it as we speak. As for me, I've written many articles, and have several DYKs, and a GA, but that's besides the point. Majorly ^talk 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There's not liking drama, and there's wanting to have a functional last step of dispute resolution. You can have one with the other, Majorly. SirFozzie (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to have a functional last step of dispute resolution in no way implies having confidence in the current arbcom. DuncanHill (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The "last" step is currently not functional, hence the need for a poll. It's a shame people insist on shooting things down from the get-go without really understanding their purpose. But it's OK, we'll just have to live with our crappy arbitrators. Majorly ^talk 02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've been disgusted (and a bit disillusioned) with this whole Giano mess the AC has inflamed, but this is premature and over-the-top. I completely understand the sentiment, but please, no. SDJ 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As general food for thought, it's fascinating to see the incredibly strong correlation between "People who did something bad and got caught by ArbCom and appropriately sanctioned" and "People who hate ArbCom." It's very nearly 1:1. Huh. // roux   02:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that that is true. DuncanHill (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate. Majorly ^talk 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate arbcom, they never did anything to me -- 87.194.147.203 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you say so, dear. // roux   02:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More trolling from the "vanished" user and sockpuppeteer Hipocrite, aka DepartedUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). krimpet✽ 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong way to do this. The correct way would to be to impose on arbitrators the understanding that their status could be removed in the event that the community decides they are unsuited to it, and then to start discussion on an individual if and when the need arises -- which would likely be in very rare cases. Given that you don't actually have control over any part of arbcom's structure or operation, though (even the election results are technically only advisory) this probably won't happen any time soon -- 87.194.147.203 (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2008 (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.

Update

See Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback. This was a discussion that was archived, so turning this into a notice. Won't timestamp to prevent archiving for now.--Patton123

User:Encyclopedia77 & User:Encyclopedia76

• Main account - Encyclopedia77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alternate account - Encyclopedia76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has become (or more likely always was) a serial pest. He first came to my attention when he attempted to bulldoze edits into Windows XP. These edits were opposed by two other editors and me.[20][21] Rather than discuss the edits, as he was invited to do, by way of edit summaries[22][23] and invitations on his talk page,[24] he chose to edit war to the point where it was necessary to give him a 3RR warning.[25] Since then, there has been no improvement in his editing style. In fact, there seems to have been a decline. He even listed me at WP:AN[26] but it backfired, as can be seen by the comments in that entry by other editors, when his editing style, which shows a history of questionable activity including harrassment, incivility, deletion of content, creation of inappropriate articles, revenge nominations at WP:TfD, placing inappropriate warnings on user pages and so on, was questioned and criticised. Many of the edits made by this editor have been made incorrectly, resulting in the necessity to follow him around to fix up his inevitable errors but I'm not entirely convinced that these errors are accidental. His edits to various chemistry and other articles[27][28][29] show a reasonable level of intelligence making me suspect that the "errors" that he makes are subtle vandalism rather than straight errors, which is one reason I have listed this editor here. Some notable examples of his questionable and inappropriate edits are listed in the WP:AN entry. I will not relist them here for the sake of brevity. Other notable examples are:

• 19 November 2008 - By his own admission, Encyclopedia77 was a vandal for some time[30] and was blocked twice.[31][32] Ironically, his claim to be a vandal fighter occurred 5 days before his second vandal block. This vandalism was perpetrated after his epiphany.
• 25 November 2008 - Asking an administrator to ban me for 5 hours for not allowing his edits into Windows XP. Also asked admin to delete his request, I assume so I wouldn't know who made the request. Naturally, the admin's response was in the negative.[33]
• 4 December 2008 - Placed a warning on an anonymous IP's talk page that was not completely valid. There is no indication that North Carolina Research and Education Network ever made the request indicated in the template.
• 4 December 2008 - Incorrect addition (see {{WPAuto}}) that resulted in a minor corruption of the page that needed to be fixed. I'm not even convinced that E77 is aware of the requirements for a B-class article and I note he hasn't returned to the page to fix his error. That aside, he clearly didn't bother checking his edit after making it.
• 4 December 2008 - This warning was the first and only entry on an anonymous IP's talk page. It is "strange" because the warning was for an edit made 6 weeks prior to the warning.[34] The reversion of that edit wasn't even made by Encyclopedia77 and that was the only edit ever made by the IP. It was a pointless edit.
• 8 December 2008 - Revenge nomination at TfD. After things started looking bad for the templates he'd created (all were eventually deleted) he nominated Template:Repeat vandal, a high use template used on over 4,000 pages, for deletion. That it was a revenge nomination wasn't lost on editors.
• 9 December 2008 - Votestacking. Using an alternate account he created Template:VandalNoticeSmall, which had questionable wording that seemed to misrepresent policy. He also created two redirects to the template, one of which ({{PlzIndef}}) was an improbable title. I listed all 3 at WP:TFD,[35] along with another ({{ImageCopyrightVandal}})[36] that was redundant, as its fuctionality is already covered by existing templates. After he created {{VNS}} he actually asked the admin he'd previously contacted to protect the template so only he and admins could edit it,[37] which was clearly against policy. When things were looking bad for his tempates he contacted the same admin and asked the admin to vote to keep his template.[38] The admin voted to delete.
• 9 December 2008 - Creation of inappropriate page that was deleted as vandalism.[39]
• 13 December 2008 - Blatant vandalism by alternate account. Replaced article content with "Pretty pink ponys rock"
• 13 December 2008 - Editing warning made by another editor. He has previously been warned about editing comments made by other editors.[40]
• 14 December 2008 - As revenge for my TfD nominations of his templates he nominated {{Suburbs of Port Stephens}}, a template that I had created, for the reasons "Does not seem to be useful. I mean, c'mon! Suburbs? Every template like this i've seen has been deleted." The listing was closed as a disruptive nomination.[41]

Encyclopedia77 has made a number of other edits that, while trivial, paint a picture of a rather peculiar editing style. A short time after he requested that I be banned for 5 hours, he made a mysterious post to another user's talk page.[42] This appears to have been made in response to this warning for one of his deletions of Talk:Windows XP#Recent edits by User:Encyclopedia77 ([43][44]). This post, made to the talk page of the admin he's been talking at apparently confused the owner of the talk page[45], which he thought was funny.[46]

I'm not sure what the appropriate resolution is for this problem. I'm a big boy and can tolerate the posts on my talk page but this is a high maintenance editor with an unacceptable editing style. The creation of an inappropriate page on 9 December 2008[47] and the blatant vandalism by the alternate account on 13 December[48] clearly demonstrate that he has not left his vandal days behind. It's ironic that on the same day he removed the claim from his user page about now being a vandal fighter.[49] Something needs to be done about this editor. He's wasting a lot of other editors' time. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Checking out... at least one of those diffs was legit, jfyi ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Part of me thinks we shouldn't rush to judgment, so if y'all don't mind... I think 77 has zero clue, but not necessarily zero good intentions ;-)

Message to Aussie: The vandalism from Encyclopedia76 was to see how newcomers get treated for vandalism, and also to prove to a visiting friend that vandalism gets reverted quickly. I had labeled the warning as "to see how newcomer vandals get treated"([50]) (check timing of edit). Thank you for your time. _{Aussie, please do not continue to revert any edit I make, you are lucky that I haven't created a report for you.}The Ununoctium warning was because someone forgot to warn the vandal, as it was clearly vandalism.

I used to like Wikipedia until the big bad wolf came along. Because of the windows XP thing, she/he has been stalking everything I do. Wikipedia has a NPOV? I wonder why other editors think she is acceptable and I am not. It was not a disrupted nomination, nor was meant to be (TfD). And, please ask Aussie to STOP STALKING ME. Anything I do is undone by her. D***it! I'm just trying to have a fun time writing an encyclopedia! I ask Aussie to stop, but no. For some reason, he/she has to follow everything I do.

All I see in your reply are excuses for unacceptable behaviour and unsupported accusations. Vandalism is not acceptable under any circumstances. As for being lucky that you haven't reported me, perhaps you forgot that you already have,[51] although not with the results that you'd hoped for. You were challenged then about your accusation that I reverted every edit you made[52] but you were unable to support the claim. As I've already told you, I will continue to repair the faulty edits that you make, like this and this, as any responsible editor should. If you don't want your errors repaired, don't make errors. You really need to start accepting responsibility for your mistakes and stop blaming others. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this matter may be at an end for now. The user has conveniently requested a temporary block from one admin,[53] who refused. However, another editor has generously granted his request.[54] I expect we'll be back in three weeks, unless he returns using the Encyclopedia76 account. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about it then. My opinion is that Encyclopedia77 is very enthusiastic, probably too much, but it hasn't gone beyond the point of no return. I hope he'll come back in 2009 with a fresh mind and be a bit more careful before stepping on every toe in sight :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked vandal

Hi everyone, I unblocked a vandal Mazfired (talk · contribs) a few hours ago, he requested an unblock saying he'd abide by the rules, and his vandalism was half a year ago (what can I say, I'm a softy). I figured he'd vandalise, I'd block him again, and that'd be that. But he hasn't shown up since then and I need to go afk in a bit, so could you keep an eye on him? Thanks. --fvw* 16:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. That was a pretty big assumption of good faith there though--Jac16888 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of our best contributors began with a few shabby edits. Be kind to newbies.--Patton123 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but if they had any sense they'd restart from scratch . — CharlotteWebb 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a bit controversial. Some folks think it's better for a blocked person to quietly create a new account and go about editing without a fuss; other see that as block-evasion, and would block the new account if the connection was discovered. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

However if they're good and don't break the rules it is unlikely that the connection will be discovered --Chris 09:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry fvw, trust your guts in such instances. If he misbehaves he'll be blocked in a flash, and if he wanted to misbehave he'd have created a fresh account. Good call IMO. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fix front page

Can an admin please fix the problem with the banner on the Main Page? See Talk:Main Page#Donation banner causing problem for details. -93.96.212.203 (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Badlisted image.....

I'm not sure that this is the right place to report this, but here goes....

Why is Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg on the Bad Image List? It doesn't seem offencive or inappropriate in any way. Actually, it appears there are quite a few un-inappropriate images on the blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikin3 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of those images have been used for vandalism and this was a simple if relatively kludgy way to stop that. The reasons should be noted on the image talk page or the bad image list talk page. Some are there for a set period of time and may not have been removed at the end of that time. Barring some heretofore unknown reason we can probably take post and grant off there. Protonk (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember this one was being used for vandalism in the infobox for another city. That can't be a reason to disallow it though, especially since it's on a stub template! --NE2 15:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Relevant discussion is here. Protonk (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More eyes would be useful

For any admin looking for something else to add to their watchlist, please check out User:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations. This is a bot generated report of possible edit wars and 3RR violations. Each report needs careful examination, as the bot is dumb and makes lots of false positives. But even so, it's a good place to catch revert/edit wars as they are happening. There do not appear to be a lot of admins currently watching the report, and many reports are being archived without admin response, so more eyes there would be helpful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Boy (eLDee album)

Hi. I don't believe this meets the album criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC - the artist seems to be notable, but there is no indication that there is anything notable about this particular album. I've redirected the article to the artists article several times, but each time, the author has changed the page back. To avoid edit warring issues, is there something else I should be doing at this point ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I should say, in their defense, the author has changed the page each time, so it's not just an undo - they seem to be trying to improve the article.... CultureDrone (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you haven't left any messages on the author's talk page, and he hasn't really had time to respond to your comment on the article talk page, I think a WP:AN notice is a little premature. He just created the article yesterday, give him some time to improve it, or at least to respond to your messages. There is no deadline.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice on protecting a policy page

Help me out here guys, I don't want to swing my mop so hard that I hurt someone. See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#False_edit_summary.3F. The phrase people are warring over was added in June or July of 2007, removed in August 2008, and re-added Nov 6 (although generally, people carried on at WP:IFD without noticing that it was ever gone). Revert-warring started Dec 14.

I've read the archives of both WT:PROTECT and WT:RFPP back to 2004, and other than the tiny bit of guidance in WT:Protection_policy/Archive_4#Protection of a policy page in the "wrong version" is an endorsement, I see nothing that helps me understand how page protection issues on policy pages differ from other pages. Clearly there's a difference between trying to force a change in an article and trying to force a change in 2.5 million articles, and a policy page that's wrong or unstable or both is not not a good thing. Although admins are generally not supposed to be making the call which is the "right" version to protect, it seems to me that protecting a policy page in an undiscussed version is likely to be a bad thing even if it's theoretically an improvement. Thoughts? Also, could I get a little leeway concerning "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page ... if they are in any way involved in the dispute"? I've never been involved with this dispute directly, but I've been involved in one way or another in many content policy disputes; on policy pages, it seems to me the standard should be whether the protecting admin seems to have a consistent history of acting in an objective and disinterested way [inserted: plus no involvement in the current dispute 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)], rather than having never expressed an opinion before. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just been alerted to Hammersoft's message at User_talk:DCGeist#Hiya_Dan, which gives a little history. Other links: edit history (note that DocKino has made the same deletion DCGeist has made), and Dan Geist's reply on my talk page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DCGeist is simply removing a sentence he doesn't like from a policy page without consensus, in an attempt to push more non-free content into Wikipedia. Clue needs to be applied here, but I'm not going to do anything more than comment here because I've pitched in on the policy pages before. Black Kite 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but DocKino is also involved in the revert-warring, so I'd appreciate guidance on appropriate use of page protection on policy pages. The best way to get good at this stuff is to ask specific questions, one case at a time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My tendency (not just for this case, but in general - see this from earlier today) would be to not protect the page, but warn the repeatedly warring parties (probably only one editor at the moment in this case) on their talkpages, and block if they continue to edit tendentiously. Black Kite 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I think your confusion on this subject is probably reasonable. I have some dim recollection of a discussion regarding protecting policy pages where the result was that policy pages were to be treated with greater caution than articles. However, taking or advising some action on the basis of that dim recollection is foolish. It may be that nothing in the protection policy stipulates that policy pages are to be treated differently from articles. Indeed, you have given a perfect example as to why policy pages can have the wrong version protected with no ill effects. People quote the policy they remember, not the policy they read. Leaving some BLP vio in a protected, high traffic article probably does some more harm to the project. My advice would be for you to introduce some Stochastic element to this. If neither revision is blatantly wrong (i.e. "NPOV means poop!" and the like are absent), my advice would be to assign heads to one revision and tails to the other, then just flip a coin. Even if you are uninvolved in a dispute, if you took the time to understand that there was edit warring going on, you have familiarized yourself enough for your feelings about the subject to point you toward one revision. Flipping a coin at your computer--while unobservable to someone reviewing your decision--can make you feel more confident you made it impartially. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia screenshot}} is non-free?

Okay, firstly, the website for MediaWiki (which is a Wikimedia project, and therefore may do this) is coming up with an EDP...but they have declared that screenshots of MediaWiki are non-free because the GPL and the GFDL are incompatible, and thus are a license violation and may only be used under fair use. Yet here, we allow them with screenshots of Wikipedia because we all go "oh its all free so we don't care". However...we've deleted collages of CC-BY-SA images that have GFDL images in them on Commons before because of the incompatibility between those two, and someone on the Debian mailing list famously delved through why GFDL and GPL cannot mix.

So...how should we go about this? ViperSnake151 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How much, exactly, is both (A) GPL [i.e. the product of stuff shipped with mediawiki rather than, say, layout/etc of particular pages via markup that falls under the GFDL] and (B) copyrightable in any given screenshot? --Random832 (contribs) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like more stupid copyright paranoia to me, are we worried Brion is going to sue the foundation for violating copyright? Mr.Z-man 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we worried sports teams are going to sue for placing their logos in articles about games against another team? (I have no dog in that fight; just pointing out that lawsuits are not the only thing to consider. By the way, a contributor to the article might also have standing to sue, since it's their GFDL work that's possibly being relicensed under GPL.) --NE2 10:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Just upload it under {{Free screenshot}} with the GPL license argument. The GPL/GFDL incompatibility would mean that we couldn't pull code or text and rework it in the project without mussing with the license. It doesn't prohibit the use of images and screenshots. I don't know whether or not you can show the unfinished globe and still call it a free screenshot. My guess is no. See File:Mozilla Firefox 3.0 in Ubuntu.png, File:Windows Internet Explorer 7 Vista.png, and File:Opera 9.5.png for examples of how to do this. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I thought, the unfinished globe is copyrighted and trademarked. Just don't include that in the picture and you are g2g. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable. GPL/GFDL (soon to be GPL/CC-BY-SA) lack of compatibility is a serious issue but not one I feel we need to consider looking at untill after the GFDL->CC-BY-SA switchover.Geni 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Teo Wei Thai

This seems to be a vanity article about a non-notable person, not fitting for Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although part read like an unsourced negative BLP. Either way, it's gone. Kevin (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism most strange

Hello, please tell me if this is the wrong place for this.

If you view the page Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible when you are not signed in, the phrase "what's up cracker" appears several times. The phrase no longer appears when you are logged in. I've looked at the edit page and I can't find anything wrong there. I'm concerned that if someone can insert vandalism like this and hide it somehow in the edit window, they could do the same thing elsewhere. LovesMacs (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's template vandalism --Chris 09:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would this only affect the way anons see it? Template vandalism should equally affect logged in users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably there was a cache issue. --NE2 12:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with Valery Kobelev!

Resolved

 – Offtopic.

Hi! I need some help with the spelling on Valery Kobelev. And fast, before it runs out of time to get a DYK nomination. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody??, Please. Edit accistance page are so un-active. Thats why i put this here. Please, Help? The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Empire

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, dispute resolution is down the hall on the left Guy (Help!) 20:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am involved in a long-running dispute at Spanish Empire that has been on ice for over a year, but has restarted with a vengeance since the appearance of new user User:EuroHistoryTeacher. I have already filed a Wikiquette alert on this editor, where it was suggested this board might be the right place. Anyway, the issue is the map, whether Portuguese colonies should be shown on a map of the Spanish Empire as the two countries were united from 1580-1640. My view is no, for these reasons [55] but I'm not asking for arbitration on that from this noticeboard. What I am concerned about though is the actions and wikiquette of the "opposing side" this evening. A temporary compromise (show two maps) was holding until User:SamEV took offence at some of my comments [56] and unilaterally "decided" the debate [57]. When I reverted this back to the temporary compromise, he posted (in Spanish) on EuroHistoryTeacher's page [58] essentially encouraging him to put back "their" favoured map ("don't you think both maps are redundant?"), which strikes me as an attempt to tag-team, and a little devious given that they are not conversing in English. An attempt to ask them to wait for external opinion was ignored [59] and then after I placed a "disputed" tag on the map (instead of reverting a third time), that too was immediately removed by EuroHistoryTeacher. So what to do? It feels a little like they are hijacking the article and dispute resolution process.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I'm a long-time contributor to the Empire space (currently working on getting British Empire, which I have spent a great deal of time on, to FA status [60]). I don't mean that this gives me any right or special treatment whatsoever, I just want to show that I'm a serious contributor to the project, and this space in particular. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ps I have let the two editors concerned know that I have posted here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Red Hat of Pat Ferrick says :

"I am involved in a long-running dispute at Spanish Empire that has been on ice for over a year, but has restarted with a vengeance since the appearance of new user User:EuroHistoryTeacher. I have already filed a Wikiquette alert on this editor, where it was suggested this board might be the right place"

Are you kidding me Pat?! yes the article was on ice for over a year, but it was wrong from all angles , from the map to the date of the empire. Its not vengeance don't make yourself look like a victim please ok? you have insulting me and treating me in inferior manners since my first day when you called me a sockpuppet because i apperently took an avid interest on editing the Spanish Empire article (which you know i studied , you haven't). Yes you filled wikitique alerts like twice or once on me but think how many times i could have done the same to YOU?! so many times i forgave your acts of rudeness , so please i ask you don't make yourself look like a victim!

"What I am concerned about though is the actions and wikiquette of the "opposing side" this evening. A temporary compromise (show two maps) was holding until User:SamEV took offence at some of my comments [41] and unilaterally "decided" the debate [42]. When I reverted this back to the temporary compromise, he posted (in Spanish) on EuroHistoryTeacher's page [43] essentially encouraging him to put back "their" favoured map ("don't you think both maps are redundant?"), which strikes me as an attempt to tag-team, and a little devious given that they are not conversing in English."

There is no "opposing side" , just your fellow editors which you like to walk all over Ferrick , you don't treat us as equals even though some users have a deeper insight on Spanish Imperial history than you. THERE WAS NO COMPROMISE!! why do you keep saying this Ferrick?! stop lying! none of us editors who were proposed this idea accepted except you , so why are you saying something about a temporary compromise?! C'mon stop this Ferrick you know there are over 6 users against you yet you want only your point of view to be represented, we have decided to show both opinions yet you are still against it ! that's not fair to most of us! No we have been talking in Spanish SINCE WE MET, not just as of today, stop accusing. About six users have accepted the portuguese colonies in the spanish empire , not just me and SamEV . Tag-team is when there is 2 or 3 editors right? in this case is 6 who some of them have been arguing for a year already for the inclusion of portuguese colonies into the spanish empire. CosialCastellas , Trasamundo , Jan, Durero (admin in spanish wiki who has been accused by Red Hat ferrick as being a sockpuppet!) , SamEV , me among others.

An attempt to ask them to wait for external opinion was ignored and then after I placed a "disputed" tag on the map (instead of reverting a third time), that too was immediately removed by EuroHistoryTeacher. So what to do? It feels a little like they are hijacking the article and dispute resolution process

We "ignored" outside opinion because your arguements are not valid according to wiki policies like no sophistry, etc. The TAG YOU KNOW WHY IT WAS REMOVED ! why do you constantly twist things?! the info is 100% accurate and you know it so that TAG has nothing to do there . We are trying to fix the article from anglocentric bias , not "hijacking" it .

You are not a victim stop crying wolf Ferrick, Greetings to all--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not the 'decider'. I expressed my humble opinion, which EuroHistoryTeacher accepted. It happens to also be supported by Cosialscostells, though he'd still like further changes. This is a good old fashioned content dispute, and I see no reason for Pat to resort to this board.

And I spoke openly on the article's talk page about the one map: Talk:Spanish Empire#One map. As to his amazing insinuation that speaking Spanish is somehow sinister... well, the less said about such nonsense the better.

I also note further proof against his charges - which he himself provides in his diffs! Even in the one wherein I removed the first map as redundant ([61]), I expressed my support for the two-map compromise. But Pat then took offense over my request that he stop: 1) repeating his age-old minimalist position, 2) quoting inapplicable policy (UNDUE and UNCIVIL). It escalated from there because he just would not stop. I requested a cooldown; Pat responded with taunts, saying I should "calm down", take a tea break, come back tomorrow.[62], [63]

I'd been perfectly willing to do my part to accomodate his concerns. I believe there is more than one right solution to this dispute, and that in such cases, it is proper for one's attitude toward the other side to figure into one's decision. I was thus willing to accept a compromise (which, as EuroHistoryTeacher has pointed out, had not earned general acceptance [yet]) that I thought inferior to other solutions, for Pat's sake. But after he turned negative, I felt no need to do that any more.

I also point out that the current map is one whose boundaries were duly sourced and which he finds acceptable. His opposition to the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire is addressed with a disclaimer caption that he himself signed off on. SamEV (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

SamEV misrepresents my position. I can elaborate if needed, but the point of my post is not to drag the issue here. It is to seek outside help to get the resolution of this dispute back on the right track. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• You want dispute resolution, not admins. We're rather more likely to use protection and blocks to stop the edit war at the wrong version, which is rarely what complainants want. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here an admin on it:?

If ther eare any itWP admins reading, can they ping me on my talk page please. There is a problem with it:Fusione nucleare fredda, which repeats much of the misinformation and bad linking noted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion (including the massive red flag of linking to the editorialised copy of the 2004 DoE review on lenr-canr.org instead of to the original). Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get ahold of an it: admin, I'd recommend posting at their embassy. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD automatic dropdown broken

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:VPR#Remove default 'content was:...' and 'only contributor was:...' from deletion summary → WT:CSD#What happened to autofill?

The script in Sysop.js that automatically selects the correct CSD reason appears to have been broken by a revision to the MediaWiki software. It appears that the wpReason field is no longer automatically filled out with a clip of the article to be deleted, so the automatic detection doesn't work. Can somebody more familiar with the MediaWiki releases confirm that something changed? And then perhaps fix it/file a bug report? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to comment on this - there was a discussion earlier about changing the field to default to "blank" when deleting an article to avoid article text such as copyvio or BLP violations ending up in the deletion log. Perhaps that change has inadvertently overridden the CSD script? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have the automatic summary back. After getting used to it I find it time consuming to choose the correct option each time. --Tone 13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look up the discussion later when I have some time (or if someone knows where it is....). The immediate question is what was changed to allow for the "blank" - was it something requiring the filing of a bug or merely a change in something in the Mediawiki: namespace? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I too would prefer to keep the default deletion reason. There are quite a few previous discussions, the main ones being Wikipedia:VPR#Remove default 'content was:...' and 'only contributor was:...' from deletion summary and MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js/Admin opinion. The relevant pages are MediaWiki:Excontent and MediaWiki:Excontentauthor. Any current bugs are likely to be in MediaWiki:Sysop.js. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That was not supposed to prevent the automatic csd selection, only the 'content was' and 'only contributor was'. We had to request a bug to allow a message to be blanked with '-'. Cenarium (Talk) 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You know that if you click on "deletion" from the line "check links, history and logs before deletion" you get a prefilled deletion summary and always have? Perhaps we should make that link more prominent. Or someone could rewrite the sysop.js code to look for that link on a page and replace the link in the "delete" tab with it if it exists? Happy‑melon 18:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I very much liked having the automatic reason filled in (U1, A7, G9, etc.), and would like to see it back as well. --Elonka 18:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been using that link so much these days I didn't notice the prefill broke. But anyways, I much prefer Happymelon's suggestion of changing Sysop.js instead of simply readding in the prefilled summaries. Often the "deletion" link in the templates contains more information in the summary than the tab, especially for CSD tags which require parameters (I1, G12, etc.). Of course, standardizing the wording between the text from the link and from the dropdown menu would also be nice, but that's neither here nor there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice there was a link in the template, so obviously I've never used it. My usual method for deleting is to read the article, check the history to see if something wasn't overwritten or another CSD applies instead of the listed one, and then click the delete tab, so I miss the automatic selection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed that link either. My general routine is to check the page history, then use Popups to quickly scan the contribs of the page creator to see if there's some other trail of messes to cleanup, and then I click the "Delete" tab. Also, in case it's useful to anyone, I obtain my list of articles to delete from User:Elonka/Watchlist, which shows me several candidates sorted by category, so I can choose if I want to do "hard" deletions that day, or easy ones. It also gives me a quick indication of whether there are other admin backlogs which might need more attention than CSD. I'm curious though about what kinds of systems that other admins use, to work through CSD? --Elonka 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is quite useful, I suppose. My usual sequence of clicks is something like opening several articles in question in tabs, chech each (click to history...), and then delete all that are to be deleted in a row. So the summary directly from the delete button not from the template, does come handy since it means less clicking. Besides, the prod templates do not have such link and this is really unpractical with the auto text missing now. --Tone 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, {{dated prod}} does have a "delete" link on the template once the five day time limit is up - it's at the end of the suggested deletion summary (following the timestamp notice) and will automatically use that summary. I agree with the others that having the deletion available from the "delete" button would be quite useful - I also usually delete the article when viewing the article history. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• What is holding up the restoration of automatic dropdown? Isn't there a consensus to bring it back? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we have consensus here. Perhaps people aren't sure how to bring it back? I've been looking at MediaWiki:Sysop.js and while I'm sure I can figure it out eventually, I don't really know enough about javascript to even tell if the problem is there - let alone how to fix it - without looking at it for a while. I've dropped a note over at User talk:Random832 since he's listed as a maintainer of Sysop.js. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This has happened before - I think I've figured out a way to fix it (load the source code in a frame), but this will require more network overhead for every time the delete button is pressed - a more lightweight solution would be to have the developers change the delete form to include part of the page's source somewhere on the page (not necessarily in a textbox). --Random832 (contribs) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We get a thousands of deletions per day, yes? That seems relatively small, compared to the mass of traffic on the site. And anything which reduces the workload on administrators, especially for routine tasks, is a good thing. Speaking for myself, since the dropdown problem started, I've found that it increases the time that it takes for me to deal with deletions, by a factor of 2 or 3. I often have to backtrack to see the deletion reason, I have to click and choose on the menu, etc. None of which are a huge deal for any one article, but when dealing with dozens or scores of deletions each day, it adds up. I'd like to see whatever can be done to get this dropdown problem fixed as soon as possible. --Elonka 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who desperately needs it before Sysop.js is updated (if you feel the need to attack C:SD), I put together a small script at User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/csdcheck.js that updates the drop down based on the presence of a CSD tag. It uses the same regexes as the existing one, so will get it right whenever that one would have done, and uses ajax to grab the contents of the page in question. It does it almost instantly on my pc, so should be fast enough for general use. You need to set csdCheckEnable to true in your monobook.js and include the file if you want to use it. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to be blocking a redirect

Resolved

 – User:JzG created the redirect. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone who is or seems to be Wikipedia is blocking my creation of the redirect page "BBC Home Computer" which I wanted to link to "BBC Micro", and is citing some thing about "vandalism" as the reason for it. Thank you for your time--Young cat old school (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? I'm not seeing any reason why BBC Home Computer couldn't be created - and I'm not seeing any deleted edits either there or under "deleted contributions" for you. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban of Naamloos31 (talk · contribs)

I propose a ban for the user Naamloos31 (talk · contribs). The user has been consistently vandalising the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article, including after a number of requests not to on his talk page. on 10 December 2008 he was given his last warning, which can be seen here. Some offending vandalism edits can be seen here and here, where he adds unsourced information. - Diggiloo (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this kind of stuff, but I think a block would be more appropriate. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. It's the subtle fact-changers that get me, more than the silly little kids. GJC 21:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize that Naamloos31 was a vandalism-only account. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way: I didn't see any GOOD edits...GJC 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• If a block doesn't work, the article can be protected. It's not like much editing of the article is required for another year. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding creators blanking articles they created

Hello. I noticed that during my new page patrol work that some creators blank their pages shortly after being tagged. We normally say that the author wants it deleted in good faith, but in most cases, it seems that they are trying to "save" the articles by removing the tags. They don't seem to understand that when they blank the page, we think they are asking it to be deleted. It seems that the majority of cases (not all) are removing csd-tags instead of good faith edits. So, how can we resolve this (BTW, I placed this here because I don't know where this belongs) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has a general difficulty in explaining things to newcomers. It's awfully unfortunate. I don't think anything can be done apart from someone placing a message on their talk explaining this. I guess a template can be made to be placed on their talk page along with a welcome template. But there is very little we can do, on the whole. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The creator or a page doesn't own it in any way. If the content is realistically something that makes a sensible article, or could be the foundation of one, the blanking should be reverted imho. If it was actually something more akin to a test page then just complete the deletion process as a speedy. --AlisonW (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Scarian. A few months ago, I had a new user creating a perfectly good article with {{db-g7}} already on the top. After deleting the article twice, then removing the tag and being reverted twice, I finally got from the user that they thought that it said "user requests no deletion". But it took some getting out of them and a lot of bouncy-happy-smiley messages from me to convince them that we weren't out to get them. Unavoidable, sadly. AlisonW, I see what you're saying, but reverting a blanking often leads to a revert war as the user blanks and reblanks the article; and in this case, Narutolovehinata5's point is that such an article has already been tagged for speedy deletion by someone else. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 10:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm failing to understand how an attempt to remove a tag would result in deleting the entire article... Also, doesn't the tag specifically state that it shouldn't be removed but that hold on tags should be used instead? I know Wikipedia is complicated, but reading instructions when they're served to you on a silver platter avoids a lot of problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Newbies don't read instructions, and the nature of a wiki is that they don't have to. What Naruto is saying, I believe, is that newbies create Thigs what is better about XP than is Vista, it gets tagged for deletion and they blank the page as a method of removing the tag, then we come along and delete the page because it's G7. The point is probably moot, since we were going to delete the page anyway, but I can see what Naruto is saying. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 10:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true enough, given how wikis are and the way most folks behave on the Internet, many newbies only/barely skim-read article tags, often misunderstand them and understandably don't have a clue they have anything to do with a written policy, encyclopedias or whatever. I've seen many new users who, because they didn't even bother to read a prod tag beyond the word deletion, didn't know they could remove it themselves. A new user's experience here is most often driven by a happenstance mix of their own personality and goals, background, clue, language and reading skills, the topics they edit and who they run into, even how their mind's eye sees things on a screen or how easily they take to computers and the browser interfaces we have these days. As for articles tagged G7, it only gobbles up a few seconds to look at the article history to see if helpful content might be mistakenly or otherwise deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I always took it to mean that it was a likely candidate for the CSD gun, but if it was good stuff or potentially good stuff, as Alison says, it stayed. The actual author, from the first submit of text content in particular (I've seen on projects a bit more slack on some image use) was fair game for permanent retention, as it should be. rootology (C)(T) 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups

Hi, I'm sysop on french WP. I have translated this script in french, but recently the namespace Special has been rename in Spécial on :fr. Now some functions don't work with this namespace. Can you change Special into Spécial on line 4952 of this script (section function setNamespaceList()):

"fr": [m, "Special", "Discuter", "Utilisateur", "Discussion Utilisateur", "Wikipédia", "Discussion Wikipédia", "Image", "Discussion Image", "MediaWiki", "Discussion MediaWiki", "Modèle", "Discussion Modèle", "Aide", "Discussion Aide", "Catégorie", "Discussion Catégorie", "Portail", "Discussion Portail"],

I think this simple change can correct the problem on :fr. If someone think there are others changes to do, thanks for making these. The same problem maybe affect other wikipedia. You can contact me here for questions. Excuse me for "french" english . Thanks Leag (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Leag (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help from admin

Resolved

Could an admin please fix my huggle.css page so huggle will work?--Ipatrol (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Never mind.--Ipatrol (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In future, if you encounter problems with Huggle, you should ask at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. Regards SoWhy 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Valery Kobelev removed from DYK

Why is Valery Kobelev gone from DYK? I can't find anything in the history that says why. So Why? The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at WT:DYK, not here. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_11 --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a pretty good idea, actually. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "gone". Looks like the Valery hook has been promoted, and now is enqueued (see T:DYK/Q1, or if it has already been updated, this diff). That means that it should automatically be transferred over to the main page within the next 5 updates (within a day and a half). They've changed the DYK process since last I was volunteering over there, so hopefully I got all that right.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Person Tag for "Religion" Has Inappropriate Display Label

Resolved

 – Wrong venue Guy (Help!) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When defining a person's religion in a person infobox, the display label for the "religion" tag gets displayed as "Religious beliefs." My proposal is that the label should simply be: "Religion."

Religions have various approaches to the role that "belief" plays. In addition, religions have different approaches to the importance of belief in whether one can consider oneself an adherent to that group.

For instance, in Judaism, belief plays a relatively minor role in defining your membership to the group. Even when converting to Judaism, the role of the converts beliefs is not a central part in the process. In Christianity it would seem that belief is relatively more important in determining one's status in the group.

I would argue that Wikipedia's current approach in this matter is skewed toward a Christian paradigm of what it means to be a member of a particular religion. That, of course, then breaks Wikipedia's NPOV approach.

To reiterate, I am proposing that the display label used for the "religion" tag in an infobox for a person be changed from "Religious beliefs" to "Religion."

Sam* (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a matter for admins. Raise it on the talk page and if there is consensus then use {{editprotected}}. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear... are you saying I should raise this on the talk page of a specific article where I have the problem? Are not the tag name -> display name relationships for infoboxes defined somewhere generically? Sam* (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go to the infobox's talk page, i.e. Template talk:Infobox Person.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC on fair use policy

An RfC has been filed regarding an application of fair use policy. The RfC may be found at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RFC:_Use_of_logos_on_sports_team_pages. It was requested after lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem. At the core of the argument; should sport team logos be permitted to be used for identification purposes on articles other than the team's main article, such as seasons, rivalries or specific games. Your participation is welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Fvw

Resolved

 – Issue is adequately covered by WP:ROUGE. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fvw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Fvw deleted [64] open afd nomination without any explanation, contrary to WP:Deletion policy. This is WP:Disruptive editing at least, if not WP:Vandalism.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the AFD nomination he removed doesn't exist. The article hasn't been deleted. \ / (⁂ | ※) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The afd nomination itself was also deleted by User:Fvw.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the AFD nomination seemed beyond reason, since the article seems to in no way meet any known deletion criteria at all. This was a WP:SNOW-keep before it even started... I see no disruption OR vandalism on fvw's part. A tad bit of WP:IAR, but I can't say that letting the AFD run would have resulted in any chance of this article being deleted. As such, there was no point to leaving the AFD around. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The nomination, as made, is problematic - it seems to imply that books not published in English are inherently non-notable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the AFD page should be deleted, as opposed to closing it as speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't either. WP:SK gives one condition where the AfD itself may be deleted, where it is made by a banned user with no other good faith contributors. I seem to remember there being some nugget of policy/howto out there that said "wrong forum" deletion discussions could be deleted, but I can't find it now and can't imagine why it would be worth the bother. There is no "disruption or vandalism" but there is also no good reason to delete the AfD. Does Fvw know this thread is going on? Protonk (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If DonaldDuck is intent on immortalising his foolishness by insisting the page remain, who are we to stop him? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. If we must adhere strictly to policy, drag fvw in on charges of zOMGADMINABUSEDESYSOPNOW! over something as minor as whether deletion or immediately closing with a note of "speedy close" it seems moot. The end result is the same, and I see no reason to waste more of our lives deciding which method of killing the obviously bogus AFD we wish to use. What is the real point of undeleting an essentially blank AFD only to note, on the blank AFD, that "This AFD is to remain blank". Think about it. We are all under a general agreement that the deleted AFD was bogus; is there any inherent reason to restore it really?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any "admin abuse" at all. Your summary above covered it. The deletion nomination was seen to be extremely pointy, Fvw closed it, deleted it and warned the user who created it. There is no rule that says he should do that, but it wasn't an abuse of power. I'm just pointing out that all things considered, a nomination that is made to make a point (in the eyes of some) is better left closed or unaltered. There probably isn't too much of a benefit to wikipedia for us to restore the AfD only to close it again. However it is fair to say that Fvw shouldn't make a habit of this. That's all. Protonk (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Who do I notify? If anyone?

Resolved

 – Mgm seems to have done the needful. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done about things like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=mmub0CO1ZOEC. This book is just wikipedia articles copied by an author and published under his own name. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lulu.com is a vanity press, so there is no publisher to "fire" the author. If the book doesn't list the source (Wikipedia) you can retain a lawyer and ask them nicely to acknowledge the source (I mean that literally, not euphemistically) per the GFDL. If they don't do that you can sue them (well, I'm not sure who would have standing, IANAL). Not sure where the midpoint is. Protonk (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is. Violating our license agreement also means they violate Lulu's rules on copyright. If the author gets reported his account can get suspended and perhaps any money earned can be reclaimed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and I'm not sure if there is a "circular references" blacklist somewhere, but if there is this should go on it. Maybe try the Village Pump? Protonk (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirror#Non-compliance_process for some guidance. John Reaves 09:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• A vanity press makes the author shell out thousands of dollars before they ever see a book in print. Lulu only asks a part of the sales revenue on each sale unless you choose to buy additional services (which are entirely optional), so it's self-publishing rather than vanity publishing; there's an important difference that make experts like Writer Beware and real literary agents recommend the place (disclosure, I've been attached to Lulu as a volunteer in the past, but I still have contacts even though my activity there has gone down). I'll drop them a note. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've sent them a copyright violation notice. I should be informed of their investigation results soon. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to have the third-party vendors (B&N, Amazon) delist the book pending the outcome of the investigation? caknuck _° is geared up for football season 18:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Afraid not. Otherwise vandals and hecklers could wreak havoc by making false accusations to have books delisted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• I received the following message: "Thank you for the detailed explanation and sources. We have contacted the publisher and informed him of the violation. If a change is not made by January 9th, the item will be permanently removed from Lulu.com." - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific journal wants authors to add Wikipedia articles.

See the journals new submission guidelines. Given the previous problems we've had with large-scale attempts by other organizations to add in new articles and the history of having issues since Wikipedia doesn't function very much like academia this has me slightly worried. I think it would be helpful if we got together a bunch of long-term editors possibly admins and volunteered to the journal to be willing to help out any scientists who are doing this. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a Wikiproject for doing precisely this sort of thing, here. // roux   02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

there is a bunch of chatter about this on the mailing list.Geni 02:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)Hm....the journal does ask that the articles be placed in the userspace until the article itself is published (to satisfy WP:RS); they also do a fair job of illustrating how to create the article. Of course that doesn't mean the people writing the articles will be familiar with our other policies. Still, it would be nice to have more academics who know how/don't mind writing Wikipedia articles. I'd be happy to volunteer to help a few of them get settled on Wikipedia, though I'm afraid I can only help with the generic (e.g. non-science-related) aspects of it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case someone may want to contact the journal and let them know that we have such volunteers. I'd be willing to help out also. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly familiar with academia, and fairly fluently tongued in Wikipedish. As such, I'd be interesting in assisting this effort, should it materialize. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone have an objection to an IAR creation of said Wikiproject (at least to provide us with a central point to help coordinate assisting the journal)? I am obviously biased in favour of creation, which is why I'm asking. // roux   05:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a Good Thing(tm) and we should extend every effort to help them along. If we're there to hold their hand this has the potential to be one very great net positive for the encyclopedia; if there are rules in the way then we need to fix those rules, IMO. — Coren ^(talk) 13:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go quite that far...but if someone wanted to be bold and create the project I don't think anyone would mind - just remember to post the link here! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They already have a WikiProject - Wikipedia:WikiProject RNA. Further, this wikiproject iss associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. --Aude (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood above, but I was under the impression that Roux was suggesting the creation of a "let's introduce academics to Wikipedia"-type project rather than a content-specific project. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's more along the lines of "Let's find really great potential contributors and help bring them onboard." Academics would be just one example. I should have the bones of the project page up within an hour or two. // roux   17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, on the whole. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• All interested, please see WP:OUTREACH. I've only just created the skeleton of the page; perhaps we could start discussions on the talkpage based on what I outlined as what I think the goals should be. Add more! Critique! Etc! // roux   20:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What happens if a banned editor wants to publish in that journal? --NE2 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a great idea. Academics have access to and familiarity with reliable sources that the general population does not, and thus are potentially GREAT additions to the Wikipedia family, if they can be taught to use the system we have, then we stand to benefit greatly from having an easier method from introducing academics to Wikipedia! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. Encouraging academics to contribute is super, but using Wikipedia as an adjunct to journal publication has a potential to raise serious COI and WP:OWN issues. Looie496 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Which we will happily nip in the bud :) // roux   21:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, if they can be trained to understand the Wikipedia system, then having academics around is a Good Thing(tm). However, I never said anything about affording them prileged status. As long as an individual is willing to work within established frameworks of behavior, professional academics can be a major PLUS to Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

← FYI, there has been some discussion about this toward the bottom of the Medicine WikiProject talk page, where many of the same pros and cons have been voiced. MastCell ^Talk 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Folks, I'm one of the editors of the journal in question. We'd certainly appreciate the assistance of any of you Wikipedian gurus. In the guidelines I tried to give pointers to the most glaring Wikipedia policies that I knew about. If you find anything I've missed that really should be there then please let me know and we'll get it fixed asap. The academic community seems to be getting excited about contributing. We're pretty sure WP:COI and WP:OWN wont be a problem, if it does I think we'd need to address it on a case-by-case basis. --Paul (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock cleanup please

I've just nabbed a fairly obvious sock of Codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Codyfinkerosettastone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and am wondering what to do with the user's contribs. I don't know the whole story behind this guy, but know that he's been a long-term problem; however, some of the edits here look okay, and I'm not sure what our current policy is with regards to rolling back banned editors. Could someone take a look, and give me a sense of what to do there? Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:

• Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

Your feedback is appreciated. rootology (C)(T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User: Pé de Chinelo. requesting immediate block

(also posted on incidents page, not sure where to post, sorry.)

Dear Admins. Pé de Chinelo is currently undergoing an RfC ([65]), of which he is fully aware (as he has been editing specific sections of talk pages with warnings to him about it - in the section) and is refusing to comment on the RfC. He has been reminded numerous times but is still making disruptive edits (all listed on the RfC), including blatant POV-pushing, edit warring and even edits bordering on racism, some happening as recently as today - almost 3 weeks after the RfC was opened. It doesn't look as if he is going to change, and I feel that for now, and unless he explains his edits and says he'll stop, he should be banned from editing articles until the end of the complaint/RfC etc process, maybe further.chocobogamer mine 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The RfC page is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pé de Chinelo. The user has not responded at all to the RfC and instead has continued in POV-pushing, edit-warring, and vandalism. The user has also been notified multiple times of his behavior on his User talk:Pé de Chinelo. I think it is time to discuss a ban on this user, as he clearly shows that he will not take any sort of advice from any other user. MuZemike (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicholsy = Trouble

As you are aware, before i started spending time on wikipedia, i spent a lot of time on Smallville wiki. There i met disruptive user: Nicholsy. For several months he destroyed the wiki. Untill i accused him of being a vandal, ever since then whenever he would be blocked (which was a lot, look at his block list), he would blame me. So now he's followed me to wikipedia, and today he left this on my talk page. Dave did a lot of horrible things (see contributions and i've listed on User:Bignole's talk page.) on Smallville wiki, and now i think he plans to do it here. Elbutler (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on what happens on other websites or as to whether this is actually the same user, but the message on your talk page was pure harassment and spite, so I've indef blocked Nicholsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) right off as that won't do at all. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but if any users or IPs show up as Saffron1992 or 92.8.157.86, block them, they're sockpuppets of Nicholsy, this was proven on Smallville wiki. Elbutler (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid I can't speak for off-wiki actions nor take action based upon them; however, if you were to receive that type of nasty message again from any other new user, or present a pattern of harassment, I'd be inclined to block immediately again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 13:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Elbutler's taunt on Nicholsy's Talk page doesn't seem appropriate. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, that's uncool in the extreme. I've left a note. // roux   00:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Phone number on Breaking Dawn

Resolved

Hello, I just reverted a vandal who put someone's phone number in the article. Do you think that should be deleted for privacy reasons? Thanks. LovesMacs (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done And a email has been sent to oversight. Tiptoety ^talk 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, Wikipedia is not a directory. Phone numbers should be removed on sight. Kingturtle (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that "Wikipedia is not a directory" covers this issue. I also don't understand why "phone directory" is something they actually mention there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the place to report an admitted soapbox editor?

Jed Rothwell has been posting a lot of text on the cold fusion discussion page, and recently said this: "My decision not to edit the article is final. .... While I would not touch this article, I enjoy bothering skeptics from time to time, until you throw me out again. From time to time someone should let the "skeptics" know how the researchers feel, and that you are not fooling everyone." [66] He seems to be saying that he has no intention of improving the wikipedia article, so I said, "Jed Rothwell, if are not trying to improve an article, the honorable thing to do is to stop posting on talk pages." [67] In response, he said this:[68]. Should something be done about this admitted use of wikipedia as a soapbox? Olorinish (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, the dictum that "no one who posts their credentials in their signature is to be taken very seriously" seems to hold true. Has he been informed that you started this thread? My suggestion is that we shouldn't roust editors from specific topic areas unless they are being actively disruptive. In his case he should be welcome to edit the talk page (why doesn't he edit the article?) so long as he can separate content from contributors, respect consensus and make it a better place generally. If he continues to be obstructionist for the sake of it, you can move along the dispute resolution pathway to get him to leave. I'll take a closer look at most of the contributions, but right now I'd want to move slowly lest we stir the up this perennial hornet's nest.
• As for the "right place", AN/I might be better, but so long as you are here, I don't see a reason to move the thread. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well he seems to be using a dynamic IP so there's not much we can do. Maybe just revert his comments when they show up? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ahh, nuts. didn't look close enough. This is Jed Rothwell, who 'vanished' and returned and has some record of being difficult on these articles. A review of his talk page shows some previous collaboration w/ Pcarbon and numerous civility issues. And I've looked closer at the various responses he's given to polite prodding. My vote is semi the talk page and move along. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, I've requested semi-protection, which will hopefully stop the disruption or at least force him to use his account again. Verbal chat 11:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think that a topic ban for Jed Rothwell would be entirely uncontroversial, since he is infinitely worse than Pcarbonn, who is topic banned. In fact, I thought we already had banned Rothwell as a disruptive spamming POV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The request for semiprotection was denied. [69] Is it OK if we just delete all future messages identifiable as Jed's? Olorinish (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. A textbook case for WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely. User's edits are a complete waste of time. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

Proposed community ban of User:Fru23/User:KingsOfHearts

Resolved

 – Serial sockpuppetry means it's unlikely any admin will unblock, which is the definition of a ban. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has recently been an ANI thread on Fru23 to propose a topic ban where the editor was tendentiously editing and making WP:POINTs. which resulted in a checkuser (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts) revealing several socks. Following a continuing trend of making socks and sleepers, there's emerging support for a community ban. As such, I'm proposing it here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - of course. But sockpuppetry basically results in a community ban anyway, so is this necessary? // roux   02:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• It depends on the nature of the socking, it's not an automatic perma-punt. rootology (C)(T) 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I should have added 'abusive' in there for guaranteed puntitude. Puntery. I'm going to have to use the word 'punt' more. Punt punt punt. Love that word. // roux   05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fru23 just asked me on IRC to endorse this, saying "if it goes through faster their [sic] is less chance some other people go and write long complaints" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• endorse User has exhausted community patience. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Further Comment Fru23 also told me that KingsOfHearts is his brother. Having not been involved in case, I'm not sure whether to believe this or not (see this). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This was claimed on the ANI thread earlier. This was found to be not a credible claim. See Wikipedia:ANI#IRC_transcript and Wikipedia:ANI#Just_when_you_thought_it_was_over. This aside from the fact that the checkuser found additional socks. The checkuser also stated that it looks like they are editing from a group of computers that are nearly identically configured like one would find in a cluster or office. The notion that these are edits made by him and his brother is just hard to believe. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• endorse rootology (C)(T) 02:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse not because he asked me to (I would have endorsed either way), but because he's flat out lying to us about some of the socks. The evidence really isn't in his favor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong endorse - Nothing I can say that hasn't already been covered ad infinitum at WP:ANI. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse (Insert obligatory "Worst Person in the World" segment) -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 05:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse although it would be nice, though not required, to find out what "Fru23" stands for (a way of saying "fruit tree"?) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note Seeing as how there's consensus for a formal ban, I've added KoH to the list of banned users. ([70]) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Do we mark both accounts as {{Banned user}} in this case? Or do we just leave this as a de facto ban as the {{resolved}} above would suggest? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Went ahead and boldly added it, remove if inappropriate. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete function question

Something I've always wondered about the Delete function (not specific to en.wp), and I'm wondering if this should be changed on MediaWiki or if there's a good reason for it. An example delete log from my Commons userpage:

• 02:10, December 19, 2008 Rootology (Talk | contribs | block) restored "User:Rootology" ‎ (76 revisions restored: all set)
• 02:10, December 19, 2008 Rootology (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Rootology" ‎ (just testing something, restoring in a moment)

On the initial delete, why doesn't it list the number of revisions deleted? It's the same apparently on all our sites. rootology (C)(T) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you can do a selective restore, but not a selective delete. --Carnildo (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You can, it's just not enabled yet :) ^demon (talk)

O rly? Was there a discussion on meta yet to get that ball rolling? rootology (C)(T) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• It should be. Selectively deleting an edit puts a lot less strain on the server than fully deleting and doing a selective restoration on edits you can't even properly scroll through anymore. Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Lar and User:Tznkai are leading the effort to write a proposal on the topic. There is also a Bugzilla open on it. MBisanz ^talk 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll ping one of them for an update. rootology (C)(T) 14:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This will be so helpful when it shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this wouldn't be a uniformly positive idea. So I'm hoping this would just be a quick trip to the VP, a nice little straw poll and bob's your uncle... isn't that how everything usually goes here? :) Tznkai wanted to check on some technical thing or another first though. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For more information about RevisionDelete, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&diff=prev&oldid=1311615. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to get someone's online store site removed from a number of articles and blacklisted?

Just spotted an attempt to add a link to tulumba.com and then found a slew of articles with links to this store [71] - is there a fast way to deal with it and make sure it can't happena again? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Either report it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, or find Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all references to the site in articles. Kingturtle (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I initially blacklisted it - but quickly got a request from a long-term regular editor to add it to the whitelist for one article.. which suggests that it may indeed have some legit purpose.. I have removed it from the blacklist & placed it on XLinkBot's revert list instead. --Versageek 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that it cerlooks like spam. It's not clear what legitimate purpose is served by linking to an online marketplace like that. Still, let's wait and see. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The website in question sells Turkish music albums, among other things, and some pages list it as the source for images that were uploaded of the album covers with fair use rationale. Other pages link to it to prove that certain musicians have albums produced to meet notability requirements. Any link going to the store itself should never make it into article space. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In two cases, it was appropriate to show the product aci biber, which we had no illustration of, and to provide audio samples for the yayli tanbur. These are both highly esoteric subjects and the links provide real-life examples for our users. Badagnani (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those meet WP:EL rules -- we certainly have no overriding reason to link to music samples or images in general, and especially not when the links go to commercial sites that have been massively spammed to the encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Some comment on this might be helpful, as the two editors above are back-and-forthing, withutmuch constructive discussion. Best to nip this in the bud. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, please stop following me around making inaccurate summaries of my edits. The constructive discussion was on this page. The fact that multiple editors declared it spam was already mentioned. A quick look at WP:EL makes it blindingly obvious that the links did not even come close to meeting our criteria. You have a history of personal conflict with me, with outright harassment and many cases of false accusations, so it'd really be best if you from now on refrained from making any comments about my actions on articles you have not been involved in editing, but most especially when they are not accurate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We must keep our users foremost in our minds, and insisting on removing the only link that actually shows this food is not helpful to them. Hyperaggressive edit warring is similarly un-Wikipedian and common sense must be utilized as a key function of our project at all times. The implication that I would spam WP is outrageous and I would like it retracted immediately. I clearly stated that these two pages seem to be the only exceptions I could find to the block of the external site, the necessity of which I am still unsure. Badagnani (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I must be looking at the wrong article; you're edit warring at aci biber (redirect to Biber salçası) over a link to a standard "buy now" commercial product page so that "our users" can see a picture of a can? Of the thousands of images of the biber salçası dish on the internet, that's what you felt was most illustrative of it? Really? I've substituted a nice blog entry with several photos of the actual food; I doubt this adheres to WP:EL either, but it's slightly less silly. Kuru ^talk 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming even more outrageous. Rather than an apology and restoration of the link, I am now being impugned as a spammer? Kindly restore the blanked link, which shows this product as it is found in real life--mainly only in Turkey, which most of our users have probably never seen. Our users must be paramount in our minds at all times, and common sense must be exerted in preference to proving a WP:POINT. Badagnani (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to locate where I've called you a spammer; perhaps you could stop with the indignation and participate in the discussion of the link? I've asked you here and on the article's talk page - do you really feel that the best image of biber salçası is a picture of a can on a vendor's site, or of the actual food product? Kuru ^talk 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sane editors would ask: Why LINK to other sites (especially online stores) for "images" when you can simply upload a image of one and either release it under a CC/GNU/PD license, or use Fair Use Rationale? The demand that it be added back doesn't speak well of your motives, Badagnani, which are either misguided, WP:POINT/WP:OWNy or promotive. Here's a image I found on google when searching for it, I'm not a expert on Turkish foods, so can someone verify it is the food in question, and if it is, upload it with a fair use rationale. [72]ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is outrageous!!! I am again, as one of the project's most productive and sincere editors, one who is absolutely dedicated to the proper and encyclopedic documentation of global foods, being attacked as a spammer??? I ask that this be retracted immediately! Is this a form of WP:TROLLing? If so, you did a very good job. I obviously made the link because no free images were available. Common sense should guide everything we do here, in favor of "teaching other editors a lesson" through WP:POINTy blanking such as this. Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really WP:AGF there to others, eh? I removed it because I uploaded a image under Fair Use (although it might get removed, not sure), and because the link doesn't establish notability for being there, I didn't troll, if you look at my history, you will see that I'm a average editor with 10003500+ edits, not a newbie, or IP vandal intent on trolling, so please stop with the accusatory wording. I never said you were a spammer. Oh, and I didn't blank the page, its content dispute, and please don't misuse warning templates as you did to my talk page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Said user appears to be verging on violating WP:OWN, I've noticed behavior like that on two articles so far, whereas Badagnani has accused others of WP:POINT despite no previous involvement. I've added a general not on his/her talk page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Creation protection as a pre-emptive measure

Hey all. Referring to this request for page protection I have to ask whether it's reasonable and okay to use creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, if the pages that should get protected are grawp targets. At first I declined that request, as our policy clearly states that creation protection may not be used as a pre-emptive measure, but only in response to actual events. However User:SWik78 left this comment a bit later. Whilst I think that User:SWik78's rationale is quite reasonable, I don't feel comfortable acting “against” the policy, at least not before having achieved a consensus here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 19:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who protected the page. As you can see from recent ones like њ.а.6.6ея ? and .њ.а.6.6.ея?, which were create protected immediately, its become standard to do so, or at least that was the impression I was under, and this one should have been--Jac16888 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I just pointed out here I left this comment here at the noticeboard before I noticed that the request was done already. However, I think we should find a general course of action for requests like this for the future. — Aitias // discussion 19:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What about using common sense? Majorly ^talk 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what about staying civil and beeing a bit more polite? I emphasised it more than enough in my comment above that I consider it to be reasonable to protect here. However, what is wrong with asking for some different opinions to be on the safe side? — Aitias // discussion 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I wasn't civil or impolite, by the way. I seriously think you should use common sense over policy. When will that particular article ever need to be created? Why have the risk? Majorly ^talk 23:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, Majorly, I completely agree regarding the protection. However, I still don't see what was wrong with asking here in order to be on the safe side. — Aitias // discussion 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying it was wrong to ask here... Majorly ^talk 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Using &action=protect is silly. Use the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist which allows for things like regex and such. Protecting individual page title variations is like pissing in the ocean. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

People who have no wish of learning how to use the complex regex there will want a simple way to protect a page. Please explain the disadvantages of protecting the page. Majorly ^talk 23:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there's almost an infinite amount of possible combinations of punctuations and characters that look like H, A, G, E, and R. Using the title blacklist, thousands or millions of combinations can be protected with one line, protecting one page is basically pointless. Normal protection is fine for protecting pages that are expected to be recreated soon, but in this case, it serves no purpose. It will not slow down page move vandalism at all. Its a pointless addition to the database. Mr.Z-man 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How would you have decided on that request for page protection, Mr.Z-man? — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

...I'm still not seeing what negatives there are in protecting the page. If someone came along and presented a big list, perhaps I'd be less inclined to disagree, but what's the harm in fulfilling the one? Most people won't have a clue how to edit the title blacklist, and wouldn't dare edit it for fear of breaking something. Majorly ^talk 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC) "It serves no purpose" Apart from stopping a vandal moving an article to that page, yes, you're right. Majorly ^talk 00:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would stop a vandal for all of 2 seconds. Then they add/remove another period, or a space, or anything, and they can finish their vandalism. As MZMcBride and I have said, protecting one page out of millions of possible targets will have no noticeable effect. In that case, why do it? There aren't really any negatives, but there aren't any positives. A big list would be more effective, especially if it couldn't be shortened down to a regex or 2, but 1 page is useless. We shouldn't encourage people to just start reporting every combination they can think of to RFPP. Its not so urgent that it can't wait for someone who does know how to write a regex. The "I don't know how to do it correctly, so I'll hack it as best I can" attitude toward protection vs. the titleblacklist is not helpful. I would have declined the request or referred them to the titleblacklist talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that page have already been create prevented by the black list ".*(\pP{2,}\PP){4}.* <moveonly|errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-pagemove> #Antigrawp, works by blocking titles with overused punctuation (eg H..A..G..G..E..R)". The title seems pretty much the same as the one in the example. Guest9999 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The chief negative I see is that protecting this page wastes more time on the part of the admin who fulfills the request than on the part of the vandal who might otherwise use the page name. If this single page name is protected (from creation), the vandal can hit the 'back' button on his browser, add a space or period, and carry on on his merry way. Rejecting this request is a way to discourage all such well-meaning but time-wasting requests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Harmless to protect it, but indeed a waste of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone's crusade against flag Icons

Frankly, I'm not interested in involving myself deeply in this, but user:84.48.92.248‎‎ is off on some crusade over Flag icons in Infoboxes, specifically in "Foreign relations of X" nation. S/He apparently believes that flag icon are not allowed in such uses, and s/he is on a mission to remove them all with no discussion. See this diff as one example in dozens. Reverted a few, but I'm really rather tired of this aspect of Wikipedia. T L Miles (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

For yuks, I looked a bit at the history of one of these. The same user appears as User:84.48.93.123, doin the same thing last month. He really doesn't like flags...T L Miles (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not commenting one way or the other, but it might do to have a read of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Avoiding_flag_problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have: can you point me to a decision regarding this? I looked first before doing anything, and it seems pretty clear that using a national flag with a national name in an infobox about the government of a particular nation is not only allowed, but kinda the purpose of these icons. The anonymous removal of all of these from templates, multiple times, without discussion seems frankly a sign of mental illness. Unfortunately, this sorta thing seems all too common in Wikipedia, especially amongst those uninterested in actually developing article content and much more interested in debating/rewriting policy. It's really rather annoying for those of us spend our free time writing things and doing research. /rant T L Miles (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete

Resolved

 – Jayron32 closed it. Thanks, Jayron32! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This AfD has turned into a bit of a mess after an edit war on the article caused it to be protected. I'm too closely involved to do anything, but some neutral and experienced eyes might be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, this AfD really needs an intervention by a previously uninvolved admin. The currently protected version excludes all the improvements, including substantial additional sourcing, that had been made to the article earlier today, see this pre-mess version[73]. If the article is to remain protected, preventing further improvements to it, at the very least future AfD !voters need to be looking at the version that has reflected partial improvements that had been made already but were subsequently artificially gutted out. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher

I think someone needs to have a word with User:EuroHistoryTeacher about the language he uses on talk pages. The incident I am currently involved in is not the first, if one reads his current talk page:

An extremely inflammatory message was posted to Talk:English people by an anonymous ip editor. This can be seen to be a rather sensitive area if one reads the previous discussions on the talk page. I warned this anonymous editor for the language used and the misuse of a talk page, and also posted a warning to everyone not to indulge in such messages on the talk page directly. The next message posted to the talk page was by User:EuroHistoryTeacher which was also unacceptable as it I judged also inflammatory in nature here are all these messages. I warned the editor but on reading his talk page, I realised that there were numerous incidents of his use of inappropriate language that had been discussed with him before (see User talk:EuroHistoryTeacher), so I judged them to be sufficiently frequent that an immediate final warning was justified to help prevent further inappropriate messages being posted by him [ here]. This yielded an angry response, in which hyperbole was used to attempt to re-cast my warning as a threat, with a comment that he would report my personal attack, and a comment which talked about me "ranting", and that I sounded mad, etc here on my talk page, including later responses, and largely repeated here on EuroHistoryTeacher's talk page.

Since I am getting too involved, it might help if another administrator had a word with him about the proper use of talk pages.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much anger here. People who react to relatively minor provocations with such fury are basically bait for every troll that comes along, and doomed to have unhappy Wiki-careers. This Spanish ancestry stuff is just trolling, laugh at it and go on. Looie496 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

DDStetch you templated a regular - always a bad idea. The littering that you speak all seem to come from the one other editor as far as I can see, but even if it hadn't you shouldn't have templated him, it comes across badly. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I reject the idea that one should ignore violations of WP:TAL here and inflammatory messages. I note that there is a suggestion that I should not have templated a regular, but that is no excuse for that editor's behaviour there or subsequently.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he shouldn't have left the original message on the talk page but that you issuing a final warning was way OTT. His behavior towards you since then is somewhat understandable although rather too angry. Having said that i don't think anyone need do anything. Just chalk this one up to experience. He will calm down. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

John Larroquette

Can someone revert and protect John Larroquette - there is *no* reports of his death on any news site and Wikipedia could get in trouble. Paul Austin (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's only one user posting it. If they continue, they will get blocked. No real need for page protection. Resolute 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt to use one of those create-your-own-dead-celebrity sites. That's going to be fun as those things spread. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I dearly wish we could make the propagation of those rumors a block-on-sight offense, like Avril vandalism and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. GJC 08:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but I have to assume that some of the folks doing it believe the sites are real, and figure some stern warnings are better unless they persist. If it's obvious they're doing it deliberately, then yeah, pull the plug, I say. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We had apparent consensus to treat it as block-on-sight once, but the first time I tried to use that consensus to actually get someone blocked, I found it was a pretty shaky consensus ... essentially non-existent. I'm still in favor of "immediate indef, unblock upon a coherent explanation" strategy.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Happypower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a "fake-death-rumors-only" account, so I don't see a downside in blocking.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the editor has made only three edits, and those before any notification that the site was bogus - it's entirely possible that the editor believed it was the truth. A friend might have suckered them in, who knows? I don't mind insta-blocking obvious trolls, but WP:AGF suggests at least giving one warning first when it's not blatant nose-thumbing. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Fvw (2)

(Might be in the wrong spot here guys, please forgive me if so).

I spotted a couple of obvious socks on Talk:Leeds. They are:

• Pr D Phillip (talk · contribs)
• Owl Night (talk · contribs)
• Traceylovell (talk · contribs)
• 84.92.92.218 (talk · contribs)

Notice the spelling, lengthy bodies of text and the immediate agreement these accounts have with each other. Another two administrators are also in agreement with me that these are single-purpose socks [74], [75]. I left a warning on User talk:Pr D Phillip about WP:SOCK.

Fine? No - User:Fvw left me a message on my talk page that it was a WP:COI, something which (despite that insulting me somewhat, and I consider a breach of WP:AGF) I countered eloquently on his talk page. I stated that the evidence is obvious and that I would not be willing to unblock these accounts unless a check user is carried out first. After a little discussion in which I justified my actions, and stated possible routes forwards (including how unblocking was inappropriate for him because a) it gives the wrong singles to these accounts, and b) he's too involved), User:Fvw unblocked the accounts, telling the users I had a coi. He has not filed a check user and not explained his actions to me. I consider this a breach of:

• WP:SOCK (one user, one account is broken here)
• WP:AGF (Fvw failed to assume good faith with me)
• WP:WHEEL (I believe Fvw unblocking the accounts from a compromised viewpoint)
• WP:POINT (Fvw is unblocking these accounts, despite my opposition, to prove a point. In turn this is allowing sock puppets and is harming WP).

I'm very displeased, and told the user so (whole discussion is here). As User:Fvw has not justified his actions, nor filed a check user and also undermined me by telling these socks I had a coi, I am raising this here. I wouldn't mind being challenged (we all make mistakes), or having the accounts unblocked, but user Fvw has disregarded the obvious evidence, disregarded my wishes to carry out a check user request first, undermined me (saying I had coi lacks any tact at all, and was un-necessary even if true) and so is harming WP by violation of WP:POINT.

Having waited for justification from Fvw, but not had any, and having asked him to reinstate the block but not seen it happen. I have no option but to raise this for review. Suggested ways forwards here? I'm just not seeing any spirit of cameradrie from this gentleman, and I'm totally shocked by his unwillingness to be patient and work with others. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

He suggested that you shouldn't block people who sock on an article that you are active on? What's wrong with that? He's right. Don't do it, instead come here and ask someone else to do it for you. A way forward. I dunno couldn't you just take his advice and move on? Theresa Knott | token threats 14:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not active on the article - I was invited to pass comment when other users where struggling with the socks. I spotted them and blocked, and would do it again. Does that justisfy unblocking obvious socks, disregarding my request for a check user, and also telling them I have coi??? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No you are definitely active because you are discussing what should be done about the article and the "socks" are disagreeing with you. There are other ways of dealing with suspected sockpuppet accounts. The simplest being to note their edit history on the talk page like this User has made no other edits to the encyclopedia except for this talk page so that other people can see that they are suspicious. Or you could come here and ask others opinions, or you could ask for a checkuser. The trouble with your approach is that while they very well may be socks, it is possible that they are not and WP:AGF demand that we wait for the evidence to mount up before blocking. It's also possible that some are socks but others are innocents who get caught up, and there is no way to tell the difference. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That the socks agree or disagree with anyone is irrelevant. The relevance is that they are socks, and WP:COMMON dictates here. My gripe isn't that they've been unblocked (we could've worked out a consensus, and no consensus = no change), its the circumstances in which Fwv has done it via WP:POINT and now is ignoring my greivance. If no explanation is forthcoming I'm quite prepared to reblock these again per WP:COMMON; I already had/have the backing of two other administrators that they were single purpose accounts, and that Fwv disagrees because, well, he feels like assuming I'm not capable of making rudimentary judgements, whilst also sluring me to bad-faith accounts, is just not on. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking the socks was a bad idea. They should be reblocked. In general, hyper-obvious socks can be blocked by admins who are involved just as an involved admin can block socks that have been confirmed by checkuser. There's no real issue there. However, it is best if one is going to block such socks to post either here or at ANI noting that you did so so someone else can look over it. Theresa's solution of getting another admin to do it is not a bad idea either even if it isn't always necessary. And in any event unblocking such obvious socks is clear WP:POINT and not helpful to further construction of the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

TracyLovell is adamant that she is not a sock. Personally I err on the side of not believing her but my personal suspicion isn't enough for her to be blocked. If she is to be reblocked i suggest that it isn't done without a reasonable consensus to do so on this page and it really shouldn't be Jza84 who does the reblocking . Let someone else do it. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that this account is a meatpuppet not a sockpuppet, and there is no way we can expect the whole world to know that meatpuppetry is deprecated here, so although I have reblocked the account to ensure the disruption remains contained, I am perfectly happy to be talked out of that or to unblock if the user is happy to stay away from Leeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until the dispute has been settled by more experienced editors who should have a better understanding of the policy and consensus models which should apply there. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since the sockpuppetry is pretty obvious, I have reblocked the accounts as a completely uninvolved party. That said: yes, blocking people where you are active on the article (other than as a janitor cleaning up abuse) and there is a decent chance of getting someone else to do a sanity check first, is a bad idea. However, unblocking because of who blocked, and in spite of evidence that the block is justified for the reasons given, is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Still think a CU req should be filed. I'm unable to "see" the puppet master at a quick glance - at the very least they should be informed that the behaviour is not what is required. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a message at User talk:Pr D Phillip about sock puppetry a day or so ago following a few concerns left on my talk page about a sock, but yet more accounts appeared. I agree totally with User:JzG and User:JoshuaZ on the whole incident. That said, I'll be satisfied if the socks are dealt with. I'm staying out of the content issue from here-onwards (there are three other administrators there who'll have to pick this up). Fair enough I've been challenged and learned a couple of pointers (meatpuppetry depreciated? - the wording remains at WP:SOCK), but I failed to see how we can allow obvious socks to be allowed to game the system as well as undermine fellow admins in the process. I hope that User:Fwv has learned more so in this respect; unblocking socks without due consensus (well, just unblocking socks actually) was a very bad call. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for TracyLovell. It could just as easily be something spilling over to WP from an external source, though. It's unhelpful, of course, whatever it is. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Herby asked me (via email) to pop in and take a look from a CU perspective. I ran some checks. I'm not seeing any technical connection among the 4 listed users. ( Pr D Phillip, Owl Night, Traceylovell, 84.92.92.218 ) other than a fairly weak geographical correlation (which is understandable if we assume they all lived near the topic of the article in question... oddly I edit Michigan related articles more than I do, say, Manitoba ones, for some reason... ) so...  Unrelated would be my finding if I were asked formally. If there are behavioural issues or if it seems that meatpuppeting is involved, I'd address this with the users, gently but firmly, and leave it at that. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that is interesting, and goes to show that it's always a good idea not to rush to blocking socks as "obvious" isn't always as clear as one might think. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, there is a long-established tradition that those whose behaviour is indistinguishable are treated as a single user - meatpuppets and sockpuppets are not distinguished. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which is why I wish I had programmed "block on behaviour" as a keyboard macro way back when... think of all the keystrokes I could have saved! ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nabilus junius' racists remarks, disruptive edits, personal attacks and edit warring

When reviewing Anti-Arabism, I started a discussion about the Algeria section. But, the user User:Nabilus junius has been causing disruptive edits and undoes, including edit warring, racist attacks against a whole race: ..Il est interessant de voire comment les arabes vivants en europe savent user des failles de la démocratie chrétienne pour imposer leur lois (bien plus loin que ce qu'ils leur est du).. (It is interesting to see how the Arabs living in Europe know how to exploit the vulnerabilities of the Christian democracy to impose their laws..); imagine if the same was said for Blacks or Jews, personal attacks (see talk page), accusations of Conflicts of Interest, a hostile tone, writing in a language other than English (I think Kabyle + French), misusing Wikipedia policies and guidelines and refusing to reach a consensus on the topic. Finally, I doubt there is a sock puppet between this user and the IP address 81.66.129.219 Bestofmed (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

Newbie needs a mentor

DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has pretty swiftly ended up indef-blocked for WP:BLP violations, possibly as a result of letting righteous anger get the better of him. I don't feel comfortable unblocking without a mentor, but it does look to me as if an unblock would be safe enough if a mentor can be found. Where do I look for one? Guy (Help!) 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think unblocking this person is likely to result in any positive impact on the project. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* I considered mentoring the editor but I'm declining. I'm having a bit of trouble AGF about User:DD2K. Something is just off about the phrasing. Sorry. Cheers, Pigman☿ 21:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ho hum. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• If no mentor, would the editor accept a topic ban or other restriction (like posting a suggested edit on the talkpage first to get agreement?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Might be a problem, he appears to have a bee in his bonnet about perceived racism. That is rather a large set of potential articles. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The two subjects I noted were African-Americans (is this the correct terminology, still?) and connected to "Deep South" expressions that may be considered derogatory. I don't know how many articles might fall under this remit, and such a wide range is not going to encourage mentorship. I would think that requiring this editor to discuss such edits before making them might be a reasonable condition of unblock if no mentor turns up. Violate this "agreement" and the account is again indef'ed with little chance of further "chances". LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "Deep South", but the term African-American is not (currently) derogatory unless I missed a politically correct update which very well could have happened. The term "African-American" should not be used in the lead of bios (see WP:MOSBIO) unless it relates to the persons notablility, ie Joe Blow was the first African-American to fly to the moon, ect. --Tom 16:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)ps not sure what the problem is with Deep South either?? --Tom 16:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

MOON!! Tan | 39 16:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

Sitenotice reminder

Just a note that sometime in the next 43 minutes, MediaWiki:Watchlist-details should be updated to say one of "Arbitrators have been appointed" or "Arbitrators will be appointed shortly after the heat death of the Universe". Franamax (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom election 2008 results in

See Jimbo's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

The results are in, and are posted on Jimbo's talk page. Majorly ^talk 23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the results section here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008#Results as well. I also corrected a minor error made by Jimbo (EGADS!) and left announcement notices at WP:VPM and at the Signpost Tip page. Otherwise, updating the site notice to the official ACE2008 page would be nice... (hint hint hint). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder reminder

Ahem. I was asking for someone to update the sitenotice, hint hint. Even if there's some tranchability problems, it's not December 20 anymore. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx MZM. Franamax (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Noob admin question

Resolved

Say I want to write a new article on "Subject XYZ" using material from it's previously deleted incarnation, but I am not going to write it over the specific page where the material was deleted (so I can't just restore the old revisions). What do I do? Do I write the article, note the source in the edit summary and then restore the old revisions to the source article? Or do I somehow move those revisions to the target articles and restore them there then just recreate the old article? Also, how do I do that?  :)

In case anyone thinks I'm being sneaky I'll come out and name the article. I want to rewrite Dragon kill points but the old revisions are in DKP, which is now a disambiguation page. I don't want to steal the dab page because I don't think that dragon kill points is the most common meaning of the three letter acronym "DKP". Thoughts? Pointers? ZOMG wrong forum comments? Any help is welcome. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess--and I', a n00b too, so take it for what it's worth--would be to restore the deleted article, then do a rename, then make your changes u nder the new name. Does that sound like it would work, or did I not understand something about your question? GJC 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be my guess too. But then I am left with recreating the disambiguation page and not leaving those edits in the history. Or is that just sovlable through noting on the talk page where the edit history went? Protonk (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's just all of the deleted revisions of that page that you need, you can move DKP to something else (like DKP temp), restore the deleted revisions of DKP, move DKP to Dragon kill points, move DKP temp to DKP over the redirect, and delete the redirect left at DKP temp. WODUP 04:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Here's the new article: Dragon kill points. :) Protonk (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New user - first contribution vandalism.

Resolved

 – Indefblocked.

Check here [76]. The guy's name is User:Woot511. I'd block him. Kalajan 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We also have user:Someone5489, for another vandalism: [77]. Kalajan 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is reported at WP:AIV, and we have a number of user warning templates for vandalism that you can use to warn the user before they are reported. I know it's a little bureaucratic, but it helps to keep all the vandalism complaints in one place. Side note, the first user has already been blocked.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay put how do I do a warn template? Kalajan 21:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Get Twinkle if you want, or simply copy {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} for vandalsim, changing the number up for each subsequent warn. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking steps to improve ArbCom co-ordination

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Improving ArbCom co-ordination for how we are taking steps to improve the efficiency and co-ordination of the Arbitration Committee. Please post all comments on that page. --Deskana (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but I couldn't find a good place to ask on any of the image pages.

Anyway, I have this image, File:ComponentsofERP.svg, which was originally based on this image wikibooks, then went to commons, and then I used it here and had someone at the Graphics lab vectorize it, and now the new version is uploaded on en-wiki only. The old version is still used in some pages at Wikibooks, and I was hoping to replace it with the new version by uploading the new version to commons and replacing the links. But moving the new version to commons seems to make it lose the file history, and I was advised that it's important to preserve the image trail in order to keep it GDFL. (The discussion at GL is here.) Does anyone know if I can move an image like this to commons (and, if not, does anyone know where it would be more appropriate for me to raise this question)? Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't move it. What you can do it put the list of authors on the commons page.Geni 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't making sense to me. Can we just keep it in Commons and then link the instances from Wikipedia and WikiBooks to that image? I don't see what putting a list of authors on the page would do. Currently, the image is up for speedy deletion on Commons. I'd just like to see them all linked to that one commons photo and keep the original at WikiBooks, that way we would preserve the original and still have a usable SVG for use anywhere. Does that make sense? See [78], [79], [80], and [81] for more details. Mononomic (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(Just for clarification, the reason it's currently at commons and listed for speedy deletion is because I uploaded it using CommonsHelper, thinking that would preserve the history, and it didn't, so I listed it for speedy myself.) —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Politizer is right - sorry if I didn't make that clear. Mononomic (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern about image

Resolved

 – nothing to worry about -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Following the recent Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia controversy, I'd like to alert you to this image. It features full frontal nudity of children. I don't know how to report this kind of thing, but it's concerning to me.--Scientific Industry (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry too much about it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this, and this particular use isn't, from what I know, against UK law. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely rule out the posibility that anyone is going to be silly enough to make a legal fuss over Biafran war starvation pics.Geni 00:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You obviously do not live in the UK. I do, but currently not through choice. --Rodhullandemu 00:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I do live in the UK. Appearing insensertive with regards to historic images of starving african kids (and suggesting they are child porn would be seen as such) is political suicide.Geni 01:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but you should not underestimate the political stupidity of some of these campaigners. To some of them "naked child = child porn" and anyone who disagrees should be prepared to be tarred and feathered by a baying mob. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I live in the UK as well, and given that pictures like these have been on pre-watershed TV news bulletins I would say we have nothing to worry about. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's on commons, regardless. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the law in the US states that children may not be shown nude except for "educational or artistic purposes" - or something like that. For the life of me I can't find the related article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• You can't find it because US law says nothing of the sort. --Carnildo (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe that was German law then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something derived from a rather mangled version of the miller test.Geni 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If there would have been a problem with the image in the first place, I doubt the CDC would have taken it. But I do agree with Geni that if this image was put to the Miller test, it would pass easily, since the main intent of this image is medical in nature. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lake Central

Note: Some of this has already been brought up at WP:NPOVN but that's only part of the issue so I'm also bringing it here.

The article Paudash Lake article was suffering from serious NPOV issues and so I originally tagged it with {{peacock}}. The tag was removed four times by an anonymous editor (later determined to be User:Lake Central). The user left messages on my talk page objecting to my actions here, here, here, and the latest one (where I am called a liar and a fool) here.

I have attempted to remove the more blatant POV edits as well as some unencyclopedic content here, only to have it reverted by the above user editing anonymously. I suspect that this is going to continue, so I brought the issue to WP:NPOVN for wider discussion.

User:Lake Central (editing anonymously) has now started placing "vandalism notices" on the article, and removing my comments from the article's talk page. Any advice? ... discospinster _talk 14:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I have just posted a proposal for a board tasked with ensuring transparency and accountability for Arbitration, Checkuser and Oversight. The proposal is available at Wikipedia:Review Board, and comments are welcome and sollicited.

Please note that this is a proposal from a new Arbitrator, but not a Committee proposal. Other arbitrators have examined, commented, and assisted in the crafting of this proposal, but in their individual capacities. — Coren ^(talk) 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coren, best of luck with your appointment. Your not Irish I take it? A Modest Proposal. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was aware the title was already taken, but I can nonetheless assure that no children are on the menu.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to buy presents after all. LOL. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

More processes, eh? Stifle (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have enough bureaucracy already. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackpower

Resolved

 – Retired tag on page. Nothing to see here. Horologium (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This longtime inactive account has come to my attention.

Interested to hear some others' takes on the, erm, interesting, userpage. We often have widely differing opinions among the admins about laxity over userpages. Does this constitute "polemical" (not a word I often use...) --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it. His bias is clearly displayed. This is useful. He acknowledges his motivations and partisan editing. This is something we should encourage. Just because said motivations may ultimately prove incompatible with encyclopedicity is not a problem. Moreschi (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, unless this userpage is actually a satire on Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) as someone suggests on the talkpage. It may well be. In which case it is clearly inappropriate. Unfortunately it's rather hard to tell the difference between the more extreme forms of Afrocentrism and parody of those forms. Moreschi (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Deeceevoice of this discussion. Since it may be trolling directed towards her, it would be appropriate to hear her thoughts on the issue. Horologium (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• If this was genuinely a statement of the user's biases in editing Wikipedia then I think we'd have to ensure that he never edited anything related to racial politics. But it is a long-inactive account, and actually the page does seem to violate WP:SOAP. Things were different back in 2005, I reckon; the community had more time to help editors with extreme views to contribute. These days we have a massively larger problem keeping extremists in check, and Wikipedia's profile has increased their determination to reshape content to suit their agenda. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody would have noticed or cared about that page, except for this thread. You could apply WP:DENY; just ignore it. (Waves his hand. This is not the userpage you are looking for. Go edit an article instead.) Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Jehochman. No reason to mess with people's userpages unless they go out of their way to make a stink about it or someone is genuinely upset. Protonk (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin PhilKnight has replaced the page with {{retired}}.[82] Now we should leave the userpage alone. AdjustShift (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Further eyes required at RfC

Yet another issue on fair-use images (no ... wait ... come back!) has arisen and is being addressed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. Fresh eyes might be welcome on this. It is a long RfC but my concerns with it are probably shown best in the comments in the current lower section Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos#The_bottom_line. Black Kite 23:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry and You

We have 67 reports open at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Are you an administrator? Do you need a break from your usual patrols? SSP reports can often be resolved in just a few minutes by reading the evidence and counseling the relevant parties. Feel free to skip over any difficult cases. When done, post a conclusion and add {{SSPa}} to the top of the report to summon the archive bot. Thank you for helping. Jehochman ^Talk 10:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We need more people to take up the cause :O) seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• If every regular here checked the page just once a day, there would be no backlog. Make it your homepage :-) Guy (Help!) 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Even RFCU is backlogged. I guess the checkusers spend their days off by going outside and take some fresh air while the sockmasters spend their holidays by creating more socks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are only 6 outstanding CU requests, and I think two of those are done as well. It is the archiving that appears backlogged :) -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need to stop turning RFCU clerks into checkusers! :-p --Deskana (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan :D -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Could some of the surplus Checkusers have a look at these two old cases, please:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PONDHEEPANKAR (2nd nomination) - Check for socking.
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Griot (2nd) - Help devise a rangeblock that minimizes collateral damage.

Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety ^talk coughs: "WP:SSP2."

Wooo! Shiny new SSP2 page. We're down to 28 reports at WP:SSP. Any chance we can get it down below 10, and then maybe we can convince Tiptoety to copy the remaining reports to WP:SSP2? Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work Jehochman and others :) seicer | talk | contribs 16:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:SSP2 active? -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw the 1/10/09 date. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;

• Should Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
• Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
• Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
• Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
• Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
• Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
• Should Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
• Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
• Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
• Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
• Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;

(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and

(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.

• Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
• Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
• Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan, and the rest of the Clerks, for your work in closing this case. It was by no means a simple decision, and your efforts in pulling the Committee's votes together is much appreciated. Well done. AGK 10:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mississippi#Gay Mississippi edit war

Resolved

 – Block issued by Moonriddengirl. AGK 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I come here with the up-most urgency! It started 4 weeks ago when an IP removed the section about gays from the Mississippi section because he doesn't approve of gays. Then another non-admin AllStar reverted it, then they started a discussion but it didn't help, instead it turned into a war of insults and personal attacks. When i tried to break up the fight the IP said that America wasn't as sosphisticated as his home country Germany, which is an insult to the whole nation. I cracked, and threanted to report to the admins noticeboard and request the talk page be protected, but he thought i meant i'm an admin and that i'm going to block him and protect the page myself. So now he's increasing the insults, and making constant "you americans" comments which is racist remarks, and the IP has tons of obvious sock-puppets. But worse of all he's started to harrass me on my own talk page, as well as harrass AllStar. I suggest that some admin break up the fight, block all these sock-puppets, and temporarily semi-protect my and AllStar's talk page. This fight has been going on for days, and if they won't listen to me, maybe they'll listen to an admin. Elbutler (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

AGK 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, block this ip immediately. Of course no one is going to block Allstarecho and Ebutler for their personal attacks and accussations. The usual doublestandards of Ameripedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.63.133 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now he's left another personal attack on my talk page. I'm losing my patience. Elbutler (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sure your admin friends will soon help you - impartial and neutral, as always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.63.133 (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with adding sources to the Poschiavo series articles.

User:Sandstein has said on my talk page that i need to find sources to all 32 Poschiavo articles, otherwise they will be removed. That was not so easy. They are existing on google maps but i cant link to google maps because you will always just come to the main page of google maps. What schould i do? I really don't want it to be deleted. The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're in imminent danger of deletion; articles on populated places almost invariably receive "keep" consensuses at AfD. That said, the articles certainly could use more information. I vaguely recall poking around the Web with regard to Cavaglia, for instance, when I was adding the coordinates template to the article. Isn't it a ski resort and on a well-used Alpine hiking trail and the site of some sort of hydroelectricity facility? If so, those things should be mentioned (and sourced) in the article. If you knew enough about these places to create the articles, you must know more than that they simply exist, no? Deor (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - looking at the stubs the user has created, I know some of them exist - for example Cadera - but for others (i.e. Permut) I can't find anything at all on the web, which is very unusual and makes me wonder about their size (Edit: they do exist on Google Maps - Permut appears to be two houses, which probably explains it)Black Kite 00:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Permut is now speedy delete requested CSD G7. Somewhere we need to draw the line. Two rotten houses in the forest in switzerland without any notable history are not notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded Cavaglia a little bit now, adding refernces and links. I need to go to bed now. I will continue with the other Poschiavo articles tommorow! The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way i can say that San't Antonio is located a bit south of Poschiavo and Raviche is located north of San Carlo (Poschiavo). The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If the name can be found on a map, adding a {{coord}} link will suffice. If the name cannot be found on a map, it should not have an article.  Sandstein  22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I encounter this perennial challenge with creating articles about Ethiopian settlements. Writing from my own experience, I would suggest that you do a search on the Swiss equivalent of the Census Bureau (or their National Mapping/Cartography service), & see if you can find some statistics for those places. If I can find a wealth of such sources for Ethiopia (although that is due to their Central Statistical Agency providing an amazing amount of material on their website), I would be very surprised if it didn't exist for Switzerland. -- llywrch (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.

Resolved

 – Take it to AE, where this has been running constantly

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 wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Wikipedia guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.

I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do.

The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Wikipedia as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

• I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
  • POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
  • A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
  • Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
  • Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
  • This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Wikipedia – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
  • However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
  • At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
  • There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
  • At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
  • During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
  • This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
  • You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.

• I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.

• Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
• I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:Big Dunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:Big Dunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Wikipedia – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
• Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming.

• User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.

Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Wikipedia guidelines about disruptive editing:

• tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:

• Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
• Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.

Mooretwin (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much all or your asertions. Domer has worked hard to engage with you but you have fuelled every situation with edit wars - you should be blocked not he. -Vintagekits (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is part of The Troubles ArbCom after effects, and should be brought up there. Closing this one. SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wow...this is the pot calling the kettle black. Really Mooretwin? At least Domer has made some attempt to improve, but you come off a week long block and are right back to your old tricks. Please stop. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 23 December 2008 (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.

Request for unblock of a 2-year IP block

Resolved

 – The IP has been unblocked. AdjustShift (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The person behind the IP turned out to be a sock/vandal, the IP has been reblocked for six months by Ryulong. AdjustShift (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago, Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked 194.176.105.39 for 2 years for vandalism. The IP address is now requesting unblock, and has mentioned (correctly) that Can't sleep, clown will eat me was desysoped for unexplained blocks which were probably made with poor judgement. To the best of my understanding, blocks on such IP addresses are typically no longer than a year (over around now). Recommend unblocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

With no implicit comment meant regarding the original block, I see no harm in unblocking and monitoring. The IP belongs to a large teaching hospital in South London and will have the same/similar issues to any other large corporate IP. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree that “blocks on such IP addresses are typically no longer than a year”. As User:FisherQueen wrote correctly here blocks longer than a year are generally speaking not unusual. However in this particular case I don't think a two year block was justified, as the previous one was just 6 months. A one year block would have been more appropriate here. As one year has expired already since the block, I am going to accept the request for unblock in a moment (also per the points mentioned above by User:Dweller and User:Od Mishehu). — Aitias // discussion 13:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did. I see no reason to decline an apparent good faith unblock request, regardless of the nature of the original block. Protonk (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my usual maximum is six months - more often three. Even schoolkids may change classes every three months and may not be able to use school computers from one three-month block to the next - and, more generally, IPs may be reallocated at any time. One year blocks are when an IP has been blocked 15+ times (roughly) and has been used for nothing but vandalism for years. It's really not that much of hardship to block the same IP twice in one year. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This doesn't need a straw poll - thanks for unblocking, Protonk. While I don't necessarily disagree with the original block, I think that unblock requests, if reasonable, should be honored. We can always re-block. Tan | 39 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we can always re-block. I don't think IPs should be blocked for more than six months. The admin did the right thing by unblocking the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"apparent good faith unblock request"? You mean the same IP who said the blocking admin should be "hanged"? Yeah right. Spellcast (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP has recently been used by Hovis Bread Mix (talk · contribs) for vandalism[83][84]. —Snigbrook 23:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This IP has not been up to any good since being unblocked. These edits don't seem to be made in good faith, and if Snigbrook is right, I'm going to be reblocking the IP. And how would the IP user know that Can't sleep, clown will eat me was desysopped for these kind of blocks, anyway?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; a supposedly new innocent user wouldn't know those kind of details. Anyone with common sense should know from the unblock requests that the IP was obviously used by some sock or vandal. The original block should be reinstated. Spellcast (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with common sense should know from the unblock requests that the IP was obviously used by some sock or vandal??? A new innocent user may know about these details. I learned about the desysopping of Can't sleep, clown will eat me from Wikipedia:Former administrators. In this case, the person behind the IP turned out to be a sock/vandal. In other cases, the person behind the IP may be an innocent user. We can always re-block. Ryulong has re-blocked the IP for six months, now we can close this case. AdjustShift (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, This is no explanation? Their Talk page with multiple vandalism warnings is not explanation? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the account has been re-blocked for immediately starting to vandalize after having been unblocked. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's become obvious that the address is still being abused. An account that was blocked last night that was used to "attack me" edited from this IP. In addition, comments by an anonymous user on the talk page to FisherQueen last night were entirely inappropriate. I've reblocked the IP for a year and disabled talk page editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate image?

I just came across File:Unclesamhumor.jpg on Jimbo's userpage, where it was placed by the uploader. The image was then removed by another editor, only to be inserted once again by the uploader. Now I don't have any problem with the image, but I do have concerns. My initial (and primary) concern is that the image contains a watermark for the website from which it was obtained. Ordinarily, I would just crop the image and upload the new watermark-less version; in this case, however, that would be tricky due to the borders. In most cases where the watermark could not be easily removed, I would delete the image. But since this image isn't intended for the mainspace, I think that might be a bit drastic. My secondary concern is that the editor uploaded it under a GNU license, but the work it's based on (File:Unclesamwantyou.jpg) is in the public domain - something seems off about that, but I don't know what it is. So I just wanted to get an admin who is more experienced in this area take a look at it. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to just crop out the watermark and just treat the license as the same. As you mentioned, the main image used in this "macro" is public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for unblock of a 2-year IP block

Resolved

 – The IP has been unblocked. AdjustShift (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The person behind the IP turned out to be a sock/vandal, the IP has been reblocked for six months by Ryulong. AdjustShift (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago, Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked 194.176.105.39 for 2 years for vandalism. The IP address is now requesting unblock, and has mentioned (correctly) that Can't sleep, clown will eat me was desysoped for unexplained blocks which were probably made with poor judgement. To the best of my understanding, blocks on such IP addresses are typically no longer than a year (over around now). Recommend unblocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

With no implicit comment meant regarding the original block, I see no harm in unblocking and monitoring. The IP belongs to a large teaching hospital in South London and will have the same/similar issues to any other large corporate IP. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree that “blocks on such IP addresses are typically no longer than a year”. As User:FisherQueen wrote correctly here blocks longer than a year are generally speaking not unusual. However in this particular case I don't think a two year block was justified, as the previous one was just 6 months. A one year block would have been more appropriate here. As one year has expired already since the block, I am going to accept the request for unblock in a moment (also per the points mentioned above by User:Dweller and User:Od Mishehu). — Aitias // discussion 13:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did. I see no reason to decline an apparent good faith unblock request, regardless of the nature of the original block. Protonk (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my usual maximum is six months - more often three. Even schoolkids may change classes every three months and may not be able to use school computers from one three-month block to the next - and, more generally, IPs may be reallocated at any time. One year blocks are when an IP has been blocked 15+ times (roughly) and has been used for nothing but vandalism for years. It's really not that much of hardship to block the same IP twice in one year. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This doesn't need a straw poll - thanks for unblocking, Protonk. While I don't necessarily disagree with the original block, I think that unblock requests, if reasonable, should be honored. We can always re-block. Tan | 39 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we can always re-block. I don't think IPs should be blocked for more than six months. The admin did the right thing by unblocking the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"apparent good faith unblock request"? You mean the same IP who said the blocking admin should be "hanged"? Yeah right. Spellcast (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP has recently been used by Hovis Bread Mix (talk · contribs) for vandalism[85][86]. —Snigbrook 23:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This IP has not been up to any good since being unblocked. These edits don't seem to be made in good faith, and if Snigbrook is right, I'm going to be reblocking the IP. And how would the IP user know that Can't sleep, clown will eat me was desysopped for these kind of blocks, anyway?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; a supposedly new innocent user wouldn't know those kind of details. Anyone with common sense should know from the unblock requests that the IP was obviously used by some sock or vandal. The original block should be reinstated. Spellcast (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with common sense should know from the unblock requests that the IP was obviously used by some sock or vandal??? A new innocent user may know about these details. I learned about the desysopping of Can't sleep, clown will eat me from Wikipedia:Former administrators. In this case, the person behind the IP turned out to be a sock/vandal. In other cases, the person behind the IP may be an innocent user. We can always re-block. Ryulong has re-blocked the IP for six months, now we can close this case. AdjustShift (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, This is no explanation? Their Talk page with multiple vandalism warnings is not explanation? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the account has been re-blocked for immediately starting to vandalize after having been unblocked. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's become obvious that the address is still being abused. An account that was blocked last night that was used to "attack me" edited from this IP. In addition, comments by an anonymous user on the talk page to FisherQueen last night were entirely inappropriate. I've reblocked the IP for a year and disabled talk page editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate image?

I just came across File:Unclesamhumor.jpg on Jimbo's userpage, where it was placed by the uploader. The image was then removed by another editor, only to be inserted once again by the uploader. Now I don't have any problem with the image, but I do have concerns. My initial (and primary) concern is that the image contains a watermark for the website from which it was obtained. Ordinarily, I would just crop the image and upload the new watermark-less version; in this case, however, that would be tricky due to the borders. In most cases where the watermark could not be easily removed, I would delete the image. But since this image isn't intended for the mainspace, I think that might be a bit drastic. My secondary concern is that the editor uploaded it under a GNU license, but the work it's based on (File:Unclesamwantyou.jpg) is in the public domain - something seems off about that, but I don't know what it is. So I just wanted to get an admin who is more experienced in this area take a look at it. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 04:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to just crop out the watermark and just treat the license as the same. As you mentioned, the main image used in this "macro" is public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAr in re. Moreschi

The request for arbitration named above has been declined as superseded by motion: Based upon the events of December 16, 2008, Moreschi (talk · contribs) is admonished:

(A) Not to reverse blocks imposed by another administrator without the consent of the blocking administrator or on-wiki consensus;

(B) Not to reverse actions taken by or on behalf of the Arbitration Committee acting as a committee, and to consult with an arbitrator if he finds the status of an action unclear; and

(C) Not to make disparaging comments about other administrators in log entries of his administrator actions.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is clearly an organised group of impostors at work - once again ArbCom has delivered the right result with no significant drama. This cannot be permitted to continue. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:RFCU is thataway... :) ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I see Captain Obvious' been busy lately. A truly ground-breaking and enlightening motion. Миша13 17:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean it's ok for the rest of us to make disparaging comments about other administrators in our logs of our administrator actions? I mean, it would be pointless passing a motion saying he mustn't do something no one else should do anyway. Or should we take this as an admonishment to all administrators? dougweller (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It means that Moreschi must only make disparaging remarks about non-admins in his logs. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On the .0001% chance that the above weren't sarcasm/humor/satire/irony (as I should point out that my comment WAS)... No, it means none of us should make disparaging remarks in block logs... about ANYONE, admin or no. Stick to the facts, and keep NPOV in mind. Even when writing block log summaries. People HAVE been desysopped over disparaging remarks in block logs before... the irony here of this coming full circle, as it were, is not lost on me. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that a block log of "vandal", "POV-pushing nationalist", or "clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia" are disparaging, but they're used as a matter of course. Are they OK because they're generally true? If so... Black Kite 17:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of degree, to be sure. But I think avoiding disparaging remarks nevertheless is for the best. Some of those three are more so than others. If you think I've went over the line in the past, ([87]) please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fair for us to challenge ourselves on this and see if we can't be more objective in block logs, but "vandalism", "block evasion" and so on are often as objective as one needs to be. Where there is a debate, it's good to leave a permalink in the block log. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Juuuuust a couple of things; firstly, there was quite a volume of opinion given before the Arbs decided to decline the case and then issue what appears to be an ArbCom finding on it... and, er, is this going to happen often in the future, and are the Workshop and Proposed Decision pages likely to be MfD'ed as obselete any time soon? I know it is coming up for Christmas (and who wants to get indigestion after wading through one of my ponderous meanderings to some ignorable point?) but I am uneasy about decisions being reached by what appears to be fiat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I think Moreschi violated m:DICK and was trout-slapped as a result, which is the right result. I do find Giano exasperating - he is a really good guy and has a sense of humour as well as tremendous dedication to this project, but he does on occasion seem to deliberately provoke people just for the hell of it. Someone as intelligent as Giano obviously is could very easily avoid these issues if he wanted to, and there is a pretty strong indication that the community does want him to be a bit less aggressive. That said, I don't think I have ever had a problem communicating productively with Giano even when we disagree, so I do rather wonder why this keeps recurring. Perhaps I am OK with him because I respect him, whereas many others here are entirely resistant to the idea of respecting anybody at all, and the more mature and authoritative someone appears the more people will poke at their soft underbelly - a natural reaction in a community which includes large numbers of teenagers. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note in Jimbo's very recent announcement of the ArbCom election that he not only expresses a desire that the ArbCom works with community participation but that he will overturn upon appeal to him any decision that has been reached after only internal discussion (um, that is how I read it) - which is what I was commenting upon above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• The right result with no significant what...? Be serious, Guy. OK, there wasn't much drama except 58 comments (musings, questions, reminders, grumbles... ) from the community which nobody read, certainly not arbcom (as an arbiter very frankly told me), plus a full page by NYBrad? How is that shapeless sack of commentary an improvement on a regular RfAR, and how does it waste any less time, taken/stolen from other, eternally ignored and forgotten, cases? Bishonen | talk 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC). (P. S., what happened to the WP:AN section editing?? It's really hard to find the right edit link.)

• "...which nobody read"? I read every word of it all, both before and after I wrote up my thoughts and proposed a motion. The "improvement on a regular RfAr" and the increment in drama reduction is that the process took two days, rather than a month. My view is that proceeding by motion rather than a full case is in order when the facts are sufficiently clear that an evidence phase is not reasonably likely to change the result. And I think we can all agree that we certainly didn't want to saddle the new group of arbitrators with this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not in the arbs' heads, I have to go by what they tell me. Anyway, that's great that you read it all, then you're perhaps all set to deal with this one, which I mention in a comment because I'm very concerned about the delay? Bishonen | talk 00:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

That motion, albeit overly delayed, was passed four days ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it. Bishonen | talk 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

• Exactly what Brad said. A short outburst of acrimony, followed by a transparently correct result, with minimum fuss and without the usual 78 blocks and unblocks and three new cases for wheel warring. A real step forward. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please link 'autoscopia' from NDE#biological analysis and theories to 'autoscopy'

For some reason I was not able to do this myself, even as a registered user. Thank you. PS. The former article is in red font as nonexistent article, while the relevant article exists as "autoscopy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masondickson (talk • contribs)

Done. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 08:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)