Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive184

WP:AIV needs attention

Resolved

 – Xeno took care of it Enigma^msg 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Enigma^msg 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

i r the banninator!!!!111one –xeno (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia. Hermione1980 20:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone has a spare cluestick...

...please hit me with it now. I noticed 70.50.10.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) adding this to Jean Chrétien and this to Paul Martin. I reverted and left them a set of warnings about adding BLP material. In response I got this followed by this along with a lot of other rather cryptic messages. It took me most of the afternoon (it's −30 °C (−22 °F) here and my brain don't work so fast) to figure out what they are probably trying to say. As far as I can tell they appear to be saying that they have sent the article to some department in Ottawa and are going to try and claim copyright on it. That is what I assumed from the stub reference. No action required, just a heads up in case there are claims of copyright on those articles. And CRWD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same person as the IP. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ... none of his POV was backed by any references, so nothing wrong in the revert. Some thinly disguised claim/threat maybe - designed to rattle your cage in retaliation for you reverting him? I wouldn't lose sleep over it, bookmark, and keep a mental note of the whole thing in case you need to refer to it in the future. (doubtful) — Ched (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

History merge now needed at Bandit

Stadler981 (talk · contribs) is having difficulty moving Bandit and now won't be able to move it where he wants. A history merge will likely be needed.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  01:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Move and history sorting done. Cenarium (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of advanced permissions

PROPOSAL TEXT

The Committee has drafted a proposed set of procedures governing the removal of advanced permissions; these are now posted for community feedback at the link above. The discussion will remain open until 28 February 2009.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For those left wondering by this announcement, the committee in question appears to be the arbitration committee. - Nunh-huh 04:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Central Notice

I apologize, but the top of every page I read states "<centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice>"; I don't know if this is intended, but it appears to be in error. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's the same problem on every WM projects, I expect they're trying to fix it on meta. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be  Fixed -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I notified the developers mailing list and this has been temporarily disabled until one of the shell users investigate the problem. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 10:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)

Cohen has just published an article detailing alleged inaccuracies on his Wikipedia article. (With no knowledge of the subject, I can't say whether the accusations are valid.) As he's a fairly significant figure in technology journalism, the article is likely to come under quite heavy scrutiny, particularly if it makes the TV news; as many eyes as possible would probably be useful, as would correcting any inaccuracies and/or rebutting incorrect allegations of inaccuracy, should anyone be in a position to do so. – iridescent 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the disputed paragraphs, however I think more work is needed. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And I was in the middle of doing that when my connection went down. That's why it's tagged. D'oh! --Rodhullandemu 14:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini RFC opened on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections

Please see here. I've opened a mini-RFC for sitting Arbs and current CU/OS operators to give feedback to the community on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections in regards to the elections and sitting CU/OS operators from before the elections. rootology (C)(T) 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors are removing external links

Resolved

 – No admin intervention needed--user blocked. Blueboy96 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi I posted some links for few artists and your editors are removing the links. They say it comes under advertisement. The site links i put is a small website that features the indie and unsigned artists to promote them. Obviously evry website runs with ads or donations. I linked to Katy and jennifer paige and few other artists i like. ex http://www.tunesbaby.com/jennifrepaige . Your editors just removed them and said its spam. Im mkaing it clear that its not spam. When you have an article on certian artists you can add links here. Its not come under advertising or spamming. If its spam then why do you keep links to youtube.com,myspace.com, imdb.com soundclick.com and many more websites? Many of these sites have google ads you know they put cookies and do so called collection of your information and use for business purpose. when you can gie big support to these corporate websites, whats wrong if i add link to a site that has only information related to an artist? By adding links they don't get so many hits and make a million dollar by tomorrow or next week. We are just providing a link to give some basic information to contact with those artists. What i say is adding link to that website is completely fair. In case if its against your policies adding any link that has an advertisement or sell something on the website is even not fair. So please support the small websites and let the visitors on wiki check some related websites. Sure Your policies making injustice to people or the editors are doing it on purpose. These are two editors (Tabercil ,JBsupreme) doing it please undo their actions. I don't no much about wiki so if i post at wrong place please excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jag666 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin issue ... and at any rate, nearly all of this user's contribs have consisted of spamlinks. Blocked indef ... not exactly smart for a linkspammer to come to this board, IMO. Blueboy96 18:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CofJ

The user CofJ, affiliated to the controversial Community of Jesus, is adding factually wrong original research and deleting sourced material on the Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox article (including her prominent role in the Geert Wilders#Ban on entering the UK controversy and her anti-Islam activities) without explanation. --84.64.103.36 (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This would appear to be a content dispute not requiring admin intervention at present, although some adherence to communication protocols would be useful. --Rodhullandemu 16:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CofJ here, I am not affiliated with the Community of Jesus. It is irony that my user name is CofJ. I agree with the American and Canadian media articles that state that the Community of Jesus is a cult and I gave evidence to the journalists in question. I should also add that the non-registered user has removed factual information and inserted unsourced and defamitory information to the Baroness Cox page. Such non-registered users have are no longer permitted to make changes to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not inserted any "unsourced and defamatory information" and I have not deleted any sourced material from the article. Please stop making false claims and stop whitewashing Baroness Cox's well-publicised activities. --84.69.58.145 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with this subject but it seems to me that both sides have actually provided what would normally be regarded as reliable sources for their claims. It seems to be a content dispute which could do with a helpful mediator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For a start, Baroness Cox is not Vice-President of the Royal College of Nursing, as CofJ claims. CofJ has not provided any sources for his/her puff piece. --84.69.58.145 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CofJ has edited the article Community of Jesus numerous times (Special:Contributions/CofJ) and is now deleting sourced material, without explanation, on the controversial activities of Baroness Cox. This is an unacceptable situation. --84.69.58.145 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK needs to be updated!

Resolved

 – By User:Rootology. Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The DYK bot is malfunctioning and apparently has stopped updating the DYK template. The update is over an hour late now. Can an admin please push the update? Instructions are at Wikipedia:DYK#Process. The update should be from queue 5. Shubinator (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong is misusing rollback

Resolved

 – WP:DEADHORSE

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.

---

Recently, I have been warning Ryulong about his misuse of rollback, but yet he keeps misusing it. Most of my warnings were undone by him. I have been giving him explicit warnings (or shall I say reminders) but he keeps misusing it. Here is the sequence of the diffs I am about to provide:

• January 30, 2009: I warn him and he replys with "It's not really of any use on the talk page and the templates needn't be interwikied."
• February 9, 2009: I warned him about another misuse of rollback and he simply undoes it.
• February 12, 2009: I then warned again about his misuse, added an addition to the warning on that day and he simply reverts again.
• February 13, 2009: During a dispute between me and him, I warned him again and he simply reverts with the reply "Clearly I don't care"

The diffs of the rollbacks are within the diffs of my warnings. I'm asking that the community investigates this issue. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, could somebody please notify Ryulong of this thread as I don't feel like doing it right now. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I posted the notice to Ryulong about this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 14, 2009 @ 01:41

However, then this means Ryulong would lose his sysop position as well. Versus22 _talk 01:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to read a previous discussion about Ryulong that went on about a couple weeks ago, click here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to revert messages on their talk space without comment. Please ensure that your summary includes actual diffs of misuse of WP:ROLLBACK, and not diffs of you warning him and him reverting the warnings. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say it was a violation of policy to revert messages on their talk page without comment. Also, please be aware that I am using the diffs in the warning diffs as diffs. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here are the diffs of his misuse of rollback [1][2][3][4]. This post is for easy reference. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So how are these misused of rollback? Guettarda (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the warnings in the above diffs in my first post on this thread, then you'll know the story. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you are saying he misused rollback on those diffs because of the rationales you listed in warnings. That raises the question as to whether the rationales in the warnings are correct in the first place. —kurykh 03:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits. Powergate92Talk 03:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly Mythodon once again picking on things that do not need to be picked upon on. Rollback isn't be misused in any situation here, where the quality of the encyclopedia has been harmed, or there was serious admin abuse. You are simply trying to find fault in Ryulong because you don't agree with his ideals. He tries his very best to actually IMPROVE the encyclopedia, instead of simply stripping content, spouting policy, slapping tags, and overall degrading the quality of the encyclopedia in the name of your "rules." Please reassess your priorities, focus your efforts on IMPROVING, not degrading the encyclopedia, and get over whatever it is you have with Ryulong. Floria L (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[[5]] does not appear to be a proper use of rollback, as it's not blatant vandalism. it looks more like a content dispute. what is the point of having rollback rules if some people are allowed to break them? why not just amend the rules to say that admins can use rollback as they please? i have no problem with that. as it stands now, selectively enforcing rollback rules is just arbitrary. either follow policy or change the policy, but don't be arbitrary about its enforcement. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you even looked at all the diffs, Floria L?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OH goodness gracious. Why do we have this giant mess over rollback all the frigging time. If Ryulong had used the "two mouse click rollback" (i.e. undo, save page) instead of the "one mouse click rollback" we wouldn't be having this discussion. He's not using rollback to perpetuate edit wars, he's not using it to gain the upper hand in content disputes; any edit which could be made to happen without comment using non-rollback methods should be allowed with rollback. I see nothing here worth dragging Ryulong (or ANYONE for that matter) over the coals over. If the edits themselves are a problem, then the edits themselves need to be discussed. If they aren't, then just because he used rollback rather than "undo-save page" to make them happen is a waste of AN discussion space... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The rollback method is disruptive if you are reverting edits that are not vandalism, nonsense, etc... He could have went all the way back to a certain revision, provide an edit summary and save the revision, and for single revision reverts, he could have used the "undo" feature by providing an informative edit summary as to why the revision was reverting. Likewise, if the editor whose revision was undone by Ryulong with rollback, they should either revert and ask him why in the edit summary or leave him a message on his talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you stating that you think any of the actual results of his rollbacks should be undone, or are you just upset at the specific set of mouse clicks and/or key strokes that resulted in them? At worse, you seem to be asking that he be sanctioned for not using edit summaries? What is actually wrong with the specific ends of the edits he made? If nothing, I don't think we need to care how he ends up effecting them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

His uses of rollback are not warranted as they do not meet the needs stated at WP:ROLLBACK. I have explicitly told him to stop the misuse, but he will not stop, and he likely wont stop. I am not saying his rollbacks should be undone. I'm just saying that his method was inappropriate. Like I have been saying to him as well as on this discussion, he could have pick an alternative method. It is plain and simple, and he still doesn't get it. Read every diff I have provided and then tell me whether he misused the function or not. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Such blind adhearance to a few words on a policy page seems inane and picayune and pedantic beyond belief. It isn't abuse if nothing wrong happened! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we don;t force blind adherance to random procedures merely for the sake of doing so. If the use of rollback produces bad results, then we can sanction someone for using it. If there's no problem at all with the results, who cares how he got there? There's no abuse if no one gets hurt! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There are users getting hurt as they are not getting an understanding and he is not telling them what they did wrong let alone not give a reason in the edit summaries. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide difs showing "users getting hurt." JPG-GR (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the diffs (and talk page comments), this appears to be more of a content issue than an admin misusing tools. The statement in rollback guideline being "These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism;...", the key phrases I think being "unproductive" and "such as". Since my daughter's friends were Power Ranger fans some 15 years ago, I freely admit that I've lost track of actual current state of the topic. However, in looking at the rollbacks in question, I just don't see any "misuse" going on. sorry — Ched (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is in no way a content issue. This is a admin abuse issue. He can pick the simplest alternatives, which I have been explicitly telling him, but he will not listen to me at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not listening to you because he's not doing anything wrong. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the February 13 diffs?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So what is the real issue here? And before you ask, yes I read the diffs. I also read Much Ado About Nothing too. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that he is misusing rollback when he can pick alternatives. I have been explicitly warning him and providing help to him so that he will not misuse the function. He explicitly refuses to listen to me, and I keep warning him time and time again. He is wasting the rollback feature on things he shouldn't be using it for and I have effectively seen no justification to warrant such rollbacks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasting, like its going to run out if he uses it too much? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to the merits of this specific complaint, the insinuation that because rollback may not be devolved from the rest of the tools we should be permissive towards abuse of rollback by administrators has it totally backwards. Because we cannot easily remove rollback from an administrator, we should be absolutely intolerant of abuse of that particular tool. And yeah, reverting good faith edits without an edit summary is an abuse of the tool. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you like at this and this, you can see some clear implication that Ryulong intends to ignore my warnings. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Good decision on his part, if so.

You've gotten your answer. That it's not to your liking can't be helped, so I suggest you not keep persisting in hopes of getting a different answer. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

it appears that your answer is either: (1) ryulong is not accountable for misusing the tools because you're the one reporting him, or because he's admin, or both. or (2) ryulong is not misusing the tools. i'm leaning more towards (1) from how i interpret the rules of rollback, but the rest of the people here seem to be leaning towards (2). personally, i've always thought of rollback as only to be used for blatant vandalism, and specifically not content disputes, but i guess that is a versatile interpretation of the rules Theserialcomma (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that Mythdon be enjoined to cease commenting on the actions of Ryulong. This report is somewhat disingenuous in that it is an extension of the previous complaint, not a separate complaint, and the "abuse" identified by Mythdon is actually not abusive; it is clearly not appropriate for Mythdon to "warn" a user with whom he is in dispute in this way, and certainly not appropriate to canvass for sanctions based on the fact that the user he targets has decided not to be drawn in. There is no suggestion that Ryulong's removal of Mythdon's "warnings" serves to obscure or conceal sanctionable behaviour, and actually I don't think the community supports sanctions for removal of comments from talk pages in almost any circumstances these days; we had that fight last year or the year before and it descended into farce, so we decided to stop trying to force people to display warnings, vexatious or otherwise. Maybe that has changed again since, but I don't think so. Consensus is that removal implies it's been read, which is all that's required, there is no requirement to leave warnings, genuine or not.

A case in point: Mythdon identifies this [6] as "abuse" of rollback. The edit removed the closing }}> from a template, breaking it and leaving a mess of wikicode on the page. Sure, you could fix that. But rolling it back is also perfectly acceptable especially since the edit is uncited. This would definitely be a case of "nothing to see here, move along please" if anyone reported it here. It seems to me that Mythdon is engaged in a content dispute with Ryulong and is canvassing to try to get Ryulong sanctioned in furtherance of that dispute. Not good. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Guy summed it up very well, despite what Mythdon may try to convince you to think that he is doing this to protect the users. This is simply an attack on Ryulong, with Mythdon not caring about the encyclopedia itself, only the content and issue disputes with Ryulong. Floria L (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Guy here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also filing in support of Guy's summary. JPG-GR (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Guy. Powergate92Talk 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like a legitimate complain strained past reasonable limits in order to get Ryulong desysoped. Clearly nothing to do with improving the wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. There's nothing here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to Guy's summary. Guy's summary is only full of accusations and assumptions with absolutely no reasonable evidence to support them. "This report is somewhat disingenuous in that it is an extension of the previous complaint, not a separate complaint, and the 'abuse' identified by Mythdon is actually not abusive; it is clearly not appropriate for Mythdon to "warn" a user with whom he is in dispute in this way, and certainly not appropriate to canvass for sanctions based on the fact that the user he targets has decided not to be drawn in." - And exactly when did I try canvassing? There's no forum shopping or anything like that involved here. Exactly how would this thread canvassing? The "abuse" you say that is not abuse is abuse as he is neither providing an edit summary nor warning the users not to do that again. And, this is a totally separate complaint as it covers a separate issue. The previous complaint which was about a block threat against me which was controversial which was filled by another editor. Sure that discussion had a brief conversation about his misuse of rollback, but the main part of that complaint was an innapropriate block threat. "There is no suggestion that Ryulong's removal of Mythdon's 'warnings' serves to obscure or conceal sanctionable behaviour,..." - I have in no way attempted to suggest anything like that. I was just using those kind of diffs to show editors that they were removed. However, this is what got me to make this complaint in the first place as that removal made an implication of deliberate violation of the guideline if you look at his edit summary. "A case in point: Mythdon identifies this [7] as "abuse" of rollback. The edit removed the closing }}> from a template, breaking it and leaving a mess of wikicode on the page. Sure, you could fix that. But rolling it back is also perfectly acceptable especially since the edit is uncited. This would definitely be a case of 'nothing to see here, move along please' if anyone reported it here." - Rolling back edits that are not blatantly disruptive is direct abuse of rollback as he could have either used "undo" to give his reason. Furthermore, he could have left the editor a message which he didn't bother to do. After a while of having experience with rollback, you'll know that it is a feature that is only used when there is no alternative. Rollback is a last resort, and use of it in a situation like that is unacceptable. Uncited information is not a rollbackable offense despite the fact that edits like that are unproductive in that respect. "It seems to me that Mythdon is engaged in a content dispute with Ryulong and is canvassing to try to get Ryulong sanctioned in furtherance of that dispute." - While I had only just gotten out of a content dispute, this report is based on user conduct. Not, content disputes or anything. The fact that Ryulong used the edit summary "Clearly I don't care" in his most recent removal of my warning which was in a content dispute implied intent to violation the rollback guideline, which I mentioned earlier in this reply. I was just going to my watchlist and suddenly found an abuse of rollback, so I brought it up to him as a warning, and he removed it with an edit summary that I find hard to interpret in any other way. However, I could have started a new section with the warning, but then again, having the warning in the dispute section serves convenience. I'm sorry that you think I'm only doing this to win a dispute but that is not the case. Maybe the section where I last warned him made you accuse me of this. As for you Floria, "Guy summed it up very well, despite what Mythdon may try to convince you to think that he is doing this to protect the users. This is simply an attack on Ryulong, with Mythdon not caring about the encyclopedia itself, only the content and issue disputes with Ryulong." - This was in no way an attack. This is an attempt to get Ryulong to comply more to guidelines and not do what he wants to do. Rollback is a sensitive tool if you read its guideline. Sure it may not explicitly say that in the guideline, but once you read it, you'll know what I mean. I do indeed care about this encyclopedia and have tried to improve it. The "content and issue" disputes with Ryulong are not the only things that I care about in any means. It just happens that we get into arguments often as we do have differing viewpoints quite often. Floria L, if you want evidence to support what I just said to you, feel more than welcome to look at my contributions. It may well change the way you stand. This response is also to all those others who support Guy's summary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the whole other issues I just want to make a note on the Template:Interwikis. They are very beneficial to users who work in translating or proofreading between various languages. If Ryulong had rollbacked such link I would have considered it abuse of rollback. As it turns out he did not. this edit is a talkpage entry which an anon put there as the template itself was semiprotected. This sould have been acted upon as a "editprotected" request even though the editor did not make that totally clear. This should not have been reverted either but with it being slightly unclear it is understandable. Agathoclea (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong did abuse rollback at that time. This is a rollback with no excuses whatsoever. I do not understand why Ryulong uses rollback to revert good faith edits, but regardless, he has been abusing the tool. When I am doing my fighting against vandalism, if I find that I used the tool wrongly, I undo the rollback. I've been telling him explicitly to stop, but he clearly does not listen. This is an implication that he is intentionally violating the guideline based on the edit summary he gave for the removal. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it looks like he thought that it was vandalism, and that it doesn't matter at all if he used rollback or not, because in an undo action he would said nothing or said simply "vandalism" --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote from WP:ROLLBACK

The 'rollback' links provided by Wikipedia's interface provide a standard edit summary of the form "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y". These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Reversion for other reasons should be accompanied by an explanatory edit summary, and must therefore be done by a different method.

This is what Ryulong has been blatantly violating. This is the statement I've been refering to but I've only just found it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 February 2009 (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.

Email

Resolved

 – — Aitias // discussion 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an admin available that I could contact by email?--The Jazz Thief (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have email-user enabled?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Xeno. –xeno (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Most administrators have their email enabled, or listed on their user page. As long as you've confirmed your email address, you should see an "Email this user" link along the left side of your screen when viewing their userpage. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/Aitias. — Aitias // discussion 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sent an email to Aitias. Thanks.--The Jazz Thief (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward election notice screwed up

Resolved

The top of every page has <centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice>

I think it takes an administrator to fix this. Fg2 (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm getting this too in Firefox, under Linux. Alatteofwisdom (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hosed, but the problem isn't here, as it's affecting all the wikimedia sites. From m:Special:NoticeTemplate the notices themselves look normal, it's whatever's displaying them that's gone funky. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears the election notice is broken. At the top of every page, I see <centralnotice-template-plain_text_election_notice>. Am I correct in assuming this a MediaWiki issue, or that something handled through Meta? TNXMan 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it on every page I visit in en.wikipedia.org...any ideas? Alatteofwisdom (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Election notice

. DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

m:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-summary. Weird. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody fixed it -- thanks Fg2 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CREATE vandalism

WP:CREATE#Wikipedia-specific help has been vandalized. Tried to undo, ran into problems.Vulture19 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? I don't see it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that in the history either. Versus22 _talk 06:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bottom of the page reads:

Wikipedia-specific help

Hurricane Camille is one of the biggest and strongest hurricane recorded. It happened on august 17,1969.It ran right through the middle of Mexico and Florida.So it went through New Orleans and the area there.If you want to know more visit google and type in Camille hurricane.Here are some other hurricanes. Andrew,Liza,and Agnes.

Vulture19 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not on mine it doesn't. I don't see that at all... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird. I see the stuff about Hurricane Camille when I look at the page. When I try to edit the whole page, I see (not in the edit box, on the bottom of the page) -- some specific help. dougweller (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it too. I believe it's because the vandalized text was on a template. Sometimes when you update a template, the page the template is transcluded on doesn't update itself right away. It should work through the job queue eventually though.--Dycedarg ж 06:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just check related changes and see if templates have been messed with. It was Template:Ph:Starting a new page by the way. It seems like an odd thing to translucate on just one page though. I wonder about subst it and removing the template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion related to the help: namespace and how it is implemented; Unconventional's comment there is particularly relevant to this discussion. Graham87 12:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

my edits

forgive me for posting hear if im not ment to but this is the closest i could find to a chat room

i edited a page "livescribe" and had information on the company... history,products...ext i had sources and all but my edit was removed i cannot find any messages on why nor can i find my edit i did. id like to think my work is of value to the site.

pls help (still kinda new) contact me [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0times6 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean Livescribe? You haven't edited it under your current username, so we can't really help you. By the way, there's something fishy about that article. MER-C 12:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS Elections are ending tonight!

The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:50 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon Dagalea

Resolved

 – AfD tagged, closed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin more experienced in Afd matters take a look at this afd? I find it a little odd that a lot of newbies have a very good knowledge of the wiki and headed straight into an afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've refactored the AfD to make it readable and tagged the comments with {{spa}}, but, well, honestly, never have I seen such a drawer of obvious socks - all created at the same time, all formatting in exactly the same way, all making the same formatting and spelling mistakes, all bluelinking their userpages with variants of the same message... so obviously Angdl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in disguise. Tsk. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Tagging them as {{SPA}}s is now a personal attack, according to the IP editor who just turned up to complain. I love Wikipedia - it gets more insane by the day. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of Angdl's post here wins the "thing that made me laugh most on Wikipedia for a long time" award. Honestly, if you're going to recruit meatpuppets, at least get them to vote the right way... Black Kite 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If the outcome of the AfD is affected by the sockfest that is going on there, don't hesitate to request a CheckUser. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD; there were no guideline/policy based arguments for keeping or new citations provided, so there's no need. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

Resolved

Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

The bots...they are taking over... –xeno (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is Sarah Connor when you need her? — Ched (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC) (sorry - forumish - I'll pick up my wiki-demerit on the way out)

She had to get to the choppa!! How's that for forum-ish? Protonk (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all under control folks, there are four updates in the slot and one on the mainpage which will keep things running another 30 hours or more. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)

The edits of the following users have been deleted BEFORE having any consensus, by a single user [8]

The reason given by this user [9] is " an edit by to a precised Arab-country-issued IP range "[10]

Users: Michael Hardy, Elehack , Robinh , Mazca , Troogleplex , Reyk ,VolkovBot, Jkasd and Asenine (They should, at least be informed, and express their agreement)

How to engage a WP:request for re-establishing these users deleted edits ??Hilberts (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is part of the ongoing controversy over the Boubaker polynomials. Any follow-up should probably occur in the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boubaker sockpuppets, which is still open. I shortened the header of this section for ease of linking to it from elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

user:TEDLEVITT

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by Martinp23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — TKD::Talk 15:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

TEDLEVITT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), removing speedy delete tags after final warning. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting a bit concerned

I need some admin advice. I do not wish to "tell on anyone" and am posting this here just to get more eyes on this and not to get another user into trouble. The matter has been confined to myself and another user without much interest by anyone else. Anyway, there appears to be a private version of the SS article being built up on a user page and I believe it may contain copyrighted information and also that the user who wrote it may be planning to blank the existing SS article and replace it with his/her version. My concerns are voiced here. I could really use someone else taking a look at this. I am not saying that this user has done anything wrong, I am just getting very concerned about where this leading, most important of which that this could easily develop into a WP:OWN situaton if the user does in fact eventually replace the existing article with the version now stored on the user page. Other opinions are needed and I'll accept whatever they are. -OberRanks (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first, he blanked it. Second, I see that you are already speaking with him at User_talk:Mtsmallwood#Please_clarify_your_intentions and at Talk:Schutzstaffel#Private_version_of_this_article_on_a_user_page, so I honestly think you could have just waited a little more but fine. Third, if he just blanked a former FAC without explanation, I think (a) someone else may notice and (b) you would have a better point mentioning it here. Fourth, after notifying him, I really don't think there's anything more you need here, but you can always consider emailing an admin if you want privacy. Me for example. Fifth, I don't mean to be rude, but assume good faith. He could just as easily have copied and pasted that into notepad and dumped it on a day's notice. What difference does the user subpage really make? I mean, I see some editing at Schutzstaffel going on but is there a problem at this point? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it got the attention it deserves. I was trying to be polite and not accuse that user of anything. I just personally think it somewhat strange that someone wrote an entire "replacement" article in the back corner of a a user page. I just didn't like where any of that was headed and there were no other editors chiming in on the discussion. The matter appears resolved, so I will follow AGF as you suggested. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it that unusual. It's usually a good plan to work out major chances on your own, without messing with the "live" article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee vs. Hans Adler on homeopathy talk page

Informal mediation in progress.

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 would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin who is prepared to wade through a lot of text on two talk pages could look at the following places:

• Talk:Homeopathy#Lede still not NPOV, please comment on proposal
• User talk:Fyslee#Talk:Homeopathy

My reading of the situation is that Fyslee has been engaged in well-poisoning and trying to bully me away from the homeopathy article for the crime of being one of the last few editors left who are not debunking fanatics. (With Eubulides and JamesStewart7, two new moderate editors have appeared recently, but it's not clear that they will stay. Basically this leaves only Colonel Warden and me as regular editors who are trying to counterbalance the debunking crowd. The real-life homeopaths who used to edit the article were either banned (User:DanaUllman) or have given up (User:Peter morrell).

I was completely amazed when Fyslee started associating me with User:Dr.Jhingaadey, but after some research I found out that this user appeared at the article shortly before I found it, and it was in fact one of his sockpuppets who first brought up the "quackery" matter. See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 34#Is this article really NPOV?. Apparently Fyslee believes that an issue first brought up by a banned user automatically becomes taboo.

Fyslee's misrepresentations of my beliefs are completely unacceptable for me. I am editing under my real name and cannot accept being associated repeatedly and after I protested with a belief that I do not hold.

If this deeply unfair and unconstructive behaviour is allowed to continue the bullying will be successful and I will withdraw completely from the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I read it, he was talking about the IP (the one now blocked as a sockpuppet of Jhingaadey), not you. Are you sure you've read things correctly? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Reading your comment, I immediately checked. It would make me look like a big fool, but a straightforward misunderstanding like this would be a fantastic resolution of the problem, as it would allow me to keep my previously good opinion of him. It seemed plausible since around the time of Fyslee's comment I was travelling back from a conference in Canada to the UK, and I missed most things that happened on the Homeopathy page. Unfortunately this explanation doesn't fly. Neither the IP nor the new(?) user JeanandJane had participated in the thread before Fyslee's offending comment, which moreover was explicitly addressed to "Hans". Which statement in this thread do you think was addressed to the IP? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you are comparing the word "quackery" with the "n"-word? Seriously, you want to go there? That's like "PETA uses KKK imagery at dog show protest". You are belittling actual and historical racism. Very poor analogy, in terrible taste. Sorry, I didn't read anything past that. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I respect your feelings, and I assure you that racism is just about the last thing I wanted to belittle. Perhaps I am having a real handicap here as a non-native speaker, but my sense of language says that being called a "quack" hurts the target just as much as being called the n word. After thinking a bit about the preceding sentence and trying to put myself in the two situations, I no longer believe it. Sometimes it's hard to come up with a good analogy, and while I still think that this one was valid to the extent that I wanted to draw it, I now see the potential for unintended offense and am sorry for that. Please accept my apology. I will certainly try to be more careful in the future when trying to draw analogies and examples from a cultural background that is not mine and which I therefore don't fully understand.

(This doesn't belong here because it's really a content question, but I think your reaction is an example of the same kind of problem that I wanted to fix in the article: If we use offensive words in the lede, we can easily lose a large part of our readers right away.) --Hans Adler (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than attempt to defend myself, I suggest the use of a large salt shaker when reading Adler's comments. Then apply the salt to his numerous straw men, and you'll discover a rather confused picture which even I have a hard time understanding. My most charitable interpretation has to do with the fact that Adler is a German speaking editor and that difficulties in understanding nuances of the English language may be part of the problem. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the points made by Hans. User:Fyslee's comments have been unpleasantly threatening and are ad hominen rather than constructive comments upon the article's development. Hans seems an editor of the highest quality. As he does not conceal his identity, he should be protected from unwarranted smears and personal attacks. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The best thing here would be to not escalate the situation, and CWs fanning the flames isn't helpful. This appears to be based largely on a misunderstanding, and does not warrant this level of attention. Verbal chat 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to believe that it is a mere misunderstanding, and the fact that both Fyslee and I are using the word "straw man" to describe the other's comments indicates this might be true. Only – I just can't see what the misunderstanding might be. I know it's a lot of unpleasant work, but could you please look at Fyslee's first contribution to the thread in question, as well as my first comment and my last comment on Fyslee's talk page, and help to clear up the misunderstanding? I believe that could be very helpful since you are more on Fyslee's side in the content question and not prone to assuming bad faith about me. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: Actually, I do have an idea what the misunderstanding might be. Perhaps he thinks that I am personally offended by the word "quackery" in the article (hint: no text in the article that does not – implausibly – mention me personally will ever offend me), and that the points that I am still awaiting meaningful responses to are mere smoke grenades (hint: these points really offended me). (I was shocked that he took this from a content dispute in which I was mildly interested to a discussion of myself that seemed to be bizarre.) But then it's exactly what I said on his talk page before: That he is replying, not to me, but to his projection of me. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hans: I respect you, if I don't always agree with you. Would you mind if we de-escalated this situation, close this thread, and I'll have a few words with Fyslee? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative, I am willing to try this approach. And I have no trouble returning the compliment. However, I am generally proud of my ability to detect all sorts of misunderstandings. If I have been spectacularly wrong here by misidentifying one and completely overlooking another, then I really want to know how so I can learn from the experience. And if I was right, I would like to get clear signals from Fyslee that he has learned something about himself, and perhaps about the deeper meaning of WP:AGF. Either way, we need to get at the root of this and make sure it doesn't happen again.

Closing this for now, but should be reopened if necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2009 (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.

Block of User:Asgardian

Resolved

 – Unblocked after discussion. Mangojuice^talk 13:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 has asked that I request uninvolved administrators to review my block of Asgardian, his fifth block. Although Asgardian is known as a strong editor for the comic book-related articles he has edited, he also exhibits an unfortunate problem with respect to certain aspects of Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:Civility, WP:OWN and WP:Consensus. He is often very rude and insulting to editors whose edits he reverts, either in his Edit Summaries, or in his messages on those editors Talk Pages.[11][12] He often speaks as if his edits epitomize "encyclopedic standards", whereas others are "badly written", "sloppy", "fancruft", etc. He has more than once referred to edits he disagrees with as "vandalism"[13][14]. He argues that substandard writing is actually a warnable offense, etc.

When I and others attempt to explain to him that this poor writing is not vandalism, that terms like "sloppy", "crufty", etc. are not in keeping with WP:Civility, he is dismissive and condescending, makes personal comments and false accusations (he once falsely accused me of sockpuppetry), and relies on non sequiturs and other logical fallacies to support his positions. When these arguments are rebutted and refuted, he does not respond, but simply repeats them over and over. He argues, for example, that whether referring to an editor's work as "sloppy" is uncivil depends on the quality of that editor's work, arguing that because the editor "undid a great deal of good work", that addressing him the way he did was somehow not uncivil. When I try to point out that this is a non sequitur, in that whether the edit was not helpful and whether the comment by him was rude are two separate things, he does not respond. He just repeats the assertion. He justifies another personal comment directed at an editor by saying that it was "clinical". When I point out that this is a personal comment, he again suggests that the other editor's edits mitigate this. When I respond that one does not justify the other, he says nothing.

Because I've closely monitored his behavior and across several articles since last year, naturally, he sees me as a threat, and enjoys making personal comments. When I first placed polite warnings on his Talk Page for his rude comments to others, he referred to the warnings as "ultimatums" and "silly threats". When I tried to point out to him that issuing warnings for people violating policy was one of the legitimate duties of administrators, he did not respond. He argues that for me to monitor his activity indicates some type of obsession or inappropriate behavior on his part, when in fact, monitoring someone who's been blocked multiple times is perfectly reasonable. He insists that for me to point out these things, that I am too "emotional", though he never points out any passage or quote to that effect, nor does he explain how he has excluded the possibility that my position and statements cannot be held dispassionately. These are simply personal comments that he insists on making, because he either doesn't understand WP:Civility and WP:No Personal Attacks, or doesn't care. He simply assumes the worst possible motives and cast such aspersions upon people who criticize his behavior. I don't have the diffs for all of this on hand, because Asgardian regularly deletes material from his Talk Page, rather than archive them, claiming them to be "nothing of note", even though they include multiple instances admonishments by others for his behavior[15][16], and even his fourth block. This is nothing of note? How?

When I first blocked Asgardian last year, other administrators told me that it would be better if in the future, an uninvolved admin did this, though they all upheld the block. Asgardian is quick to point out the former point, but consistently omits the latter. For my part, I immediately agreed to their suggestion without argument, as it seemed reasonable.

Asgardian's last block was for editing disputed content, without discussion, despite the fact that a discussion was ongoing at the time. The issue was that he wanted to delete book titles, storylines and dates from the text of the Fictional Character Biographies of comic book characters in favor of merely citing those things as sources with ref tags. My position was that this made the section read poorly, as there was not historical context for the events described. I responded to each of Asgardian's points on the Black Bolt Talk Page. Rather than respond, he said he would get a Third Opinion. Instead, he abandoned the discussion, and proceeded to revert the article. It is for this, and his repeated incivility, that User:Daniel Case blocked him for a week. Asgardian responded by lashing out, claiming that because I suggested the block, that the block was weak, as if Daniel Case is somehow unable to make responsible decisions himself. His conduct in the section created as a result of his last block provides a fairly good idea of the incivility, logical fallacies, personal comments, make statements listed under WP:OWN, and intellectual dishonesty that characterizes his behavior. Not surprisingly, this fourth block was also upheld by all administrators who reviewed it, a point that doesn't seem to faze Asgardian. His rude behavior did not change subsequent to this block, either.

Now, he's up to his old behavior again, deleting book and story names from the Black Bolt article, and speaking disrespectfully to others. I tried to remind him that the previous discussion on the BB Talk Page was not resolved, and that if he wanted to bring up that disagreement again, we should discuss it. He deleted my message, and left one on my Talk Page, directing me to two other Talk Pages, and claiming his comments [17][18] were not uncivil because "The editor undid a great deal of good work and reinserted work with all the problems previously mentioned." He genuinely does not seem to understand that whether the editors' work was not to his liking, or even non-constructive, does not justify these comments, and that he can address the problem without such rudeness. He proceeded to revert the article again, without discussion, the exact thing for which he was last blocked. It is for that reason that I felt that a longer block is required.

It's been opined that an "uninvolved" admin would've been better to impose the block. The reason I chose to block Asgardian myself is because after my last block of him, I tried to utilize other resources and suggestions by other admins, to little or no avail, and there does not seem to be a very strong network in place to deal with people like this. For example, one admin told me to keep trying to talk to Asgardian. When I tried to tell him that I tried this repeatedly, and that Asgardian just ignored me, this admin insisted that I simply "keep trying". Another admin, I believer User:Emperor, suggested starting a discussion on the Comics Project page, but as I recall, no one responded to the thread. Another suggestion was to start a consensus discussion on such matter. I tried contacting close to 50 other editors, but only a few responded. Of those few, a couple refused to post in the relevant section on Asgardian's block because they felt they didn't know enough about the matter, even though the relevant Diffs were made available to them. One refused to comment because his experiences with Asgardian were negative, and was apparently bitter over his own past personal dealings with admins. User:Hiding was also not very helpful, IMO. Even Daniel Case himself, who initiated the last block, told me subsequent to his block that he was now "involved", and didn't want to deal with Asgardian any more. It is for this reason that I felt that blocking him myself was necessary, as did User:Emperor and User:Hiding, who have affirmed the validity of this block. I'm going to address the issue of objectivity, and other points that Asgardian has raised in response to this newest block here. Quotes of Asgardian's statements are in bold, followed by my responses:

Points of contention over current block

"As can be seen here, he been counselled by two very experienced editors 3" I'm not sure to what this link was supposed to direct us, but it shows all the sections and posts of my Talk Page from Sept - Oct 2008, regarding his last block. I notice his use of the word "counseled", as if to imply that the other editors were somehow address some problem on my part, but keep in mind that all the administrators who chimed in over that block upheld it. So I'm not sure what he's getting at here.

"and again offered a gentle warning regarding this recent block here 4" The linked page shows no such thing. It shows User:Hiding reacting in anger to a comment I made recently on User:Emperor's Talk Page in which I stated that I did not wish to discuss the current matter with Hiding because our previous discussion last year was not constructive. Thus, Asgardian's statement is false on two counts: It pertains to last year's block, not the recent one, and contains no "warning" by Hiding. Please take note of this mendacious tendency on Asgardian's part to use deceptive, euphemistic language to distort things like this.

"What concerns me is that because Nightscream is involved, he cannot possibly be objective." Of course I can. The fact that two people have had past dealings with one another may at best raise a question of objectivity in theory, but in practice, it's hardly impossible. I'm rather dispassionate about my Wikipedia work, and don't let things get to me emotionally. If you want examples, here are a few:

• I endured an enormous amount of vitriol and abuse, and even repeated vandalism to my Talk Page over my responses to User:Liaishard's extra-policy edits on the Corey Clark page. The manner in which I was able to keep cool in the face of that abuse, and cite policy to her, is the reason why Administrator Geniac voted to support my nomination for admin.
• Here's another example of a rather abusive editor attacking me on my Talk Page for upholding policy, and here's my completely assertive but polite response to him, in which I cite policy, admonish him not to threaten anyone, and even offer to help him learn more about editing WP. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• In this section, User:David A contacted me regarding problems he was having with Asgardian. Here is my response, in which I tell David A that he has not illustrated any behavior on Asgardian's part that I could see that violated policy. What? I sided against taking any action against Asgardian in a conflict? Well, yes. David A did not make his case, and I wasn't going to arbitrarily side against Asgardian simply because of past conflicts. Granted, I had to change the section title on David's talk page because the one Asgardian chose was clearly uncivil, and I warned Asgardian about that, which Asgardian presumably ignored as usual, but I took no further action against him.

This shows lack of objectivity? Hardly. Ultimately, all you have to do is look at the validity of the block at hand on the basis of its own merits. Given that User:Emperor and User:Hiding support the block, that should tell you something. But if anyone reviewing this block feels that subsequent blocks of Asgardian should never been enacted by me, then I would request that some uninvolved admins make themselves available to review future infractions by him, without the rubber stamping and walking on eggshells exhibiting in the past by others, and I will be more than happy to agree to that.

"He also seems to be using the power of adminship as a gentle threat and ultimatum, as can be seen here 5." A legitimate administrative warning to cease violating policy lest one be blocked, is not an "ultimatum", or a "threat", gentle or otherwise. Again, what part of Wikipedia policy pertaining to such warnings is not being followed here? Am I not an admin? Is giving such warnings not a part of admin duties, which is why we have entire groups of templates for them? If Asgardian wants to argue that the warning was not justified, that's fine, but that's not what he does. He simply uses propagandistic labeling of such things as "threats" and "ultimatums", as if doing so will change the nature of their legitimacy. I've pointed out this to him before, and naturally, he is never able to refute or rebut this.

"As I said, I do not see this as fair. This entry 6 also shows that his last block of my account was inappropriate." No, it shows the other editors/admins upholding the block, and agreeing that Asgardian's behavior merited it. One editor, Jc37, opined that I was not uninvolved, but neither he nor any of the other participants argued against the block itself. Another mendacity noted.

"As to the material itself, I see this as a misunderstanding. When Nightscream posted his warning of a block, I offered up the following 7, which linked to discussions that have been in play for a time prior to my recent edits of Black Bolt. It basically shows that there is now a new article format emerging, which focuses on being out-of-universe. There is considerable discussion here 8..." First of all, out-universe has always been Wikipedia's guideline when writing about fiction, so this is not new. In fact, during our October discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page, it was I who had to point out to Asgardian that keeping explicit book and story titles and dates was consistent with this, and that Asgardian's removal of them was not, and Asgardian who responded that "Guidelines are just that, guidelines", as seen here. Second, neither of these discussions Asgardian links to make any mention of books titles, storyline names or publications dates being removed from the text in favor of keeping them exclusively in the references. They appear to concern the reformatting of the Fictional character biography and Publication History sections. Nothing having to do with whether to mention titles.

"What is ironic is that I did insert dates and titles when trialling this format 9 [19]..." These links are merely to the Abomination article and the Rhino article, and not to any Diffs. But to just to double check, I checked the Edit Histories, just to see if I could find these edits Asgardian mentions. My check of the Rhino history showed no apparent inclusion of dates that I could see. My check of the Abomination history did turn up this inclusion of dates on his part (note the "objectivity" in which I confirm his assertion, even though the diff he provided did not), but what does this mean? Because he included publication dates in Artcile A, that allows him to delete them from Article B? No, I'm sorry, but it does not. He was not blocked because of what he did on the Abomination article, he was blocked for reverting the Black Bolt article, without discussion, and for incivility. That he can point to an example of a valid edit does not excuse the behavior that is not valid.

"...but at the suggestion of a very experienced editor 11 actually changed my style to have all titles etc exist outside the article as references 12 and was thanked for this." The first link does not link to any post by this "very experienced editor" but to Asgardian's Talk Page, on which there are a group of posts in several different sections by four different editors, none of whom make any mention of titles and dates, or provide diffs to any relevant edits to that effect. The second link is simply another link to Peregrine Fisher's Talk Page, on which no mention of these things is made.

"All this I linked for Nightscream but he didn't seem to realize these changes were all post-October 2008, which is when the last discussion occurred." Well no, quite the opposite is true. It appears that Asgardian abandoned the October Black Bolt discussion, even though he stated he would go and get a Third Opinion, and when he instead went and reverted, he was blocked, and then backed off the matter. His attempt to again delete the titles and dates from that article without discussion, appears to me to be a case of his having bided his time, waiting to enact those edits in the hopes of escaping notice, which is entirely predicated on the passage of time. Where he gets the idea that the opposite is true, that I am unaware that the discussions are post-October 2008 (what, is he under the impression that I think they're from three years ago?), I have no idea.

"The only reply on this front that I received was a block for a month, for the simple fact that I removed the titles and dates and directed them to a Reference section. I did not delete them entirely..." First of all, the edit in question does not show Asgardian "directing" anything into a Reference section, with the exception of dates of a "Secret Invasion" story and The Last Fantastic Four story. All of the other formatted references were already in the article, and had nothing to do with this particular edit. Indeed, the point of contention of editorial aspect of this conflict is my position that titles and dates should be in the explicit text as well as in the references, as the latter serves WP:V, but the former serves better reading and historical context. If Asgardian, or hell, even a majority, disagree with this, that's fine, but that's why there has to be a discussion on it. Asgardian refuses to engage in it, preferring to revert without one, and point to discussions in which he claims these matters were discussed, when in fact, they were not.

"...and Nightscream actually retained all my other edits even after restoring the titles and dates." Yes, that's correct. Instead of blindly reverting, I looked closely at his edit, and noticed that while some of it violated the discuss-before-reverting policy, other parts of it were good, and so, instead of just pressing "Undo" and "Save", I went through the article, distinguishing between the two, so as to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Is this a bad thing? Because it sounds like yet another example of the objectivity on my part that Asgardian insists I do not have.

"As to the charge of breaching WP:Civility, I disagree. This edit is referenced 13 but the worst of it is using the term "sloppy" for one sentence, which was said with no venom, and in the overall context of the article it was considerably improved." The use of the word is inherently venomous. There is no such thing as "saying it without venom", and this is in line with his long history of rudeness to others. The fact that Asgardian used this language in the Summary of an edit that improved the article has nothing to do with this, a non sequitur that I pointed out above, but which he continues to repeat without responding to this rebuttal.

"The second allegation concerns this 14 which I find to also be unfair, given that I actually used the term "please" twice and even after giving a brief explanation of what was incorrect with the style, actually provided a link to the discussion on how the articles were changing. I do not believe this to be abusive or counter productive. I think this is simply a question of intepretation and point of view by Nightscream." The use of the word "please" does not mitigate the use of statements like "you reinserted badly written material with poor grammar" and "no one will defend material that is sub-standard." Criticism can be more constructive than that. Citing incorrect grammar isn't unreasonable but "bad" and "sub-standard" are needlessly pejorative.

"There is, unfortunately, also an accusation by Nightscream present - "You're just trying to once again sneak your personal aesthetics regarding book titles into articles without discussion." - from 15 which I suppose breaches WP:Civility." I find it interesting that Asgardian is able to rationalize or ignore his entire history of rudeness, personal attacks, false accusations and insults, but somehow, he is able to find a comment that actually offends the Civility policy.

Legitimate criticism of one's behavior is not a violation of Civility. It's part of what the editors and admins on this site must do with an editor who routinely violates policy. With respect to accusations like the one above that go to a person's motive, they should not be made unless the accuser can illustrate how he/she has excluded other possible, less nefarious motives. This is not a distinction often made by others. When someone accused me on the Sicko Talk Page of making edits to push a POV, I asked him how he excluded the possibility that the edits were not made in good faith, even if in his opinion, they appeared to be POV. Not surprisingly, he refused to answer this, even though I asked him this repeatedly. By contrast, I have shown how Asgardian's motive is clear. He has a history of violating policy pertaining to WP:OWN, WP:Consensus, and being blocked for it, repeatedly, by multiple administrators. When he is unable to respond to rebuttals in a discussion, says he'll get a Third Opinion, but then abandons the discussion, reverts, gets blocked, and then waits four months before reverting that particular type of edit again, and then rationalizes by linking to discussions that he says explain this, but which in truth contain no mention of the particular issue in conflict, it is not unreasonable to see what he's doing. Thus, there is no "breach". Just noting a habitual policy violator.

Keep in mind that he falsely accused me a couple of months ago of IP sock puppetry, simply because the IP editor criticized his lack of civility, without providing any evidence or reasoning that this person was me, as if he's unaware that other people have criticized his incivility. I pointed out that I've never been to California, where the IP was traced to, but live in New Jersey, which a check could verify, but he never acknowledged or apologized for this. But despite that fact that I illustrate the motive for his behavior here, suddenly it's a breach of Civility.

"To conclude, I find this block on one month to be excessive. I am a strong contributor to Wikipedia, and am actively trying to better the articles, which has been acknowledged by others on many occasions, such as here 16. If some fault is still perceived on the issue of civility then I am happy to wait out a 7-day block." Putting aside the fact that many, if not most people here, are strong contributors who better articles, that this does not justify Asgardian's behavior, and that it's hardly his place to decide how long his blocks should be, he was already blocked last time for two weeks, and went right back to making obnoxious comments to the admin who blocked him. So if a two-week, fourth block is not enough to get him to understand not to behave this way, who is he to dictate that he should now be blocked for only one week?

"I would, however, be very grateful if I could join a group discussion in the near future which finalizes a format, and then continue editing from there, as I believe no one has issue with my content contributions." Asgardian has been given numerous opportunities to join group discussions to discuss such things, and he typically stonewalls when his fallacies are refuted. As for no one having an issue with his content contributions, the various administrators who have blocked him and upheld all of his blocks, including the three who agree upon this current one, all have issue with him, as have others. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

and there does not seem to be a very strong network in place to deal with people like this. This to me has been and continues to be a massive problem on wikipedia. Regardless of what some people say there seems to be an unspoken system in place where if someone has made X good edits, certain individuals and groups of individuals will rise to their defense no matter what they've done. Frankly it needs to stop because it is bad for the community. it is probably the worst thing for the community that can happen. Some editor with a chip on his shoulder who thinks he is lord and master of an article who treats others like crap creates many issues. First he discourages editors on that particular article. They feel like wikipedia is a closed community and they're not welcome so they leave. In addition to that outside editors not involved in the situation see what happens. Some of them might just get disgusted that someone has chased away one or more editors and try to do something about it. But then they get a lesson in wikidrama 101. You have admins afraid to start wheel wars over blocking an obviously problem editor because they feel someone will just unblock him. People start long sub-pages, committees, someone calls the president, etc and after hundreds of thousands of bytes, nothing is solved, everybody is pissed off and because this editor didn't face any repercussions, he feels like its license to continue to act this way. This continues on and on and on until at some point this person pisses on enough of his supporters that eventually they're blocked. Something that probably should have be done months and years earlier. In the meantime some editors may become disillusioned with the process and decide wikipedia isn't worth the hassle. Some admins might be frustrated by the inability to do what is right and they all leave. In the end the person finally ends up blocked and told to shape up or get out but because of these people who are willing to basically excuse anything because of a few good contributions, the person has managed to leave a path of destruction in their wake. you might think "Oh I know who he is talking about" but you don't. Because I can think of half a dozen examples of this completed saga, and I can think of several more that are on-going. Each one of them is one case too much. p.s. I'm still reading the rest--Crossmr (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

–Tl;dr. If you know enough about a user to write all this, you probably shouldn't be pulling the trigger. I'll try to read this and get some traction...but it really is just too long. Protonk (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User Hiding's thoughts

Given my name's mentioned up there and I'm described as being unhelpful, I'll chuck in my two cents. User:Asgardian does not contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner. While he/she makes useful edits, the user ignores many of the behaviourial policies, specifically WP:OWN, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Regarding User:Nightscream, I firmly believe that due to the fact that Nightscream is involved in editorial disputes with User:Asgardian, User:Nightscream should not be blocking User:Asgardian. That User:Nightscream finds that opinion unhelpful is perhaps suggestive of a deeper issue. I'm fairly involved in the issue myself, so I know the ins and outs of it, and I honestly think that pretty much sums it all up. User:Asgardian should likely have been blocked, USer:Nightscream should not have been the one placing the block. Both users need to modify their behaviour accordingly. Hiding T 10:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I note that it is alleged above that I have reacted in anger. I have not reacted in anger, I have attempted to clarify the actual position in a level-headed manner. That Nightscream chooses to portray this as anger is somewhat ironic, given the accusations the user has levelled at Asgardian. Hiding T 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To any admins reviewing this, I offer the following quote by myself above: "But if anyone reviewing this block feels that subsequent blocks of Asgardian should never been enacted by me, then I would request that some uninvolved admins make themselves available to review future infractions by him, without the rubber stamping and walking on eggshells exhibiting in the past by others, and I will be more than happy to agree to that." Thus, I not only do not find the opinion that involved admins are preferred not to be the blocking admins in such disputes, but I explicitly stated that I agree with it, provided that others are willing to get involved. I normally would not respond to this, but since Hiding has a habit of deliberately distorting my words, and attributing statement to me that I did not make (he did this twice in this post on my Talk Page) it is unfortunately necessary to clarify for reviewers what my position actually is. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I have distorted your words, I apologise. I'm a little puzzled at how I have done so, but I certainly apologise. Let me know how I have done it and I will gladly re-factor my comments accordingly to mutual agreement. Hiding T 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think admins in general are always willing to do this. All you would have to do is post at WP:ANI when you want someone independent to have a look. I don't think anyone needs to agree to WP:MENTOR Asgardian. But finding an independent admin to act when necessary should be easy. Mangojuice^talk 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this suggestion, and was what I tried to convey after the previous block, albeit in my ham-fisted manner. Hiding T 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevent ArbCom case

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Asgardian was sanctioned for incivility and edit warring, and placed on 1RR for 1 year. The sanctioned expired in December 2008. Just for context. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My experience with Asgardian

I have, in the past, been inovlved with this since, having had no involvement until I declined one of his unblock requests, I was asked to intervene and make a few of the blocks as an uninvolved admin.

I cannot consider myself uninvolved now. Last November, while Asgardian's probation was still on, I decided to gently warn him about some of his sarcastic edit summaries instead of blocking him outright, thinking that might work better.

This was the response I got. If that doesn't count as having tried and failed to deal with the problem through user-to-user interaction, I don't know what does. I do see this block as justified, given the context. However, someone else (no longer me, alas), should probably have made it. But that is ultimately secondary to the fact that the block should have been made. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that response was totally uncalled for and if it were me I would have blocked for those comments. Why do we even keep this person around? -MBK₀₀₄ 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the magic question a number of us who have dealt with Asgardian would perhaps like answered. We tried arb-com, we tried the community noticeboard, we tried the administrator's noticeboard. To be fair to Asgardian, he has come a long way. But whether that is far enough is for others to decide. I crossed out of impartiality in this one ages ago. Hiding T 15:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the block

I think this block was inappropriate. I see a combination of several factors that led to this block: first, Asgardian has not been incivil in the comments that led up to this block. He has clearly been incivil in the past (the "Mr. Clean-up" comment, for instance, and there are probably worse). But the edit summary where he referred to removing "sloppy game content" is civil: (1) it's a comment on content, not on a contributor or even a specific contribution, and (2) while "sloppy" is a negative term, it's not an inflammatory one. Nor is his civil though possibly pushy request to another editor to desist from certain edits, and his criticism of those edits problematic. Second, I note that Nightscream gave a warning on February 10, and only issued a block on February 11 after Asgardian's response [20], in which Asgardian politely referred Nightscream to a discussion he felt was behind the edits Nightscream was concerned about, and also said he didn't think his comments were incivil. Even if Nightscream disagreed with that, I can't understand why this block was placed, unless it was to punish Asgardian for disagreement or disobedience regarding Nightscream's own civility warning. Third, Nightscream is not being independent here, and even worse, he thinks he is. This can be seen from, among several factors, Nightscream's response to Asgardian's unblock request with opinions about article content, the extreme length of Nightscream's reply, and the fact that Nightscream has been warned before that he is too involved in this dispute. Additionally, in Nightscream's original February 10th warning, he takes a position on a content dispute in the same message as he threatens a block. To be clear, I'm saying that to me, there's more than the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, one actually exists here. Now, maybe Asgardian's contributions before should have led us to show him the door permanently, but they didn't. If he behaves that badly, fine, I wouldn't defend it. But he didn't this time. Mangojuice^talk 16:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Respectfully disagree with Mangojuice. Occasionally saying 'no' is an administrative duty. There's a game that disruptive editors play: misconstruing our recusal standards in attempt to politically disarm any admin who tells them 'no' (but never demanding recusal of any admin who supports the disruptive editor). We don't hold it aginst administrators when they write a thorough report. I'll withhold opinion about this particular block, but note that past experience with content contributors who exhibit habitual incivility is that--when given lenient treatment in the hope that their behavior would improve--they tend instead to get worse and to tie up a lot of administrative time. Durova^Charge! 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian was blocked because he proceeded to revert the edits in question without discussion, even though the fact that the issue was in conflict was brought to his attention, which is the exact reason he was blocked last time. As is mentioned above copiously, the discussions he linked to had nothing to do whatsoever with the issues of conflict, despite his attempt to portray them as thus. The boldface quote-and-response Exchanges #6-11 above specifically deal with this issue, which you can review yourself. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Durova, with due respect, you do not disagree with me if you aren't talking about this case. I am well aware the accusations of administrator involvement are frequently abused, I don't take them at face value, I've looked at the history. (And all I was saying with the length thing is that it goes beyond thorough, to show a level of emotional attachment, and interest in the underlying content disputes, that is troubling.) Nightscream -- even if no discussion took place at all, this block would be inappropriate because at heart it's an editing disagreement between, mainly, you two. It wasn't edit warring, it wasn't disruption, I can't even call it against consensus (and even if it was a change from the old way of doing things, WP:CCC and WP:BOLD still applies). So that doesn't justify the block, and it also leaves the nagging question why you said the block was for incivility when there was no incivility after your warning. Mangojuice^talk 18:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We're agreed that it's inappropriate to block an editor when the blocking admin is in a content dispute with the person. Nightscream has brought this problem to the community's attention, and with a recently expired arbitration sanction it's reasonable to suppose that the problem may not be just in Nightscream's perception. Perhaps a good faith unblock would be the best solution, with an understanding that the matter is on more people's radar now. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"And all I was saying with the length thing is that it goes beyond thorough, to show a level of emotional attachment, and interest in the underlying content disputes, that is troubling." The length of my post is determined by two main factors: 1. The sheer number of examples of his past behavior that contextualize this current situation, which forms the first part of it, and 2. the number of individual statements he made that needed to be responded to so that their fallaciousness and falsehood could be seen by reviewers.

I understand that reading this post may be burdensome to some, but reaction to its length is largely a matter of aesthetics. Arguing an "emotional attachment" (as if "length" = "emotional") is a non sequitur, and to make this statement without providing any evidence or reasoning to illustrate it to the exclusion of other, perfectly dispassionate motives (like perhaps that I'm simply a perfectionist who sometimes makes longer, more comprehensive posts when the situation warrants), is unjustified, and a personal comment, which violates policy. For the record, I've made a number of large posts on this site and on others, as it is part of my style when refuting large collections of statements riddled with logical fallacies or lies. The vast majority of my posts, however, are brief. When they are not, it is because people like Asgardian provide too much material for them to be so. Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I would drop this whole abuse-of-admin-tools angle if you would just defer to other admins to handle this and future situations. According to the posts on your talk page from September-October '08, you were counseled even before your previous block of Asgardian that you should consider youself involved and recuse yourself, by Hiding. That was reiterated by Jc37 and Emperor then, and has now been repeated by myself and Jayron now, if I'm not missing anyone else. That's a lot of voices of concern for you to be ignoring. But you didn't recuse yourself, and you effectively continue to not recuse yourself by defending your block rather than deferring to all the admins who have commented on it. Maybe you aren't emotionally involved but it has all the hallmarks of it. Mangojuice^talk 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR — Werdna • talk 08:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you have to write a thesis to justify or explain something, it's better to just let another admin handle it. Dayewalker (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a doctrine called the "Appearance of Fairness" (I can't find it here) that states that a good decision is not only a decision that is fair, but also a decision that has all the necessary decorum to prevent outsiders to feel it wasn't. I must agree with Mangojuice here, this was a bad block on these grounds. If it's not the first time that happens to Nightscream, this is a serious source of concern. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I've explained why I felt that deferring to another admin, while ideal, was no longer an option here, and I explained why the level of detail here became necessary. I also pointed out that two other admins--Emperor and Hiding, also supported this block. Also note below that Jc37 also concedes that Asgardian has problems with civility. I have no problem with oversight as to my admin duties, but given that Asgardian has a history of this sort of thing, was blocked last time by someone else for doing the exact thing he did this time, and lied repeatedly about the record, I think making comments about "emotion" on my part and about knowing what being an admin means smacks of the same sort of personal comments that Asgardian himself likes to engage in. Let's see how this unblock works out. If you want, I'll contact those of you who have spoken here on future incidents. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:jc37 thoughts

For transparency, Asgardian apparently left me a couple notices on my talk page (as an IP?).

I'm on semi-wikibreak, but I've in the past been a WP:3PO for situations involving Asgardian. I even started the discussion page (a sort of an RfC) so that those with concerns could discuss.

Asgardian definitely has interpersonal communication skill issues. And while on one hand I want to say (as I have in the past) "but he's much better than he used to be", there have been occaisions of late in which "better" still hasn't quite been "civil".

Emperor offered to mentor him, and (imo) has been doing a good job. And from what I can tell, Asgardian listens to Emperor. If that has changed in the recent past, then perhaps further sanction should be discussed.

(Short form: I agree with Hiding's statement above.)

As for Nightscream, he's rather clearly an "involved editor", who has blocked Asgardian more than once. And after several discussions with Nightscream, I have severe concerns that he even understands what being an admin means, not just the circumstances under which we use the "tools". Anyone can quote jargon about being a janitor, etc., but after several lengthy attempts at discussion with Nightscream, I stronly feel that they should have an admin mentor/coach of some kind. (I'll spare all of you the "tldr" explanations and diffs. Anyone interested can look at the talk page archives of Nightscream (and Asgardian, Daniel Case, Emperor, J Greb, and Hiding, at least - notices and follow up discussion was scattered somewhat).

Short form: Again, I agree with Hiding's statement above.

At this point, to avoid further conflict, I would suggest that should Nightscream find a situation in which they feel Asgardian should be blocked (noting of course that blocks should be preventative, and not punitive), that they post here, and not be the blocking admin.

As for Asgardian, I think Emperor's doing a great job as far as that situation goes, and I'll happily defer to his opinion. - jc37 08:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, based on the above discussion, and the rough consensus among admins that there are big concerns regarding this block, I've unblocked. I am also still concerned about Nightscream's conduct here as an admin: I think this should serve as a final warning to Nightscream about blocking users he is engaged with. Mangojuice^talk 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the consensus is that he should have been blocked just not by nightscream. In that case you should have unblocked and reblocked if you felt that kind of process was absolutely necessary.--Crossmr (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected page edit request

Hi, would an admin please add a few words to the description at tomorrow's Picture of the Day crediting photographer Jerry Avenaim for the portrait? Template:POTD protected/2009-02-17 I've blogged about Mr. Avenaim's generous donation of his work under free license.[21] He's a notable photographer so a link to his article would be appropriate. Durova^Charge! 06:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check to see if that is to your taste. Viridae^Talk 07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 16:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Help wanted

VRTS ticket # 2008100910051663 has been hanging around for a while. The Hunger Project has been subject to an extended campaign of vilification, often tied to opposition to Werner Erhard, who has not been associated with the project for 18 years or so (I see the reason for the issues, because of course Erhard is Mr. Landmark Education, and we have had several bites of that particular shit sandwich in recent years). A big chunk of the article is a laundry list of kvetches from Rick Ross and the like. I don't know a lot about this subject, but it's pretty clear that someone has been soapboxing. The group's letter is polite but not sufficiently specific for me to pick up individual items. Ideally I would like to recruit an admin or two who has knowledge of this subject area and can pick through the past problems. Any volunteers would be much appreciated. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group/nominations/Jarry1250

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that User:Jarry1250 is up for BAG membership (click the above link for the discussion). Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN

Hi. Occasionally, it is nice to remind admins that ITN team would be happy to have more people involved in the process. Besides, it we feel it is neccessary to have a link to WP:ITN/C on the main page in order to direct users with comments/suggestions to the discussion page. Thanks for consideration. --Tone 14:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeating my post from that page for wider consideration Exxolon (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This has just occurred to me. The initials for "In The News" are the same as a very well known television news organisation. We should probably discourage the use of the initials for this reason - we could be opening ourself up for accusations of trademark infringement under the grounds of confusion - we absolutely do not want people thinking this section is endorsed/created by the organisation in question - someone should probably run this past WP:OFFICE ASAP. Exxolon (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I always read "ITN" as "Independent Television News" whenever I see it on my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem here. We don't have the acronym on the main page and we use it only as an abbreviation in communications. Besides, I somehow doubt that a three-letter combination is copyright protected. And one more, I guess that noone beside people from the country where ITN is the TV makes the connection. On the other hand, there have been some initiatives to change the name of the feature but nothing really happened. --Tone 10:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to dig out a source for a case I remember, where the MGM film studios tried to stop a small UK garage calling itself MGM Motors or something, even though they'd registered first. So I think it is at least a possibility. Anyone want to chuck at our legal counsel? Exxolon (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alkaline Lakes VS Alkali Lakes

I have noticed that under Alkaline there is a section called [Alkali Lakes]. However some people have linked them under the heading Alkaline Lake on pages such as Lake Turkana. Upon trying to create a redirect from Alkaline Lake to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline#Lakes, I was told that this action had been blocked. Is the term "Alkaline Lake" entirely incorrect? Should they all be changed to Alkali or is a redirect allowable? -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It was probably blocked because of the title blacklist, or maybe a server glitch. In any case I have created the redirect for you. I know nothing about the subject, but if people have been linking to that title which seems to be the case, that means a redirect is warranted. Graham87 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

WP:RM currently has a backlog stretching back to February 3. Any help clearing the backlog will be appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Addbot

Just wondering, so I thought I would post it here. I maintain a small watchlist. I've seen Addbot here and of course with articles that I haven't created. It's probably just my aesthetic view, and for that I apologize. I just find this tag as arbitrary and as a blight. I'm not a big proponent of this type of tagging because although it is correct, it seems odd that an article, that is notable, is tagged where there is little recourse. I can't synthesize linkage, nor would I want to. Is this a good bot? I have a thick skin, so if I am out of line, I don't mind any input. I just find it an eyesore (not a great reason) for articles that really won't link to anything else. Thanks. ^Law _shoot! 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there are orphaned tagging from as far back as Category:Orphaned articles from July 2006, I really don't think it's a concern. I do sometimes find it useful, both from a perspective of "if there's little internal linking, is it really notable?" and honestly, it's possibly through the search engine to find links. It just depends on the topic. That one might be a little silly but there's plenty of articles with that issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this tag should be moved from the article page. It is not necessary to the reader, and is just for Wikipedia maintenance purposes. Certain articles should be checked if they have links, but that's not something thta has to be called to he attention of everyone who sees the article. 99% of the use isjust reading. But the request to remove it change it should probably go elsewhere than here. DGG (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I did find one of Addbot's orphan tags useful today — it was for a bio of an academic who was referenced in about five other articles here, and by making the appropriate authorlinks I was able to remove the tag. But I don't see a lot of point in keeping that tag on articles where someone has made a serious effort to find incoming links and still hasn't found any. Sometimes that happens for legit subjects and we should just accept it and not keep a permanent ugly tag on the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this tagging needs human input, not maniacal bot editing. It's useful on some organism articles, naely higher taxa which should be linked from lower taxa pages, but tagging species stubs as orphans is not useful, and the tag takes up more space than the text. So, it's just make-work for humans. In addition, the bot just keeps retagging, so I'm going to get blocked from editing for revert warring with a bot, and its owner is not open to discussing the issue or changing the bot. Off with its head as far as I am concerned--okay, off with its ability to continue tagging once it's owner has been told to stay out of an area. The tag on article space is not useful for the reader of the article, which is what article space tags should be. It's an editing tag, and that should be a category, not a blot on the article.

Yes, it's an eyesore and a blot that wasn't well thought out. --KP Botany (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about this property of this bot Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 16. --KP Botany (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate as much input the the new BRFA as i can have. Alsoo maybe moving all maintenance tags to the article talk pages wouldnt be such a bad idea? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, some maintenance tags (like orphan, wikify, ...) may be moved, but other (like unsourced) should stay on the article page, since they are an indication for the reader that the article is not up to our standards at all. By the way, a "citation needed" tag is also a maintenance tag, but it would be hard to move these to the talk page anyway. In general, tags that have top do with the reliability and neutrality of the article should stay: tags that have more to do with the layout and navigation should move to the talk page. Fram (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Review requested for Ved Mehta

I'd like another admin to review my work at Ved Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and consider protecting the article, as the result of a multiple-account conflict-of-interest problem. It is thoroughly described at WP:COIN#Ved Mehta. I will not protect it myself, since I'm obviously involved, but I strongly think it should be. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:EdJohnston and will comment there, but it seems like the arguing has stopped, at least for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks & COI, LOTRrules

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

Is a long standing Muslim user who has a history of editing Islamic related articles and censoring controversial material they don't like or are in conflict with their religious beliefs. A few examples:

1. Reword of Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006 to remove notable quotes which were fully sourced[22] Also kept removing images citing WP:NFC[23] instead of dealing with the images themselves

   Many Muslim people don't agree with or find that these things cast a bad light on Muslims, which is why LOTRrules attempted to censor it.

2. Suggested deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (2nd nomination)[24]

   Read Islam and antisemitism, If I had an article that was a long list of incidents against a certain group of people I dislike which were closely related to my faith, of course I would want to delete it, but that's because of my religious stand point.

   Are you seriously suggesting I'm anti-semite? LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   Well after reading Islam and antisemitism and seeing as you feel very strongly about your religion, it would seem so. Or just a co-incidence?--Otterathome (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   So you're just building a perception from that article about me? I do not feel strongly about my religion, you on the other hand seem to think so. Just because I edit articles that are off interest to me doesn't mean they are related to my faith. Now you're acting like a troll. Seeing that you act really anti-Muslim to me I think you are Islamophobic. How dare you suggest I'm an anti-semite. Editors like you are what make Wikipedia awful. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   No, I'm talking about your faith. You don't feel strongly about your religion despite plastering it all over your user page, signature and the edits I've listed here? What? I'm also confused how you can accuse me of being a troll when you get blocked for gross incivility, thencontinue to tell me to fuck off after your block has expired. You have an obvious conflict of interest, and react very badly when anyone suggests it.--Otterathome (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   I'm very proud of my culture and people NOT my faith. There is a difference. You think accusing me of being anti-semetic is not uncivil? Frankly I'm just goingto leave this argument now and put it behind me. You ARE acting like a troll and you do not know how to communicate to people properly. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   You can be as proud as you want about your culture/religion, but when it disrupts articles and Wikipedia in general it's not welcome. And repeatedly calling me a troll amongst other things instead of discussing the issue at hand isn't progressing the problem.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Bogus removals of images of Prophet Muhammed from user pages, again citing WP:NFC[25][26][27][28].

   See Depictions of Muhammad, anyone familiar with the image incidents at Muhammad will be fully aware of this.

4. Mass deletion and addition of multiple maintenance tags at Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries[29][30], whilst Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the modern Islamic world was active.

   Looks like an anti-american revenge edit due to the impending deletion of Inventions in the modern Islamic world.

   No it doesn't, my edit summaries seem to justify my arguments. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   If this were true, then I would have expected at least one comment at Talk:Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries, but maybe because it was also an edit to annoy the main contributor to the article User:Yoganate79 who you insulted numerous times.

   That's because he threatened me when I opened up to him. He has a history of censuring discussion talk pages. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

5. Votes delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorists, Killers and Middle-East Wackos[31].

   Relates terrorism and middle east together, and as the Islam is by far the largest religion in the Middle East, so it's not suprising LOTRrules didn't like the article.

   Clearly other editors did not like it either, gonna call them "anti-American?" LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, but other editors don't have a history of censorship of this type of material.--Otterathome (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   Neither do I. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

6. Used the following signature which was changed after many complaints: STOPkillingMuslims _Talk ^Contribs 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

   You mean apart from all the ones here and ones I haven't found?--Otterathome (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   Again, very strong views about their religion and the on-going war.

   What does this have to do with complaint at hand? How is this vandalism? An editor had warned me about it and I never did it again. I did not think I was violating WP:SOAP and had learnt my lesson. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   It is further evidence of your very strong feelings about your faith, which is inappropriate when editing here.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

7. Their user page also seems to promote the Muslim faith and also includes "the illegal Iraq War (1,446,063 civillians murdered)."

   This shows they are very proud of their faith and willing to promote it, and cast it in good light.

   Really? The Iraq war has what to with being "very proud of their faith" LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   It is further evidence of your strong feelings about your faith when editing which is the problem.--Otterathome (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Adds information to Islam in England about discrimination against Muslims which uses a source with the title "Muslims threatened after bombings" but fails to mention the bombings in the content.[32]

   This is taking a source out of context to make it look like there is discrimination against Muslims which has nothing to do with 7 July 2005 London bombings.

   Why should I? It is already in the article at hand. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   It wasn't when you added it, even if it was, it is still taking sources out of context.--Otterathome (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

9. Edit warring on Suez Crisis, see User:LOTRrules/Archives#WP:AN_Suez_Crisis_Debate

   I can't comment much on this particular incident, but Suez Crisis was an invasion by Britain, France, and Israel into egypt, LOTRrules edit warred saying that it was a 'political victory' for egypt suggesting strong beliefs and anti-western stand points due to religion.

   I had found sources mentioning that Egypt won a political victory and the discussion came to a conclusion with other editors permissions. What does the Suez Crisis have to do with being "religiously motivated"? How dare you accuse me of being "anti-western". You just want to push you original research on that article. I could accuse you of having a strong Christian and anti-Muslim standpoint due to religion but I don't. Numerous sources have stated that Egypt won a political victory. By suggesting I am anti-western suggests you are nothing more than trolling. So I am right to say "fuck off" to you because you agitate others into doing so. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   Yes but the fact you edit warred over a conflict between some western countries is what I was mentioning, I didn't question whether you were right or wrong. Looks like that block for incivility didn't work either.--Otterathome (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   Others were edit warring not only me. I came to the discussion and we resolved the issue. I have never again been involved in an edit war in that article. I had backed it up with sources which another user ignored. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   While mentioning these edits separately would be assuming bad faith and could be purely co-incidence, looking at them as a whole shows a pattern of edits motivated by the users religious viewpoints.--Otterathome (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   These are just the ones I have found, there is likely to be many more instances.

When the user is confronted by their actions, they reacted in an incivil way and assume bad faith in almost every case.

From my talk page:

Religious agenda

Why do you have such a religious agenda against me? May I remind you that this is in violation of WP:CIVIL. And stop accusing me of being a "fanatic" LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your tirade

My edits were not vandalism. The information was wrong and does not violate WP:CENSOR. If you had taken care to actually read what I'd written then you would see it was constructive.LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not. One of the sentences read the people in the protest said things on their slogans as "Freedom go to hell" when clearly at the very front it says "Liberalism go to hell". Frankly I don't understand why the have to be repeated in the paragraph when the reader can clearly see them in the picture (as I had written in the article), which hardly constitutes as "censorship". If I had wanted to censor it I would have deleted that photo. The photo is perfectly acceptable. The previous images were, as noted by other editors, in violation of WP:NFC. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you point this out in the first place instead of acting like a nutcase and telling me I'm "censoring" things? Stop acting as if you own the article. Your bully tactics don't really work on wikipedia and certainly not with me. Please refrain from deleting good faith edits and labelling them as "vandalism". One more thing, please fucking read the policies before you jump into bed with them, okay? Then fuck off and implement them. I really don't have time wasting my efforts on slime-of-an-editor like you who always acts as a troll and misuses his tools.. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me "incivil nonsense"? Read what I've written and please for the sake of the world don't push your pro-Nazi beliefs on me. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive509#image_removal

Your tirade

Your little "warning" cannot affect me because you are not an admin. Furthermore any messages like that will be deleted from my talkpage and considered vandalism. This is my warning to let you know stop ating like a troll. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And stop being a busy body and going into discussion which aren't any of your business. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[33]

So in other words he is an asshole and you'r praise earns little weight on Wikipedia. I have a right to defend myself. And my comments are not uncivil merely strong criticism. He's an asshole because he acts like a retard.[34]

Stop deleting discussions from article talk pages asshole. It is against guidlines. Stop acting like a vandal dickweed or I'll WILL open up a request for comment. You do not own articles you fucking retard so stop deleting things that are false. Your POV is just uncalled for but deleting someones comments from an article when it is relevant is just too far. Now fuck off and DON'T do it again.[35]

There's plenty more of his incivil threats on User:LOTRrules/Archives, including "If you apply for adminship I shall bring this up, unless you correct yourself."

Whilst Muslims users are just as welcome to edit as users of any other faith, they are expected to keep their religious view points out of articles, not attack other editors, assume good faith and understand Wikipedia isn't censored. The user has accused me of having a 'religous' agenda against them, whilst their religious beliefs appear to be the motive behind many of their edits, making many of their actions violate the conflict of interest guideline. And after reading some of the abuse this user has dished out to various users, I am suprised they haven't ever been blocked yet. So I request some kind of immediate action be taken against this abusive user.--Otterathome (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours on the basis of this edit [36]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say "reasons" 7 and 8 are nonsensical, if placing a "Muslim Wikipedians" cat to a userpage is religious promotion then where do the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Paganists etc. stand - or indeed the fact that they edit articles toward a religious orientated preference. Being Muslim does not preclude an editor contributing toward related subjects as any other religion. Further, anyone can include content that is referenced and have no duty to include context or other viewpoint - it is the amalgamation of differing pov that produces NPOV, not one editor carefully ensuring that nothing is written outside of a definition of neutral. Lastly, I am aghast that anyone should think that voting delete on an article entitled "Terrorists, Killers and Middle-East Wackos" should be suspicious - I would have needed to be strongly convinced that it was a valid stub before even considering something as inanely titled and provocative as worthy of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reason 2 is equally nonsensical. Also, this is NOT 'vandalism', as Otterathome says in his edit summary. It also appears that he's attempting to provoke a reaction to gain the upper hand in a dispute: this is frowned upon and is likely to have negative consequences, as editors and admins don't like being manipulated. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been involved in a few of these, and I would urge administrators to filter out the content issues here. They're best dealt with by the usual channels, and that includes many of Otterathome's points (and most of his opening sentence, which I personally find quite incivil). Civility has been an issue in the past with LOTRrules, but I hope that the current block will remind him (and other parties) of the need to collaborate and work with other editors, not against. The misuse of copyright policy in a content dispute was concerning, but I must point out that LOTRrules has not done so again since the first incident. This, to me, fits the model of a user who has learnt something about the community (that it won't take misuse of such an important policy) and will edit without these issues in future. I am very optimistic that civility will follow the same model. Orpheus (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages on the admin who has blocked me. Otterathome will not repond here as he did not in the other WP:ANI. Personally I think Otterathome wants to attack me as he always uses the excuse that "he's a Muslim" to justify reverting my edits. That was an unjust block that I want to remove from my history. Since I have been on Wikipedia for a long while now and have contributed to 2 FA content and at least 4 GA content I find it quite offending that he uses past incidences to place me in a negative limelight. Plus his provacations and warnings are intended to provoke people. He clearly uses bully tactics to get his own way (as noted by other editors in the previous WP:ANI). Also what do reasons 2 to 9 have anything to do with incivility and WP:COI? they are irrelevant to the article. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 13:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know calling people assholes, vandal dickweed, fucking retards, telling them to fuck off, threatening to tarnish their request for adminship and god knows what else I didn't find was so low on the spectrum it earns a 24 hour a block, I was expecting more towards a 1 week block, but I'm not an admin who has to deal with this. Maybe I should be more vocal in the future? I get the impression as LOTRrules has never been blocked for his outburts of insults so he thinks he can get away with it and it's the norm here and still disagrees with his block here. And also the user continues to revert my edits to be delibrately disruptive at Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush despite this page about them. Again LOTRrules continues to play innocent and accusing me of singling him out and using 'bully tactics' due to his religious faith.--Otterathome (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What "outbursts of insults" are you on about. You are singling me out because I'm Muslim and are clearly discrimination against me as to discredit my arguments. You treat me like a vandal, revert edits that have been of good intentions and then scorn me. I have a right to defend my integrity. (Oh and sorry to burst your bubble Otterathome but as ANOTHER editor has pointed out on YOUR talkpage AND here that reverting your edit is NOT vandalism at Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush) LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my edit just to be intentionally disruptive, reverting my edits with no edit summary and to be intentionally disruptive is a form of vandalism. You are not being singled out, I would report any user of any faith for having an obvious COI. For a example a Christian user constantly trying to remove sourced material from Criticism of Christianity or removing the image from Piss Christ or any user who intentionally misinterprets sources to make it look like their religious group is being discriminated against for no apparent reason.--Otterathome (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Look what I've just spotted. Otterathome is being increasingly hypocritical, he just violated the WP:3RR and is edit warring on Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush[37]. He is clearly pointing to a policy which doesn't add weight to his reversion as can be seen. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to WP:BLP material.--Otterathome (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Especially in talk pages. So it does violate WP:3RR since it is a discussion and not blatant vandalism. WP:BLP is for articles only NOT the talk pages. Otterathome did violate the policy. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. The opening words of WP:BLP are: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." [original emphasis] – ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space is the section you didn't read.--Otterathome (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Appears user just wants me banned/blocked, instead of demonstrating how there isn't a conflict of interest here.--Otterathome (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the admin who was contacted by User:LOTRrules about this case. I have to say this has degenerated into a needless vicious exchange, complete with obscenities. I would have to insist that such actions stop with immediate effect - slurs and provokative language are not going to resolve the conflict and are not going to facilitate a compromise or solution with regards to article content.

At this point I'm not willing to block either party as I think that will give the impression of the other user having "won". However, if there is a repeat of hostilities, I will issue a block - Wikipedia, as we all know and aspire for, is a collaborative and important project - we have to work together.

Can I ask that we have breif summary from both users of where the real grievance lies and what changes are being sought? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

From this discussion I was expecting a more lengthy block, not just because of the gross incivility (even after the 24hr block) but also the obvious COI, assumption of bad faith, and intentional disruption LOTRrules has caused by reverting my edit with no edit summary then using my debatable edit summary as evidence of 'manipulation'. If LOTRrules wishes to continue to edit any islam/middle-east/terrorist related articles or content I expect them to make full use of edit summaries and talk pages and to cease attempting to censor any material which may cast Muslims in bad light or are in anyway objectionable according to their faith. I don't expect LOTRrules to remain civil, now or any time in the future as they have gotten away with insulting users in the past, again gotten away with telling me to fuck off here after their 24hr block the for incivility has expired.--Otterathome (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome keeps accusing me of being "religiously motivated" - something I will not accept. So I want him blocked for while. I had good faith intentions all the while and all Otterathome did was suggest I'm a religious maniac. Instead of discussing the article at hand he pushes forward the idea that I'm a "radical Muslim", I'm "anti-West", I'm "anti-Christian","anti-American" and an "anti-semite". These are very serious labels which I cannot take lightly for I am none of them. Furthermore he uses things from my past archives, which are of no relevance here, further highlighting his plight that I'm a radical, a vandal and and all around bad person. These are personal attacks which I had to respond to and these were where I lost my patience and swore Otterathome. Instead of resolving the problem, as other users had suggested, he clearly ploughs on and lies about me. Other users have agreed that Otterathomes intentions are to paint me, and only me, in negative colours. Towards the end his accusations have lead me to believe he's a racist as he will not let go of this idea and he is coming up with common stereotypes to hit me with. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See also: Israel–Turkey relations

Jumping in here: user has a history of 3RR violations at Israel–Turkey relations, however (s?)he stopped after I gave a warning. Some of the edits made appeared, to me at least, to be POV-pushing. See [38], [39], [40], etc. Bsimmons666 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think that was a "warning" just a misunderstanding and no, I thought was going by what the ref had said. I was only going by one source. At the time I thought News corporations were neutral but I found the BBC was liberal after. We discussed this on a previous discussion. I admit I have one or two incidents of WP:3RR but I have avoided them as best I could in the future. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

phony user:ClueBot XX

Resolved

 – User blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 15:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some joker is setting up an account to impersonate our beloved ClueBot! Check this out: ClueBot XX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since that account has been blocked indefinitely, is the template on their User page really correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it claims to be a sock of AndyCrogonka (talk · contribs) who, through many socks, has been involved in much bot related nonsense so this fits his MO. Icewedge (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:::But the User has been blocked indefinitely, but his User page says he was not using sock puppets abusively. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been fixed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

File:NatTurner.jpg

This image is currently used in 2 articles on :en. But at Commons, where it is currently located, we got a take-down request by OTRS that we have to follow. Would anybody here be interested to upload it under fair-use locally? If yes, do it a.s.a.p. as the description and the file are still available. --Túrelio (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want to play dumb and move it locally if we received an angry letter about Commons? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about playing dumb, but I thought fair use is law in the US. However, if nobody is interested, immediate deletion is fine for me. I've already deleted the other file out of the same request.--Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Turelio is right, it's not playing dumb to upload it here as fair use. I will upload it here under fair use claims. Regards SoWhy 13:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, go ahead and delete it from Commons. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's gone on Commons.--Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request move admin required

Resolved

 – Move declined to keep histories in place and avoid messy merge. –xeno (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, also please tell me the correct page for such request if this is not it. A merger has been discussed between Receiver (legal) and Receivership. As cut and paste moves are discouraged I ask for an admin to delete Receivership (I will not redirect it to make it easier, please ignore any content on the page as it has been merged already) and move the merged content of Receiver (legal) to that page. Thanks ~ R.T.G 14:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A cut and paste merge leaving both histories in place may be more appropriate here, in case we ever decide that separate articles on Receivership and Receiver (legal) is necessary. Thoughts? –xeno (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed on the law project and I have already merged them. They are basically two stubs about the same thing. I have merged and removed the content of Receivership (unaware I would require a deletion) so maybe you should revert that if you want to discuss further on WikiProject:Law ~ R.T.G 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just copy the content from Receiver (legal) to Receivership and redirect the former to the latter. We can't just delete one (GFDL), and I think merging the histories would be messy. –xeno (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok ~ R.T.G 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

possible vandal - 74.166.64.17

• 74.166.64.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I was looking through recent edits of the Nuremburg Trials article and spotted what looks like persistent but subtle vandalism on the article -- changing dates and other numbers, changing image links so they don't work, etc. -- by the same anonymous user. I edited the page to restore the original contents, but there are more edits to check and I've realized I simply don't have the time to investigate this further (other pages possibly vandalized by same user, etc.).

Examples: here and here, which I believe I have fixed -- but there is at least one earlier edit by the same IP which I have not checked.

Thank you. --Woozle (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the usual sneaky vandalism. I've given a level 3 warning and will watch the article for a time in case the same contributor returns to it. When you clean vandalism like that, it's an excellent opportunity to provide an appropriate "warning" (there's a compilation here.) If a contributor, IP or otherwise, persists in vandalizing after warning, they can be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks for catching that and addressing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting reversal of an RFP decision

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.

---

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

---

Not all articles are alike. BLPs are special - so particularly sensitive, in fact, that we are currently considering a policy change that would permanently semi-protect all BLPs. Yesterday, I requested semi-protection for a BLP: Newt Gingrich.[41] It has a long history of anonymous and frequently quite nasty vandalism; I pointed to eleven incidents in the last two weeks, and noted that other articles - not even BLPs - had been protected for fewer incidents over the same period of time. Protection was refused by user:Royalguard11. That would have been difficult enough to understand, but to make the decision even less comprehensible, not ten minutes later, user:Royalguard11 granted protection for PacMan, which has had barely more anonymous vandalism (twelve edits) over the same time period.[42] Pacman! We are more concerned about vandalism of articles about a 1980s video game character than a BLP?

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

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

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

Where are you getting "twice as many"? I dispute that number, so let's do a quick comparison. I take the "last week" to be the week before you protected the page, which comes to February 8th through 15th; based on that, looking at both pages' histories, each article was anonymously vandalized eight times: nos. 1-8 in my request for page protection, and the following difs for PacMan: [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. If the decision is a function of the last week rather than the last fortnight, the case for protection becomes even stronger: if we had a blind test, where the only information available was that two articles had been vandalized eight times in a week, one is a BLP, one is not, and page protection is granted for one of them, every ounce of common sense would tell us that Wikipedia was more solicitous of protecting the BLP. And if the likelihood of future vandalism is a factor, the case for protection becomes even stronger. So what gives?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Just to add another comparison point, protection was just granted to Ichigo Kurosaki after eight incidents of anonymous vandalism in the last week. So eight in a week is enough to protect "a fictional character in the anime and manga franchise Bleach," but eight in a week is not enough to protect a BLP? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And another: Page protection granted earlier today for 17 Kids and Counting, "a reality television show," after six incidents of anonymous vandalism in the last week.[51] Six in a week is good enough for reality TV, eight in a week is good enough for cartoon characters and 80s video games, but eight is not enough to protect a BLP? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• [← Undent ←]

Guy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argentina

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

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

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

One more attempt: requesting him to discuss [52].

Again, I do not claim that my proposals should stay. I have asked him to discuss, but he impolitely refused. After two days with no positive response, I offered a different version. This time, it was not only reverted, but he removed any mention of the results of the genetic research, which, are relevant in this particular case. S/he reverted three times consecutively by [53], [54], [55] but again, refusing to discuss.

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

Dear noticeboard staff,

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

He tried misrepresenting this to Chaosdruid, which couldn't have been an accident, as Dunandan is fluent in Spanish. Chaosdruid is an editor who's generously shown interest in the article and the disagreement, and he's already advised Dúnadan to leave the material out ([56]).

Finally, my exchanges were only with that one user (not "we" or "our"); nor have I accused the user of anything he didn't betray feeling, himself: he had earlier written to Chaosdruid that this disagreement is a result of people's attempt to prove which country is "whiter" and "richer." ([57]) That's pettiness ("whiter") and jealousy ("richer").

Thank you all for your time.

My regards,

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

Both of these editors have been brief, and I'll be even briefer. Less than two hours ago I proposed that the disputed content be move to a footnote ([58]). So far, I've heard from User Sherlock4000, who accepted the idea (User talk:SamEV#Good idea for Argentina) and asked me to comment here. I don't intend to defend any of his actions before this, my first interaction with him; but clearly he's willing to compromise. SamEV (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catherine of Aragon protection

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts

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

Disruption by 96.231.69.49 and 69.137.227.99

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

Vandalized template?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption by 96.231.69.49 and 69.137.227.99

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

Vandalized template?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jennazooje and Todd Goldman

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

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

Straw poll

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

Feedback requested on a BLP related proposal

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

Arbitration enforcement RfC

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

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

Reporting User:Rjecina

 Deferred to to dispute resolution

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.

---

Reporting

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

Evidence:

[59]Removed sourced references from talk page

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

[61] Removed reference from the article

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

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

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

[65] Changes historical facts and removes more precise information

[66]Removes additional information

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

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

Discussion

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

This article is about history!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may also be worth noting that the editor who filed this report is currently canvassing (or so it appears:[70], [71], [72]) for support from editors who are known to have been in disagreement with Rjecina. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because Bizso is a prob. a sockpuppet of User:Velebit or User:PaxEquilibrium (71.252.55.101 (talk · contribs) is also prob. him). Very intimate knowledge of Wikipedia policies, templates, and predilection for restoring talkpage discussions shared with previous sockpuppets of these two [73]. His ultimate goal though is to get rid of Rjecina, who got lots of his/theirs sockpuppets blocked by filing perceptive CU reports (that all beside the usual anti-Croat propaganda, on which we grew accustomed to by now). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see now that User:Rjecina censors not only all articles on Croatia-Hungarian relations based on his nationalistic feelings, but other articles as well, namely on Croatian-Serbian history by removing images.[74]

Talk:Jasenovac_concentration_camp#Removal_of_images

What's more, surprise surprise, the editor that challenged Rjencina's superiority and impartiality has been now blocked[75]

"I have not removed images" --Rjecina

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

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

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

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

AIV

Resolved

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

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

Trouble with Twinkle

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Circular references galore!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my experience, the only ones that have to be removed are the nationmaster.com/encyclopedia links. Links like the one in Scientific literacy are correct (although they could be replaced by a link to the original source). A smallnumber of these[77] are the bad ones. Fram (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

WilletonSHS

An easy one for you:

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

Friendly advice to this user having been ignored, and {{advert}} tags having been summarily reverted, I recently moved to a tougher position, purging the article of unreferenced assertions,[78] and leaving a strongly worded talk message.[79] A few minutes ago WilletonSHS reverted, again without edit summary comment or any response to my message.

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

Hesperian 02:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Restoring history for recreated redirect

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

Abuse Filter Testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote canvassing

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

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

---

• [80]
• [81]
• [82]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya

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.

---

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

---

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

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

The ones he left for me were:

• [83]
• [84] (Explicitly identifies himself as Naadapriya, if you know the circumstances)
• [85] (restores deleted message)
• [86]

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

• [87][88][89](this one denies he's Naadapriya) [90] (this one heavily implies he is Naadapriya given the context of Naadapriya's ban). [91][92][93][94][95](the last explicitly references Naadapriya's ban, with a link, even)[96]

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

He also has continued his behaviour on Carnatic music [97], but I think this is more than enough evidence: Can something be done? Leaving banned users to harass other editors really does not send a good signal to any other editor who gets banned. Can we get a range block? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

He's left some really nasty messages as of late on my talk page.[98][99] There's too much collateral damage for a rangeblock, unfortunately. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The abuse and threats are continuing [100]. Please do something. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

[Post from banned user deleted]

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

[Post from banned user deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't consider the four posts the IP has so far made to my talk page ([102],[103], [104], [105]) sufficiently disruptive to be regarded as harassment. After the second, I effectively told him that I would ignore any future communications from him. As long as he restricts himself to posting semi-coherent rants to my talk page, I simply won't bother taking any notice of them and they will constitute nothing more than a very minor nuisance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Post from banned user deleted]

Formalizing community ban

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

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

Not so fast...

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

Interesting similarity of language.

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

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

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

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

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

User:ProfXY

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

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

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

Thehelpfulbot - Deleting Broken Redirects Task (Admin bot) BRFA

Hi all,

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

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

Thanks,

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

Nativity of Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of suggestions...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETA: Sorry, I slightly misread part of your statement here in what I wrote the following paragraph. It would be acceptable for an editor to add further entries. That is part of the consensus process. We judge the value of the addition for its accuracy and relevance.

There are differences between the two narratives. (Professor) Larry Hurtado, for example, acknowledges them here: "The very differences between the two birth narratives ... make it difficult to derive either from the other one." [106] This is not novel. It is not synthesis. It's just out there for anyone to see from primary and secondary sources (and when there seem to be specific contradictions, I've cited examples from secondary sources).

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

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

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

Some extra eyes requested on recently unprotected articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been going on today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see the resulting discussion in the talk page. I have reverted the deletions. These images were placed by four separate editors, one of the images was an actual signed post (ie, a contribution to a debate), and Bob misrepresented them as trolling, when they weren't. All of this WP:LAMEnees could have been resolved had Bob raised the issue in the talk page, which he didn't, in fact, he failed to inform anyone that a noticeboard thread had been opened. We have a contentious relationship in the talk page, as is expected of anything WP:ARBPIA, but we try to keep the WP:DRAMA minimal, and engage each other directly. One must both WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. --Cerejota (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template questions

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

The request for page protection board is down the hall to the left. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Copying content during AfD without attribution

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

permanent link, in case of refactoring
I believe that Ikip's allegations of bad faith and WP:Wikihounding are without merit. Ikip is entitled to his opinion, but I object to its presentation without context or evidence.

• I first approached Ikip on 1 February 2009 at User talk:Ikip#Your posts on various talk pages. Ikip had posted notifications to a large number of article Talk pages after asking two admins for advice. I contacted the admins and received satisfactory clarification. Around this time, Ikip stopped posting new notifications.
• I contacted Ikip at User talk:Ikip#GFDL concerns just under 5 days before I started this AN discussion, and I mentioned AN specifically in a follow-up. Further, I wrote justification for bringing the issue to AN into my initial post here.
• Ikip is correct that we have expressed different opinions on a number of issues (Eco RfA 3, WP:FICT, current AoM units DRV), but "we have completly opposite views on all issues" is falsifiable hyperbole: we agreed on overturn !votes at the 2 February 2009 List of terms of endearment DRV.
• Our Intersect Contribs lists 38 pages. Aside from the specific instances already mentioned and some interaction at WT:AFD, I'm reasonably sure that the intersections are coincidental and unrelated.

Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Another editor said it best: "wouldn't it be better if you just got on with things?" Notice the resolved template above? I would appreciate it if you stop digging thought my edits, and we can go our separate ways. Ikip (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Government of Pakistan - Vandalism from multiple IPs

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

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

The request for page protection board is down the hall to the left. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jyothis (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Gamma Beta

Hi

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

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

I've added my thoughts at User talk:Hawee/Gamma Beta. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As have I. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Just made a response, again appreciate the criticism and help. Trying to do my best with this. Hawee (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Abolishing AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific proposal

To report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohh, sounds like fun:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving toward a consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone once described wikien-l as being like a sewer. Sure it stinks, but it stinks because it is carrying the effluent away. I sometimes think ANI is a bit like that. Better management would not hurt so let's try that before we take out the main drain and hope the rest of the system can cope. It has the merit that it is very widely watched, it's not as likely that a fatuous or vexatious claim will be taken at face value. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi copyright issue

I asked User:Khoikhoi not to add unclaimed copyright tag to the images [107], but s/he is repeating the same action: [108], the source page clearly states: "Copyright ©2006-Doorbin.net , Inc. All rights Reserved" (in simple plain English) [the Persian note says: "Any kind of usage needs attribution", nothing is mentioned about Commercial or Derivative works]

Note that Iranian copyright law JUST permits the Non-Commercial, Non-Derivative usage of copyrighted subjects for personal usage [109]. -- Meisam (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

In my experience, that's a pretty big "if". It's common for people to read things into copyright licenses that aren't actually there. --Carnildo (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Meisam can certainly give us confirmation if the translation was correct. Does it only say "... any use needs attribution...", or "any use is permitted on the condition of attribution"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I confirm "هر گونه برداشت از مطالب و عکس های این سایت فقط با ذکر ماخذ مجاز می باشد" would mean "Any type of use of the material and photographs taken from this site is permitted on the condition that reference be made to the origin"--Mardetanha ^talk 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias and rollback page

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.

---

Closed This is clear. User given rollback. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling it rediculous is wrong (though debateable), calling it punitive seems to be a baseless personal attack directed at Atias. This latter part I have a problem with. WilyD 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</drama>

Ok, lets stop being all bureaucratic and silly about 'wheelwarring'. There is a reason every admin action can be undone. You are all looking at that one edit, I want you to all look at this discussion instead. That is a far better indicator of the nature of Jpoelma than that one revert. After you read this discussion (which shows both positive and negative aspects of Jpoelma), decide. Based on that I support giving him rollback. Prodego ^talk 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. It should not have been removed in the first place, but I guess that's not the point, is it? Support him getting it back. iMatthew // talk // 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Endorse giving the user rollback. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Endorse –xeno (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
4. (since it has come to this) Support on the basis of granting being a net positive with the tool. Aitias' diffs are concerning and right to be brought up and reviewed - but given the editor is likely to digest this thread thoroughly I suspect it's unlikely they will misuse the tool. If they do, it will be gone - for preventative and not punitive reasons. I'd also note that people seem to be quick to hang Aitias out as the sacrifical lamb here, but he was clearly acting in good faith and his interpretation of the best actions for Wikipedia. Some comments above seem to forget that Aitias has done (or not done) things with only the very best of intentions Pedro :  Chat  21:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Not exactly sure why we need to vote? I think the discussion above is pretty clear. Either way, my actions speak for themselves. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
6. VX!^talk 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
7. I'm not happy with the "mini-RfA" situation here, but since I support this user having rollback, I'll put my name in this section. I really, really hope that this will be a one-off event, and we won't end up holding things like this on future rollback disputes. Acalamari 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Uh, obviously. Threshold is low, mistakes were pretty much no issue. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Reasons explained both above and here. — Aitias // discussion 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I see the user making what appears to be the mistake of not looking before undoing, which can only compound problems with roll backing privilege. I use undo and have in times of wide spread vandalism. Other people can also. Roll back is a special feature given to people who can use them in a manner that can be trusted and depended on. I would need more time before that can be true. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Mistakes happen. But, Jpoelma13 should have looked at what he was reverting. Because, I am sure that if anyone looked at a page full of "This Me!!!"s, they would have seen that it was vandalism. Simon^KSK 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments/Neutral

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

  No doubt, I thought the consensus was pretty clear (if not when Tiptoety did it, then now) that giving this user rollback is appropriate. But someone above said it was too difficult to divine the consensus. –xeno (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  Who made my comment in to a vote? I never intended it to be a vote. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  I did, easier to determine consensus this way. –xeno (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  Please do not change my comments. I specifically intended to avoid creating a vote, and you changed what I said, misrepresenting my comment as something it was not. In general, one should never edit the comments of others. Prodego ^talk 21:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  err, I didn't change anything, I added a header and a #, but I'll revert that if it bothers you. –xeno (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  You might as well leave it now. But in the future, please avoid that (especially because I created the whole section). Prodego ^talk 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  I already reversed it. I think we should all just go get a barrel of trout and slap eachother silly with them, and then give the poor bloke rollback. But that just my opinion. Is it a full moon or something? –xeno (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2009 (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.

I'm wondering: what is the difference between a Twinkle Rollback and normal rollback? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My god, isn't that the $100,000 question. Here's the difference: NOTHING IMPORTANT. Rollback is by far the largest molehill on Wikipedia. Tan | 39 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why not just give everyone who can install Twinkle and use Twinkle Rollback rollback??? I don't get why there's such a fuss over giving a tool easily taken away to someone when they don't even have to request the tool and can use Twinkle to achieve relatively the same ends. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a slight difference in that mediawiki rollback can be used much faster than twinkle's, so in theory it could lead to mischief on a mass scale. –xeno (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Twinkle does not work on all internet browsers, while rollback is part of the MediaWiki software and is therefore not affected in that way. Users such as myself are unable to use Twinkle. Twinkle also uses more bandwidth than MediaWiki rollback does. Acalamari 18:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback also gives access to Huggle. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block review of IP address

One of our older administrators recently had an article speedy tagged, and I subsequently deleted it. He chose to restore the page and remove the speedy tag without consulting me (before or afterwards), which seemed quite inappropriate, so I looked through his recent logs. The action before restoring his article was a 5-year block of an IP address that had only edited Wikipedia three times and had only been warned in a jocular manner once. I asked him about both of these issues on his talk page, but he only sent me a reply about the speedy. I've left the article up and I plan on letting that go, since I'm not a big drama guy, but the IP block remains active, and I don't want to get accused of wheel warring by taking it down. Can someone uninvolved review the block of User:142.161.98.66? There was never even a block message left on the talk page.

I've separately asked the admin involved to be more careful with the tools, but since he doesn't seem concerned about it, maybe a third-party message about such things would be helpful too. His talk page seems to indicate that he isn't up to date on guidelines and policy. Dekimasuよ! 00:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• A five year block for this? That's completely out of line. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've notified the admin in question. Perhaps he can let us know if there's some special circumstances that would justify a five year block of an IP address after three unconstructive edits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Especially as he's active in that subject and left this message prior to blocking. I have sent the article mentioned above to AfD, as I agree that notability isn't clearly asserted per WP:ATHLETE. Black Kite 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Only fair to say that a check of the logs does not show any other problematic action--essentially all the 08 admin actions are deletions to make way for page moves.DGG (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked. Far too severe - this warranted anywhere from 12-48 hours, not 43,200 hours. Tan | 39 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Lacking any given reason, the five year block is appalling in itself, but what's really a concern to me is the lack of followup. Admins are human, and while I couldn't condone a showing of temper that would result in what seems to be an abuse of the blocking tool, I would at least feel reassured if the admin in question had (a) responded to the request to unblock, here, or (b) responded to this AN thread to explain why the block is not abusive. He's done neither, though he has edited. We're all human and capable of making bad calls, but I think good communication is imperative with this job. Communicating seems also to be lacking with the contributors he is blocking. While he doesn't block often, it's not the first time he's blocked with insufficient or no warning for what seems relatively minor disruption (if that); see [110] and [111]. With the former, the first two edits (reverted without explanation by this admin) may have been made in good faith. As for the second, well, as far as I can tell s/he was blocked for adding the name Ryan Westby to a list of notable curlers. I have no idea if the guy is notable, but he seems to exist, and he's a curler (see [112]). I don't know why the addition would be "vandalism" meriting a 1 week block. The contributor re-introduced it after it was reverted (without explanation) several times, but no one ever bothered to tell him or her why it should be inappropriate. What happened to educating new contributors? Other admin tool uses looks largely unproblematic on the face of them, but it looks to me like there's some problem in the blocking arena, particularly with communication. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Task withdrawn. — neuro^(talk) 15:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again all,

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

Note: This task has now been withdrawn. The Helpful One 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Pee-Wee Herman" vandal is back.

The fool left a note on my talk page just now. Little does he know that I now have my admin rights back, heh, heh. Anyway, I thought you all should do a bit of new user patrolling in the meantime. He's a persistent little SOB. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the fun. I've already clobbered three. Checkuser time? I think it's time that UC Santa Cruz gets another message from me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No sleepers I can see in that range, I've applied a short term (12hr) AOACB range block. --Versageek 14:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The last time I contacted the university IT department, they took a very deep interest in the matter. If it is in fact the UC Santa Cruz system, could I impose on you to e-mail me the contact info? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful not to bump up against any COI stuff PMDrive, - might be better to let Versageek do some of the stuff. (don't know the issues), but congrats on getting your admin buttons back though. ;) — Ched (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

removal of archived personal information on my userpage

Resolved

 – Sandahl has fulfilled the request

--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to have my full name on my userpage and have removed it for security reasons. Is there a way an admin can purge the history section of my userpage? I've also applied for a username change for the same reason. I have used the same username and password on a forum that was recently discovered to be run by a hacker/criminal. I'm concerned about possible identity theft.--Ted-m (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want all revisions deleted including the current one or just all the past ones?—Sandahl (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything except for the current revision--Ted-m (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to continue editing without your real name being waved in your face, my advice to you is to start a new account. There are trolls who can still find it, trust me. — CharlotteWebb 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been personally attacked by an otherwise silent vandal.

Resolved

 – Stale report, we don't "ban" IPs permanently. –xeno (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:66.213.25.12 has personally attacked me.

“ re: warning- I am beginning to get annoyed with you being a douchebag. Why don't you spend your time actually discussing midgets instead of complaining about sizists, fanboys and other shit that you make up. Your attempt to belittle us makes my green blood boil!!! P.S. why don't you get a life... ”

I'm sorry, but I refuse to let this go ignored. I repect vertically challenged people and this guy makes me seem horrible. I am genuinely made physically ill by this tirade. Ban him, ban him permanently. I never want to see him again.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 10:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? 66.213.25.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't edit in the last month. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This incident appears to have occured some time ago and the IP address hasn't edited since early January, you correctly warned him under WP:NPA at the time and so you can report further violations to WP:AIV (assuming the user is properly warned) where blocks of increasing duration can be expected but the problem appears to be in the past, GDonato (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is the most heinous personal attack you ever see you're luckier than anyone I know. — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Resolved

 – — neuro^(talk) 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I appear to be messing up with my reverts of page move vandalism at Germanic people. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Maybe someone could help out.--Berig (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It has worked now.--Berig (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BAG Nomination

Guidelines say I should post a message here, so I will. Let rip. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD

Resolved

 – I deleted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and that seems to have solved the backlog problem. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, as i am currently busy with other things, i can only note that MfD - where I previously spent some time - has become significantly backlogged. (If you aren't an admin you can still comment on some discussions). I also note that the number of active admins has taken another dive to 893. That is 50 less than a few days ago.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I non-admin'd six snowy debates. Shouldn't take too long for admins to sort through the old discussions. Skomorokh 10:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ian Gillan: "One Eye to Morocco" changing article's name

Resolved

 – Renamed.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just found the article about Ian Gillan's new solo album One Eye To Morroco. but the title is mistaken, the album is called One Eye to Morocco, NOT One Eye to Morroco, so, please change the name... :)

• This one is for Gillan fans only. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Er, and people from Hounslow (just a short flight from Morrroco)... LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeboy100

Resolved

 – indef blocked as sock by PeterSymonds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a single purpose account to insert derogatory information into the David Suzuki article. Currently the user is in violation of 3RR, however, a note on its talk page refers to the following sockpuppet iinvestigation:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Homeboy99/Archive

The investigation included evidence against Homeboy100 and has been concluded. The notation on the file is "All blocked." Yet it continues.

Additional information:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis#Arthur Ellis (16th request)
  •  Confirmed that Victoriagirl1 et al =Sunray30 et al = Homeboy99 = Overeditor = Sockpuppet99 = Backtalk = Hotgirl99 = Firebrand99 = Climateguy

Please advise. Sunray (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

red linkAdnetik Aprroval

The adnetik page was at first deleted due to violating some of the wikipedia policies. The title was blocked as well. However, I edited the article and got reliable resources proving the notability of the company and I wrote in a neutral point of view where there is no way where the reader might look at it as a promotion. I also provided reliable resources from resources indpendent of Adnetik such as marketwire, bloomsberg business week, The Street newspaper, DM2PRO, ad monsters, and ad age. These are all reliable resources that prove the notability of the company. I believe that the page cites relevant reliable resources and follows the wikipedia principles in order to consider it for approval and undelete it. If there is anything that I need to edit in order to get it approved please let me know. Thank You Cbonnin12 18:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC) cbonnin12