Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive167

Edit requests

Resolved

Would appreciate an admin to deal with protected edit requests at Sarah Palin - thanks. Kelly ^hi! 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done, though I'm sure there will be more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reprotect a template please

In re the thread above, Gonzo_fan2007 was kind enough to unprotect {{ArticleHistory}} so I could conduct my surgery, I asked for reprot at RFPP and it has still not been done.

Since {{ArticleHistory}} is used on talk of most featured content and is quite complex, I think it qualifies as a high-risk template. And since I've gotten SandyGeorgia mad at me in the process, it's just all-around high-risk! :) And since I asked here first for it to be unprotected, I will ask again to please restore the protection level for {{ArticleHistory}}. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, back to fully protected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx Bw. Now if you could just get select and update and access to the en:wiki DB, we could fix those rotten pagesincategory parser-function errors! Franamax (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Charmed36 - multiple concerns

Resolved

 – Editor warned — Realist² 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to warn the editor directly, but after reviewing Charmed36 talk page I realized that this editor pay's zero attention to warnings. I haven't done an extensive review of Charmed36's edits, the snappy edit summaries and talk page warning were enough to concern me. The issue that drew my attention to Charmed36 was a recent edit summary whereby Charmed36 reverted an IP with the edit summary "your just an IP". Just as concerning was the fact that the IP provided a source and Charmed36 reverted to the previous UNSOURCED version. See this.

Charmed36's edits, use of edit summaries, elitism and general OWNERSHIP issue's should be punished. Charmed36 has control of a number of articles relating to varies singers and groups. This needs to be handled and Charmed36's recent contributions need an extensive review to find the true extent of potential damage. — Realist² 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that isn't even an insult. That's is...pure, demeaning disrespect. If anyone ever told me that when I was starting I would never come back to Wikipedia. Wow. --mboverload@ 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree it is bad, first time I've seen that. Well, I'm sure an admin will read this post eventually....— Realist² 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a AGF level 3 warning template on their talkpage. If this is disregarded like everything else on that page I would consider a 2 day long block sufficient to get their attention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna keep a close eye on it for a few weeks, see what occurs. I'm shocked that Charmed36 hasn't been blocked since 2006. Charmed has been unduly lucky. — Realist² 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, I agree this is a problem editor, but I still want to point out that blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't 'punish'. We do sometimes decide that someone is irredeemably not a useful contributor. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PZL-Mielec -> PZL Mielec

Resolved

This page needs moving (due too incorrect name - see talk page), however I have no privileges to do this. Skalee (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved as uncontroversial. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help on Sarah Palin

Please, please, I'm begging - will someone help with the BLP-violators, POV-pushers, and edit-warriors on Sarah Palin? I can't even keep up with BLP violators, much less research diffs in hundreds of revisions per hour to report edit-warriors. Please help! Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, could we have full protection for a while to calm things down? Kelly ^hi! 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Palin's and associated articles are under full onslaught by SPA's and POV pushers. Kelly and a couple of others can't watch the articles every second, 24-hours a day. Please provide full protection for a few days. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Admin only, unfortunately, until next Monday (sept 8). We all need a break, per Kelly's rationale. Keeper ǀ 76 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I think the article is relatively complete with the actual information we have so far, any major updates can be handled through edit requests. Kelly ^hi! 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for your edit summary. I love me too! Keeper ǀ 76 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(a few e/c) I've been watching the page ever since I first saw it at WP:ITN, and I agree, there have been many POV pushers and WP:BLP violators to the article, and fully support the protection. There I noticed I managed to make the last edit to the article before Keeper fully protected the article. :-) Just had to fix some reference placements... -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I also support full protection. There are a lot of things that need discussing and refining before they can be included, and there's no reason to let the article continually fall to The Wrong Version in the meantime. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, and also support keeping an eye on related articles, such as Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal... if those get hit too, we may want to protect them as well. SirFozzie (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure administrators will be bold enough to do so if disruptive editing goes too far. I may as well start keeping an eye on such related articles too. Things should probably calm down when new-year comes along, assuming that the politics drama that hit Wikipedia would be over by then. -- RyRy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"if disruptive editing goes too far"?!? That bridge was crossed a long time ago. As has been said elsewhere, the article is the first Google result for the name of the subject and we have clear responsibilities here. But, sadly, some seem to feel keeping the encyclopedia free for all to edit is more important than stopping casual libel slip through to a worldwide audience every few minutes. It's in situations like these where it is easy to realise how a project that initially offered so much promise can also be used for all the wrong reasons. Lock it - and lock every BLP while you're at it George The Dragon (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the protection but could you make the huge banner a bit smaller? I find it a bit distracting on such a high profile high visibilty article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This snuck in post-protection. Just for The Wrong Version procedural grounds it should be reverted by GlassCobra, I left him a note. Kelly, good luck. I'm not touching this article for at least a week, its gotten far too annoying. I left him a note. He probably just missed the protection. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith in this case and not ask for this to be reverted. It takes a bit of time to prepare an edit and they happened virtually at the same time AND it also had consensus that it's a borderline BLP vio/should not be in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That absolutely is good faith, I told him it was probably a mistake and asked him to revert. The protection policy doesn't allow people to make massive edits/reversions of contested content dispute material. What as bad faith about what I wrote? Admins simply can't do that except for really trivial stuff like bjweeks tweaking a citation format or removing "obvious" BLP violations. I'm just looking out for GlassCobra so no one tries to screw or politicize him for this. rootology (C)(T) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking him to revert. Hobartimus (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't split up the conversation any further, we can discuss it here. It's not bad faith to ask him to revert to the wrong version. That's how our protection policy simply works. rootology (C)(T) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing the lengthy diatribe about the AIP was good, as it's prejudicial and basically trying to prove a point of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, don't think that edit should be reverted, the content is a borderline BLP vio. That secessionist-party meme has been heavily discussed on the article talk page and there really is no consensus for its inclusion (if anything, consensus is against). Should be discussed at the article talk page. Kelly ^hi! 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if theres consensus to keep it out, cool beans. I just didn't want to see the crazies running around take it out on GC, he seemed to just honestly leap in there. rootology (C)(T) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then we all agree that it was an honest edit that didn't circumvent policy that was written to stop abuse of protected pages and there is no reason to ask for it to be reverted. Hobartimus (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And support full protection, but till September 8th is a bit too long. 48 hours, maybe 72 max. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call on protecting. POV-pushers trying to cram every scandal they can come up with into the article. A feeding frenzy like I've never seen here. There's plenty of juicy stuff still in the article, but all or most of it is mainstream info. We do need some rest here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to it being a high-importance article on a current event with partisan overtones, I think some of the problem was editing volume. It was the fastest editing environment I've seen here, hard to sort already-discussed proposals from bold edits, and simple mistakes from vandalism. The same edits and discussion topics came again and again - assuming they were mostly good faith it must have been from inexperienced editors or those who could not easily read the entire 350K talk page or edit-a-minute history before proposing the same bad idea that someone else had proposed hours before. I tried to help but most clean-ups of BLP and NPOV violations would only stick a few hours before they were back. I hope the cooling off period works by itself but if not, it might help to figure out a plan of getting from here to there in terms of a stable unprotected editing environment. Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, support. I've never seen such a riot of BLP violations, SPAs, unreliable sources, and general meanspiritedness on every side. A little break is what everyone needs to calm down and reason things out together. Coemgenus 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I second the call for a reduction in this page's protection. A cooling off period is fine and necessary, especially for all the editors doing their best to keep the POV pushing out, but new information covering the entire spectrum of her biography (including the future!) is appearing by the minute. I would hope that this could go back to semi-protection within 24 to 48 hours, which is where the Obama, Biden, and McCain articles now stand. Joshdboz (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support, but please let's wait to see if the media frenzy dies down a little first. I really need a break. :) There is no sign of many other BLP-sensitive editors (in sufficient numbers to handle this article) coming out to help with things. I know I'm not doing it all, but I'm doing a lot, and few people are helping. Kelly ^hi! 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Rootology and Baseball Bugs are doing fantastic work too, and a couple others. :) Kelly ^hi! 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally have to agree with the decision to lock it down. She's going to be speaking at the RNC in like an hour. God, I don't even want to imagine the hell that would break loose if we relax the protection. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. We can keep the mainspace version protected and create a sandbox version of the mainspace article for continued article development. QuackGuru 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea - the BLP violations will just show up somewhere else then. At this point I think we just need to get the editing volume down, get people consensus-ing on the talk page, and identifying the malefactors who have have been causing problems. Right now they're getting away with it because the volume is too high to ID them. Kelly ^hi! 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We could put it in a talk subpage with a {{noindex}} tag to keep it off Google. Standard procedure with protections is to create a sandbox. Quackguru (if memory serves) has experience with these sandboxes. BLP violations might occur, but they won't fight so hard because it's not the "real" article. Users would nominate the posting of specific revised versions for consensus. Cool Hand Luke 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page already has a list of 3 or 4 controversial points, and the discussion needs to be kept there for now, rather than allowing more edit wars to foment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully remind people that WP:BLP covers talk pages as well as article space. Thanks George The Dragon (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page and archives of that article are lousy with BLP violations now - I don't even know where to start on cleaning them up. Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest "oversight the entire lot," or at the least delete as I genuinely believe this issue is far more serious than some "ideal". George The Dragon (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, but there are going to be talk space BLP violations unless we lock the whole thing down as well and spend the next few days scrubbing. I thought it might be useful to create a sandbox, but Baseball Bugs is probably right. No time for edit wars. Proposed edits will have to be insular, I guess. Cool Hand Luke 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the so-called BLP violations are reasonable questions that have been raised. It's not appropriate to be censoring the talk page unless somebody blatantly makes something up that's slanderous. For example, the Enquirer story is not appropriate for the article at present, but it has to be talked about, because it's out there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs. I have been through most of the current talk page and it's mostly innocent questions/people who don't understand Wikipedia. Comments that are violations of BLP are being reverted on sight already. --mboverload@ 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the protection here. To pick a relevant example, the level of editing activity and problematic edits was a lot higher than that at John Edwards as the latest scandal was breaking. Indeed, so much was coming so fast that even the active editors were having trouble keeping track of what disputes were still disputes and what were settled. And we protected Sen. Edwards article for a week, unprotecting less than 24 hours after a clear and sticking talk page consensus was formed. I make no predictions as to whether we'll be able to form any consensus here - but hopefully with 5 days to work with editors will at least be able to sort out how many different issues they are dealing with.

I'd also suggest that with the article protected would be a good time to review the histories to see if there are editors that need counsel, warnings, or other attention. GRBerry 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problems here are exactly the kind of thing broad and sweeping sanctions are designed to handle. I propose that an uninvoled admin, at his or her discretion, may take any actions he/she feels neccesary to remove disruptive users/POV pushers/SSPs/vandals/etc from any page related to the 2008 election, until it's over. Let's face it, this kind of crap is not going to go away, and in fact, it's going to get worse. Jtrainor (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this until after the protection was a fait accompli. I'll record for the record my view that protecting this article at this time was a huge mistake. The serious problem here is the volume, as noted by Wikidemon. Perhaps we need to split the talk page into separate subpages to deal with the barrage of topics. I'm not sure how to deal with it but I don't see how protection will help, except by discouraging some people from contributing to the article at all. They'll go do other stuff and come back when the protection ends. We'll be right back where we were except for having spent a few days with this highly visible article protected at a crucial time (global black eye for Wikipedia). JamesMLane t c 07:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a sandbox for article development. Improvements can continue to be made while the article is protected with a sandbox version. QuackGuru 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that full-protection for a week is too long for an article of this nature. I would of fully-protected it for 24 to 48 hours, I think a week is excessive, especially for those good-faith users (including myself), who are now unable to edit the contents of the page. D.M.N. (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Use {{editprotected}}, anything that has obvious consensus will be in in no time. The sheer volume of egregious policy violations on this article makes full protection amply justified. Blame the idiots, not the admins. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection downgraded

Article appears to have been downgraded to semi-protection by Jossi (talk · contribs). D.M.N. (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed that above discussion, but after reading it, I still see no need for full protection, in particular on a current event high-traffic article. Semi should do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I do trust the people that watch this page when they say they are overwhelmed and are unable to maintain the quality of the article. I would have preferred if you had erred on the side of caution and undone your change, but I won't join the wheel war. I have restored the move protection though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erring on the side of caution is actually keeping the article uprotected. There are ongoing developments on the subject of the article, and material will continue to be added as it emerges. Granted, it would be a battle to keep the hordes at bay, but we cannot simply close the gates. Editing should continue despite the challenges. If a few admins are getting overwhelmed, they should take a wikibreak. Others will step in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Though we really shouldn't be writing articles as news reports adding items as they are reported; instead, the most significant points should be brought in after time has been allowed to digest if news reports are truly significant and finding the best sources to reference those (in light of this being a BLP). If it was only IPs with the occasional SPA, semi would seem fine, but as I see it, there's a lot of signed-in users attacking the article. I've seen articles granted full protection for less on RFPP. --MASEM 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, many of the SPAs that registered when the story first broke will no longer be barred by semi-protection. Users are autoconfirmed after 4 days, right? I don't have much experience in this area, but it seems to me that a flood of angry trolls is about to bust loose. Full protection seems warranted for the time being. Coemgenus 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple, any accounts persiting with disruptive edits, we WP:BLOCK. Let other productive editors continue editing rather than shutting down the article. This is the most trafficked article in WP right now, and we need to show the project and the community can afford people the liberty of editing. This is WP and a wiki, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, and while I don't disagree completely, I find the use of WP:IAR here to be quite unseemely. Maybe occasional blocks will be sufficient, but let's decide before we act. Coemgenus 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See the comments above. The editing volume is too high to deal with BLP-violators, edi-warriors, and POV-pushers, and there aren't any admins helping with that article! Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection removal was against consensus and needs restoring

Consensus should be honored and the protection restored; lone admins have no authority > consensus. If Jossi can't restore protection, can someone else? It would not be a wheel war situation as there is full support from the majority of the regular users there. I left Jossi an extra note. Since Jossi's move was against clear consensus I don't believe we'd need to wait for his OK, especially as Palin is a BLP. rootology (C)(T) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some edit warring has already resumed from this unprotection. rootology (C)(T) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is insane to downgrade this article to semi-protection. There is no way editors can keep up with volume of POV and WP:BLP violating edits.--Paul (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-establish protection per consensus above. Kelly ^hi! 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been constant POV-pushing by muckrakers, and the issues remain unresolved. Un-protecting it was inappropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A current event page as trafficked as it is should not be protected. This is one of the times in which I will WP:IAR and unprotect again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shameful drama-inducing escalation. There's an extraordinarily clear consensus about this above. It's not "IAR", it's called "wheel-warring against consensus". --barneca (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with barneca. It should be an WP:IAR case to protect this page against what might seem like common sense (protecting a high traffic article), vs the protection of the subject of the article. Based on this discussion, there appears to be a quick consensus to protect, we do not have time to have a week long discussion in this case to discuss ad-nauseum. I strongly agree with protection and strongly disagree with jossi's actions. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just protection vs. unprotection; while I disagree with unprotecting, I can understand the theory. It's the blatant disregard for consensus, and playing chicken with the tools. At least 17 people voiced an opinion above, and 13-14 were in favor of full protection for 48 hours at least, with many supporting the full week. Dismissing this as "a short discussion" isn't just hyperbole, it's just 100% wrong. If I were someone else, I'd be tempted to nominate WP:CONSENSUS at MFD, to make my point, but instead I'll just point out this is textbook example of wheel warring (read it!), and were I Jimbo or the ArbCom, and Jossi doesn't revert himself, I'd desysop him; that's how seriously I take it. If we're blowing off consensus and turning this into the Wild West, then we're screwed. Please revert yourself, Jossi, until there's a consensus favoring your point of view. --barneca (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection restored

Restored protection. I am now off my wikibreak, and this is my first action - nice. I'll take it up with any admin who thinks I'm wrong, but both consensus and rationale are correct here. I'll go talk to jossi Fritzpoll (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm. Welcome back? :) Synergy 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost all edits since full protection was lifted have been constructive. Way to go. Joshdboz (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi has removed the protection. The rationale for removal is reasonable, and although I am uncomfortable with this due to the consensus above, I won't take any further action with this. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the insanity and restore the protection. A single admin should not be ignoring the consensus. Kelly ^hi! 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin article is not unprotected - it is still semiprotected. That seems reasonable to me. That's the protection level of George W. Bush, for example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Carl, have you seen what has been going on with that article while it was semiprotected? Have you been helping to deal with it? Kelly ^hi! 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To kelly: I agree with your point of view, but I'm not going to wheel-war over it. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stepped in to try and help. I am not very familiar with the topic and am fairly apathetic when it comes to politics. I do however recognize a reliable source from a non reliable one and POV pushing. I will try and keep an eye on it. I however feel it should be re-protected and that jossi should undo his wheel warring actions. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Kelly: I think there are more than enough people who know about the article to keep it well watched. We do need to be more proactive in using the blocking provision of WP:BLP. My philosophy is: one stern warning, then a short block (12-24 hours) with autoblock enabled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection has been re-re-restored, and I'm going to start handing out blocks to anyone who continues to war over this. You all know better. Establish a consensus, then take an action. The time for boldness is past. WilyD 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Establish a consensus, sure. But the status qu of Wikipedia articles is that they are free to be edited, and not the other way around. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The original protection came from some substantive discussion, now there's been a second and third. We all know better than to protection war over this; I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it should be full or semi, and don't plan to, but we shouldn't be playing tug-of-war. WilyD 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPBAN

Under the special enforcement sanctions ruling for biographies of living person, I have placed Sarah Palin under full edit protection for a period of two weeks and noted it at the special sanctions log and article talk page. MBisanz ^talk 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A very bad idea. There's nothing here that can't be handled by blocking. This is the sort of article that we expect to have an editing frenzy for a while. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPBAN is not an excuse for wheel warring. Cenarium ^Talk 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then establish a strong consensus to end full protection. That's needed anyways, nevermind the special enforcement garbage. There has been a solid consensus to full protect, with only a couple dissenting voices, which frankly have been pretty meritless. Continued warring over it isn't going to be tolerated, regardless. WilyD 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Note the wording of the ruling that requires discussion at WP:AE; a discussion thread there has commenced. Mike R (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first i'd like to thank you for the protection as the article's edits were unbearably and icreasingly chaotic. Unfortunately it seems that as a consequence we now have BLP violations like poor citations, controversial materials and lots of bad editing on this very prominent BLP. I don't know the solution, I just wanted to point out the new problem that now we're stuck with a potentially libalous BLP. Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection Wheel Warring on Sarah Palin and RFAR

Any further admins that unprotect again are into total wheel war country against consensus and will be brought to RFAR. If you enjoy being an admin, respect the community consensus, please. This is shameful for a BLP. I'm as liberal of an American as they come, probably more than most of you, and I'M advocating protection on Sarah Palin. BLP and consensus > your wishes. And I just removed a vote that Jossi put up about BLP protection. We vote on a lot of stuff, but not that. Sorry.

Log so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sarah_Palin rootology (C)(T) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from refactoring this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is not a !vote, but a way to assess what kind of consensus, if any emerges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from misuse of admin tools over BLPs, and obey consensus like all of us are required to. rootology (C)(T) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. Wheel warring over protection is not the way to go about doing it, especially when you cite "IAR" and "consensus" for semi-protection, when I can't find consensus for that -- among others who agree. In addition, who "enjoys" being an admin? :) seicer | talk | contribs 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Until the first flush of frenzy settles down, there won't be any happy way to handle this. I support semi-protection but do understand why some editors think full protection is more in keeping with WP:BLP for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The wheels on the war go round and round. MZMcbride just semi-ed it again. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At least two admins have said they'd block any more admins who protection warred this page. What, if anything, should be done regarding this? Oren0 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for three hours, and left a note on his talk page. WilyD 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering MZM was urged not to take this action by his peers on irc before he did it and was aware of the special circumstances and the discussion at AE, I would say this block was appropriate. Chillum 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to assume good faith. Then I read the arbcom started on him. *sigh* Why can't we all get along? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#MZMcBride for reference. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I posted warnings just about fuckin' everywhere to stop warring over the protection and have a god-damn discussion and it was fuckin' working and people were sitting down to discuss it like good colleages over tea and crumpets like we are all friends or coworkers or shit and rational fuckin' human beings and someone who already knows fuckin' better comes along and does some shit disturbing? Inexcusable. MZM knows better. Every admins knows better.

Sorry about my sailor talk but this all is a wee bit stressful. WilyD 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wheel warring is NEVER appropriate. Wheel warring with as many "don't do it" red signs as are out there is unbelievable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Without being so colorful myself, I will say that the discussion was pretty much settled at AE before this wheel warring happened, there was a developing agreement that the protection was good and that we should reconsider on Saturday. This latest action by MZM has only served to reduce productivity in this area. Chillum 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I didn't think anyone would actually be so stupid as to wheel-war over the (appropriate) full protection, I didn't comment a few hours ago, when I last logged on. Since I was obviously wrong, and the Arbitration thread contains several claims that there is no consensus for full protection, please add me to the list of admins who support full protection. Horologium (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh bloody hell, what a mess. I really don't think that fighting out ideological differences with admin tools on a WP:BLP that has been subject to an absolute deluge of grossly defamatory edits will play terribly well with ArbCom. I would have thought that the est way to preserve Wikipedia's principles here would be to make absolutely sure that uncontentious edits are speedily agreed and implemented via {{editprotected}} - I am minded of the way the railway companies handled the first Glastonbury Festival in about 1970; they were taken completely off guard by traffic to Glasto, but for the returns they pulled in every loco and carriage they could find, removed the station windows to make extra ticket counters, brought in everybody who was off duty, sent out a small army of clerks with every portable ticket machine they could pull in from around the network, and processed the massive crowds in something approaching order. To stretch that particular analogy somewhat, lifting protection is a more like removing all the barriers and gates and handing out first-aid kits to the station staff. Protection keeps the worst absurdities off the article and out of the headlines, and takes the patently acrimonious debates to the talk page which is slightly less high profile. That page can then be clerked to within an inch of its life and good suggestions moved into the article in an orderly manner well before the deadline. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow... after seeing the first few edit comments I assumed that there was a brief wheel war which was quickly ended, but this is train-wreck-tastic. Whatever the correct level of protection for the article is, the wheel-warring has to stop. If we can't agree on what that level is, that's all the more reason to discuss the matter here, rather than for individuals to unilaterally impose their own view. IAR is a wonderful thing, but we have to take extra care with it when we can't agree on which course of action constitutes "improving Wikipedia".sorry if this sound sanctimonious; trying to help SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Any wheel war is a trainwreck. Protection was implemented after days of dealing with an unprecedented volume of edits from POV vandals in a blp and nowhere near enough editorial help dedicated to keeping it compliant 24/7 as the frenzy continued to rage. Removing the protection without a realistic plan in place how to manage the page wasn't a helpful solution, and now editor resources are further compromised arguing about the justification for protection or its removal instead of producing workable solutions.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• In fairness, I've never seen a topic with so many edits/hour over so many days, it's a cultural fluke beyond the bounds of what Wikipedia has been built up to smoothly handle (that's ok, this is going to happen now and then and editors do learn from it). Cheers to Kelly for all she's done throughout the trainwreck. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto - Kelly deserves special praise for her strenuous efforts on behalf of that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support full protection for 24 or 48 hours. The BLP issues have gotten too far out of hand for now. If the article on 44 years or Sarah Palin's life is missing one or two days worth of material that is a small price to pay - if it is important the information will be available in any newspaper anyway. And invoking WP:IAR to ignore consensus and instead wheel war by unprotected a page in desparate need of protection is ludicrous. Rlendog (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

modest proposal for Sarah Palin

I think that the structure of the article, as a whole, is pretty stable right now. Therefore, my proposal is to leave the main article protected, but to break out most sections as semiprotected transcluded subpages (with their own faked-up "edit/view source" and "talk" buttons). This would untangle the edit history and talk pages of the separate sections. The scurrilous rumors would tend to be confined to certain sections, and defending, or, if necessary, protecting those sections would be much easier. If they showed up in inappropriate sections, they could be easily recognized and treated as vandalism. I think that this would help resolve this issue, and free up the article from a lockdown which I don't think is good for its quality.

I recognize that this proposal is unconventional, involves some degree of work, may have unanticipated consequences for some bots/spiders/whatever, and might be seen to set a precedent. However, in my opinion, it would be worth it, as it would be helpful for the article itself, which is my main concern here. Homunq (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no mechanism in the MediaWiki software to support such an action, unless there are some extensions that I don't know about. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is, you just create some subpages and transclude them into the main page. Where's the difficulty? --Tango (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple. Just create only one subpage and editors can continue to update the article and when consensus is reached it can be placed in the real article. QuackGuru 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary advantage of my proposal is that it splits things up. Each section has its own history and talk page. This makes it much easier to revert vandalism, because there are not always three unrelated edits before you notice it. It makes it easier to see who is doing what and to catch 3rr, too. And the discussion can be a little more organized and focused. A single subpage has no such advantages. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal reposted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Another_proposal:_transcluded_subpages, move discussion there. Homunq (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Need move-protect applying to 50+ articles

I would normally request articles to be move-protected at WP:RFPP, however over 50-articles here need to be protected as Grawp appears to have struck at over 50 articles. Therefore, can someone move-protect all the following articles (and related talkpages) for an indefinite amount of time. I don't think any are likely to be moved in the future for legitimate purposes. Here goes:

I apologise for making such a request here, but as a lot of articles need move-protecting, I didn't want to clog up RFPP by making a request for 50+ articles. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but I think some IP blocks are better remedies here. Also, when I look at lists like this and this, I can't help to think that we should raise the number of edits required to move. Cheers, Face 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grawp hops from IP to IP on a daily basis, causing mass-destruction to articles by moving them. He's been doing this for most of the year. The only suggestion I can think of is to make the "Move" tool available to admins and/or rollbackers. D.M.N. (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar: perhaps "Move" needs to be granted only to trusted users. Whether it's bundled with rollback is a different question. As a not-developer, I don't know the costs of implementing such rights-control features. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is possible to set a very high edit threshold in order to be able to move articles, why not do that? The time it takes to accumulate that number of edits would be a disincentive to continuing this kind of vandalism, but the number would have to be high enough to prevent a would-be vandal from doing a lot of extremely minor edits just to reach the goal. Why not 500 edits, or a thousand? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly agree to a 1,000 edits. D.M.N. (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly way to go about this unless the same page is being targeted repeatedly, and even then the "indefinite" setting is a bad idea. Once the people doing this realize that indefinite move-protection is the knee-jerk response to a single instance of page-move vandalism they will probably start targeting pages which actually need to be moved, causing pages containing a spelling/capitalization error, or needing to be disambiguated, etc. to be locked onto the wrong title. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've move protected a set of core biochemistry articles that are at their correct title, such as DNA, enzyme, photosynthesis or metabolism. There is essentially zero chance of these ever needing moved, indeed I can't even think of any reasonable alternatives for these titles. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deoxyribonucleioc acid? Enzymatic proteins? Conversion of sunlight to energy? Biological energy flow? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunlight is energy, not all enzymes are proteins and metabolism is a larger subject than energy flow - it is the sum total of chemical reactions occurring in an organism (that title would a mouthful indeed!). The only possible move contender would be DNA, and the abbreviation has been chosen as the best title on the talkpage several times over the past few years, so that consensus seems very stable. Honestly, the chances of any of these articles needing moved is near zero. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously something needs to be be done, look at the logs of ClueBot: [1], [2] for a small sample. What can we done ? We have move-protection for articles with no need to be moved. Think of what is best for Wikipedia, and the subject of the articles, example [3]. Our existing tools are not able to deal efficiently enough with this. Cenarium ^Talk 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RBI seems to be working just fine. ClueBot is catching it, what's the issue? We could give admin rights to ClueBot so it could delete the redirects and block the vandals, or we could get a consensus on installing the Abuse filter extension. Both of those would be far better than mass move-protection (since the vandal will just move on to other titles) or creating ridiculously high standards for allowing pagemoves. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Has the abuse filter still not been installed? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion kind of died around the end of July. Mr.Z-man 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We could try restricting moves of pages with more than 1000 revisions (or some other arbitrary number) to admins. Since we already have a limit for deleting pages it can't be too hard to implement, the high profile pages will tend to be those with lots of revisions and such pages should have some sort of discussion before a move anyway. Hut 8.5 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that's going to stop Grawp- he'll just find articles that have less than that, and move those instead. We have to limit moves entirely if we want to stop him. Or, we simply remove all rules against him. He's willing to play dirty, so maybe we have to fight back harder. Aggressively DMCA his host for anything we have a legitimate claim on on a certain other wiki he hangs out on. Or even start complaining to the host- they're a well known hosting firm, and I doubt they'd want to be associated with the scum we're talking about here. Publically speak out about the other wiki on any site you can. Checkuser and publically release the IP addresses of all his socks- there's got to be non-Tor IP's behind him or his imitators, and why are we providing any privacy to one of the worst vandals ever? No more abuse emails- have volunteers call the ISPs personally to report abuse. To hell with the privacy policy, and to hell with it all- revert, block, ignore is what he's counting on. Once we're done cleaning up the mess he makes, he makes another one, then gloats about it.Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad, juvenile and annoying, but nothing that we can't deal with. It's just a complete waste of everybody's time. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Abuse Filter is coming, I promise. :) — Werdna • talk 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam

Possibly one of the worst AFD nominations I've ever seen. See the last few contributions for the nominator. D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy closed. Not an article so shouldn't be at AfD. Also, I think the prohibition on memorials is about encyclopedic content not projectspace/userspace. WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One outstanding question: Should the AfD notices on the pages be simply deleted? I'm thinking that there's no point filling out the {{oldafdfull}} notice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The {{oldafdfull}} is irrelevant in cases where the discussion was closed on procedural grounds (as the above was) since it is primarily a tool for judging "former" consensus in future deletion discussions. Shereth 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with keeping it, I think the rationale is slightly off. I fear the rationale utilized in WJB's comment above and in the AFD imply that people can come here and create memorials in their Talkpages. I do not believe this should be allowed and is the implication for not a memorial. That being said, there is a difference between coming to wikipedia with the intention of starting a memorial and memorializing an active contributor to the project. The former shouldn't be allowed, the later I have no problem with. The later kind of tells people why a colleague they may have worked with is no longer active.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you might be talking about my rationale, in which case, I may simply have worded it sloppily- I think a memorial for an active Wikipedian is useful, because his absence is noticed and affects the project. I don't necessarily think that my userspace would be a good place for me to create a memorial for my late grandfather. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with 100% wit this. I just wanted to make sure that we don't set a presidence that memorials are ok, if they are in people's userspace. I think by countering Jeff's memorial with it's not applicable to wp:NOTMEMORIAL because it's in the userspace, open's that door for others to say, "But my memorial is in my userspace."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The guideline is clearly focused on articles. We may still want to delete memorial pages outside of articles, but they should nominated at WP:MFD and there needs to be some argument beyond WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As ever, we are more relaxed about the userspace of good contributors. If a good contributor wants to use a subpage of their userspace to remember a deceased friend or relative, I suspect few will have a problem with it. If someone's sole purpose here is to create such a page, rather than to be involved in creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, I suspect opinion would be quite different. WJBscribe (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When you start making memorials in your userspace, I think you are starting to get into the realm of wp:NOTMYSPACE---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And you are entitled to that opinion and would no doubt voice it were such a page to be nominated at WP:MFD, which is where the matter will ultimately be settled. A speedy closed AfD of a non-article doesn't establish any precedent at all... WJBscribe (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In the end, this was a bad AFD and was correctly closed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an editor (KoshVorlon) who routinely attempts to enforce his/her complete and utter misunderstanding of policy. KV has also nominated numerous articles (List of Jewish American_Musicians, List of Jewish American musicians, List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350), List of hooligan firms, List of cities by longitude, and List of snowboard tricks) for deletion, simply because they are lists, claiming WP:NOT prohibits lists. I've never been a fan of the mentor/adopt a user program, but this editor could be the test case. - auburnpilot talk 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is looking very POINTy. Several months ago, the same user tried nominating Deaths in 2008 at AfD using the same rationale. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, there's no attempt at WP:POINT. It's a memorial, and as I stated in the AFD, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL it's not permitted to have memorials in Wikipedia pages. BTW - if anything, the AN should be on the admin who closed the damn thing after 5 minutes and called it proper. However, like I said in the AFD, I expected to get hate thrown my way because of the two AFD's.

BTW - comment on contribution not contributor please! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether these things should be deleted or not, but from this edit you still seem to think that Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians is an article. It's not - it's in the Wikipedia: space and therefore needs to be discussed at WP:MFD. As such, I fully endorse the procedural close of the AFD. –xeno (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)First, Deaths in 2008 is not a memorial; it is a collective list of notable people who have died, and links to their own articles - for which notability has already been established. It is also useful for generating new articles, even stubs, for these people. And the AfD, which was inappropriately so per procedure, was closed by a 'Crat, not an Admin. --Rodhullandemu 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We can have a proper understanding of the policy, and no need for the assumed dichotomy; WP:NOTMEMORIAL specifically refers both to articles, and has language that refers to the creation of pages. The Jeffpw page is in userspace, and it evolved from an ordinary userpage - none of which is covered by the policy. I would also we had this same discussion around about the time when the page became what it is, and the consensus (you may be surprised to find we have a policy regarding that concept, but I assure you we do) was that it was to be kept. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if KoshVorlon follows proper procedure to nominate this as MfD, it just really stings as very poor taste, and insensitive in the extreme. The idea that Jeff, or for that matter, any Wikipedian including KoshVorlon or myself, could be so easily erased from the community because of policy is misguided. I don't know why Jeff's page, or any talk page expression of sorrow or grief would have to be deleted. This community is obviously made of editors. When one of them dies, it is a natural response for the community to react to the loss. We do not function as a community unless we allow ourselves (without going crazy myspace style) to communicate with each other. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• {{courtesy blanked}} and full protected the AfD discussion. That was an embarrassment. Viridae^Talk 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, yes it was. An innapropriately closed nom with an invalid reason with too little time. I totally agree. Just so we can all drop the bullshit, if I put up a page in my userspace with a memorial for the deceased father (who recently passed) it would be AFD'd and gone by now, for the exact same reason I nominated both memorials for . It would have not mattered one bit if I tried to tell you "It's not an article" or "that was in poor taste". YOu'd remind me first, that wiki is not a memorial, and secondly you'd point me down to the bottom of the page that appears when you edit that says:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
Bottom line, this was not done right at all, and it was embarassing.
HEY! Here's an idea, why not just throw out the policy since you don't seem to want to follow it when it becomes "inconvenient" for you to do so. Just so you know, I will re-nom both items (not today, nor over the weekend) for no other reason that they don't comply with current policy. You know I'm right. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, KoshVorlon, are you really that dense? Maybe it's an age thing, or a language barrier, I don't know. But clearly something is standing in the way. That page WAS NOT AN ARTICLE. You cannot send a page that is not an article to AfD (Articles for Deletion). Do you really not understand the difference between a page that honors a committed Wikipedia editor and one that honors your father? They are not comparable. If you nominate either page again, you will find the same result. The AfD close was correct; no debate. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Drop it and move on. At this point it is approaching a certain level of disruption to make your point. Everybody has tried to explain it to you and you are just ignoring it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanceburg, Kentucky

Could an administrator please look at the article Vanceburg, Kentucky? It's showing a lot of activity lately regarding some police scandal, and there are some very questionable usernames editing the article. Special:Contributions/Reformcorruptrivercity, Special:Contributions/Vanceburg, Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburg, Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburgNow, Special:Contributions/Lewiscountyky. -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I bother to inform these users that I've posted this, or is it not worth it? -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's customary to do so. I've removed the section, as it was completely unsourced. Dayewalker (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the users. -- plushpuffin (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... this hits very close to my hometown. I do recall the incidents being in the newspaper (the latter, about the officer) and the charges that were wiped under the rug, so to speak. I'll try to dig up some sources tonight or tomorrow and at least give some credibility to that. The former, about welfare and all that jazz is completely garbage. seicer | talk | contribs 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed the socks: ReformVanceburg, ReformVanceburgNow, Reformcorruptrivercity. The main account appears to be Vanceburg, and if they wish to discuss the matter, they can use a single account. seicer | talk | contribs 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. I wasn't sure if I should have posted on WP:SSP. It just seemed too obvious to be sock-puppetry. -- plushpuffin (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

JUST FOR THE RECORD THIS IS THE USER VANCEBURG AND I AM NOT THE MAIN USER!!!!!!!! THE ONLY THING I POSTED WAS ABOUT THE BASEBALL TEAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was too obvious. I'm sorry, Vanceburg. I noticed all of those edits adding unsourced material on the police scandal and all of them had the city name as part of their username. I grouped you with them by mistake. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you very much.VANCEBURG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll amend the notices on the other talk pages, but leave them indef'ed as it is obvious they are stemming from one account. seicer | talk | contribs 17:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ambox_style.png broken

The image Image:Ambox style.png is broken right now. I haven't seen this behavior from MediaWiki before (either the image page exists or it does not, but an image page with a broken image is new to me). This is affecting any use of, for example {{prose}}. -207.172.212.147 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, it works for me. I have purged the image just in case. Do you see it in every page or only in a single page? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's working on commons, and popups gives me a thumbnail - but the full image view is a red x. Commons had some image issues this morning, could this be related? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to download the commons version, delete the en version, and reupload. It looks like the server lost or corrupted the en version of the image. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Village_pump#Massive_image_loss and Wikipedia:ANI#.svg image issue...Wikipedia or me? Try and keep it it one place. Might be something to do with this. 3000 images were accidentally deleted from the database. Woody (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been  Done. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Right, when I read about these problems on other pages I immediately checked all images I am "responsible" for and fixed the two damaged ambox images.

Lucasbfr: At the time you typed your message above I had not yet fixed those images, so your browser was probably showing you an older version of the image that was in your local web browser cache.

MBisanz: For the future if similar things happen: Don't delete the old image page and re-upload the image, instead just re-upload the image to the current image page. Otherwise you loose the image page description, image history and the protection settings for the image.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh good to know, I assumed a corrupted base image would cause problems to the new upload. Thanks for the info. MBisanz ^talk 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse filter

If people were interested, this discussion has restarted, probably prompted by the recent annoyance of cleaning up after that juvenile pagemove vandal Gwop. See Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_filter#Final_consensus-gathering. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Libro0

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

This is in dispute resolution; any more comment on an admin noticeboard by either party may result in a temporary block of both. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Libro0 has been constantly attacking me, telling lies, making sockpuppet allegations and deliberate attempts to drive me off of Wikipedia. He will not stop and needs to be dealt with. He has engaged in vandalism of several baseball card images, which I had to fix. He does not listen to others. He gives ultimatums and threats. He is a major problem. He needs to be dealt with now. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan shows that you guys are clashing over some baseball card images, correct? Please provide some DIFFs for what you're talking aboout, right now this seems retaliatory over him telling you he would report you to WP:LTA. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You want DIFFs showing Libro0's bad behavior? Here are some of them. Think of it as a sampler.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Of course there is more of Libro0's lies, disruptive behavior and other assorted nonsense. Finding it all would take a great deal of time. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guys disruptive edits include but are not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. These are mostly unwarranted reverts, removal of verifiable info, inclusion of unverifiable info, foul language on user talk, etc. He also has a problem with discussing issues on the talk pages. Any attempt made to find resolution on content are met with pointless and argumentative comments as can be seen here and here. He is a convicted sock puppet as can be seen here. Recently as of 03:54, 3 September 2008 to 04:12, 3 September 2008 he removed a number of "No source" tags from image pages without providing the proper information requested by the tags. Libro0 (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did say I would report him to LTA on account he has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages for quite a few months now. He has prevented me from adding any encyclopedic content yet has contributed nothing to the pages himself. Libro0 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More lies. There was no sockpuppet proof and if anyone has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages it is Libro0. I have contributed images (which Libro0 claims are not sourced, yet a proper source is given) and organized the pages. All Libro0 has done is deliberately make edits to get me to revert them since he has provided strange sources.. Basically everything Libro0 says is a lie or is in some way to further his agenda. He is the one who is driving others away from the baseball card pages. He has a vendetta. He has an agenda. He is a problem that needs to be dealt with. He is the one that ignores other user's attempts to solve problems. He is the one who screams sockpuppet at those who disagree with him. He makes passive aggressive personal attacks. He is the one that is the instigator. He is the one wasting people's time by insisting on keeping this feud going. He needs to be stopped! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guy also has a tendency to blank his talk page of any warnings he has received by mediators or admins. He basically ignores any warnings given to him. A, B, C, D, E. Libro0 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They were all done by Libro0 and his allies. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of you should read WP:TLDR. You've given far too many examples and absolutely no context to work with. I've clicked on 6-8 of each of your DIFFS, and I can't understand what you're trying to show the other editor is doing. My random sample just turns up discussions and reversions, with no context to explain why they violate wikipedia policies. My advice to you both, if you want to show the other editor is violating policy, give three DIFFs and explain specifically the problem with the edit. Show us very specifically what the problem is. Dayewalker (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will offer three particular situations that should be clear. 1. I remove the 1968 OPC CFL sets on account there is no verifiable proof that they belong on a Topps page. I. I also changed an invalid citation about the type of ink used and provided a valid reference for it II. He then replaces the OPC CFL set without showing any source for its inclusion as well as replacing the ink statement with the invalid citation. III.

2. I removed a needless Hockey section from both 1982 Topps and 1983 Topps since Topps did not produce Hockey cards in those years. IV, V He then replaces the sections. VI, VII In an attempt to accomodate him I decided to write the information in the sections instead. VIII, IX. He again removed the information. X, XI. I finally decided to place the information on the talk pages instead.

3. With regard to his recent images problems: I placed some tags on images that did not properly state the source of the images or who made them, etc. XII. The info he has used is not valid. Nevertheless he removed the tags without supplying the info. XIII. There are, of course numerous images with this problem.

These are just a sampling of the problems that I was trying to display. Another area that is troubling presents itself above with his DIFFs. I browsed though most of them and found mostly legitimate discussions that I had with him. Hardly bad behavior. Libro0 (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have you considered a request for comments or other dispute resolution? Stifle (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC cannot be used since it requires two users to have tried to resolve a dispute. No one has been willing to offer any assistance. Yes, I have asked for assistance. Other DRs like Wikiquette alerts also went ignored as has this board. The only place that did anything was SSP, which blocked him for 24 hours. He has ignored everyone else and the discussion pages have proven pointless. Libro0 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who has had problems with Libro0 after having him accuse me of being Baseball Card Guy's sockpuppet after trying to get the two of them to stop their schoolyard bickering, I have been watching these two. Their recent exchanges at Talk:1950s Topps and Talk:1960s Topps show that they both seem to have some ownership issues and the two of them can't seem to have a any sort of proper discussion. My attempts to contact both of them in the past were rebuffed in the case of Baseball Card Guy and resulted in attacks from Libro0 including two unproven sockpuppet allegations, with me keeping an eye on what he is doing to nip any further false allegations in the bud. This ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [37] [38] that Libro0 is a prime example of the bad faith on his part. On the other hand Baseball Card Guy is trying to bait Libro0 [39] with a trap [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] using Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for all those.

I have held off doing any editing of the baseball card articles because of the antics of these two. I have wasted enough time energy and effort here dealing with the petty bickering between these two and have had enough of it. This is another escalation. How many others have they scared off into editing not wanting to get caught up in their little war?

The two of them will not listen to reason and I think that any attempts at a request for comments or mediation will fall on deaf ears from both parties, or at least lip service being paid to it.

Both users have made some good contributions, but that is really offset by this epic battle between the two. We would probably all be better of banning both Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy. They have wasted people's time with their bickering, allegations, playing of the system and other bad behavior. It would save everyone a great deal of time and effort just banning these two problem users! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason I accused Your Radio Enemy of being a sockpuppet. I have provided evidence of Baseball Card Guy's disruptive behavior while he has provided no evidence that I am disruptive. For some reason YRE wants both of us banned. It looks suspicious. It looks to me like you are willing to lose a sock as long as I go down with it. Furthermore, how do you know that he was trying to bait me with a trap? I never even realized that was the case. I just thought he went on a crazed rampage. You seem to know precisely what his intentions were. Both of you contribute no content and are both resistant to my contributions. I explained three distinct situations above yet I have not seen you support me in any of those. Can you explain why? Libro0 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If you two can not work together leave Wikipedia. I don't care if I get in trouble for being uncivil. You two have finally pushed me to the edge and have become a huge nuisance. Your squabbling is disruptive and unproductive. You are running low on the communities Good Faith and again frankly I have none for you two. Quit, be blocked or not go near each other. Those are your options. Rob^{Not an admin}  23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to provide DIFFs in context. I did so. It would be appreciated if that was acknowledged. If you have nothing constructive to add other than an emotional outburst then I suggest you leave Wikipedia. I fell off the edge long before you ever got there because it appears to me that policy and guidelines are just a bit of decor on this site. My faith in this place has diminished tremendously because people like Rob here want to take the easy way out. Just 'Quit'. Sorry Rob, but there are standards to upheld. On principle I refuse to simply just let people intimidate me. So don't come out here and pretend you are suffering and threaten to block. I am a part of this community and I am following the rules. I don't need you to tell me how ridiculous this situation is. I have had to watch the rules be ignored and watch this community ignore the rule breakers. If you are a real community then act like it. Get some focus and address the actual problems. Do not undermine the integrity of this encyclopedia or these notice boards by acting like you can just blow people off because you are annoyed. When you do this you are as much a nuisance as all the troublemakers out there. Libro0 (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You two have just been wasting the communities time and you have drained the community of it's Good Faith. A lot of us have tried to mediate me included. But those mediations fell on deaf ears and at times were taken out of context. You have done nothing but fight. I could go through the archives and pull up more stuff on you two than Grawp and that is saying something. You two only have 4 options on retrospect. Here are your options, Quit Wikipedia, Be Blocked for disruption and incivility (I can not block, but I bet there are a few admin out there debating), Just stay away from each other, or work together. I honestly do not want to see another report here or anywhere filed by one of you against the other. This is not what the noticeboard is about. This is for the community at whole to be informed of problems. Not for a couple of good editors to fight. We have lost a lot of good people because of issues like this. Do not become like them and choose the best option. The one that will help you two and the community at large. Rgoodermote  09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Libro0, at first I did not support you because you were wrong. Then after your continuing false allegations, it would be impossible to support you. I tried offering an olive branch to both of you. Baseball Card Guy flat out rejected it. You on the other hand spun it off into a series of sockpuppet allegations filled passive aggressive attacks. You have done nothing but engender bad faith through your actions.

You have intentionally engaged in actions that have egged Baseball Card Guy on and he has done the same to you in return. As for how I knew he was setting a trap for you I mentioned it above, but I take it you aren't a Star Wars fan or have no idea of the meme that is Admiral Ackbar. Basically it was said here [47] and he used Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for the edits I mention above. What is the relevance of Admiral Ackbar with regard to a trap? The character's most famous line in Return of the Jedi was "It's a trap!"

We have progressed beyond a petty argument about baseball cards into two users who seem hellbent on fighting to the death. I spend most of my time on here now seeing if Libro0 has made another false sockpuppet allegation against me and seeing if Baseball Card Guy is out setting traps for Libro0 which will make me or someone else look like a sockpuppet. (Although thanks to this I found a couple of problems with some articles and was able to fix them, so at least some good has come out of this idiotic nonsense!) This has devolved into a Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck cartoon - Duck Season. Rabbit Season. Duck Season. These two will never stop by themselves. Can we just ban these two and be done with this massive waste of everyone else's time? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I chose the best possible option which was to expand the base of editors for the baseball card pages. I have asked people to join in and lend their expertise. Several hundred at least. This community was lacking in knowledgeable people on this subject. Libro0 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So the best possible option is to harass and falsely accuse others who contribute? That is what you did to me. You have driven me away from editing the baseball card pages with your childish behavior especially this ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [48] [49]. That was uncalled for. You state "You clearly want me to leave. I will, if you can complete one of the two following tasks in 24 hours of the posting of this message." Up to that point, I didn't want you to leave, I asked nicely for you and Baseball Card Guy to stop and take a time out and then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Neither of you listened and then you posted your ultimatum. You eventually said the following which basically accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy: "Given that you did not complete the tasks I suggest that you step aside and allow people who have the information to edit the page. Keep in mind that you have been warned about unwarranted reverts. Further disruption will result in a disciplinary report and any sock evidence will be posted." [50] You dragged me into this mess. Your opponent has dragged me deeper. I have had it with you two. Is it any wonder why I want both of you banned? The two of you have wasted my time, have wasted several other users time, several admins time with your back and forth wars. Libro0 keeps making these passive aggressive and somewhat pompous statements claiming that he is following guidelines and trying to work with the community, yet his behavior reveals the opposite. His opponent Baseball Card Guy seems to do the same thing, albeit on a less grander scale than Libro0. The two of them are dragging the community down. They are both instigators and are both trying to play the system to get what they want. They need to be stopped. I am sick and tired of defending myself against Libro0 and his accusations. The two of them need to be banned so the rest of us can stop wasting our time. It is in the best interests of everyone in the community! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be banned? it is Libro0 who is doing all of this. I just want him to stop attacking me. I just use the same tactics Libro0 uses. Libro0 is the problem ban him. Libro0 says he is following policy and consensus when he is not he is a liar who just wants his way and acts like a big bully if he doesn't get what he wants. He needs to be banned. I am not some big sockpuppeter. Libro0 probably has been running sockpuppets to make it look like I am running sockpuppets. Libro0 seems to do anything and does things like a sneaky person. Ban Libro0! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. I'll block both of you if either of you whine about the other one again. We have an encyclopedia to write, and you two are getting in the way. Either take it to dispute resolution, or shut up; AN has no more it can do for you except remove you as annoyances. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Libro0 has already escalated things with this [51] and this [52]. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is called Dispute Resolution. Something I am very happy to see being done. Rgoodermote  02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that that is going to devolve into yet another shouting match like this wasting more people's time effort and energy. Libro0 has gone to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to complain about the notice boards [53], boards that that he himself has made use of several times. [54] [55] [56] [57] He seems to be playing the system wasting even more people's time complaining in his typical passive aggressive way [58]. We have wasted enough time, energy and effort on these two and their petty bickering. It is time to say goodbye to both of them. Just ban them both since it is like dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians nobody is going to listen. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more sweeping accusations without providing diffs. Any such claims are useless when you are involved in the conflict yourself. Clicking on randomly selected diffs of Libro0's edits provided by Baseball Card Guy I don't see anything wrong. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An other note: Your Radio Enemy seems to be deeply involved in this conflict, and not a neutral mediator. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Third note: I am not involved in this dispute, but I have been trying to figure it out now. What I can find is:

1. User:Baseball Card Guy has been harassing User:Libro0 using gross uncivility ([59],[60],[61]), using socks ([62]) and Tor proxies ([63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71]) to revert Libro's edits and make comments like [72].

2. User:Libro0 has been fairly civil as far as I can see, but started accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy ([73],[74]). Some are indeed socks, but User:Your Radio Enemy is probably not. Baseball Card Guy has been intentionally editing the same (unrelated) articles as Your Radio Enemy in order to make Libro think they are the same user ([75],[76]).

3. Both Libro0 and Your Radio Enemy has attempted to get outside help with dispute resolution, but has received close to none (sorry, no diffs). Comments like "Stop it, you two!" (to Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy) isn't going to help at this point. I know that digging into this kind of stories is not very rewarding, but this conflict could have been handled months ago if they had received dispute resolution help.

4. In my opinion, Baseball Card Guy is clearly being intentionally disruptive. He should be blocked or banned from baseball card related articles and from interacting with Libro0. If Libro0 acknowledges that Your Radio Enemy is not a sock puppet, I believe that those two will be able sort out the content disputes. If Baseball Card Guy stays away that is. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to state for the record that I accused people of being sockpuppets for "suspicious similarities" not for disagreeing with me. Plenty of people have disagreed with me elsewhere in WP and interactions with them have been most amicable. As for Your Radio Enemy, there are suspicious actions on his part he has as yet been unable to justify. Libro0 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Nigzakilla

Resolved

The user name rings alarm bells and contributions indicate this is a troll from encyclopedia dramatica. — Realist² 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Garden-variety troll, nothing to see here. Grandmasterka 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront

I found a link to the domain crusader.net which turns out to redirect to Stormfront. I believe that this is not a wholly reliable source... More to the point, there are a few links in debates about the place and we might want to be on the lookout for this. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Normaly it's stormfront linking to us that we worry about. Irony perhaps.Geni 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward Sanchez

A prod tag was put onto Edward Sanchez. User:Toussaint, who created the article, then moved it to his User space and removed the prod. I suppose this is an acceptable action, since that means Toussaint can work on it in his User space, but that leaves a redir from article space to User space. Should the redirect be deleted? I don't want to put a db-redir on Edward Sanchez if the move wasn't the right thing to do from the beginning. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CSD#R2. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also the move was fine. A good faith attempt to improve an article in a users own namespace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront

I found a link to the domain crusader.net which turns out to redirect to Stormfront. I believe that this is not a wholly reliable source... More to the point, there are a few links in debates about the place and we might want to be on the lookout for this. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Normaly it's stormfront linking to us that we worry about. Irony perhaps.Geni 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward Sanchez

A prod tag was put onto Edward Sanchez. User:Toussaint, who created the article, then moved it to his User space and removed the prod. I suppose this is an acceptable action, since that means Toussaint can work on it in his User space, but that leaves a redir from article space to User space. Should the redirect be deleted? I don't want to put a db-redir on Edward Sanchez if the move wasn't the right thing to do from the beginning. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CSD#R2. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also the move was fine. A good faith attempt to improve an article in a users own namespace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Report on User:Bart Versieck

Some history on this report. From November of 2006 through June of 2008 User:Bart Versieck has continually engaged in disruptive behavior, resulting in 11 non-overturned blocks and an ANI thread (and I think one more started by me too... but I can't find it) before it was proposed that he be banned from Wikipedia. The final consensus was that he would be unblocked from his latest block on the condition that he "may no longer edit another accounts contribution, no matter the reason, and they will seek a third party to act upon any potential vandal comments made by others." User:LessHeard vanU was going to act as a sort of mentor to him and, by all accounts, he has done a fabulous job at his side of the bargain and I have great respect for his efforts.

In the two months since, however, there have been almost weekly incidents they are summarized here:

1. two edits of other people's talk page comments (July 1) - suggestion and clarification issued by LHvU
2. minor editing of other's talk page comments (July 7) - 3 hour block issued by LHvU
3. more talk page editing, followed by a string of incivility and personal attacks (July 17) - 24 hours block issued by LHvU
4. a one week block and a long thread of personal attacks (July 21) - I admit that issuing the block myself was a mistake, and I did apologize for it afterwards, but the block was upheld in the end. At this point I made it very clear that I was recusing myself from taking administrative action against him under any circumstances. In addition, there was one very uncivil message that was removed, but should none the less be considered in all this.
5. Even more talk page comment shifting (July 27) - Nothing too major, aside from it being another violation of the terms
6. Three posts for a user who was, at the time, indefinitely blocked (August 12) - No consequences, as there was disagreement that the policy against posting for banned users was applicable for indef. blocked users and because Bart agreed not to do it anymore
7. Another spat (August 18) - I declared my intention to seek a ban for Bart if there were another incident, but LHvU asked me to consider bringing it before the community and letting them see what they thought without suggestion a consequence. I agreed, mainly because of the respect that I have for LHvU, and that brings us to...
8. Four talk page edits of other people's comments in one day (August 26/September 3) - And that is why I am here today

Many of these edits would be acceptable to users in good standing, but it was a strict condition that he not edit talk page comments under any circumstances. Furthermore, not all of them are innocent either, as noted above.

Some people have pointed out that all of these things are little things and that these violations should be ignored in light of his regular contributions. Again, I ask how long do minor things keep adding up and how many must there be before they display a lack of respect for our policies and our project? I also ask if people can provide evidence of these good contributions that should be taken into consideration, because I cannot find any. At worst, his edits are subjective juggling around of article contents, at best some good, gnomish work. While these types of things are very essential to the project and should be regarded as useful editing, they simply do not outweigh the massive amount of disruption required to produce them.

I feel that action should be taken; I do not, however, have the desire nor neutrality to suggest what steps should be taken, as noted above. All I feel, however, is that this user has violated the terms of their "probation" to unacceptable levels and that their level and type of contribution to the encyclopedia does not warrant a "let it slide" policy towards their disruption.

I will notify the following users about this discussion so that they may be involved in the discussion if they so choose. I hope that uninvolved community members will come in with some suggestions, but I do plead that the entire situation is carefully reviewed. Even at the last administrator's noticeboard thread, many people felt that a big deal was being made of nothing because they did not see the entire picture. I have chosen only those who were involved on his talk page since the last ANI report, so as not to bring in every person who might have had beef with him. If the list is felt to be too biased against Bart, please let me know who else it would be appropriate to notify: User:Ryan Postlethwaite, User:LessHeard vanU, User:Xenocidic, User:Blueboy96, User:Postoak, User:Jauerback, User:Ultraexactzz, User:Boneyard and, of course, Bart himself.

Cheers, CP 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bart seems to be quite obsessive and/or compulsive about how talk pages are laid out, most of his (at least recent) edits have been stuff like fixing datestamps to be more accurate when the user added their signature after the fact, adding signatures, moving stuff to the proper chronological order, and the like. While these actions are usually permitted when done by users in good standing, BV is under restrictions not to edit other's talk page contributions. I believe CP's main concern is that allowing these "minor"/"gnomish" touchups may lead down a slippery slope towards the more serious/major modifications of other's talk page comments that was the original issue that lead to Bart's blocking. –xeno (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Does somebody have the link to the other, more in depth discussion? As I recall, BV was prohibited from altering other's talk page comments in terms of spelling, grammar, capitalization, and the like. I don't recall there being a widespread ban on all edits, such as rearranging talk page banners or putting comments in chronological order. I'd need to reread the discussion, but can't find it either. - auburnpilot talk 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive152#A compromise? I think is what you're looking for. –xeno (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that is the one - although I would note that that was the concluding sub-section, and persons not previously involved (or simply needing memory refreshed) should read the full section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. There was obvious opposition to an outright ban, but fair support for the editing restriction proposed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs). I think this is one of those cases where the restriction should have been more explicit, so I can't really comment on whether or not he violated the terms. Oh well. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I note he was meant to be reblocked "if he touches anyone else's Talk page comment in the slightest way"; and his pointless mucking around other editors' comments' look like trying to toe the line being as annoyingly disruptive as possible while weaving around the restriction so as to not be blocked. His cries of "are allowed" are particularily telling; there would be little point to argue the fact when simply desisting would do.

In other words, I beleive he is being disruptive on purpose, that he has willfuly violated the editing restrictions under which he was allowed to return to editing, and that he should be blocked indefinitely: we have no need for editors who make a hobby of disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,: I don't think Bart is being disruptive "on purpose"...it seems that as Xeno has said, these are obsessive-compulsive behaviors: Bart believes it is his right and duty to "correct" "mistakes" (i.e, anything not the way he wants it to be). I have dealt with him since 2002 at the www.grg.org website and he has a long history of annoying behaviors, such as e-mailing the same message several times (even after advised not to do so), using extra punctuation marks (!!!!), and sending additional messages asking why the previous messages were not replied to. Yet he also has a long history of making small positive contributions, such as locating missing articles, references, or photos. At times, it appears that he is willing to listen/obey, before he returns to doing things his way. Ironically, this seems to be an issue of policy; often Bart's edits are technically correct. Perhaps I shouldn't be commenting but I feel that "annoying" and "intentionally disruptive" are really two separate things: Bart's goal seems not disruption but order, his inability to accept things out of order being the real issue here.Ryoung122 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• From review of the block log, past discussions and Bart (and my) talkpages, I note that Bart was released from the indef block (by me) with an undertaking not to blank other peoples comments - this has been, as I recall, adhered to except in one case where the removal was technically correct. However, a period of short blocks and localised discussion then occurred with regard to Bart editing other persons contributions, which resulted in various promises and undertakings not to do so again. However, this behaviour has not ceased and complaints to Bart are now being met with responses that what he is doing is permitted (which is open to question, as editing other peoples contributions without permission may be considered bad faith and is also regarded as uncivil) and in any case "minor". I would draw the communities attention that it was precisely those kind of minor, technically allowable edits that resulted in the previous Noticeboard discussions. I would also comment that, other than the matter of disregarding promises, undertakings and the like, and me performing some short blocks on him, that Bart and I have a decent working relationship so, given that this discussion will possibly result in him continuing to edit the encyclopedia, I shall not be partaking in this debate over what actions the community should decide to take. I will, however, be available help execute any decision, including blocking, or mentoring, or otherwise assisting, or going away and letting him get on with it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• This case has already used a lot of admin attention, and a lot of mentor assistance. Having reviewed the case in detail the last time around (22 June), and having observed what happened since then, I'd now support a block for at least three months. There is no data to suggest that any further patience will be rewarded. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary protection at Political positions of Sarah Palin

GRBerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected this article unnecessarily. If there are editors that are edit-warring, warn them and block them if they persist. Let others that are pursuing consensus via talk-page discussions, and editing sensibly continue unimpeded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you take this to RFPP? Your continued bashing of any sort of protection to any article relating to Sarah Palin is tiring. seicer | talk | contribs 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Jossi is being quite disingenious - he specifically warned a respected editor for edit 3RR, when that editor was citing WP:BLP in their edits. He was also edit warring himself. Rather than blocking them both, and possibly others, I choose to shut down the page. GRBerry 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, please? I did not edit war, so your point is moot. If there are editors that are edit warring such as User:Kelly, actions should be taken to afford others to continue editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts re to Jossi) Of course you think this is unnecessary. You are the one that unilaterally reversed my consensus/AN-based protection of the parent article, without discussing with me, the protecting admin. You didn't show up on my talkpage, as the acting admin, other then to tell me that you undid what I'd done. Had you simply discussed my action with me rather than deciding, by yourself, that you "knew what was right for Wikipedia", we wouldn't be in this mess. Shame on you, Jossi, for now dragging something here that goes against what you think is "right". If another admin makes a decision, you get to reverse it? You have an obvious bias about what you think is "right" for Wikipedia. Others disagree. You are abusing your admin tools. Keeper ǀ 76 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, he also made no prior attempt to discuss with me - but if he used his tools I haven't yet had time to notice. GRBerry 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC) expanded 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely, ain't it? Jossi posted to my talk page to let me know, post fact, that he'd undone my admin action. Not before. After using the tools. Completely out of bounds. Keeper ǀ 76 21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jossi has become far too involved with the whole drama, and needs to take a step back and let others in. seicer | talk | contribs 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. Enough is enough. Keeper ǀ 76 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Necessary or not it isn't much of a solution. Constructively editing an important article under full protection is almost as impractical as editing an important article that's getting reverted too fast. Anyway, given the arbitration case, talk page, etc., and if we can get past administrators complaining about each otehr, is this the correct place to discuss whether the article should be protected and would a discussion here lead to a sustainable decision to unprotect or leave protected? Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This protection is 24 hours only. If there is a consensus to do something different before that time period is up, please do it. But I think blocking the involved editors would be dumb, so I choose protection. Getting close to the end of the day here, and I want some time with my kids before we rip out the kitchen, so I won't be around much longer. GRBerry 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind then. We can all survive 24 hours without editing that article. Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With all the wikidrama over Palin in the last 30 hours or so and the events on the article, I support this protection. We really don't need an RFAR/Political positions of Sarah Palin protection wheel war to go along with freshly opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts later)Can we set up a sub-page just for admins to argue with each other? This would have the benefit of freeing up this board for more constructive material. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed information from the page per WP:BLP. There is an off-wiki meme that the article subject is a Dominionist and POV-pushers keep bringing it here. The basic subject of the meme is that her political position toward Israel is informed by her religious beliefs, when there's not a scrap of credible evidence for that. Trust me, I've gotten very familiar with the 10-15 different memes that POV-pushers keep bringing here. Kelly ^hi! 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of protection is to prevent disruption and edit warring. Once that war abates in a few days, it could go back to semi-protection. It's mostly the POV-pushers that are anxious to unprotect it, and pose excuses about it being too much of a "bother" to discuss changes first - that is, they want to be free to edit-war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

↔ OK, Jossi is probably not the best messenger here. That said, the BLP issue here is that Kelly thinks that a story in the Washington Times is "complete and utter bullcrap". In other words, there is no BLP issue here. There is a legitimate content dispute as to whether the Washington Times article should be cited and, if so, in what context.

I'm not opposed to the protection, since it is a reasonable response to a content dispute which has spilled over into back-and-forth editing: there is ongoing discussion on the talk page, which may be able to resolve the issue amicably, and there is no deadline. I prefer protection to blocks where longterm good-faith editors are concerned. But let's also be clear that there's no way that this falls under a BLP exemption from 3RR. Several editors have added content sourced to the Times and been reverted by one editor - Kelly - inappropriately citing WP:BLP. I think lots of reliable sources print "complete and utter bullcrap" from time to time, but that alone doesn't justify edit-warring. Anyhow, a day's worth of protection won't kill anyone. By the way, everyone, please feel free to drop by the talk page and comment. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There were no "multiple reliable sources". See Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin#Israel, and then view the cited source for yourselves. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is only one user edit warring and that is User:Kelly. Other editors are discussing in talk, providing sources and engaging in constructive discussions. As for Kelly's comments above, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, and other such sources are not to be dismissed on the grounds of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This particular article aside, how are you feeling about calling another admin "an edit warrior" when you personally, Jossi, reversed my admin decision to protect a highly vandalized/POV page, namely Sarah Palin, without discussing with me? Why do you get to throw rocks at others and yet seem to think you are somehow innocent from your own actions? Keeper ǀ 76 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its worth noting, without pointing any fingers, that any time that administrators begin conflicting with eachother using administrative access, it makes the entire project, and administrators as a whole look bad. This should be more important than any one article.--Tznkai (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• [ec] I wonder how a single person can edit war? Regardless, I think the comment above is good evidence for protection; Kelly has done fine work in resisting the onslaught but is clearly losing objectivity - if X major sources says Y, then we can WP:ATT it - but at the same time Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to provide blow-by blow accounts as the punches are thrown, that is firmly the job of Wikinews, we are supposed to wait until the dust has settled and reflect more analytical sources. Since a huge number of people seem determined to ensure that we act instead as some kind of ticker, protection is amply justified. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A single person can edit war by undoing the work of several editors, deleting content repeatedly. I am sure that you have seen that elsewhere as well, JzG. That is why we have the electric fence of WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war has just opened. I suggest we all take a nice break for a few days from worrying about this, and go write a few articles. When we come back, efforts can be focussed on resolving this dispute. Taking a break won't make the problem go away, but it will make things way calmer. Cool heads, clear thinkers. Anthøny ✉ 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And keeping it blocked will help enforce that good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are constant attempts to post POV-pushing stuff in the article - inferences, misquotes, synthesis, original research, etc. It will spin down in a few days as she fades from the front pages and the focus returns to Obama and McCain. The lockdown is appropriate and necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Protection is the only way of stopping this form being a blow-by-blow tabloid frenzy. {{editprotected}} will ensure that anything genuinely uncontroversial gets in the article promptly, and anything controversial can wait for the Sundays rather than our amateur efforts at second-guessing the quality fo the competing primary sources. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, JzG. Just take a look at the mess: Wikipedia:AE#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus were editprotected is bypassed and an involved admin making edits to a protected page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is a good argument for opening the article to even more opinionated editors. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Still at it?

See this discussion, above, regarding a user who was blocked for Incivility and wilful disruption, and then unblocked with a promise to behave. Several of his edits since the unblock have been problematic, as discussed above. The following series of edits are disturbing in that regard: August 31, adds ref to WP article. Another user leaves him a message on his talk page explaining that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. Sep 1, restores removal of inappropriate source. Sep 1, restores again, with the edit summary "oh yes I can."

Now, while I think this user wants to contribute usefully, I also think that he's been given an awful lot of slack, and I'm wondering whether it may be time for another block. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1 week block, and a suggestion they re-examine the way in which they are interacting with other contributors. As usual, I am not so wedded to my actions to need notifying that they may be overturned - but I would hope any unblocking admin ensures they understand that a resumption of the previous mannerisms will not be tolerated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So the record's complete, we have two edits from this morning [77] [78] illustrating a similar attitude. Specifically, after being asked not to, he's re-adding links to myspace and imdb that's the same name as the article's subject but different people, and to a mirror page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I think he is trying to contribute usefully and is simply incompetent; at other times I think he's being intentionally disruptive. His behavior at Rhíannon Thomas has been exceedingly bizarre from first to last—especially when he started readding the MySpace link after admitting in the AfD that he was mistaken in identifying the article's subject with two other women. And it's hard to know what to think about this edit (note the article's topic). Deor (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and does anyone other than me find his very first edit (after some messing about in his user space) kind of suspicious? Deor (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note his unblock request reason: "The reason I find it difficult to be civil is because of the fact I have aspergers. I recommend you read the article on it." This screams troll. As an aside, on his talk page he claims to occasionally use this ip, but he has only used it once, and not since the block. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's got a bunch of socks either. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aspergers my Irish Ass!! Aspergers Syndrome is a high functioning form of Autism where the person who has it cannot understand word play, speak in literal terms only and usually are not capable of lying.

I'm thinking troll here. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...er, Kosh? You might want to do a bit more research on Asperger's Syndrome before making that sort of claim. (I speak from personal experience; I've been recently diagnosed with it, and I love wordplay and am an accomplished liar when it comes to convincing the boss to give me a day off.) More accurately, it's something related to autism that may or may not be a form of high-functioning autism (the jury's still out on that one), and is characterized by severe difficulty with social interactions.

That said, it still sounds pretty troll-ish to me; I've yet to encounter an HFA or Asperger's person who simply uses it as an excuse for being uncivil to people instead of warning that they just may not be very good at civility. Rdfox 76 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad checkuser access

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) has requested and been approved for Checkuser access. This is in order to allow him to more fully review Committee cases, and does not impact on the current Checkuser appointment process.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought all arbs had CU privileges? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is given on request, some arbs opt not to request it. NYB had not requested it until now. MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All arbitrators automatically receive Oversight access, but not Checkuser. I had not previously requested Checkuser because I don't have the technical background needed to do sophisticated checking. However, I've decided that access to the database and the checkusers' mailing list will be helpful to me in connection with arbitration cases and related matters. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their approval of my having this access. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor correction. As with the case of CheckUser, the oversight access is not automatic. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Automatic AFD closing script

As I noted here, I've been working on an automatic AFD closer script. Instructions and usage notes are at User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. Direct any bugs/feature requests/comments to my talk page. Mr.Z-man 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeays!! This rocks most seriously. Add a "relist" button and you have made me (and, I'm guessing a lot of other editors) happy! — Coren ^(talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wicked awesome. Once you get the relist function working I can start using it to clean up the notorious backlog. :) Protonk (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A day late and a dollar short, at the request of Cirt, I just updated the old CloseAFD.js to support non-admin closure. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD is absolutely incredible - many thanks to Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs). Someone should buy him a round of Duff beers. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of that I've given him a barnstar. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Omai, I'm utterly impressed, good work —— RyanLupin • (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy... that's awesome! Second the barnstar - excellent work! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I LOVE it. So much easier to use than the old one, and works like a gem in FF3 on my Mac. TravellingCari 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisting added - you may need to bypass your cache of the script to get the newest version. Mr.Z-man 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg

Hey can someone update the meta wiki logo on Template:WikipediaSister to [[Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg]]. Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Long-standing attack articles

• Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Sylvia Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Tony Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Traian Băsescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just pretend I'm stupid and explain to me really slowly why the articles listed above don't fall under criterion G10 for speedy deletion. At first I thought, "Surely criticism is being used in the sense of analysis and commentary". But no, these really are just lists of negative stuff that people have said about these people. Needless to say, there are no matching Praise for ... or Agreement with ... articles.

The only thing stopping me deleting these is that I have enough sense to know what a storm this would create but, after thinking about it for the past couple of weeks, this increasingly seems a cowardly excuse. CIreland (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a "cowardly excuse", it's a recognition of the nature of the project. If you did something that you know is going to be disruptive, without taking steps to minimize the disruption by obtaining a consensus for the action, that's tantamount to being disruptive yourself. I think you did the right thing by holding off and posting your request here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Because criticism of these figures in mainstream sources is widespread and of encyclopedic concern. Also, because treating that criticism appropriately requires (sometimes) that we split out a section from the main article. An "attack page" is a page that serves only to defame the subject. In this case, these pages serve to give a tertiary look at criticism which already exists. They do have the added unpleasant outcome of being harder to maintain NPOV than the main articles (partly because they don't see the same amount of traffic and partly because their "baseline" POV is a little slanted). But they should certainly not be speedied. Protonk (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with, for example, Commentary on Tony Blair or somesuch. The trouble is that most of the above receive a good deal of equally verifiable praise in equally reliable sources yet this is barely represented - making our coverage of these people unbalanced. CIreland (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason they are not called Commentary rather than criticism is that the NPOV tendency would be to "balance" the negative criticism with positive adulation... which is frequently even less analytically based than the negative stuff (and far less common, which ironically leads to a bias upon sources if they are presented "equally"). While positive criticism can be appropriately placed within an article with criticism in the title, the nature of the beast dictates that most content will be negative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We also have Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Criticism of Ellen White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Criticism of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Criticism in a sense includes positive criticism, so it's possible to include them as well. Cenarium ^Talk 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize we also have those articles but I singled out the ones for living people, for obvious reasons. Also, you are correct that "Criticism" can include positive criticism - but in the articles in question it patently does not. For example, this is the lede for Criticism of Tony Blair:

Criticism of Tony Blair includes accusations of dishonesty, authoritarianism, and subservience in his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush. Tony Blair has faced particularly severe condemnation for British involvement in the Iraq War, earning him the disparaging moniker of "Bush's Poodle."

CIreland (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Preface the above with "Negative", and tag "Positive criticism includes..." with a couple of examples from the main body would result in a NPOV and comprehensive lede (why do we spell it like that?) Ho, you should have seen the barrage of negative criticism that socialist Prime Ministers used to get - often from fractions within their own party! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{Sidebar) The spelling "lede" for the leading sentence, paragraph or section is a journalistic invention designed to differentiate it from "lead", as in the hot lead used to make type. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever"[79] Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. Atom (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Public figures can sue for defamation, and most of these are forks to deal with bloated criticism sections into which every single tine adverse comment is obsessively added by those who have an agenda against the subjects. WP:BLP does not get shelved for public figures. Having them renamed to "discussion" or some such title, which is less readily misunderstood by those who fail to see the difference between critique and censorious criticism, would be a good idea I feel. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, BLP does not get shelved, which is why I said the BLP has a policy for public figures. We should apply it, and adapt it as needed. I personally don't see the difference between calling the article "criticism of..." and "discussion of...". The content would be critical in nature, and allowed if it is cited, verifiable and from a reliable source, and not allowed otherwise. If it is criticism, let's call it that. By allowing people who are extremely critical to have a place to put it (but still following WP:RELIABLE), it gives a safety valve that should keep some of that out of the primary article. Atom (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A "Criticism" article must still remain NPOV and balanced, within its narrow topic. I've preferred the less negative term "Controversy." And then what is notably but controversially asserted about the topic is reported, neutrally, and with attempts to balance it with specific fact or assertions. For example, if a critical comment was that a figure had allegedly embezzled funds, court or other findings or public commentary on that specific point would be apposited with it, so that the reader may make a judgment. Such a format may consist of a list of criticisms, since that is a convenient way to organize it; it's important to find consensus among those who criticise and those who support as to what is really out there in reliable source. Because criticism is sometimes directly verifiable and usable, if from a notable source or recognized expert, sometimes blogs and other sources normally rejected can be used, subject to the policy of verifiability; often this would be where the "positive" material would come from. --Abd (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but these pages seem to be large POV forks. People got sick of being denied the privillage of posting negative POV information on the standard BLP's and have simply created articles under the guise of notable media reaction.. when in fact if it was notable enough it should stand on it's own two feet in the namesake's main article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism of" articles are inherently POV. It's almost as if we're including an implicit comment in the intros of these articles that says "The following is a list of negative things people have said about this subject". These articles make no more sense than an article called Praise of Windows Vista. While important criticisms do have their place, creating separate "for" or "against" articles is antithetical to our goal of creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Perhaps if we decide opinions/commentary should have their own article (that is an entirely different debate), they should all be united in something like Opinions of Windows Vista. Or perhaps use "criticism" in a more general way, as in the way the term is used in the phrase "art criticism" in that it includes general independent commentary in addition to any positive/negative comments. Not everything is black-and-white, but this is the kind of thinking that this type of article structure encourages. It is absurd to me that we have this type of structure here when it should be clear to anyone that this is so blatantly against one of our core policies. Did I miss the memo that says we're supposed to overlook this POV nonsense? Wickethewok (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Reflist

The template is not working properly. The columns options is no longer working. I believe this edit [80] messed up the code. Please fix this a.s.a.p. — Navy  Blue  14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The multi column support for Safari was turned off after extensive discussion, as Safari does not render multiple columns correctly. Please see Template talk:Reflist for more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So that it? It's going to stay 1 column? Ok never mind. thanks. — Navy  Blue  14:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Until either Safari is updated to stop the links breaking, or someone can design a reflist that works properly (or degrades gracefully in Safari) I hope so. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind, it still shows up as two columns on Firefox. It is regrettable that editors using the template from other platforms will be unable to see the precise results of their work. bd2412 T 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:138.251.242.2 Concerns

First, a quick Google search of 138.251.242.2 shows this is the IP of known spammers [81]. Next, you have personal attacks against other users: [82] ("incredible narcissism") and [83] [84] [85] (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: [86]. Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. Buspar (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

problems with an archive bot

Re: MiszaBot III

To a helpful administrator who has time to help: I think that the bot at the top of my talk page has stopped archiving my talk page as it is coded to do; perhaps there is a problem in the code. Also, I cannot see the names of my archive pages in the archive box in "show preview" mode; if I want to have chronology in the names and to have a chronological archiving bot, I don't know how to do that either. I did contact an administrator who seems familiar w/ such a bot, but have had no response to the request for assistance yet. Perhaps another admin. could take look at the code in "show preview" mode in my current talk page, and see what the trouble might be (if there is one). It is set to archive after 2 days48 hours and after 2 time-stamped signatures, but I don't think it's doing that anymore. I like the way the archive box shows up, but I can't see the names in the archive pages there, only numbers. Is there any way to include chronologies in archive pages 1 to 22 and to have automatic chronology set for the future (23 on) with a different bot? Thank you if you can assist. --NYScholar (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place for this. Try the Bot's talk page or the IRC channel.--Tznkai (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Long-standing attack articles

• Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Sylvia Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Tony Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Traian Băsescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just pretend I'm stupid and explain to me really slowly why the articles listed above don't fall under criterion G10 for speedy deletion. At first I thought, "Surely criticism is being used in the sense of analysis and commentary". But no, these really are just lists of negative stuff that people have said about these people. Needless to say, there are no matching Praise for ... or Agreement with ... articles.

The only thing stopping me deleting these is that I have enough sense to know what a storm this would create but, after thinking about it for the past couple of weeks, this increasingly seems a cowardly excuse. CIreland (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a "cowardly excuse", it's a recognition of the nature of the project. If you did something that you know is going to be disruptive, without taking steps to minimize the disruption by obtaining a consensus for the action, that's tantamount to being disruptive yourself. I think you did the right thing by holding off and posting your request here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Because criticism of these figures in mainstream sources is widespread and of encyclopedic concern. Also, because treating that criticism appropriately requires (sometimes) that we split out a section from the main article. An "attack page" is a page that serves only to defame the subject. In this case, these pages serve to give a tertiary look at criticism which already exists. They do have the added unpleasant outcome of being harder to maintain NPOV than the main articles (partly because they don't see the same amount of traffic and partly because their "baseline" POV is a little slanted). But they should certainly not be speedied. Protonk (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with, for example, Commentary on Tony Blair or somesuch. The trouble is that most of the above receive a good deal of equally verifiable praise in equally reliable sources yet this is barely represented - making our coverage of these people unbalanced. CIreland (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason they are not called Commentary rather than criticism is that the NPOV tendency would be to "balance" the negative criticism with positive adulation... which is frequently even less analytically based than the negative stuff (and far less common, which ironically leads to a bias upon sources if they are presented "equally"). While positive criticism can be appropriately placed within an article with criticism in the title, the nature of the beast dictates that most content will be negative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We also have Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Criticism of Ellen White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Criticism of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Criticism in a sense includes positive criticism, so it's possible to include them as well. Cenarium ^Talk 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize we also have those articles but I singled out the ones for living people, for obvious reasons. Also, you are correct that "Criticism" can include positive criticism - but in the articles in question it patently does not. For example, this is the lede for Criticism of Tony Blair:

Criticism of Tony Blair includes accusations of dishonesty, authoritarianism, and subservience in his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush. Tony Blair has faced particularly severe condemnation for British involvement in the Iraq War, earning him the disparaging moniker of "Bush's Poodle."

CIreland (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Preface the above with "Negative", and tag "Positive criticism includes..." with a couple of examples from the main body would result in a NPOV and comprehensive lede (why do we spell it like that?) Ho, you should have seen the barrage of negative criticism that socialist Prime Ministers used to get - often from fractions within their own party! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{Sidebar) The spelling "lede" for the leading sentence, paragraph or section is a journalistic invention designed to differentiate it from "lead", as in the hot lead used to make type. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever"[87] Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. Atom (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Public figures can sue for defamation, and most of these are forks to deal with bloated criticism sections into which every single tine adverse comment is obsessively added by those who have an agenda against the subjects. WP:BLP does not get shelved for public figures. Having them renamed to "discussion" or some such title, which is less readily misunderstood by those who fail to see the difference between critique and censorious criticism, would be a good idea I feel. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, BLP does not get shelved, which is why I said the BLP has a policy for public figures. We should apply it, and adapt it as needed. I personally don't see the difference between calling the article "criticism of..." and "discussion of...". The content would be critical in nature, and allowed if it is cited, verifiable and from a reliable source, and not allowed otherwise. If it is criticism, let's call it that. By allowing people who are extremely critical to have a place to put it (but still following WP:RELIABLE), it gives a safety valve that should keep some of that out of the primary article. Atom (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A "Criticism" article must still remain NPOV and balanced, within its narrow topic. I've preferred the less negative term "Controversy." And then what is notably but controversially asserted about the topic is reported, neutrally, and with attempts to balance it with specific fact or assertions. For example, if a critical comment was that a figure had allegedly embezzled funds, court or other findings or public commentary on that specific point would be apposited with it, so that the reader may make a judgment. Such a format may consist of a list of criticisms, since that is a convenient way to organize it; it's important to find consensus among those who criticise and those who support as to what is really out there in reliable source. Because criticism is sometimes directly verifiable and usable, if from a notable source or recognized expert, sometimes blogs and other sources normally rejected can be used, subject to the policy of verifiability; often this would be where the "positive" material would come from. --Abd (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but these pages seem to be large POV forks. People got sick of being denied the privillage of posting negative POV information on the standard BLP's and have simply created articles under the guise of notable media reaction.. when in fact if it was notable enough it should stand on it's own two feet in the namesake's main article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism of" articles are inherently POV. It's almost as if we're including an implicit comment in the intros of these articles that says "The following is a list of negative things people have said about this subject". These articles make no more sense than an article called Praise of Windows Vista. While important criticisms do have their place, creating separate "for" or "against" articles is antithetical to our goal of creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Perhaps if we decide opinions/commentary should have their own article (that is an entirely different debate), they should all be united in something like Opinions of Windows Vista. Or perhaps use "criticism" in a more general way, as in the way the term is used in the phrase "art criticism" in that it includes general independent commentary in addition to any positive/negative comments. Not everything is black-and-white, but this is the kind of thinking that this type of article structure encourages. It is absurd to me that we have this type of structure here when it should be clear to anyone that this is so blatantly against one of our core policies. Did I miss the memo that says we're supposed to overlook this POV nonsense? Wickethewok (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Reflist

The template is not working properly. The columns options is no longer working. I believe this edit [88] messed up the code. Please fix this a.s.a.p. — Navy  Blue  14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The multi column support for Safari was turned off after extensive discussion, as Safari does not render multiple columns correctly. Please see Template talk:Reflist for more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So that it? It's going to stay 1 column? Ok never mind. thanks. — Navy  Blue  14:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Until either Safari is updated to stop the links breaking, or someone can design a reflist that works properly (or degrades gracefully in Safari) I hope so. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind, it still shows up as two columns on Firefox. It is regrettable that editors using the template from other platforms will be unable to see the precise results of their work. bd2412 T 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:138.251.242.2 Concerns

First, a quick Google search of 138.251.242.2 shows this is the IP of known spammers [89]. Next, you have personal attacks against other users: [90] ("incredible narcissism") and [91] [92] [93] (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: [94]. Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. Buspar (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

problems with an archive bot

Re: MiszaBot III

To a helpful administrator who has time to help: I think that the bot at the top of my talk page has stopped archiving my talk page as it is coded to do; perhaps there is a problem in the code. Also, I cannot see the names of my archive pages in the archive box in "show preview" mode; if I want to have chronology in the names and to have a chronological archiving bot, I don't know how to do that either. I did contact an administrator who seems familiar w/ such a bot, but have had no response to the request for assistance yet. Perhaps another admin. could take look at the code in "show preview" mode in my current talk page, and see what the trouble might be (if there is one). It is set to archive after 2 days48 hours and after 2 time-stamped signatures, but I don't think it's doing that anymore. I like the way the archive box shows up, but I can't see the names in the archive pages there, only numbers. Is there any way to include chronologies in archive pages 1 to 22 and to have automatic chronology set for the future (23 on) with a different bot? Thank you if you can assist. --NYScholar (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place for this. Try the Bot's talk page or the IRC channel.--Tznkai (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mertozoro

This is a category for a users subpages. It seems a bit unusual but I really couldn't recall there being anything saying you can't do that. Any opinions? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, not, but I do not see any reason for such category, with this page existing (and the links already on his/her userpage). I'd say you ask the user to convert the category to a sub-page list and if he/she refuses, to take it to WP:UCFD. SoWhy 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gorby2 / 87.251.111.207

I'm not sure what's going on here. Massive (massive) re-cats of chemical articles with no edit summaries by the anon user, and some similar behaviour by the named user. It seems fishy, and SpyMagician agrees, but we're not sure where to put this. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to backup this assertion. It's baffling and seems robot assisted. All from one IP address and all in one category of articles. What to do? --SpyMagician (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the user Gorby2 has now come clean and outlined what he did and explanation why, but does not cite who/what/why he decided to do a massive bot-assisted change to Wikipedia without going through proper channels for a structural change of this level. --SpyMagician (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

European National Front#Program

Am I missing something here? 78.149.130.209 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some fan/member of that party added it to the article to promote the organisation. I have removed the section completely as POV and will watch this page for changes. SoWhy 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

RBAG Spam

Per WP:BOT

	Chris is currently being considered for BAG membership. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Chris G.

--Chris 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree Cannon (talk · contribs)

I posted a report on this user on WP:AIV, but I also wanted to bring this here because this user's activity is giving me bad vibes.

Tree Cannon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, from what I can guess based on his user page and contributions, a Japanese user who is unhappy that the English Wikipedia has fair-use images and the Japanese Wikipedia does not, and think it is "discriminatory". About a month ago, they decided to act like a sort of copyright police for Japanese media and removed fair-use images that were Japanese in origin ([95], [96], [97]). This got him blocked for 72 hours.

The account remained silent until now, when the user began adding random Japanese and some vandalism to his previous targets ([98], [99]). When other editors informed them that their edits were undone, this user began replying entirely in Japanese ([100], [101]). One of these replies, [102], appears to be inflammatory as the text for it translates to: It is from the English [wa]. Another calling and. Already immediately September 11th, the party of arrogant America and the European person died the multitude. It is very happy important commemoration day. The exemption [ji] [te] permitting to that. The [ze] which probably will celebrate that day together. Toast! Another inflammatory comment, this time in English, was added after he was blocked by User:VirtualSteve for the previous edits.

Though he's been blocked for a week, I think the inflammatory nature of some of his user-space edits and the incivil way he carries himself when commenting in general should warrant a somewhat longer block. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

wow. That sounds like some pretty serious rage. Indef block, anybody? Corvus cornix_talk 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The text of [103] reads, roughly, "I don't know English, but whatever. Soon it'll be September 11, when lots of arrogant Americans and Europeans died. It's a joyous, important anniversary. In deference to that, I'll forgive you. Let's celebrate that day together. Cheers!" Exploding Boy (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to refer him/her to Wikipedia:Dude, it's a frickin' online encyclopedia. Chill out, already! (WP:DIAFOECOA for short). caknuck _° is geared up for football season 04:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And I thought I'd look at some of the others as well. The edits to (92 above) are just "also known as [name]" and "from a foreign-language DVD version." (93 above) is obviously silly as it's a random Japanese section in an English article. {94 above) is just a question about some edits to Miyazaki Hayao. (95 above) is getting silly. He says that Miyazaki is Japanese, and that he has been familiar with his work since childhood, so the other editor should more or less butt out. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a chuckle of out his comment on his user page: "I talk in Japanese also to those who cannot understand Japanese." So, here's my take on this user. He's obviously got a bee in his bonnet about what he seems to see as theft or unjustified use of images taken from Japanese works. Some of his edits could be seen as constructive, but adding Japanese language sections to English language articles is just silly, and the fact that he's added emoticons to at least one of them suggests that he knows he's being disruptive. Still, he's no worse than some other users we've yet to indefblock, and he's not being unbearably disruptive (yet). His poor English skills (he seems to be using an automatic translator) mean that he'll never be able to contribute very much here anyway. We just need to give him enough rope to hang himself. If he comes back after his block expires and continues to be disruptive, we can simply block him again. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded.--Tznkai (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am not comfortable with having an editor here who calls for the celebration of the murders of over 3000 people. Corvus cornix_talk 05:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a native speaker to look over his edits and leave him a note. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A block of 7 days for incivility is a slap on the wrist and a tacit agreement that their disgusting comments are somehow acceptable. We should make a stand that any such behavior, celebrating the Holocaust, the Madrid or London bombings, the Dresden bombings, any such activities, is not acceptable. Period. Corvus cornix_talk 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we are sorry about Dresden. _{A sincere personal note, it was my grandfather's only regret in life.} Keegan^talk 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that a 7 day block is a tacit agreement that someone's comments are acceptable. And Wikipedia is not in the business of saying what is or is not morally acceptable, just what is or is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Quite frankly, if he doesn't cause any more ruckus, I don't care what he thinks.--Tznkai (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't block people for having distasteful opinions. The 7 day incivility block is the appropriate response to his behaviour to this point, most of which hasn't really been that awful. I see no particular reason to come down particularly, disproportionately hard on this user, annoying though he may be. Chances are he'll either get bored and stay away, in which case we don't have to worry about it, or come back and pick up where he left off, in which case we can block him again. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We require people to remove swastikas from their User pages. We block them when they refuse. Corvus cornix_talk 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this user refused to remove swastikas from his user page? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, don't be intentionally dense. Apparently it's ok to celebrate the murders of Americans, but not to celebrate the murders of European Jews. Corvus cornix_talk 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be unnecessarily sensational. Wikipedia isn't Germany or Austria; Holocaust denial is not a crime here. —kurykh 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is exhausting its usefulness. You don't like it Corvus, complain to Jimbo.--Tznkai (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I wish our rules permitted me to block every user with distasteful opinions, but they don't. In my opinion, this user has not (yet) done anything that warrants an indef block. I endorse the 7 day block, and support further, longer blocks if he continues the behaviour, or an indefblock if escalated disruption warrants it. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Should_we_allow_an_editor_to_edit_here_who_calls_for_the_celebration_of_the_deaths_of_thousands_of_people.3F Corvus cornix_talk 06:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What does Jimbo have to do with it? He is not a court of appeal for AN... Anyway, personally, I would indef block him since there is no point someone that says they can't speak English having an account on the English Wikipedia unless they are involved in some kind of cross-project work which this user doesn't appear to be. Short term blocks are for when we think the user might make useful contributions when they come back, that clearly isn't going to happen here. --Tango (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. You don't like it Corvus, complain to Jimbo. Corvus cornix_talk 06:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, the question was really intended for Tznkai, but the thread had been unindented, so I didn't want to reindent it! --Tango (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that this user's words have been pretty awful - hate speech, pure and simple, which does nothing but harm our collaborative efforts - and that he shouldn't be permitted to contribute to this project unless we're sure he won't continue his tirades. krimpet✽ 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the drama. As I said above, some of his edits could be seen as constructive. Also, we don't prevent people from editing because their English isn't good. A note in Japanese with English translation has been left on his talk page, which reminds him that there are rules here which he must follow, including being civil to other editors. In my view, the issue has been resolved for now. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel silly for making that suggestion, because I never meant it as such, so much as a way of saying "This is the way things are, you don't like it, too bad." And i agree with Exploding Boy--Tznkai (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, stfu? Corvus cornix_talk 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try it this way. WP is an encylopedia governed by certain policies. One of those is a commitment to neutrality. Another is a commitment to civility. A third is a principle to avoid making gestures, but to concentrate on the encylopedia. None of the policies we have allow us to punish someone just because he said something patently terrible. And finally a 4th is to assume good faith and that everyone has something useful to add, unless they have proven otherwise. That is not just my opinion, that's the way things are (within how I understand them.) I am unwilling to extend the block without further provocation. It seems Exploding boy is also. However, if you really think its a Really Big Deal, your option is, as always, to escalate it to a higher authority, and around here, that's Jimbo. I don't think its a particularly good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting blocking him just because of his English, I'm suggesting blocking him because he's being disruptive and making it indef because there is little reason not to (cost-benefit analysis and all that). --Tango (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Corvus Conrnix (and Tango) here, about the severity of the prolem, although with some qualms; ultimately I basically support the current block although I can see some cause to extend it another week. I highly prize the value of free expression of views, especially offensive views, at Wikipedia because we need to create an inclusive environment for NPOV to work effectively. So this is my standard. It leads to three question I think in this case: (1) would banning this user drive away editors whose points of view are so different from our own, and so offensive to us, that we actually need them at Wikipedia, to ensure that all notable views are included in the encyclopedia? (2) would the continued presense of this editor drive away other editors who make valuable contributions to the project? Finally, (3), does the specific behavior in question contribute to the improvement of any article? This in the end is what it is all about: improving articles. Now, from what i have read, my poiints 1 and 2 do not really apply here or cancel each other out, though I wonder if anyone disagrees with me, i would like to hear it. So I get stuck on my third point. This guy is not calling for the inclusion of an alternate (however offensive) view in an article. he is simply using his own user page to spew hate. This is why I lean towards Corvus Cornix. We should not let anyone hijack Wikipedia to spew hate speech. I have seen other suers make no edits to articles because their edits would violate our core content policies; instead they just edit talk pages or their user page - pages where NPOV and NOR do not apply - and in effect they are making a mockery of our core values. User pages have a value in introducing enough of ourselves to facilitate collaboration. That is there purpose. This is not My Space or Facebook or a blog, user pages do not exist just for individuals to have their own web-page on the web, they serve a function in Wikipedia. Again, this user seems to me to be perverting that function. I am not sure I would ban him but I would consider a long block. Remember, blocks are NOT punitive. They are meant to stop disruptive behavior and provide time for a person to reflect on and reconsider their acts. I would support a block that was long enough to throw a wrench in his disruptive behavior (one week would obviously be reasonable) and also enough to give him time to study our content and personal behavior policies so he can learn the error of his ways - if English is not his first language, two weeks may be called for. This guy is a newbie, and has made some valid edits, so I oppose an indef. ban. I really think we should try a rehabilitation through a block first, and make it clear to him that he cannot abuse his user page or talk pages, and needs to learn our core values via our policies. A block sends the message and provides time for education. Is my reasoning off? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At least two of the diffs above are not vandalism. One is an edit to the article that did add some relevant information (albeit in Japanese). The other is a request for explanation (again, in Japanese) on a user's talk page. What seems to have provoked the outburst about 9/11 is frustration. Now, I'm not saying I like this guy, and I'm not saying his behaviour is acceptable. This is the English Wikipedia site, and contributions need to be in English (and some of his have been), and civility applies even when there's no reasonable expectation that the target will understand what you've left on their talk page. But as I said above, for now the steps we've taken seem sufficient: we've given him a week-long block (quite proportionate to his behaviour), and we've left messages on his talk page. We've even taken the additional step of leaving a message on his page in his language so that there can be no doubt that he understands it. I still see no reason to upgrade this to an indefblock, yet. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Current wikipedia policy is that we do not block people for their opinions, whatever they are but only for their behaviour.

Celebrating 9/11 (as a positive event) is not acceptable behaviour because it is not related with writing an encyclopaedia and because it is not wp:civil, particularly in a project where the majority of the contributors are US citizens or live there.

The current consensus is that 7 days is a good period for such a vandalism, which remains, in my point of view, a provocation.

If he goes on, the block will be increased, for the same reasons that the people who refused to remove swastikas were undefinitely (?) blocked.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Background and updates

This reminds me of the banned Kanabekobaton (talk · contribs)/Euroleague (talk · contribs) and this long recent thread. The CU could not confirm Tree Cannon as being Kanabekobaton though. That said, it could have something to do with this 2007 incident instead.

Anyway, what we got for sure is that 0oors (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Tree Cannon (talk · contribs) and has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry. A week for TC (the master account) is reasonable. We'll see. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree Cannon has left a longish and rather polite post on his talk page in response to the message left in Japanese yesterday. The gist of it is that he is aware of the rules and promises to abide by them from now on (and a bunch of other stuff about different rules for different Wikipedias being unfair, and some other, somewhat more esoteric complaints). Exploding Boy (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese but I do believe you. And, does he say he's got something/nothing to do with the cases I mentioned above? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You keeping on eye on him?--Tznkai (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked for a couple more days isn't he? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

fayssal: he doesn't mention anything, but he acknowledges that he was being disruptive, and apologizes. He has also been warned that other users have found some of his comments offensive. My guess is that he'll be ok from now on, but if he isn't he has no excuse: he's been made aware of the rules and has acknowledged that he understands them and that his previous behaviour was unacceptable. As a side note, another user has also explained to him that copyright policies on the various Wikipedias (one of his major complaints) are based on various countries' laws rather than on the whim of the various language editions' editors. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EB. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now Tree Cannon understands the copyright policies and realizes that he was barking up the wrong tree. I was asked to post his apology. To those who I hurt so badly. I am fully aware of what I have done is indefensible. I am ashamed of my thoughtlessness and filled with remorse. Please accept my apology. Oda Mari (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with that. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot reverts valid edit but its PHP page to revert invalid reverts is broken

I attempted to inform Cluebot that it had made a false revert but on submitting my report at http://24.40.131.153/cluebot.php the response page showed just:

> POST: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=login (0.239742040634 s)
> GET: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=content&format=php&titles=User%3AClueBot%2FFalsePositives%2FReports (0.188697814941 s)
> Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/apache2/domains/default/htdocs/wikibot.classes.php on line 78

While it says warning rather than error it's hardly the kind of response that would lead one to believe one's submission had been successfully made.

I was making the report as cluebot reverted my revert of a huge number of edits (over 150) made by Arilang1234 to the article Boxer Rebellion in the last 4 days. My explanation of my actions in my Cluebot report were as follows:

"This looks like a mass delete but I am reverting over 150 revisions made by Arilang1234 between the 3rd and 7th of September. While not simple childish vandalism these revisions are bizarre and are not the stuff of a coherent Wikipedia piece. Some of it appears scholarly but in fact reflects the personal assertions of an individual (on dates etc.) rather than established historical fact, some reflects non-mainstream opinion on historical events and groups and most is just rambling and irrelevant." 84.74.150.48 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. It wasn't really even broken, it just wasn't posting it to User:ClueBot/FalsePositives, but it still records the information to the server. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Malfunction on User:BJBot

User:BJBot appears to be tagging non-free images incorrectly as being orphaned despite them actually containing proper citations and not being orphaned such as Image:ALW-Uniform-OAK.PNG. Also it appears other pages are also being tagged by mistake. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:BJBot: "Read this first Sometimes MediaWiki will report an image not being used when it really is, and the bot will tag it in error. If this happens, revert the bot's edit to the image, and make a null edit to the article containing the image (click edit, then save without making any changes)" ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BJ should fix the bot, users having to do that is some hack job. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case it was triggered by this page blank vandalism, which for a short time, made the image technically orphaned. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That is actually much more complicated that it seems to appear. What happens is that the tables in MediaWiki do not update when there's high server load; instead, these entries get moved into the job queue. There is no way for a bot (or an editor, by that matter) to know that an image is included in a page because neither the "used in" list at the bottom of image pages, as well as Special:Whatlinkshere shows the image used anywhere. The only way to flush these tables is to force pages through the save parser, which updates all the links tables that point to any given page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but... the description page for a "fair use" image is generally expected to link to the article(s) where it is used. It would be easy for a bot to follow these links, do a null edit, then reload the image page and decide whether it's actually orphaned. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated the message earlier, if isn't done manually two different bots remove the template. BJ^Talk 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Now theology now a target for the Palin POV pushers

Resolved

I'd like to request semiprotection on the page as it's getting hit by rumormongering IPs...Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I put in a request over at RFPP and pointed them to this discussion. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a partial protection of the article, which should provide time for people to work it out on th talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Total of 4 IP edits in the 12 hours preceding protection. *awaits chorus of impassioned "it's a wiki" objections that are de rigueur when reg editors find they can't edit* 86.44.29.35 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? Regular--that is, logged-in--users can edit. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was drawing attention to how amusing it is that a decision to semi-protect of any sort rarely draws any scrutiny from registered users, whereas full protection is routinely railed against on these pages using arguments that apply equally to both protection types. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Evasion of AfD results by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

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.

All articles speedied except for Weapons of Gears of War, which there is a running AFD on because it is significantly different than the previously deleted content. LGC blocked 24 hours due to edit-warring on this page.--chaser - t 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) has begun to move articles, which were apparently userfied for him by kindly administrators after they were deleted at AfD, back into mainspace as redirects. I've only checked one of them at all carefully—List of fictional aircraft in Ace Combat, which was deleted per this AfD and the history of which LGRdC moved into mainspace as a redirect to List of nations of Ace Combat, with the edit summary "Creating redirect following discussions to merge and redirect". I can find no DRV discussion of the deleted article or any other "discussions to merge and redirect"; nor can I find any evidence that LGRdC has merged any material to the article that's the target of the redirect. This, and his other recent moves of userfied material, seem to be nothing more than end runs around AfD consensus in an effort to get the articles' histories back into mainspace. I have no idea how this matter can or should be dealt with; but the editor in question will clearly do anything in his power to disrupt and negate the AfD process, and it seems to me that something needs to be done here. Deor (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to tenuously assume good faith. LGRdC seems about to invoke his right to vanish and is clearing out various user pages. One relatively easy(?) solution might be to delete the histories of these moved articles and restore the redirects he's created. If under a new identity he wants to start/resume working on these materials, he can request an admin. restore the edit history to his user space. In the meantime, Le Grand, rather than creating redirects and moving them to article space, it would be a sign of good faith if you were simply to go to the mainspace area and create the redirect there atop the redlink. Then just request db-user for those articles sitting in user space.

Meanwhile, though, someone might want to "help" LGRdC with this limbo-RTV status. He twice blanked this section and posted to Deor's talk page citing RTV and harassment as a reason not to write to/about him -- yet LG continues to participate in AFDs, posted welcome messages, etc. Something about cake and eating it. I dunno. --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, LGRdC has now blanked this thread for the fifth time. I'm now requesting that the account be blocked for a 3rr violation. This thread wasn't indended to be about him so much as about what to do with the redirects he created, but it's becoming personal. Deor (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to go that route? You initiated the thread (which for some people counts for 3RR) and you've restored it three times. That is effectively adding the same (or similar) content four times. Why not talk to LGRdC about this? The thread can be restored later if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I left a stern warning on LGRdC`s talk page. If he choses to ignore that, then so be it; however unless that happens, I am not willing to block him yet. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)I've already blocked LGRdC for edit warring (he claims to be invoking RtV on an account "not used in many months," a falsehood, since he's edited actively until today) - however, I also caution Deor not to fuel the flames of edit warring like this in the future. krimpet✽ 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I don't know how familiar you are with LGRdC communication habits, but it sounds like you never tried to actually talk commonsense with him. He regularly blanks and stonewalls or otherwise disrupts everything that is in the slightest critical of any of his actions. Moreoever, Kralizec is right that RTV does not include the right to remove this section from AN. user:Everyme 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To the best of my knowledge, blanking other users' discussion-page comments falls within the definition of vandalism, and reverting such blanking (as I was only one of three editors to do here) can hardly be considered edit warring. Anyone have any ideas about what to do with the deleted articles that LGRdC has placed in mainspace? Deor (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged three Ace Combat-related "deleted" articles for speedy since they included AfDed edit history; PhilKnight erased them. The other things he's created, as far as I can tell from the article history, are just redirects he made in user-space and moved to article-space. So, the AfD-evading thing I think is settled, unless I missed an article/history. --EEMIV (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Seen this?

Consider me chastised if I'm in the wrong place, but have you seen Kerala tourism lately? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what is going on here. I just checked and it's ok. Ten minutes ago when I went to the article it had a large photo of McCain on it, accross the actual Kerala page. I saved it as a web archive if anyone is interested. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That was likely transclusion vandalism, which can be fleeting. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There has been some template vandalism involving a picture of an old man, I suspect this is what happened here. There is a report at AIV about it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

With regards with the tools, I've requested feedback here. Comments are welcome. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Opinoso

User:Opinoso continues with disruptive behavior and edition war in Italian_Brazilian and other topics. It is the same in Portuguese Wikipedia.

Take a look.

--Quissamã (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Opinoso insists in disruptive behavior and edition war in Italian_Brazilian article.

He does not want that tags placed in the text or to provide reliable sources to controversial facts.

The same User:Opinoso has a long history of disruptive behavior in Portuguese Wikipedia. He is not fit to group work, is renowned for insulting everyone that has a different opinion and does not seem to have a good knowledge of any field that he pretends to contribute.

--Quissamã (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

IP harassment

User:Christianthelion/90.201.182.141 is leaving me rude messages on my talk page and now doing the same to degenerate discussion. I translated the first one using google language tools. Wasn't kind. I'm sure the rest aren't either. I've attempted to entract him into a civil discussion for many days but it simply keeps coming down to personal attacks and now its just getting bizarre.Yeago (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

....Hello.... I am in the wrong place?Yeago (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Contracted editing

Earlier I deleted James F. Reda & Associates, LLC which had been created first by the now blocked JFredaLLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and then by Swiggins2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The first first creation was deleted by Jj137 (talk · contribs) as spam followed by a username block. I deleted it a copyright violation from here.

I now get an email from the user which indicated that they are the webmaster and creator of the companies website. They also indicate that they are "...contacted by this company to add the material..." and they have released the material under the GFDL.

Normally I'd just point them to the contact at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and keep an eye on it. However, the "contacted by this company" bothered me. I read this, perhaps incorrectly, to read "paid to edit", and, if so, should they just be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Their company's google results list dozens of self-generated sites, making me believe they're just trying to advertise in as many ways as possible. That being said, why don't we refer them to the process at Wikipedia:BFAQ#COMPANY? We'd also need assurances that they're not account sharing. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree there -- they're more than likely just trying to advertise as much as they can. I may be wrong, but if they're being paid to edit (which is kind of pointless), I'm pretty sure they're just advertising. I have no idea whether or not Swiggins2 is the same person, but considering his first edit was recreating that article (and I hadn't blocked account creation on the first block), it makes me a bit suspicious.   jj137 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually even G11-like content released under the GFDL isn't suitable in tone (I've marked it before), but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't too terrible. Most of it is unusable, but the remaining useful paragraph requires a little cleanup. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the parts that were a copyvio are still listed on the above linked page as "© 2008 James F. Reda & Associates, LLC". The editor either needs to adjust the James F. Reda site to confirm that the material is released under the GFDL or contact the permissions, which I did point out to him. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Bandsofblue

First, please see this past thread where I noted User:Bandsofblue (who has been indef blocked from vandalism) was using his talk page to create fake results from various reality TV shows on their talk page, fills them all up and then deletes and restarts a few days later. The worst I think the user could be doing is tracking a fantasy league or something like this around these elements, which would violate the appropriate use of userspace.

Basically, the user is back at it again modifying their talk page. Again, this may not be harmful, but as I've not yet cleaned out the entry on my watchlist, its hard not to notice. I dunno what can be done short of completely blocking the account; the last time the edits were reverted and deleted but that only seems to be a pattern that will keep on going. --MASEM 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-deleted and re-protected. The account has actually been blocked since 7 December 2007, so there's no need to allow this to continue. - auburnpilot talk 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Screambloodygore667

Judging by his userpage where he encourages vandalism and his contributions [104] which often consist of curse filled furors in all caps (Example being his edits to Talk:Music [105] ), I'd say this is a troll account. Zazaban (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the editor in question about this discussion. - Revolving Bugbear 00:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've left him a message asking him to remain civil. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on him, he's here to 'uphold the glory of metal', which is rarely a good thing. Zazaban (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

...Yes. But maybe he can uphold metal's glory while being civil and non-disruptive. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, that is never the case. Zazaban (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

...In which case we can uphold the glory of Wikipedia by blocking him. Civilly, of course. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Zazaban (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Please give him a break. Way down at the end of his userboxes, he claims to be a liberal and a Christian Democrat so I hardly think he's into biting the heads off bats, drinking the blood of virgins, or really challenging the natural order of things. He will discover the joys of Mozart and Beethoven in all good time. --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well according to a university in Scotland his Mozart and Beethoven days may come sooner than expected. As the article explains, Screambloodygore667, is just a gentle, creative persom who is at ease with themselves. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rock is my favourite genre, I think the Music article is really crappy, I'm not some sort of classical elitist, don't get me wrong. Zazaban (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. Is he being disruptive, or do you just not like his tastes in music? - Revolving Bugbear 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I actually quite like Metal. As I explained in my first post, he's been ranting and raving and cussing and generally being disruptive. Zazaban (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Block helper script

I've been working on a block script for quite some time (after DerHexer's script regretfully stopped working, actually), but I've just now gotten around to posting about it here. Some of the specifics of working and installing it are available here; if you have any bugs, requests, or anything else worth mentioning about it, feel free to tell me. Please note that this script has only been tested in Firefox. Yours, —Animum (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Worked beautifully. Blocked, then tagged the userpage and talk page. Thanks! - auburnpilot talk 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Query about User:Crommorc

Hi! I'm a newbie admin, so I would appreciate advice as to what should be done here. I was patrolling the New User's contributions, and I noticed one name cropping up time and time again, that of User:Crommorc. This editor's actions appear to consist soley of removing references to anything barefoot, and the edit summary is almost always the same: Removed barefoot fetish vandalism.

I have no experience of the topics of any of the articles this person has edited, so I don't know if this is genuine vandalism revertion (although there doesn't seem to be any pattern to it), or if this is someone going through censoring Wikipedia from anything to do with bare feet. I know WP:BITE and WP:AGF should apply, and if this is genuine reversion, I don't want to stop it. If it isn't, I would like this nipped in the bud before there is too much to do to revert it all. What should be done? StephenBuxton (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I saw someone else going through and starting to revert the edits, having dropped a query on the talk page. I then decided to help go through the list, and then drop a level one censor warning on the talk page. I'll keep an eye on Crommorc, I think. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is, apparently, a "barefoot fetish vandal", indefinitely blocked for disruption, who launches socks from time to time. If someone could provide the SSP link, and review the accounts that Crommorc was reverting, it may be that these are more of the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They are back as TheBoneWoman (talk · contribs)--118.93.81.226 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Crommorc (talk · contribs), who is apparently a sock of DownTownM (talk · contribs), who is a sock of Seasideplace (talk · contribs), who is a sock of...who? - auburnpilot talk 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortage of involved admins at DYK

OK folks, DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved, and some of those who have been doing it for a while could do with a break. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :)

I find it a nice change of one is getting a little tired of negative interactions with vandals, POV pushers, reverters etc. so maybe the nice warm group-hug of DYK may good place to recharge.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion skirmishes over Kashmir

Right now, there's so much irregularities going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir that I want to bring this discussion to the general attention of the administrators. I am not going to provide any examples as interested admins may inform themselves by looking at this page (and its history). __meco (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I (who myself is an active party in the debate) would say that there are problems on two fronts. On one hand Nangparbat (talk · contribs), who represents a pro-Pakistani POV in the debate, is constantly disrupting the discussion through various IP number edits. On the other hand, there are canvassing and sockpuppeting cases amongst pro-Indian POV editors. My suggestion is that a the AfD be semiprotected to weed out Nangparbat and the socks from the discussion. --Soman (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kashmircloud has already been blocked for sockpuppetry and canvassing. Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a PoV fork of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir has been heavily votestacked towards a keep, but as a content fork the article should either be deleted or merged. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Soman. What we need are constructive inputs and it's being hampered by Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani elements. Please semi-protect. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 12:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No protection necessary, the socks are transparent. It may have been votestacked, but there does appeear to be a legitimate difference between Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the latter consisting of five territories while the former consists of only two. They both seem to have sources, perhaps the solution is to attempt to gut both articles to get rid of POV? GlassCobra 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But the constant disruptions of the dynamic IP user makes the whole debate extremly difficult to read in a sensible way. Nangparbat (the dynamic anon IP user) constantly issues uncivil comments, and many other participants in the AfD are quick to respond. Thus the core issues of the AfD gets sidelined in the discussion. --Soman (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting aspect, and I wonder if any administrators who have experience in such cases can outline how they deal with discussions that are so entangled that it's almost impossible to attain a clear impression of what is significant and what are elaborate distractions. __meco (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper protection of a PRODed article

Resolved

 – semi protection had nothing to do with PROD removal;the contesting of the prod by the anon had been accepted - the article is at AfD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Semih Aydilek is currently up for PROD. After an anon had repeatedly removed the PROD tag, including once with the summary "please keep" (contesting the deletion), Daniel Case protected the article with a summary which clearly indicates his awareness of the anon removing the PROD tag. As it seems from WP:PROD that anons are allowed to contest PRODs, and this anon was clearly trying to do so, I think the page should be unprotected, and the PROD tag removed as a contested PROD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD indicates clearly, that removing the PROD-tag needs to be done with a statement, as to why the PROD is contested. As the PROD will go on until Sept. 11, you should notify the IP of that and once he/she explained the reasoning, the PROD tag may be removed and the article unprotected. Just removing tags is considered vandalism and may lead to protection of articles. I would suggest though that if you disagree with the PROD, that you open a AfD-discussion to determine the fate of the article. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD does not require a reason to be given, nor does the instructions on the tag itself. WP:PROD says you should leave a reason and the tag says that "it helps." WP:PROD also says: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article)." That's obviously not the case here. Not should the PROD tag not have been re-added, but semi-protecting the page to force the anon out of a content dispute is a blatant violation of the protection policy. What the hell happened to WP:BITE? Mr.Z-man 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Z-man. The contested PROD should be taken to AfD. GlassCobra 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article, along with some others, because the anon who had already been blocked and whose unblock I denied, had already threatened to use a different IP. As we usually do in such cases, I protected the pages he had been targeting as well as extending the block.

Yes, the contested prod should go to AfD, but I was giving the original tagger the opportunity to do so as it's really his nom to make. Since he has not done so, I will. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears it is now on AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was he blocked? This was definitely vandalism, but he stopped after that, and tried to improve Semih Aydilek in a noobish way. For that, he was reverted by a bot. --NE2 07:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fuller response with relevant diffs

I did not protect the page for any reason connected to the PROD.

• First, the anon, having been previously blocked by someone else, had requested unblock. I declined, since he had previously declared it was his intention to edit-war. He responded to the decline by threatening to evade the block.

• So, as we usually do in such circumstances, I decided to protect the pages he had been editing disruptively, rather than leave some other admin the headache of possibly having to rangeblock. There were three, of which Semih Aydilek was one. The possible deletion of the article was not an issue to me; the PROD tagger is supposed to start the AFD if the tag is removed, instead of just reverting it back. In addition, I do not believe from his edits above that he would have participated in an AfD. Therefore, the protections were an overall response to his disruptive editing and threats, not an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute in which I was not a participant at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird MiszaBot action

MiszaBot archived four threads from ANI earlier, but in the process added two IP comments, one from 4.225.208.143 (talk · contribs) and another from 63.46.33.196 (talk · contribs). Neither though have made comments at WP:ANI, see the recent history before MiszaBot archived the comments and added the IP comments. Also, this seems weird by Risker (talk · contribs), reverting nothing. Risker was granted with a warning from the 63.46.33.196 IP for abuse of rollback. Am I missing something? D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see where the comments by these IPs are on the noticeboard archives; a search on this page[ turned up that these IPs don't appear there.

As to the rollback done by Risker, I believe the only possibility is that the edit he removed was later oversighted; this edit had been done by 4.225.208.143 (talk · contribs); and the complaint by 63.46.33.196 (talk · contribs) was unjustified. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! What a mess :/ Yes, it relates to two oversighted edits, which had been requested by an editor in the normal manner. There are dozens of interim revisions now and the links appear already in various messages on various other sites. As this relates to real damage to a very real person, I'd appreciate it if this wasn't linked and commented on in detail, especially relating to her name - Alison ^❤ 14:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

STILL at it.

Resolved

 – blocked. — Coren ^(talk) 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to [106], above.

This morning I left a note on blocked user Andy Bjornovich's talk page with concerns that he was continuing to edit using IP 212.159.64.14. This IP was only editing user and talk pages, but I still felt that, with 2 days left of his block, this was unnecessary (it's worth noting that another admin disagreed).

Just now, however, I noticed another edit to Andy's user page, this time by a different IP. I checked that IP's contributions only to discover 5 article space edits from this morning, so I left a message on Andy's talk page requesting clarification. Following another edit, this time to a template, I have indefblocked 79.73.71.54 for evading a block.

Andy has just admitted he is using that IP. I have therefore indefblocked his other IP as well.

Now I propose to increase Andy's original block (already his second) for this evasion. I'd like recommendations on the increase: are we going to give this clearly problematic user yet another chance, or just say goodbye? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you indefblocked two IPs? Are they static? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The blocks can easily be changed. I indefblocked for the very reason that the block is...indefinite. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I've reduced the blocks on both IPs to 3 hours. That should give us enough time to discuss what to do with Andy. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This started with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive166#User signature. Based upon that incident and the conduct since, I believe an indef block is now warranted. We have already been excessively polite and patient with this user, but there has been no improvement in their behavior or attitude. It's time to move on. — Satori Son 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With this editor I'm continually going back and forth between whether he's just not getting it, or deliberately trying to test others' boundaries. Even though today's IP edits from 79.73.71.54 were innocuous (except for this one maybe-- does anybody know what this is?). My suggestion would be a last warning to AB with indef ban immediately upon any further edit. At some point, disruption is disruption, regardless of whether the editor seems well-intentioned. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is especially strange. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, 5 edits from that IP today are to article space, and this user is currently blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my comment too--sorry, yes, I think this is a definite problem. The userspace edits and bizarre comments (e.g., [107]) make me think he just doesn't get that he's not supposed to edit at all, under any form, during this. Maybe I'm being naive though. If the consensus is that we've given enough warning I have no problem with that too. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And to add a little more weirdness, please see this latest edit by Andy in which he admits to editing article space and says he's incompetent (!??) Exploding Boy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support a reset of the original block, per WP:EVADE, which seems pretty straightforward. I don't see a very good benefit/drama ratio in extending the block to indef. If I am dead wrong about this, then I think we need to consider updating WP:EVADE to reflect what the community considers appropriate in such circumstances. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, WP:EVADE seems quite clear, so reset. I don't think his IP edits were 'blockable behaviour' on their own. justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EVADE the block should be reset. But there's the additional question of whether these edits by this user (whose behaviour has been problematic from the outset and continues to be problematic, and who has already been indefblocked once), along with all his previous edits and the pages of discussion they've generated, should be taken as evidence that he will likely never be able to participate in the project without being disruptive. I'm inclined to believe that they should, especially since even now (at least as of his last edit) he believes that it was acceptable to use an IP to edit article space while blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. This violation of WP:EVADE is only the latest one symptom of a much larger issue. When the totality of this user's contributions are considered (and I encourage those who haven't to carefully look at each and every one), then an indef block is entirely appropriate. — Satori Son 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I was favorable to initial attempts at making this user understand the basic rules of Wikipedia, it has become apparent that his agenda is not compatible with writing an encyclopedia. When he's not being insulting, he willfully tries to work around very explicit and very simple rules, or makes "humorous" edits. He's not here to write an encyclopedia, and has been given numerous warnings and a few last chances by patient admins.

I'm blocking indef; if there is another admin who feels up to setting him up for some sort of mentoring in a strict framework, feel free to take over but I would expect any further time spent on that user is time wasted. We've already collectively lost hours dealing with someone who behaves in very bad faith (his claims of Asperger's are particularly inane, for instance, especially as some sort of excuse for his disruptive behavior). — Coren ^(talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse this indef block. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is resolved, but I want to add this. Aspergers does make some one unwillingly and unwantingly stubborn. But it in no way makes some one ignorant to the rules. It can cause confusion of the rules if they are vague. But saying Wikipedia's rules are vague is like saying Duke Nukem Forever will come out in our lifetime. It just isn't true. Rgoodermote  15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admitted sock of Tom Sayle (block log). Big surprise. Honestly, we waste far too much time on trolls. — Satori Son 17:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it time for checkuser? Exploding Boy (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh * Just when I thought this couldn't get more ridiculous.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought "Bjornevich", which he claimed was his real name (as well as the ridiculously long pseudo-Polish full name he used in his original sig), was too unlikely to be true, rather like McWong or Queequegson. Deor (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet still more believable than Ó'déłámóñtŕágñéáúxtéíxtéíŕá. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarctica: Vandalism/Hacking

Can an admin please look up the Antarctica article? There is discriminatory language posted at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.110.142 (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick skim but it's quite a long article. Could you be more specific please? justinfr (talk/contribs) 03:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back a week in the history and can't find anything. There was other vandalism that was always quickly reverted. The user left a message on my talk page saying it was within the boxes at the bottom--maybe a template got vandalized somewhere. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Username Blocking...

What's a reasonable amount of time to wait when blocking a username to allow the user to file a request at WP:CHU? I unblocked Vma2008admin after he requested to change his name. Instead of going to CHU, he created an article...--Smashville^BONK! 05:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I speedied the article, because it was NN. To be honest, I'd block them again but to be less WP:BITEy, leave a note explaining exactly what they need to do. Black Kite 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd tend to reblock. If the contribution history is limited (as this one is), one might suggest the user simply open a new account with a more Wikipedia-friendly name. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I would reblock. Xclamation point 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if the user clearly knows that the account is unblocked, and has not yet requested it within 10-15 minutes, he should be reblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request. It's too soon to block. I assume this editor thinks that posting the unblock request (which contains the new username) is all they had to do. I'll see if I can explain. ETA I've been overtaken by events - Smashville has re-blocked (I think the WP database is a bit laggy right now). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I went with Gale's suggestion. Going through that process is kind of a lot of stuff for a new user whose only nondeleted edit is an unblock request. I left him open to recreate a new account and told him he was able to do it. --Smashville^BONK! 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for speedy closing of AfD

Resolved

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Sarah Palin, with an eye to a speedy closing of the debate? It is not just the ≈100% unanimity, but the fact that the nomination was made on faulty premises. As it stands, all the deletion template does is to deface one of the most visited pages on WP. Lampman (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Closed. I don't see any point in prolonging that one. Black Kite 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. Lampman (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre block

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

Resolved. Looks like just a mistake based on a simple misunderstanding or misinterpretation of WP:AIV processes, there's no crisis or ongoing problem, closing thread. Dreadstar † 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Please don't inform the stewards of this thread. They've heard already, thanks. Kylu (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of this 'warning': User talk:THEN WHO WAS PHONE?#Warning

Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i.e. THEN WHO WAS PHONE was warning IP vandals, Slrubenstein blocked THEN WHO WAS PHONE for 15 minutes. This seems completely bizarre to me. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre, and seems to go entirely against common sense. Every IP vandal had to make their first edit at one time or another, and putting a warning on their talk page helps to establish the record of their activity (and warnings) in case it is needed in the future. What policy does this go against, exactly? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking is completely inappropriate for the perfectly normal process of issuing warnings to IP vandals; if we don't issue warnings, we shouldn't block. Bizarre. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an entirely improper block, and Slrubenstein should resign his adminship. How else is any IP who repeatedly commits vandalism supposed to get through the warning tree before they can be listed at WP:AIV? There are so many things I want to say in outrage that I've redacted here. Gaaaahhhh. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A very unhelpful and disruptive block. The notion that an editor could be blocked for leaving warnings on IP talk pages is unsettling. Moreover, many IP editors do read their talk pages and answer notes left on them. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein just placed the same warning at User talk:WadeSimMiser. Corvus cornix_talk 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And to User talk:Canis Lupus. Corvus cornix_talk 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like every week I say "that's the worst block I've ever seen", but wow. Awful. Anybody mind if I note in his block log that the previous block was not supported by policy? - auburnpilot talk 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do, I had the same thought. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately, somebody needs to counsel Slrubenstein. See the message he/she left on my talk page. Wow. - auburnpilot talk 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have engaged User:Slrubenstein via talk page, and several have piled on, and of course there is this thread. Let's try to keep the discourse to policy and away from statements which can cause tempers to flare quickly. We've had enough wheel-warring for one week (at least), and that's coming from someone old enough to remember what "wheel" originally was - like my age has anything to do with it :-)

I think we can mostly agree that the warnings regarding editors who place warnings IP vandal talk pages are not in keeping with common practice, and that blocking an editor who does so is even less in keeping with common practice. We've alerted the admin in question...let's see what happens from here.  Frank  |  talk  01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Cenarium ^Talk 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have to agree this was a bad play. I warn IPs all the time, because if they're vandalizing *right now* then they get the message and hopefully stop. That's how I was taught to do it, and that's really the right way to do it. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a block and emergency desysoping should be considered - I can't believe any admin would do something like this, which suggests the account may have been compromised or the admin is acting in bad faith. --Tango (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that, and I'm sure we're not the first to think of it. However, this is a long-time editor whose granting of admin rights doesn't even appear in the user rights log, and there isn't really anything unusual to be seen in the pattern of contributions of this editor. I'm certain there are a dozen people watching very closely; we can request more drastic steps when necessary - but I don't think that is required now.  Frank  |  talk  01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another problem seems to be that Slrubenstein is targeting and deleting IP talk pages where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) has left warnings. [108] That's not good. - auburnpilot talk 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a link to this discussion on Slrubenstein's Talk page, but instead of responding here, he's only dealing with people on his Talk page. His most recent edit on this subject: [109] indicates that he has no interest in actually stopping this bizarre behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my god. In that case, this seems to be a either a compromised account or worse. Should I put in an emergency desysop request on Meta? (actually, where do you do that?) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It would appear Slrubenstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) either has an incredibly bad misunderstanding of official policy in regards to WP:BLOCK, or this account has been hijacked. Either way, the safety of the project looks to be in danger and we should move accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible the account is compromised. Either way, this kind of violation of policy/common sense from somebody with admin tools calls for desysoping. Jamie^☆S93 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You think this block is bad? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. Outrageous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, then contact a CU to see if it's compromised. But it may very well be a misunderstanding. Don't go summon the dragon yet. Cenarium ^Talk 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account has not been compromised, it's just an admin with a poor understanding of policy (to put it mildly). Back in February, Slrubenstein delete several talk pages where an editor left warnings for IP users. Tonight, he/she deleted another 10, where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) left warnings. - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, bureaucrats can't remove sysop access. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(cross posted from user page) Please, folks - calm down. Slrubenstein has been engaged, and please note that none of the behavior in question has occurred since it was initially questioned. We are poking at a sore wound right now, and that is not going to help. If Slrubenstein begins taking actions again that are against policy, we can deal with it then, but there is no point in continuing to discuss it at this point. The behavior has - at least for the moment - stopped. Let's leave it alone for now.  Frank  |  talk  01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, there is no emergency. Calm down all. Cenarium ^Talk 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that admins blocking other admins for stupid reasons is so commonplace as for you to retain your composure.... (striked since TWWP is not an admin, much to my surprise) --mboverload@ 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After I read more about this situation, it really does not appear that his account is compromised. And although I agree this isn't exactly an emergency, I still would support removal of the tools if he really plans to continue these actions as an administrator. Jamie^☆S93 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubenstein does have a point regarding the difficulty of meaningfully communicating with shared- and/or dynamic-IP users (not that warning templates are meaningful communication, mind you), However they are obviously not within the going definition of "nonsense pages" and this is a very stupid block, and I can only hope PHONE-guy doesn't take it personally. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This was a bad block, no doubt about it. But let's get one thing straight, while it's come up--Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been. WP:AGF means of course that warnings must be given before a block if there's a reasonable chance of a person changing their behavior, but in cases where there is no such chance (such as renewal of a previous pattern of vandalism on a new IP), blocking on sight is not a problem. That doesn't mean that Slrubenstein is right here, it just means that the extreme opposite point of view is not right either. Chick Bowen 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Slrubenstein has been engaged on this subject here, here, here, and elsewhere. What seems very much like closure from Slrubenstein appears here. Activity has stopped, and clearly a number of editors below will be watching. It does not appear there is any compromise or need for panic, and if it turns out that such is the case, we can panic later. Otherwise, nothing to see here (anymore).  Frank  |  talk  02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HOLD ON a second

Why are we discussing meta-wikipedia viewpoints when an admin is pulling this shit? Maybe I'm the last person who things that BLOCKS ARE NOT SMALL THINGS. They are HUGE. I've been blocked once and I still regret it 3 years later. Someone tell me I'm freaking crazy, cause I sure feel like it. --mboverload@ 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're freaking crazy. (hey, you asked for it!)Seriously, though, can we cut it out with the over-reactions and the RANDOM CAPS? Things are happening. The wheels of justice grind slow, but they can grind mighty fine. SirFozzie (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread closure

I'll note that there are two editors attempting to mute discussion. I will not revert another closure, but it is disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that topics can change in any given thread, however, templates tend to disrupt the normal discussion flow. Off topic (or change-topic) discussion is not a good reason to add these templates. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I wasn't concerned about a compromised account, I was concerned because putting a warning on an empty IP talk page is something I do as a matter of course numerous times almost every day, and I don't want to get blocked! I'm glad to see that most folks here seem to agree that this admin's take on it is not normative. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For my own part, I reject the characterization of closing the discussion as attempting to mute it. The point of this thread was to discuss the specific warning and block actions of a specific administrator. That issue has been resolved and deserves to be listed as such. If there is subsequent wikidrama debate about what the exact correct procedures are or should be (good luck with that), even if it was sparked by this thread, that doesn't change the fact that it is peripheral and doesn't belong as part of this thread. This one deserves to be closed as resolved simply for the sake of organization.  Frank  |  talk  03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question has agreed to stop these actions, so I think the matter is closed unless he decides to try and change the policy, but that wouldn't happen here anyway. I think this thread can be closed for good now. --Tango (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Response to Chick Bowen's comments in the section above

Please read WP:AIV:

Important! – your report must follow these three points:

1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.

2. Unregistered users must be active now.

3. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

If I (or anybody else who is not an admin and is reporting vandalism at WP:AIV) list a currently-vandalizing user on WP:AIV, if they have not been given the sufficient number of warnings, the listing is always removed with no action being taken. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That applies to AIV. In any case, AIV is not a policy page. Wikipedia:Blocking policy does not specify that warning is necessary. Once again, if there is evidence that a new IP is actually a returning disruptor with a new IP, there is no need for a warning, nor is one routinely given. I'm just describing current practice here--I'm not stating an opinion or, really, anything new. Chick Bowen 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So how do I get a new IP blocked without going through the warning tree? Post it here or on ANI? You get told "take it to AIV". If I take to AIV without going through the warning tree, the listing gets deleted. Should I admin canvass? Corvus cornix_talk 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is usually best for the clear-cut stuff--our friends who like to put filthy pictures into prominent articles, that sort of thing. I admit I haven't worked on AIV for quite a long time, but I believe the idea there is that for ordinary schoolboy vandalism the warnings should be gone through. Chick Bowen 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I am thoroughly confused. You yourself said above Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been. Now you tell me that I do have to go through the warnings. I think I'll just continue what I've been doing, since to do anything else will just cause me too much frustration when my listings at AIV get removed without the vandals being dealt with. Corvus cornix_talk 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my perspective as an admin who has processed AIV reports nearly every day for the past nine months ... WP:BLOCK's statement that "efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines" meshes nicely with both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. When it comes to unregistered users, if we do not warn them that their vandalism will not be tolerated, how will they ever learn otherwise? In my experience, a very large fraction of anonymous users receiving talk page warnings quit vandalizing after their first or second warnings. Since most of these "experimenting" vandals are scared off by the warnings issued by our dedicated vandal patrollers ... Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best. As if admins are not already busy enough (to say nothing of the fact that is would idle one of our most powerful anti-vandalism tools: our corps of patrollers)! --Kralizec! (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just add that as far as I am concerned, there is far too much assumption of bad faith on AIV that the people listing vandals are the bad guys, and that the vandals themselves are just misunderstood. Corvus cornix_talk 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that's true. Chick Bowen 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, that's not quite true. Whilst I'm less likely to block an IP that hasn't been warned completely, if I look at the contribs and see that it's clearly an IP on a vandalism spree and isn't likely to contribute positively any time soon, then I'll block anyway [110] [111] [112] [113]. However, what I won't do is block if an account is insufficiently warned and appears to be a clueless newbie editor or content dispute (in fact sometimes I won't block these even if they have 4ims). I know a number of other admins work like this too.

Whilst 90%+ of reporters on AIV are good, there are always people, especially those with semi-automated tools, who are too quick to judge things as vandalism. For example, I have seen reports for people "vandalising" the sandbox, or their own user pages, and once for someone who put "I f*cked up that last edit" in an edit summary. A lot of AIV reports could be prevented by instead of a massive automated boilerplate on their talkpage, just a "Hi there - it's probably a good idea if....". Just my thoughts. Black Kite 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does Kralizek misrepresent me? She writes, "Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best." which not only sounds snide, insulting, and an attempt to bait me, it is just not true., Nowhere have I ever written that onlhy admins should deal with IP users, and only via vlocks. In fact, my position is the opposite. I have stated that when the vandalism is of the juvinile sort, and is a case of one or a few edits ove a very short period of time from a public, shared adress, editors 9any editor) should just revert the vandalism. Please tell me where I said only admins should do this, and only via blocks. If I expressed myself unclearly or incorrectly I will apologize immediately. Otherwise apologize for lying about what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad-faith accusations of me being insulting or lying ring rather hollow as we can all readily see the proof in your edit history:

• • At 19:24 you said [114] to THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, "Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandalism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist." Note that you made zero distinction between static, shared, or public IP addresses in your instructions to this editor.
  • Then 56 minutes later, you said [115] on your own talk page, "If it is an obvious case of vandalism, and it is a shared address, an admin can block the address for six or twelve or twenty-four hours without giving a warning."

Taken together, it appears that you pretty clearly told a vandal fighter to stop warning IPs and that admins should just block the vandals without ever trying to educate them. I am sorry if this is not what you were meaning, but all we have to go on is the face value of what you wrote, and what you wrote is dangerously out of step with current guidelines, policies, and community consensus. While I have the utmost respect for your long history of contributions to the project, I suspect that your dated understanding of our guidelines and policies means that you would have great difficulty passing a modern RfA. (And for reference, my username is Kralizec! and I am a "he" - and have the wife and three kids to prove it!) --Kralizec! (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I appreciate the chance to clear up the misunderstanding. I fear you took two statements out of context. The first statement was indeed a criticism of the creation of new pages for IP addresses. But I did not say that non-admins should not deal with vandals. In fact, I have on several occasions applauded PHONE and others' vigilent reversion of vandalism. That is a way of dealing with vandals that is necessary, tedious, and valuable and I am grateful to any editor who does it, and I certainly do not think that one has to be an admin to do this.

The second comment was a direct response to another editor who claimed that policy required that one provide a warning before blocking. I quoted the policy that stated that one need not provide a warning before blocking a vandal. That was my only point: that the editor criticizing me was misquoting policy. Note: the issue has to do solely with whether a warning is required prior to a block (and policy explicitly says not always). The issue did not have to do withe whether only admins can block vandals, or whether all editors can block vandals. I simply did not address this particular issue. Now, Wikipedia may have a policy that only admins can block, and if you do not like that policy you can propose to change it. But I di dnot create that policy, and nothing I wrote was a defense of the policy. The conversation at that time was not over whether admins or non-admins could block, it was whether Wikipedia policy required a warning. One editor said it did, and I quoted the policy saying it did not.

I now understand why you misunderstood me and am willing to grant that you did so with good intentions but you were not assuming good faith on my part. In both instances, I did assume good faith - one can assume good faith in another editor and disagree. In one case I explicitly said I knew the editor was acting in good faith but I though what s/he was doing was a mistake. In the second, I simply assume that the editor was acting in good faith when s/he misquoted policy; I did not question his/her intentions, I just asserted that s/he was mistaken and quoted policy.

So with all due respect, and acknowledging now your intentions were good, you were mistaken to take two different comments I made to two different editors concerning two different matters, and infer by connecting them that I think only admins should deal with vandals.

You are right that my view about the pointless or even counter-productive creation of new pages by warning IP addresses is out of step with the community. I hope you will acknowledge that once this was clear to me I stopped doing what I was doing. I do this to defer to the will of the community, not because I agree. But i do agree that neither i nor anyone else should revert these warnings unless - if ever - the community consensus changes. I think there is a need for new discussion on how we handle vandalism, especially from IP addresses. I mean just what I said and i am sincere and it in no way means I question the value of the hard work many editors do in reverting vandalism. I hope it is crystal clear to you and everyone else that I appreciate any editor who reverts vandalism, and thank them for their efforts. Is it possible for us to open up discussion on our policies in this regard while assuming good faith on one another's part? I certainly think someone can disagree with me in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective; we all have a much better understanding of your intentions now. Please accept my apologies for being unnecessarily snide, as I see that your intentions were good. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kralizic, I canot tell you how much this means to me - thank you. I hope everyone else who was active last night understands that I really thought it was clear that my actions were well intended and I deeply regret the grief I caused so many people. I will wait for things to cool down a bit more before inviting a discussion on our vandalism policy, but when I do it is precisely because I do respect and value the views of the community, and respect wiki process enough to think that we can have a frank discussion while assuming good faith on the part of peoploe with whom we disagree. I realize that people may feel it is noit worth discussion, or the discussion may lead us right back to what I know see is the status quo. I have always valued in Wikipedia the hope that, however difficult, consensus can be balanced with an open, never-ending discussion about a work that will always be "in process." Anywa, I apologize to you and others if I expressed myself unclearly or inappropriately - I know that at least a few times I was curt and eliptical and I know that didn't help things and I regret that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but I don't think I have seen either an apology to TWWP for the block, or an understanding that blocking someone for issuing warnings was clearly contrary to policy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like a straightforward explanation as well, and a clarification of the policy on warning vandals. This vandalism fighter is chilled to the bone by Slrubenstein's action. I thought I was doing the right thing. This could have been me. I could have been blocked. This is not minor, despite the premature archive and the "move along nothing to see" attitude shown by many on this thread. I've never been afraid to edit here before now. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrub has been brought up to speed on current practice and won't be issuing any more "read me" blocks to vandal fighters, and vandal fighters should continue with their good work and continue warning IP users as usual. @Duncan, I believe this is what you are looking for. –xeno (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

13 minutes after I asked where it was it gets posted! DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Need Assistance with Approving Page

Resolved

 – by User:Jerry posting at DRV

I created the page "Bettertrades" recently, with the intention of putting up a new and useful page about something I knew and had sources for. It was speedily deleted, and I couldn't get either the deleter or the suggestor to specifically explain the issue. I edited the page even more. I have done everything I can to keep neutral POV, assert notability, and adhere to wikipedia standards. I tried requesting help from User:Coren and User:Jerry, since Coren was the deleting admin, and Jerry was the one who restored the page to my userspace. I've been trying to get some approval or editing from anyone who can help me to make sure that I make the page correctly in order to assure that it doesn't simply get deleted at a pass again.

If no one has any opposition, I would like to move the page from my userspace at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades to the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BetterTrades (note the uppercase "T"). I hope that my exhaustive efforts have proven useful, and that I can move forward with working on other wikipedia interests. Westcoastbiker (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

You will probably get better reception by copy/pasting your paragraph here to deletion review. Would you like assistance in doing that? Keeper ǀ 76 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. I had not been aware that I could have pursued it in a deletion review when I first started this. Thanks. Westcoastbiker (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

I did it. please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8#BetterTrades. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jerry, I got sidetracked, didn't see the request for help. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Troll day

I missed the bulletin; in case others did too, it is clearly Troll Day here on Wikipedia. Enjoy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, which day isn't? GRBerry 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, but that minimizes the beauty of this statement. The benefit of a statement like this is that I am correct, regardless of when you read it. Also, I need do no specific research whatsoever. Neat, eh? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea of how to celebrate; watch for a new user working from my ip to start correcting Sarah Palin very soon. The whole article needs to better reflect The Truth, which is that she shamelessly wastes water by drowning puppies in the bathtub instead of using a toilet or a bucket. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

She does?!! Wait - I'm going to rush off and post a diary about this at dKos so you...oops, I mean the new user...can have a Reliable Source^TM to use in the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I though it was just me, all of the sudden bumping into trolls and socks everywhere I turn. Seriously, what in the hell is going on? — Satori Son 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

All the kids got back-to-school laptops? Exploding Boy (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's September --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppeting case's review of the day

(Copied from my (FayssalF) talk page - please feel free to comment)

Why do you think Saxphonemn is an Einstein puppet? Saxphonemn's English is pretty poor from what I remember, while Einstein's is not. Both are over the top, but otherwise, I din't think they seem similar. Of course, I do not have the tools to check.Sposer (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sposer, I don't think but they are.

Many Wikipedia sockpuppets haven't been similar at all. "I cann wroten bud anglis forevere and gut away with it."

I am really sorry Sposer, I am not going to waste another 2 days to argue about this and I don't think I am permitted to discuss the privacy of anyone here by giving you the details of the Check. Some other CheckUser operator may help by reviewing the case. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can answer this: When you said "by proxy" did you mean that you believe this is meatpuppetry? Or did you mean that Saxphonemn edited from an open proxy IP? Mangojuice^talk 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In reviewing Saxophonemn's block earlier, I interpreted the proxy point to mean that the editor was using proxies to edit as the sock; I'd like clarification as well, actually. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy IP... using exactly the same user agent version "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.20.1". The rest is known to everyone (voting the same stuff, editing the same articles, targetting the same users user:CJCurrie, appearing at the same period, the history of user:Einsteindonut's sockpuppeting). If someone prefers to call that meatpuppetry, then go ahead. We must not forget that the I-P related articles are under restrictions. I suggest you read the whole thread at the AN/I for all details. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for me - thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't looking for private info. Was he using same IP address? Stuff like that. I look at many of the pages he does too. Lots of folks see what CJCurrie's edits. I personally do not believe he is using a sockpuppet, not that I think Einstein or Sax add very much to Wiki. Sad that he is blocked and other admins are using incomplete info to defend it. Then again, if you tell me same IP address, I will believe you. You have far more info than I do.Sposer (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Open proxies Sposer. We have been having sockpuppets editing from 2 separate continents, let alone dozens from different locations within a country. In case there are doubts, we refer to the user agent. In this case, both accounts from 2 different location used the very same user agent. It is posted above. This means that both accounts allegedly editing from different locations edited using the same version of Mozilla (5.0), the same OS (Macintosh, the same processor (Intel Mac OS X 10 5 4), the same web kit (AppleWebKit/525.18), etc....

Still doubting? Ok, this is a very interesting case study of sophisticated sockpuppetry which can be taught at schools of sockpuppeting. Note that user:Klaksonn and Co. (not forgetting user:Embargo) was a prolific pro-Hizbollah dedicated sockpuppet and POV pusher. Sposer, please allow me to describe myself as a "vieja puta" in this business (apologies for the dirty language). If you want to read more about my adventures with socks you can consult Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed as well. Sri lanka-LTTE area is much more quiet after my raid. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, thanks for the explanation. Certainly an inexact science. I have firefox and IE on most of my PC's, but I will take your word for it. I do not know enough to be sure he is doing this, but you guys have to do the best you can!Sposer (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

True, it is an inexact science. There's no doubt about that. I have 4 different browsers and use 3 for wikipedia because IE sucks (i am a Microsoft guy but not an IE one). I use the 3 exchangingly (when one gets frozen - because of the multiple tabs I get opened, I use another). I don't know why I am telling you this but well...I totally appreciate your questions. It is a pleasure Sposer. Anytime. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

The way I understand it, when listing out actors for a cast list, they should be placed in order of importance, or in order of the film's credit listing. User talk:Iluvteletubbies‎ persists in re-ordering the cast list of The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning in (their own words): "To make it easy to read.Puting it in order by smallest to largest,which I'm doing right now." I've raised the issue on the user's talk page, and already reverted their edits twice, so I cannot revert again. Thoughts? Annie D (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find that at? (The way cast lists ought to be?) Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines doesn't list that, nor does the Template:Infobox Film documentation. At least, not that I can see on a cursory first pass of each. I wouldn't say you're wrong per se, but I don't see cast list order as something to push 3RR over, IMVVHO. Will the hypothetical casual Wikipedia reader take notice? LaughingVulcan 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We really ought to have an MOS bit on that, so we can at least have consistency from one article to the next. Alpha and order of importance make sense. By length of line, not so much. bd2412 T 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I bring up this issue somewhere else, so it will be addressed in the MOS? Annie D (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. bd2412 T 06:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't in the guidelines, but that was the impression I had from interacting with other more experienced editors in the Wikipedia:Film project, some of whom are quite particular about the order in which actors are listed. I realise it's a petty issue, but the editor has been repeatedly editing the cast list to make it fit by "length", which may be pretty to look at, but doesn't make any logical sense. Annie D (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin protection level decrease

Hello! I know there's already a section above for this, but I wanted to make a new section to get people's attention. In about 45 minutes, at 24:00 UTC, I intend to reduce the protection level of Sarah Palin to semi-protection, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Time_for_semi-protection, assuming the general idea there stays the same. I have gone through the templates and semi'd the ones which were unprotected (and were only being caught by cascading protection). It would be nice to have as many people as possible working on this article when the protection level drops, to show that we as a wiki are able to deal with even our most popular articles. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!!!!!!!1!!!1! John Reaves 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have pointed out to me that I said 24:00 instead of 0:00. Either way, it's in half an hour. ;) kmccoy (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better so far. I think the child articles are working well together with this main article. Gary King (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

The way I understand it, when listing out actors for a cast list, they should be placed in order of importance, or in order of the film's credit listing. User talk:Iluvteletubbies‎ persists in re-ordering the cast list of The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning in (their own words): "To make it easy to read.Puting it in order by smallest to largest,which I'm doing right now." I've raised the issue on the user's talk page, and already reverted their edits twice, so I cannot revert again. Thoughts? Annie D (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find that at? (The way cast lists ought to be?) Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines doesn't list that, nor does the Template:Infobox Film documentation. At least, not that I can see on a cursory first pass of each. I wouldn't say you're wrong per se, but I don't see cast list order as something to push 3RR over, IMVVHO. Will the hypothetical casual Wikipedia reader take notice? LaughingVulcan 04:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We really ought to have an MOS bit on that, so we can at least have consistency from one article to the next. Alpha and order of importance make sense. By length of line, not so much. bd2412 T 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I bring up this issue somewhere else, so it will be addressed in the MOS? Annie D (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. bd2412 T 06:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't in the guidelines, but that was the impression I had from interacting with other more experienced editors in the Wikipedia:Film project, some of whom are quite particular about the order in which actors are listed. I realise it's a petty issue, but the editor has been repeatedly editing the cast list to make it fit by "length", which may be pretty to look at, but doesn't make any logical sense. Annie D (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin protection level decrease

Hello! I know there's already a section above for this, but I wanted to make a new section to get people's attention. In about 45 minutes, at 24:00 UTC, I intend to reduce the protection level of Sarah Palin to semi-protection, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Time_for_semi-protection, assuming the general idea there stays the same. I have gone through the templates and semi'd the ones which were unprotected (and were only being caught by cascading protection). It would be nice to have as many people as possible working on this article when the protection level drops, to show that we as a wiki are able to deal with even our most popular articles. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!!!!!!!1!!!1! John Reaves 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have pointed out to me that I said 24:00 instead of 0:00. Either way, it's in half an hour. ;) kmccoy (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's looking a lot better so far. I think the child articles are working well together with this main article. Gary King (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct of administrators on Sarah Palin

Since protection, numerous administrators edited this page without talk page consensus. This of course led to heated discussions, reverts and so on. I had to admonish four administrators until now. I request that other administrators help to take care of this issue. I may report this to the current arbitration case on Sarah Palin. Thanks, Cenarium ^Talk 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war could apply loosely to your claim. Though maybe it doesn't, I havent followed this super closely. Wizardman 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium, providing diffs would be helpful to understand what you find objectionable. Ronnotel (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already submitted possibly incomplete evidence on this to the current case. Please feel free to use my talk if you wish anything to be added to that evidence. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[116], [117], [118], [119] and others more minor or older. Discussion on this happened on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Massive change to Sarah Palin made without consensus. I won't be around until tomorrow. Cenarium ^Talk 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Since the full protection was last reinstated 2 days ago, there's been more than 50 edits. That's about 50 times more than most full protected articles. If this isn't a sign that extended full protection of high-profile current event articles is a bad idea, I don't know what is. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. People need to step back and calm down--Tznkai (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cenarium. Looking at the diffs one by one, 1) i'm not sure about the state of consensus at this time 2) already listed at arbcom case 3) without reading up, my instinct is that rmving blatantly nonconsensual edits is fine, even if it feels a bit disruptive on the talk page when modification of the addition is approaching consensus 4) seems like an honest mistake. Further discussion welcome tomorrow, of course, should you wish it with me. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, people do not need to calm down, people need to get very very concerned as this sets a very very very very very very bad precedent for wikipedia editing on contentious articles. These admins need to be held accountable for violating Wiki policy, and their admin privileges stripped. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested the arbs put in a temporary injunction to stop admins from just arbitrarily editing this extremely contentious and hostile protected article here. There's not really any other way to get everyone to calm down besides telling everyone by force to stay hands off that I can see. rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we start taking bets on when the devs will implement a new protection level? [edit=crat], anyone? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:15499. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!! Now we can officially kick those pesky habits of self-control and critical reasoning! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that Kevin chose to revert Bogdangiusca's, but not Moreschi's nonconsensus edits. Bogdangiusca actually put back material Moreschi removed. I would very much like to be informed of how I, a non-admin, can go about requesting sanctions against Moreschi. I feel that when the dust clears, Moreschi's edits will not be viewed favorably even in the context of this fiasco. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You can propose sanctions or anything else here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Moreschi altered her political philosophy to say she was a "classical libertarian" who was endorsing the "minimal state" which is a redirect to Night watchman state. Read what it says at Night watchman state! Moreschi's synthesis is a worse violation of BLP than people recognize. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • If she is indeed a classical libertarian, then she does indeed believe in the Nozickian concept of a night watchman state. Nothing wrong with CM's edit. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Nice work with the if there. Can I point out the disruption to the talk page various admin edits caused. The talk page was where us peons tried to edit the article. It was most dispiriting, it lead to increased contention, and it made it difficult to suggest to editors credibly that "this isn't 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules". Not exactly helpful to undermine the concept of consensus so blatantly. 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Also want to thank the admins who monitored edit requests. 86.44.24.95 (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

It appears unprotection has now been requested.... D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the reason for forking my request here? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To keep others above updated. I noticed you hadn't left a note above saying "I've requested unprotection", so I thought I'd better do it, for clarity. D.M.N. (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had not planned on a note here, unprotection requests belong over there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I declined the request, as more wheel warring is not the answer. Any admin who unprotects this page will be subject to sanction. - auburnpilot talk 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make a point now, that is is not fair that I can't edit, yet the administrators can. What kind of message does that send? That admins are better judges/editors? No self control here. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is not to wheel war but rather to build a consensus around whether now is a good time to try reducing the protection level. During the initial AE, today was suggested as a target date and a number of people agreed with that. Given the current state of affairs, it might still be too early to unprotect, but since we need to do it eventually, it is worth discussing what the right time is. What the right forum for that discussion is, I'm not sure, but I think it is premature to say that unprotection is not an option. Dragons flight (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be unprotected, as it is profoundly unfair that only admins are allowed to make complete and utter fools of themselves on that article. We are getting a very limited view of the lack of responsibility of Wikipedians, and the impossibility of achieving consensus by restricting editing to trusted and respectable editors. Why not let us untrustworthy and irresponsible ones see if we can do an even worse job? I know the bar has been set to a very high level, but I'm sure there must be one or two non-admins up to the challenge. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

*lol* I laughed, at least :-) henrik o talk 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any and all dicussions on protection or non protection should take place here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC) _{Subscript text}

Cascading protection?

Should we set the cascading bit to stop vandalism? ffm 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem going on now? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be a preventitive measure. ffm 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need as of now, welcome to explore it later. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looked like it happened. ffm 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me semi-protecting all currently unprotected templates transcluded on Sarah Palin? I did this with John McCain and Barack Obama, and no one challenged me, but in light of the current ArbCom case surrounding this article, I would like to get a second opinion before acting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, two more templates got vandalized, so I started semi-protecting. Then Mr. Z-man cascade-protected Sarah Palin. Should I semi-protect the templates anyway so that when the cascade-protection is removed from Palin's page, we're still good? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

protection of User_talk:Peter_Damian

Jimbo recently banned PD, and his userpage and talk page are currently protected. I think the talk page would be a good location for discussion of issues related to this, and think it would be a good idea to unprotect. I've dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page, and am inviting feedback (and hopefully a small 'unprotect' action :-) ) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Damian is not welcome to post. Also, we should not be taunting him by posting to the talk page. If you wish to propose an unblock, do so here. I endorse the talk page protection. Incidentally I've asked Wales to clear up the blocklog. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

discussion with the protecting admin indicates that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course). I still think it's a good idea to unprotect the talk page. Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The user is no longer welcome to commit posts to the wiki. In this way, the talk page can remain protected. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BAN: "Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages". - auburnpilot talk 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding to that from Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users., and since Jimbo is our Constitutional Monarch/god-King, I'm really really not seeing the point in trying to push an unban dialogue at this time. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is still policy, untill Jimmy abdicates that authority or the community takes it. Which will not happen anytime soon - no need. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, ok! - I see PD's very very banned! :-) I still think it'd be healthy to unprotect, and for reasons beyond an 'unban' discssion, but will think on it a bit more... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Healthy for who? Certainly not for whoever does the unprotecting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

for the wiki of course! :-) (your comment made me smile though - and seems accurate at this point!) - my views on this relate to the thinking that 'we' (the en wiki community) are depressingly good at creating, and sustaining 'enemies' in all sorts of ways that we really don't have to pursue.... that, and the fact that it's almost always good to talk :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

<- While we're here would someone be kind enough to add him to the list of banned users? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :) NonvocalScream (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The community needs to discuss this openly, and it won't do to simply say that Jimbo does what Jimbo wants. We need an explanation about this block, and we need to discuss whether we, as a community, feel it was the appropriate solution. Many people, myself included, admire Peter's article work, and that alone should be enough to cause us to a consider other approaches. Even though Peter left of his own accord immediately before the ban, he might decide to return if this ban wasn't in place; furthermore, to slam the door behind a contributor like this adds insult to injury and denigrates all his work. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to him, he scrambled his password. The chances that he will return again as Peter Damian therefore seem low. He's demonstrated in the past that he's capable of registering another username. Maybe what you should seek to clarify is whether he is allowed to do so, and under what circumstances if any. It appears as though its left to ArbCom to determine that, so perhaps RfAr is what you want? Avruch ^T 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please be so kind to explain (NPOV'ishly?), to an outside sometimes-journalist observer, just what this guy did so as to suffer The Wrath Of Jimbo? Note I'm not taking sides at this moment as to whether the action was right or wrong, only trying to figure it out -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He had been in a dispute with FT2 on some content matters. And he posted this which there was some off-site speculation may have been an aggravating factor--threatening to go to the Sloan Foundation in regards to their pending donation of funding to the WMF, or something like that. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A good guess, but the block log leaves us in the dark: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom." Not only does it not give a reason, it's insulting. Everyking (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - is there any evidence other than speculation, that the donation was a factor? The comment also discusses other issues. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was entirely unaware of that comment, and so it was no factor whatsoever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. I know Damian had a bee in his bonnet to make the Neurolinguistic programming and pederasty related articles totally compliant with WP:NPOV. Your guess is as good as mine otherwise till Jimmy says whats up, since you know as much as I know. I just know this guy was a far above average content editor. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least in this instance there is no question about Jimbo's ego being involved; he is demonstrating no fear of appearing very uncool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need most of all is: A) an explanation from Jimbo about why he imposed this ban; and B) community discussion of whether Peter should be allowed to edit in the future if he wishes (under whatever account), and whether this ban was appropriate. Everyking (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely disappointing to see Jimbo making such bans (explicitly invoking godking authority in the block notice) but not even posting any explanation anywhere. That's not something the community should tolerate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, knowing Jimbo, that he will make some kind of statement when he feels able to phrase it without compromising the privacy and dignity of those involved. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm constantly surprised that people seem to assume there is some sort of God-given right to edit Wikipedia and that the removal of said right is potentially a major outrage. The fact is that we are all here by permission of the management, and if the management - in this case Jimbo - decides to withdraw that permission, they have an absolute right to do so, for any reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo will explain when he has worked out a reason that he thinks will satisfy just enough people. I have no opinion about Peter Damian, but I do feel that it is time that Jimbo started acting like a constitutional monarch (something he has claimed to be) instead of acting like an autocrat. DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DuncanHill, it is one thing to disagree with my decision. It is another thing to claim that I am working out an explanation that will satisfy "just enough people". Please Assume Good Faith, eh?

Please review the users' block log, history of harassment, and off-site attacks. I am drawing a line here in the very strong hopes that the rest of community will feel supported to follow suit and insist that such behaviors are always unacceptable. When we tolerate people who engage in bad-faith personal attacks and sniping and off-site attacks, we poison the goodwill of the community. We are a simple charitable effort to share knowledge, and as such, we often allow ourselves to be victimized by people who are here more to attack us and sow discontent and drama. Let's all get together and say: enough. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this decision, can we talk about it?" It is quite another thing to say things like "All hail, chief of security and protector of the community, FT2. The bodies of the guilty and the innocent burn together with that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning." Such behavior is absolutely unacceptable and people who do things like that are, quite simply, not welcome to continue in the community. There is a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists, and let's keep this community healthy by insisting that people who behave that way are not welcome.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did he post that rant you're quoting? Didn't see it anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did Jimbo state to be a constitutional monarch? I totally love that idea! Perhaps admins should be renamed 'Lords of the Wiki'! :) --Cameron* 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He (=Peter Damian) posted that on WR. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see here. - Face 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that does make it appear in a different light. Still, I'll echo DuncanHill's comment below; I'd expect some explanation for such a step to be given without prompting, at the time it was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example (of Jimbo using the "constitutional monarch" phrase) from Wikipedia, [120]. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very recently, there was In the English Wikipedia we have a system of "constitutional monarchy,". Actually, English Wikipedia is more like a barbarian kingship, where the tribal chief occasionally personally puts offenders to death. Constitutional monarchs don't go around dispensing King's Justice. This is not to assert that "Jimbo I" :-) is a bad king, per se. But the system sure isn't one with much check on supreme executive power. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That comment is pretty disgusting. If Peter Damian had a less problematic history I guess there might be more of a tendency to forgive or at least try to understand and de-escalate, but his behaviour over the NLP business, over which we assumed good faith, combined with that kind of comment, gives a strong appearance of being here solely to pursue a vendetta - and God knows we have quite enough trouble without that kind of thing. So, for what it's worth and to the surprise I guess of nobody, I support the ban. And yes, I feel rather let down here as well, since I had engaged with peter over the NLP issue and generally supported is attempts to scale that back somewhat. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh bollocks, Jimbo. It was not only quite poetic, but was heartfelt and in line with what his view in how best Wikipedia should be served (that would be Good Faith comment, that it would). Not only that, but he later apologised to FT2 - publicly, in the same forum - for his language. Nor did I see FT2, to his credit, take any offence at the language but rather seek to explain further his position. At that place, at least, there is an ongoing dialogue. For what it is worth, I too have been arguing over there against PD's viewpoint; as ever, I am in the minority and am being refuted - but always politely (within context) and in the expectation of being allowed further dialogue. Perhaps you may wish to join the debate? You certainly are more likely to be allowed to express your opinions there than some, many or most of the correspondents there would be here...

By the way, "bollocks" is simple British English usage meaning rubbish - not vulgar or derogatory. Ask Guy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bollocks is still considered quite vulgar and derogatory. See BBC report. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Which bits are poetic? The WR comment quoted above? For what it is worth, some people may be missing an undertone here. When I read "that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning", I think of bodies in pits, and book-burning, and I think of the Nazis and the Holocaust (where bodies were cremated in open-air pits - I should say here that I'm no expert on the Holocaust and my Googling unfortunately brought up a mixture of Holocaust history site and Holocaust denial sites). Not quite sure where the "in the morning" bit comes from. Now, if some of the people here are reacting that way (interpreting this as Holocaust imagery), they should say this upfront, and not just call it "disgusting" and assume people know why it is possibly more disgusting than using other imagery. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing this out. I definitely got the same association reading it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a healthy community would be in the position of having to ask for explanations of your actions - a healthy community would be one in which explanations of extraordinary actions were seen as routine. Both you and arbcom should be aware by now that unexplained acts of this nature serve only to stir up discontent and make it harder to trust people. If you feel the need to exercise your powers as an autocrat, OK, but at least explain at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed Damian's entry on WP:BANNED to something more descriptive, see here. Cheers, Face 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether Peter Damian was justifiably angry or not, I doubt that somebody who threatens to use his off-wiki influence to prevent donations to WP because it's a place filled with "book burners and hooligans" can be expected to contribute constructively from that point on. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Very few websites would welcome into their community someone which is actively trying to undermine their funding efforts. But that's not the real issue here, it's more that he has essentially declared himself at war with another contributor, one who is in good standing. We have enough disputes already without people coming back after absences to stir up new ones. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment linked above (see here) was made 8 days (over a week) ago. Why is it only being brought up now? If the block is justified, then those who saw the comment at the time, and did nothing, should be apologising for their inaction. And Guy, people in good standing can both lose and regain that good standing (cf. WP:CCC) and those who come back after blocks shouldn't have that fact alone held against them. It is their actions now that matter. Whether they came back after a break or not is irrelevant. And please, can the article issues be resolved? The important things here is to not ignore valid criticisms (if they are valid) merely because the person who raised the criticisms has been banned. If the criticisms are not justified, can we please have an open and clear response explaining why the criticisms are not valid? And I agree that Jimbo's wording in the block log "User says he is leaving. Good timing." (he went on to say more) is open to many interpretations, not all of which will be charitable. Maybe it would be best if Jimbo clarified what he meant there? Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo, or anyone else in this thread, has said Peter's criticism of some articles were not valid. Consensus on the deletions has shown that they are. But valid criticism in that instance doesn't excuse behavior beyond the pale in many others, which is I think the point Jimmy is trying to make. And the book burning comment above is from a bit ago, but the comment from Peter on WR further up (bodies burning, all hail chief of security) is from yesterday. Avruch ^T 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Jimmy to unblock and reblock with a clear reason... of course I don't think any admin will be desysopped for unblocking and immediately reblocking indef with a clear reason AND Jimbo's instructions. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like process-wonkery to me. Simpler to just wait for this discussion to be archived and then link to the archive from his user page. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This will be the second time in a week I have been told that I was process wonking, I'm sick of it. Waiting for a discussion to conclude is more wonkery than actually going and doing it, no? Please be more careful in the future, calling someones good intentions "wonkery" is offensive. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add that adding links to a user's page is less useful than the block log. User pages of banned and indefinitely blocked users are routinely deleted. Admins (and this includes Jimbo) really must give reasons in the block logs and deletion logs for their actions. Failing to do so makes it harder for people to carry out independent reviews now or later. Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To Jimbo Wales: (previous three words added by comment mover) Well, thank you for the response ... But ... THAT WAS IT??? That's a key reason you cite? The 265th post, on a site which often has a large amount of ranting and raving in discussion threads (sorry WR'ers, it's true), significantly moves Jimmy Wales, (co)Founder of Wikipedia, President of $70 million valuation Wikia Inc., to personally ban the supposed miscreant? i.e., a trivial flame-war, which the guy says he's apologized for. I'm not sure which is worse - if that's a real reason, or if it's a poor excuse for a poor excuse (tedious point - this sentence is an attempted humorous commentary on logical possibilities, not an accusation). And before you call me a troll, I'll note I've repeatedly said Wikipedia group dynamics fascinates me, and in fairness you should see why from such a perspective this is simply amazing. Look, I know we often disagree, but take this in good faith - what you're doing comes across as because-I-can, just plain random craziness against some unfortunate minor offender who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Godking is in a churlish mood. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got that completely backwards. If the victim of Damian's attacks had been a plain ordinary user, he would have been booted out of here long ago for sheer nastiness. I would have done it without a second thought, were I a simply an admin; I might nor might not have bothered to post on ANI about it. But because it was FT2, a fellow arbitrator (and of course a rather controversial one at times), I knew that if I had blocked or banned Peter, the masses would have yelled "abuse of power", "cronyism", "bullying", and so on. It was hardly one post that caused the banning; it was a long crescendo of ugliness. But FT2 didn't ban him, and neither did I, and I know a number of admins also demurred, which is why we asked Jimbo to take a look. Does the community feel we should have acted without waiting for Jimbo? Next time, because of what Jimbo has said here, I know I'll be less tolerant of continuing vile attacks here or elsewhere. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"We asked Jimbo to take a look" - are you saying that the Arbcom requested Jimbo to look at the editor and do what he thought fit? DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. FT2 did, and then I did a while later. It was not in any way an official ArbCom request; I don't know what FT2 said, but I said "please take a look at FT2's request" when Jimbo took a little while getting around to it and FT2 mentioned it to me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How we treat long time editors - make the effort to inform the community

Jimbo's block may have been perfectly reasonable - but an uninvolved admin would have no way of knowing without spending a lot of time hunting through links and diffs. Peter Damian worked on this project for over five years - he create a lot of quality content. Jimbo, you owe him and the community better. If you want to ban him, take a few minutes and explain to the community why. Have the courtesy to use an accurate and informative block summary. Make the effort to start a note at WP:AN. Don't conduct court behind closed doors. Don't sit around and wait for people to ask. Is this too much to expect of you? Your actions here are nothing short of slovenly. Really, it's not like we're expecting you to break a sweat or anything. --Duk 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Jimbo citing personal attacks that occurred on a different website, but Peter subsequently acknowledged that his attacks were excessive, apologized, and even had some kind things to say about FT2's work. I strongly agree with Duk above—long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment, and this is nothing of the sort; furthermore, the community is entitled to explanations (at the very least) when such bans are handed down. I also think it reflects very poorly on Jimbo that he cannot give his explanation without insulting other people discussing the matter: "a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists..." This kind of thing seems unfitting for a "constitutional monarch". Everyking (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment..." Yes, that is exactly right. A good summary of why people believe Peter should be banned. Avruch ^T 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, Everyking, about the "complainers". To be clear, I'm not complain about this ban. I'm complaining about an hour of my life wasted hunting through logs and diffs and histories, all because Jimbo is too lazy to write a note. I wonder how many other administrators wasted their time doing this too. And what about other long time editors who may have respected Peter, only to see him banned without explanation - what do you think the effect on morale will be? --Duk 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An hour of your life wasted? Well, Damian's block log has quite some info. One log entry contains this diff, and another one reads: "Last chance at WP, no more harassment or disruption will be tolerated". - Face 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Damian's block log has quite some info. Ya, too bad the log itself notes that it isn't trustworthy.--Duk 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that Jimbo's comment there might have, um, discouraged people from participating in this thread! Devil's advocate is a better term than wikianarchist, I think. But I get Jimbo's point. He doesn't want to stop people disagreeing with him (far from it), but he wants discussion to be logical and centred on the specifics of this case, not merely principled opposition. I think if people concentrated on what happened here with regards to Peter Damian, and thrashed out some agreement, then Jimbo might listen to that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I must be misreading you here because you seem to state that principles have no place on Wikipedia. Hiding T 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice, I think, for Jimbo to acknowledge that Damian has made some valuable contributions to the project. It's wrong to suggest that he was just here to troll. He's made hundreds of valuable mainspace edits. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this discussion through WR some minutes after wondering why he was banned. WR is pretty nice for determining why someone was banned when the block log and user and talk pages don't say. --NE2 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is not what a constitutional monarch does, Jimbo. Seth is right about this being more "barbarian king" behaviour. Secondly, although Damian had clearly lost his mind as regards FT2, this does not necessarily mean he was incapable of being constructive elsewhere, so long as he is kept away from FT2. As to what he posts on WR...well, who cares? That site has no credence except that which we lend it. Bless their little hearts, all the people I block can rant and rave about me all they like over there. I don't care, that damages nobody except them. They just wind up looking small. Unless Damian had been involved in "outing", this may be excessive. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by the quasi-official status WR is coming to have here. Should we just fold it into project space, make their admins sysops here, and give them two or three seats on the arbcom? Or would it be better to just redirect ANI to their site? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a link on PD's user page to the WR thread would suffice. --Duk 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In line with Carcharoth's suggestion above, I will make a simple outline of what happened as it appears to me:

1) Personal dispute between Peter and FT2, on both WP and WR, culminating in Peter comparing FT2 to a secret police chief on WR

2) Peter's comments are widely deemed excessive and out of place by others on WR, and Peter apologizes, going so far as to commend FT2's work on a sockpuppet investigation

3) Peter leaves WP due to this dispute with FT2 (may have occurred before point 2?)

4) Jimbo bans Peter without explanation

5) Jimbo says he banned Peter because of Peter's comments toward FT2 on WR, without noting the subsequent apology.

Is there agreement on those facts? Everyking (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an oversimplification of the facts. The idea of Jimbo Wales as "god-king" seems more appealing than these endless discussions. Also, one of the endemic problems with Wikipedia is a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that it's OK for certain long-time users/admins/contributors to use foul/excessive language or engage in their own tribal barbarism. We often see newbies blocked all too quickly, while the admins protect each other's bad behavior (like the "Blue line" in policing). Jimbo's blocking of Peter Damian suggests that no one is immune and after being given seven chances at reform, the 8th was a ban. Yet it may not be a permanent ban, just an "example" ban, to attempt to get others into line.

Ryoung122 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're against double standards, then—but isn't it a double standard if Jimbo is allowed to ban someone for an off-site insult (which was followed by an apology!), when no other admin would be able to make a block on those grounds? Furthermore, isn't it a double standard if Jimbo can ban a long-standing contributor without explanation? And anyway, if my outline is inadequate, please suggest changes. Everyking (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Over-simplification, Everyking. 9 month almost non-stop history of this on-wiki and off, block logs on 3-4 accounts for the same thing, recent posts about "this means war", recent comparison to the holocaust, recent and past threats, significant gaming of AGF (enough to get unblocked each time, and then almost immediately resume), repeated warnings to stop by many different admins. (And the compliments cited actually came only 6 hours after being compared yet again to Stalin's First Murderer.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the user in question has indicated elsewhere that he is not requesting an unblock. In the interests of allowing some breathing space for everyone, I suggest that this moots much of the discussion here on the merits of the block, particularly as the user in question is not able to comment on-wiki on the matter.

He has also pointed out a related issue, which is that a prior block placed when his account was registered under his real name, became something "that colleagues could see," presumably referring to a search engine result. It is questionable whether userspace should appear in searches at all (compare generally, Wikipedia talk:NOINDEX of noticeboards), but it is submitted that in any case, a "NOINDEX" key should immediately be placed in the various indefblock templates, as there is certainly no need for these to be searchable and if anything, this complicates the ability for a banned user to walk away from Wikipedia as well as potentially creating real-world complications for the user. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been since July 30th, [121] MBisanz ^talk 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Good change (not sure if it's been made in all of the affected templates, though). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairly certain Krimpet hit all the templates, it's used on 30,000+ 46,000+ pages at this point, so it would need to be a very obscure and almost never used template to not have been covered. MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• In short, no. An indef block was a long time in coming for that guy. He made 900 mainspace edits on that account and the instant someone screwed up (Stifle) he wanted nothing less than his head. When he didn't get it, he left in a huff talking about mailing donors and book burners and witch hunters and what not. Later, he seemed to come to his senses and accepted Stifle's apology to the community. However no sign in that whole process was given that Peter Damien (I'm going to go ahead and say that's probably not his real name) would behave any differently were he "crossed" again. He argued ceaselessly and tendentiously, even against neutral editors and he generally made a nuisance of himself. I say good riddance. As for the method...I think we need to just deal. Jimbo is here. He's not going to leave because we get upset when he intervenes. He's not always going to be right when he intervenes but we can't really do anything about that. Consider it a perk of putting years of effort into something that we all love and enjoy. And it isn't extreme in any sense. He isn't Stalin, for god's sake. He hasn't purged hundreds of editors or put people in camps. And honestly the last thing I want to be part of is a community protest to overturn a block for someone that abrasive. All we will get is an editor who was brought back through the sweat and tears of the community who will have nothing but bad things to say about us for it. And every admin who thinks about blocking him for going on about how the place is a "craphole" or how we are all book burners will be stepping on eggshells from the moment they see the block log. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So... what we do or say on OTHER websites will cause us to be banned here? Oh geez now thats interesting. Jacina (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And don't bother trying to apologize, either! Everyking (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers please

There is a backlog at WP:RFCU. Since the worst cases of disruption often end up there, it would be good to keep response times to a minimum. Confirming sock pupptry quickly, and thoroughly, can help reduce administrative backlogs and prevent edit wars. We should be endeavor to find all the socks in a farm at once, rather than playing whack-a-mole with them for weeks or months. A thorough job discourages further socking, whereas whack-a-mole encourages more of the same. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it, but it's going to be later today - couple of hours. RL is getting in the way of Wikipedia again :) - Alison ^❤ 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I regret that you will find one of the cases rather messy. There appears to be two dueling sockfarms. Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few requests that are like that, I am hoping that once myself and FT2 get the new process up and running it will help with situations like this. Tiptoety ^talk 20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It took me an hour to figure out, and then block and tag all the malefactors on one report. We could use more admin help at WP:RFCU and WP:SSP. What's gratifying is that one of the socks had been blocked at least six times over the last nine months for edit warring. They are now on "permanent wikibreak". Jehochman ^Talk 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin

Protection is about to expire on the above article. I've laid out suggested ground rules on the talk pages for conduct. In addition, I am recommending here that uninvolved administrators use very short (15 minutes) blocks and page protections to force users to discuss issues with each other on the talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection on the article expires in two weeks; it's not "about to expire". Gary King (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Downgraded the protection now anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting site, I was ask to forward this to admins: http://www.blogpi.net/who-is-encouraging-obama-supporters-to-vandalize-sarah-palins-wikipedia-article . John Reaves 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrative action review: Tznkai

Tznkai appears to be using his position to POV push and support those who do. I am requesting that User:Jossi be the admin there as he seems to really have a handle on NPOV. Tzanki is apparently not swayed by argument about NPOV. Booksnmore4you (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll note for the record I havn't made a single content edit to the article. I have made no ( that I can remember anyway) content suggestions on the talk page. I have warned Books repeatedly about violating 3RR, and less so, civility issues. I stand by my actions, which are available for anyone curious. --Tznkai (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Booksnmore4you: Thread with care while you learn the ropes and please Assume good faith. You are welcome to disagree with Tznkai actions, and best would be to address your concerns directly with him in his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Tznkai: There are other people violating 3RR there, hope you look over these as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cid Campeador

Talk 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 – I will leave a warning - but I would appreciate others keeping an eye on his conduct. Slrubenstein

I am very close to considering this user a vandalism-only account. The problem is, many of his (?) edits are borderline. I think they are all disruptive but none of them are the kinds of obvious vandalism - nonsense or obscenities - we usually have to deal with. He will often remove information claiming it has no citation (true, but he never inserts the template asking for the citation, or takes a sec to ask anyone on the talk page for a citation); he often adds dubious information without citation. He caught my attention because he made one disruptive edit to the race article. I looked back to his earliest edits and saw a pattern of vandalism concerning Dubai (identifying it as a fascist country).

No edit suggests to me that he is a serious editor who has any use for research or our policies, but enough of his edits are more inane than outright violation of policy that I hesitate to block him as a vandalism only account.

I know that there is a very robust cadre of anti-vandalism editors here and would appreciate their keeping an eye on him, and if anyone else cares to go through his history of edits and comment, I would be grateful. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the last dozen or so of Cid Campeador's edits and I agree the majority of them are dubious. I'm not convinced this is a vandalism only account however. More of a POV-pusher, if anything, and I notice that nobody's contacted Cid on his talk page about his edits since last year. Considering that most of Cid's edits are fairly innocuous and undisruptive, and he only makes a handful of edits a month (too few to make a nuisance of himself), I suggest we assume good faith and leave him be for now. If you have a problem with Cid's edits, raise the matter on his talk page. Reyk _YO! 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can speak to him specifically about the stuff on Race, but if I were to use a generic warning, which template do you think would be most appropriate (if any)? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• You could try whatever you think is closest out of the uw-unsourced, uw-npov or uw-error templates, though if he's producing a combination of all three, a written message is probably better. Black Kite 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tathagatghosh

Resolved

 – Questionable images deleted. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has uploaded a metric buttload of fair use images of people, and despite multiple warnings, has failed to change their ways and since ended up blocked. Would it be too much to ask that all of said images be deleted as orphaned fairuse? I started to tag a few but there're, like, 300 of these things. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Working on it ... --Kralizec! (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done (though it was only about 30 images)! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Entroducing.....

Resolved

Hai guyz. Attempted to create redirect page from misspelt Entroducing..... to correct article name Endtroducing..... but was told the article's on a blacklist. Why? It's a valid and helpful redirect. Lemme know ^^ Artrush (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like it got protected a while back (most likely becuase it was a chronically re-created article). If you wish for it to be unprotected, you might ask at WP:RPP in the unprotection section. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The instructions given when trying to create it say to ask here. DuncanHill (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not protected, and there's no deletion for that page. My best guess would be that the inclusion of the "....." is caught by a new page blacklist designed to stop a certain P....E....R....S....O....N and their pagemove vandalism. _Gb^T/c 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've created the redirect. _Gb^T/c 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that many periods would hit the article blacklist. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The error message I got when trying to create it referred to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, a page which I have difficulty reading, let alone understanding. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That would be it - it's to ensure that certain pages with certain terms can't be created. The illegible text is the list of rules for all those pages which editors withour administrator rights cannot create, to try and cut down on vandalism. In this instance, the number of ....s would have fallen foul on one of the restrictions trying to prevent a persistent vandal. _Gb^T/c 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding non admin closure of AFD

Is there any issue with myself closing AFD's as no consensus or any other close other than delete? This is more of a sanity check, I want to check my thinking. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NAC is clear; Non-admin closures of XfDs should be limited to the following types of closures:

• Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period absent any contentious debate among participants.
• Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
• Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible.
• Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.

• Now NAC is an essay, however I don't see many situations where it would be wrong.

Black Kite 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If as a non-admin you wish to close AfD's as no consensus you are free to do so. Just ignore that rather patronising essay. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought Hammer was correct to reopen this AfD. The others you did today were ok. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had Hammer give it a second look on IRC, we decided that relisting it won't hurt a thing. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The burden of correcting a bogus keep/merge/noconsensus/wrongvenue closure is an order of magnitude less than correcting a bogus delete closure (because the latter requires admin rights and is unfortunately considered "wheel-warring" until proven innocent). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, non-admins should not close AfDs unless the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no desysopping to threaten them with if they screw up (duh... ). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They haven't gained community trust most of the time, ergo I'd be uncomfortable with them closing afds. (Plus, a lot of them have failed RfAs, which shows a lack of community trust.) Wizardman 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, (not in reference to you because you're a former admin and I'm sure you'll get them right) there have been a number of cases where non-admins have closed non-obvious AfDs and got them wrong, which wastes everyones time. If there's not a horrible backlog (which there isn't at the moment), I don't see the point. Black Kite 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous answer, closing an AfD as No consensus is no big deal. Deleting is the big deal and that is where the trust is required. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no consensus is a big deal. That's an interpretation in and of itself, as other admins could see a case as no consensus where others see delete. Wizardman 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not ridiculous in the slightest. There are plenty of AfDs which appear to be "no consensus" through a simple vote-counting exercise, but which aren't for various reasons. Getting a N/C wrong and ending up with another AfD is just as timewasting as getting a Delete wrong and ending up with a DRV. Black Kite 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound as if judging consensus requires the wisdom of Solomon, it really really doesn't. If it did 99% of our administrators would be in deep shit. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't, you're right. On the other hand, I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of hordes of people trying their hand out at random AfD closing, because I've seen too many examples of people getting it wrong. Black Kite 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the outcome would be either nebulous to determine or controversial, I would be fine with a non-admin closing the debate if he conferred with an administrator or two, just to be sure of his judgement. —Animum (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as the closing non-administrator has clue aplenty, I am happy with him or her dabbling a toe in "no consensus" deletion discussion closures. I advise an abundance of caution to be used when making these closures, however: I've seen contentious non-administrator closures result in some nasty head-biting in the past (mostly justified—non-sysop closures have been known to go poorly—and sometimes not). It's your head; you decide whether it goes on the plate or not! Anthøny ✉ 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that when you got into trouble as an admin it was over exercising judgement in controversial areas. I'd avise you to steer clear but, as the man said, its your head and lots of people (not me) will be watching to catch any mistakes for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see one DRV where I closed an AFD that I voted in (what was I thinking?) and one AFD that I improperly applied BLP. I learned from those, and don't intend to close any controversial AFD's. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary

So basically what I get from the above is "Do what you think you can handle, we will let you know if you get it wrong". Is this correct? NonvocalScream (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its that cut and dried. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More like "if it has any possibility of being contentious, avoid it", I think. Black Kite 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Black kites works for me. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to close AfD's during my downtime at work and found it incredibility frustrating. On the one hand you have users who are much too wrapped up in the outcome of a deletion discussion; once they catch wind that you are not an admin, and then it's all "rv - Oh no you did-n't, you’re not even an admin!" On the other hand, you have certain admins who feel that their RfA somehow uniquely endows them with the ability to make an intelligent determination of consensus, who like to bowbeat you with WP:NAC for their own amusement. Never will anyone point to a problem with the actual close itself, only that it was a non-adminstrator who did the legwork. It’s infuriating, and in your specific case and obvious qualifications I imagine it would only be especially so.

If you do decide to put up with it though, I’ve successfully closed several debates as delete. Just slap a {{db-xfd}} on the target article and a sensible admin will come along to delete it eventually. HiDrNick! 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly w/ Dr. Nick here. NAC's help the backlog a lot, but they can generate stress. People get REALLY caught up in the outcome and will come banging on your door if you "mess it up" (give them an outcome other than the one they were looking for). further, closing a LOT of deletion debates will make later attempts to become an admin pretty miserable. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though, if you're going to close as delete, make sure it's really uncontentious. Black Kite 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Take this from someone who has had 4 or 5 wrong closures (and they still come back to bite you). There are those in the community who simply do not like non admins closing these types of XfDs. After closing well over 150 XfDs I think only two were overturned as delete, and the rest were overturned and later re-kept. This will draw more attention to yourself, and others will question your judgment, regardless of how many closures were right. I agree it should come down to the proper decision and the proper knowledge, the but sometimes this is not always the case. Synergy 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block Request for Keeper76 for Stalking

Resolved

 – Though how you actually "resolve" something as daft as this...

The user has repeatedly stalked users who have used this IP address. The address is from a publically-shared computer, and has many users each day. The user has sent very impolite message to many different users from this address, and deserves to be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This just makes KillerChihuahua look even cleverer :-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete, non notable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ray Ray, is that you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be Ray Ray's official nom de guerre. Or nom de wiki. He followed community consensus on choice of names, giving up a rather racy Monty Python name, and, keeping in the John Cleese train of thought, a Fawlty Towers reference. He's still whining about not wanting to use his admin powers, but he's back. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be spelt "Short Brigade Harvester Boris" but it's pronounced "Throat-Warbler Mangrove". Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thing is, I can't actually see that Keeper has edited that IPs talkpage at all. Ah well. Resolved. Black Kite 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I are confoooooooozed cat...this are seerius bizniss--also known as "JiggaWHAAAA?" El Keep is one of the best admins we've got...perdoname iffen this block-request escapes me, but again I ask you: HUHH?Gladys J Cortez 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In fairness to the IP, a library IP, I was the most recent to block it. It was a 31 hour block for calling User:Hersfold a jackass and a jackoff, in one thread. I must've neglected to post the the IP talk, my bad. Keeper ǀ 76 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

More eyes on Evan Tanner please.

The subject of this article had gone missing, and search crews have found a body near where the person's campsite was. News articles are alternatively saying that the body has yet to be identified, and that it has been identified as the subject. Probably going to need some watching of the article as details come in. SirFozzie (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just deleted two paragraphs, one of which quotes an unreliable source and one of which is hearsay. (actually, double hearsay, since the quotes attributed to a hearsay witness were themselves unsourced)Corvus cornix_talk 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

CERN & LHC

Hi, would a few of you mind just adding to your watchlists the following articles.

• CERN
• Large Hadron Collider
• Safety of the Large Hadron Collider
• Micro black hole

I reckon the vandalism over the next 48 hours is going to increase quite alot with the impending start up and all the press interest in it. The article are semi-protected at the moment, but the talk pages aren't to allow anon IP's to request changes etc. ^Khukri 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well hopefully either we'll all be sucked into a black hole or they will shut up about it. Either way... [shrug] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow sees particles accelerated in the ring, but there won't be any collisions for a few weeks, so if we're all gonna die, it won't happen just yet ;). _TalkIslander 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the sprot due to it's seen to be protectionist or ring fencing the article. May need a few more eyes, thanks. ^Khukri 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend posting this to the Fringe theories noticeboard. You should get a few fringe-watchers interested that way. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat"

— Professor Brian Cox

Protected edit requests

Hi, could somebody wander over to WP:PER? (Some of the requests, such as my request for Template:Wikitravel are not controversial so shouldn't take too long!) Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the location parameter to {{Cite web}}, and that alone was probably enough to push the job queue up into the stratosphere. Actually, there are several requests there that need some hashing-out, and a couple that deal with hCard microformat that I wouldn't know how to test, so I'll let this one edit be the highlight of my day. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Support}} {{Oppose}}

Hi, Is there any reason not to have templates for  Support and  Oppose? I really struggle to accept the 'server load' argument that seemed to dominate the TFD. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They have them on lots of other projects. I'm sure someone will soon complain about voting, but I don't see the harm unless someone can prove there is a technical science/server reason not to. They were deleted by an ancient and probably not valid consensus from 3+ years ago: [122] I'd say its overdue for review. rootology (C)(T) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a valid consensus at the time. But I suspect that attitudes have changed. I should probably be taking this to WP:DRV but I just thought I'd solicit some opinions here first. Thanks, Ben Aveling 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the main reasons was because it encourages the notion that we're voting on issues, when we're really trying to develop a consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how these might enhance debates and discussions on wikipedia? You ask "is there any reason not to have..?" can I ask "is there any reason to have.."". This is a genuine and not a polemical question.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Consistency with other wikis; it's annoying to type {{support}} and have to change it to support. Also ease of vote counting. There are decisions made here that look like votes but aren't (AFD, for eg). But there are things that genuinely are votes. Maybe a compromise would be to have the templates there, minus the symbols. Personally, I like the added colour, but I understand that there are people who don't. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, looking over a discussion with those templates makes it easier to read, especially if we don't split into support and oppose sections. — Werdna • talk 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Easier to read"? Methinks, you mean "easier to count". Can't see how it helps me read the actual discussion.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also easier to read selectively. Suppose one is closing an AFD, has made a decision, and wants to be sure that all the opposing arguments have been dealt with. Symbols make that easier to do. Cheers, Ben Aveling 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fun to have, but ultimately detrimental. We have enough knee-jerk supports and opposes breaking our processes without providing a set of templates to encourage more. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Redvers. Don't see a benefit for it (just my opinion). -- Alexf⁴² 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Er - do the little plus and minus symbols really impact how people participate? I see plenty of Support and Oppose comments without detailed rationales, is there is any reason to think we'd see a storm of such comments if we enable the templates? Avruch ^T 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If people from other projects are having issues I probably wouldn't be opposed to a template being created that consists of:

'''Support'''

that wouldn't change much from what people do anyway. –xeno (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have to say I like the look of them and the general idea behind them but, I think they may actually make things harder to read/understand if abbused in the same manner as '''support'''/'''oppose'''/'''keep'''/'''delete'''/'''don't delete'''/etc are at the moment. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a DRV not too long ago for them, and consensus there was still pretty clearly that we don't want them (but that they're kosher in userspace, so feel free to steal my versions at User:Lifebaka/+, User:Lifebaka/-, and User:Lifebaka/=). I'll go dig up the link. lifebaka++ 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Link is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 17. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone with templatre Clue can code it so that there is an argument |reason, and if it's missing then the !vote is not bolded and a comment "(no rationale is given for this comment)" then I think it would add some value. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try User:Ben Aveling/support. For eg:

• {{User:Ben Aveling/support}} gives support (no rationale given)
• {{User:Ben Aveling/support|Reason being...}} gives Support: Reason being....

The equivalent templates for Oppose, Neutral and Question can be created once the inevitable bugs are worked out. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No further comments? I guess that means that there is consensus that templates without icons, as per the example, would be OK? Absent further comments or objections, I'll take this to DRV tomorrow. Thanks, Ben Aveling 09:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 10#Template:Support. Thanks all for your input. Ben Aveling 00:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PATROL!

Like the good old Patton would say: Encyclopedias are not just created by your own edits, it's by patrolling the beepety beep out of the other poor beepety beeps edits!

List of unpatrolled pages

Everyone, hop on and do even just 10. Come on, you can do it! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support an immediate indefinite ban on Kim Bruning for making reasonable suggestions that make me do more work!--Tznkai (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support! That's one way to kick the habit. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Patrol them? Or AFD them? Guettarda (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do what is appropriate, and/or then mark as patrolled. (incidentally, it's useful to reload the above link regularly, to avoid doing double work. A "show random unpatrolled page" option would be nice :-) ). --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to get others involved Kim. Synergy 01:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded overly snarky. First up: thanks for the reminder. But just looking at the page I realised to my horror that half that stuff should probably be speedied, and a third of what's left send to AFD. It reminded me why I stay away from newpage patrol. Guettarda (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is precisely why there is a backlog that reaches for almost a full MONTH (and it'd be even worse if it wasn't for the fact that pages expire from the patrollable queue after 720 hours; user:Gmaxwell got the toolserver to produce a list of the pages which were created since the implementation of patrol, but which did not get patrolled before expiring from the queue. It's eleven megs long. DS (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that many pages get checked but not marked as "patrolled". On newpage patrol, I don't care if a page is marked patrolled or not, I just go through a bunch. People who feel that marking a page as patrolled is useful may continue doing so obviously, but I don't see the benefit, as the difference in quality between one and the other isn't remarkable. Patrolled pages <> good enough articles. Fram (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The benefit to patrolling is that it indicates "this page has already been checked by a human and does not need a fresh set of eyes to validate that it is a good article" (or, alternately, "this page has already been checked by a human who decided that it needed to be tagged for deletion"). If we have a thousand articles, and 100 volunteers, and each of them checks 10 articles... something like 650 of the articles will get checked three times, 100 will get checked twice, and the rest won't get checked at all. The patrol feature reduces duplication of effort, and shows what hasn't been done yet. DS (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that contention. I run across tons of "articles" which have been marked as patrolled which wind up being speedy deleted due to being articles about garage bands, some teenaged girl's secret crush, some guy writing about his sexual prowess, etc. I think patrolling is more harmful than it is useful. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not long after posting the above, I discovered this. Corvus cornix_talk 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And if someone is abusing the patrol feature, they get blocked. Simple. DS (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus cornix: just because they have been marked patrolled does not mean they can not still be tagged for deletion/cleanup. I mean, that's how it was done before we had new page patrol. Tiptoety ^talk 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Marking as patrolled is not saying it shouldn't be taken to AfD. It just means that the article is well enough that we didn't feel a speedy tag was the answer. And lets not forget, that one of the reasons we mark as patrolled is because there already is a speedy tag placed on it. Patrolling is not a simple task, and editors who just randomly click patrol are generally not very good patrollers. Synergy 20:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The patrol itself is just that: A feature. A mechanism. It is not a policy. Alone and without policy a mechanism is neither good nor bad. Policy is what makes it something useful or something harmful. Paroling can be abused, like any other feature, and it's up to policy and administration to make sure it isn't. The feature shouldn't be any more prone to abuse than others: it can be limited to whom can use it, and it provides a good audit trail so you can see how it is being used and hold people accountable for misuse. I could use editing to insert nonsense into articles, but we don't turn editing off. We warn, then block, problematic editors. Patrol should be no different. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So what do I do if I keep encountering nonsense articles which have been patrolled and nothing done about them other than being marked as patrolled? And The benefit to patrolling is that it indicates "this page has already been checked by a human and does not need a fresh set of eyes to validate that it is a good article" tells me that people think that once something is marked as patrolled, it's not nonsense. Well, let me tell you, that ain't true. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD, cleanup, tag as a speedy (if applicable) etc. If the users who are just randomly clicking away, and not evaluating these articles, maybe you want to ask them if they know how to patrol or inform them that what they doing are is not always helping. And if that fails, tell DS. I patrol with him often, and hes usually a very strict admin when it comes to this stuff. Synergy 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that I said that patrolling indicates either that the page has been assessed as valid, OR that it's been marked for deletion as having a substantial problem of some kind or another (has it been AfD'd? PRODded? Marked as CoI? Yes? Then patrol). DS (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

<-unindent St joan of arc school got marked as "patrolled" even though a casual reading would have shown it's nonsense. I put a speedy deletion tag on it. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! That worked out just fine didn't it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If I'm unsure I leave a page to another patroller. If it's not obvious that the page is a blpvio or copyvio or should otherwise be immediately prodded, I'll mark as patrolled. But really, all "Patrolled" means is that a human being looked at it at least briefly, and judged that at least it wasn't a TOTAL disaster. :-P You can still feel free to disagree with that person, of course.

I've heard several people comment here that a lot of unpatrolled pages are gratuitous steaming piles of excrement of male bovine (more often than average).

Well *duh*, that's what the (un)patrolled flag is for! Those pages ought to be checked! You'll have much better odds finding bad stuff in unpatrolled pages than you will elsewhere. I'd say that's a goldmine for wikignomes who want to boost their AFD-count! ;-)

Even if some pages get marked as patrolled incorrectly, that doesn't mean that the pages that are *not* (yet) marked as patrolled are any more correct. They still need to be checked. Let's start worrying about people not using the patrolled flag optimally when we actually start running out of unpatrolled pages :-P.

Finally, perhaps it's an idea to sometimes leave a message on talk pages of pages you've patrolled, telling why you decided a particular page is ok. (in cases where you don't prod or anything) :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)