Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199

Huge amount of vandalism

Please take a look at this, this and this. Sounds like there are some religious people who don't want to hear anything against their beliefs. The facts which I put on that article are from one of the most reliable books of Muslims (Nahj al-Balagha)) which can not be denied specially by Muslims! If someone has to delete the facts which have came from that book then the whole article must be deleted. I am sure if I add those contents again, there are LOTS of muslims who rush into the article and delete them immediately. Since this encyclopedia is a NON-BIASED source and IT SHOULD CONTAIN ALL RELAIBLE MATERIAL whether positive or negative to someone, I demand that admins protect that page from vandalism and punish the vandals.--Breathing Dead (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me, at least at first glance. Perhaps you might find helpful to first discuss these edits on the talk page? -- Deville (Talk) 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Those sentences are from Nahj al-Balagha. These people systematically delete whatever they fear shows the true face of Islam. This is only sheer vandalism!--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to "demand" anything. None of us are, we're all in this together. If you are involved in an edit war, it's best to discuss the subject civilly on the article's talk page. I'm not convinced you are interpreting the source correctly either. Please try and assume good faith about your fellow editors, and do not assume they are trying to censor the page. [mad pierrot][t c] 03:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:Vandalism. Even if the edits are wholly mistaken and unsupported by reliable sources (not saying they are or aren't), if they're made in good faith, they're not taken as vandalism on en.Wikipedia. For more about the notion of good faith on this website, please see WP:AGF. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor (see 1st diff), I feel I should explain why I reverted the edit. It looked like an unsourced (or poorly sourced with unreliable sources) edit. I reverted using the judgment of previous users and per the edit summary of 3rd diff (in other words, WP:RS & WP:OR). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that those sentences are poorly sources or came rom unreliable sources? Please read the article carefully. Nearly all the contents of that article came from the same source which is Nahj al-Balagha! How come didn't you delete the rest?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm not Muslim. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I put the contents here. You judge whether deleting them is vandalism or not!

His views on women are stated in Nahj al-Balagha, which is the most famous book about Ali and is regarded as the second Qoran by lots of Muslims. The followings are some examples which can be found in Nahj al-Balagha:

• Woman is a scorpion whose grip (having sex with) is sweet.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 61

• Jealousy in woman is unpardonable but in man it is a sign of his faith in religion.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 123

• O' ye peoples! Women are deficient in Faith, deficient in shares and deficient in intelligence. As regards the deficiency in their Faith, it is their abstention from prayers and fasting during their menstrual period. As regards deficiency in their intelligence it is because the evidence of two women is equal to that of one man. As for the deficiency of their shares that is because of their share in inheritance being half of men. So beware of the evils of women. Be on your guard even from those of them who are (reportedly) good. Do not obey them even in good things so that they may not attract you to evils.Nahj al-Balagha - Sermon 79

• Daily prayers are the best medium through which one can Seek the nearness to Allah. Hajj is Jihad (Holy War) for every weak person. For everything that you own there is Zakat, and Zakat of your body is fasting. The Jihad of a woman is to afford pleasant company to her husband.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 135

• Your society will pass through a period when cunning and crafty intriguers will be favoured by status, when profligates will be considered as well-bred, well-behaved and elegant elites of the society, when just and honest persons will be considered as weaklings, when charity will be considered as a loss to wealth and property, when support and help to each other will be considered as favour and benevolence and when prayers and worship to Allah will be taken up for the sake of show to gain popularity and higher status, at such times regimes will be run under the advice of women and the youngsters will be the rulers and counselors of the State.Nahj al-Balagha - Saying 102

• Beasts are concerned with their bellies. Carnivores are concerned with assaulting others. Women are concerned with the adornments of this ignoble life and the creation of mischief herein. (On the other hand) believers are humble, believers are admonishers and believers are afraid (of Allah).Nahj al-Balagha - Sermon 152

• Do not seek the advice of women, their verdicts are often immature and incorrect and their determinations are not firm. You must guard and defend them and act as a shelter to protect them from impious and injurious surroundings and infamous sights, this kind of shelter will keep them well-protected from every harm. Their contact with a vicious and sinful atmosphere (even with all the shelter that you can provide) is going to prove more harmful than being left with protection. Do not let them interfere with affairs where you cannot personally guide or protect them. Do not let them aspire for things which are beyond their capacities. They are more like decoration to humanity and are not made to rule and govern humanity. Exhibit reasonable interest in things which they desire and give importance to them, but do not let them influence your opinions and do not let them impel you to go against your sane views.Nahj al-Balagha - Letter 31

If anyone who doesn't like a context, simply deletes it, there will be no article left in wikipedia! Now tell me are the above senteces unsourced or whatever? It is obvious that muslims don't like them and will delete them immediately. It is Admins' job to protect Wikipedia from those incidents. Aint it?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty textbook OR and cherry picking quotes to present a POV. Making the unsupported assertion that "Ali's views on women were quite abusive and humiliating. He has described all women with very disgraceful words on several occasions and mostly he has defined the role of women as only sex tools who are created to please men." based on a selective reading of a primary source and then presenting those cherry-picked quotes as summarizing "his views on women". And it was suggested to Breathing Dead to bring this up in talk instead of continuing to revert. Suggestion rejected as nonsense. nableezy - 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that conclusion and left only the sentences from Nahj al-Balagha, then you insisted to delete the reliable material! If you believe everything in Nahj al-Balagha and Qoran are true, then why don't you let people put some of the phrases in the article?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First, to try and summarize Ali's views on women you need a reliable secondary, preferably scholarly, source doing so. You can't just pick out some quotes and say that summarizes his views on women. Second, who said I believe everything in the Nahj al-Balagha is true? And why are inquiring as to my beliefs anyway? You are right though, I am a Muslim, but I also am a pothead and I am too high to care about this right now. Bye, nableezy - 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read this.... "His views on women are stated in Nahj al-Balagha, which is the most famous book about Ali and is regarded as the second Qoran by lots of Muslims. The followings are some examples which can be found in Nahj al-Balagha". you see I didn't summerize anything. If you believe his views on women were different why don't you put your own facts on the article. You are not allowed to simply delete your opposite views.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've warned BD. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He's read the warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to add all those (selective or not) to the article in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a collection of quotes. ≈ Chamal ^talk 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To prove something in an encyclopedia you need some reliable sources and those quotes are the most reliable sources available to the world to judge the views of Ali on women.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to prove anything. As for raw quotes, see Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Moreover, WP is not an outlet for your own take on published quotations. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sound like a good idea. The quotes probably shouldn't go in the main article anyway, and too much cut and paste, maybe a link at the bottom instead. But these are my final comments, I became involved through anti-vandalism work and this no longer involves vandalism, so my work here is done. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

according to the Wikipedia article, no Sunni scholar, and even some Shi'a ones, do not attribute the book to Ali. The authenticity of these views is therefore a matter of dispute among Muslims. If they are included, they must be given in context, it is possible that these particular sayings are regarded by all Muslims as authentic, but there would need to be some information about that. We can't put for the views of one of the sects as The Truth--not in Wikipedia. This disagreement has been going on for many centuries & we will not settle it here. DGG (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Muslim can put their own views on that article too but they are not allowed to delete the facts. Are they?Breathing Dead (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Muslims are not allowed to put their own views in an article, nobody is allowed that on this website. Editors can only cite reliable sources and write text which steadfastly follows those sources. Anything else can be removed in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean their own views. What I say that they can also put their facts in the article. The facts I put there, are from a very very reliable source. If you delete them then you should delete the whole article, because nearly the whole article is based on Nahj al-Balagha.--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't skirt the policies of this website with bare assertions as to how you think things should be done here. Please have a look at them. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are trying to chase and harass me. I should warn you that what you do is personal attack! I have read all those rules and what I put in that article comply with all 5 sections. Why don't you be precise and tell which rule did I break to put those sentences in Ali's article?--Breathing Dead (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You've already been told. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? Why don't you show me again? I can't remember.--Breathing Dead (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. And then you removed it. Ring a bell? ≈ Chamal ^talk 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been made quite clear that it is unacceptable to add these fringe views to the article, but you're going ahead and doing it anyway? --LP ^talk 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Who has made it quite clear? You have been involved in the edit war. Could you show me who has said that adding those material is unacceptable?talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why the IP should not be blocked too? It's obviously being used to evade the block. ≈ Chamal ^talk 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See what? you are quite clearly abusing your admin rights to take revenge.Breathing Dead (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Abusing Administrator's power by User:Gwen Gale

Resolved

 – Part of #Huge_amount_of_vandalism

She has blocked my account indefinitely and reverted my totally constructive edit to a totally dectructive edit. I was rude to her some days ago and she is taking revenge, no matter if she breaks all wikipedia's rules. However I apologized her but sounds like she is very revengeful! :))))))))))))))))))))))talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you totally deserved it, especially now that you're casting aspersions that Gwen Gale is at fault for that edit made by someone entirely different.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is obvious that you back up your friend! It is ridiculous! I didn't know taking revenge is also included in those 5 pillars of wikipedia.:)))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.7.205 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't taunt Gwen or Ryulong. What you did is wrong here. Please accept that and don't continue to insult people. We're happy to educate you on Wikipedia's goals and policies - but if you continue to insult people, you are not welcome here, and we'll do what we have to in order to keep you from doing that in the future.

If you want to participate here - be an adult about it, communicate in a mature and responsible manner, and work with us rather than attacking people.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When you're subject to administrative sanction, it is very much in your own interest to be on your best behavior and look like an asset to the community. Nonsense like this edit will do nothing but convince people that helping you is a waste of time. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(Topic) ban of Interestedinfairness

Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) is an Albanian user which has strong views about Kosovo. Which is fine in itself, except that he tries to push his views by all means available, violating WP:BATTLE, WP:ARBMAC, and a number of other policies such as WP:NPOV. I'm really surprised how he wasn't indefinitely (topic) banned so far. A few pieces of evidence follow; it's not difficult to find more just browsing through *all* his contribs:

• AN search: [1]
• Previous discussion on topic ban [2] ended prematurely because he was ostensibly indef-blocked. However, the block was soon lifted and he returned to his old ways.
• 1-month topic-banned from Kosovo by Mangojuice on June 6. [3]
• Yesterday, at Slavic peoples, Talk:Slavic_peoples#Neutrality_tag consensus on the talk page is reached that his neutrality tag, based on just the "wrong" map, is unjustified. He reinstates it [4].
• Yesterday, on Kosovo, he inserts cn's just after the references: [5], with a snide edit summary
• A nice example of WP:TE on Serbia: [6]. (Yesterday)
• There's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interestedinfairness, but it didn't prove alternate accounts other than IPs, and he apparently wasn't Mr.Neutral (talk · contribs).

I propose a complete ban, or topic ban from Kosovo, Serbia and Albania-related articles. Since all his contributions are in this area, the difference between the two is purely nominal. (I probably won't be around in the next couple of days, so I can't submit additional evidence, but I think that contribs speak volumes) No such user (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another ridiculous attempt to silence me by a user who cannot use the talk pages to rebuttal. As soon as I start challenging the status-quo of articles which do not conform to the NPOV policy I have a case opened against me. But just like the past case here and the sock puppet investigation launched here, there is only a vendetta against me, no real evidence. I am not even going to bother to respond to your "examples" of my "unlawful" behavior. The edits speak for them selves. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).

I feel I had to break a lance in favor of Int here:

• I don't find a WP:TE on Serbia: [7] by Int. If it is stated that the Greeks colonized the southern area IV BC Romans north area II AD so natural question is what did they colonized?Were there any people etc Everyone accepts the fact that Illyrians laid in Serb territory at that time and their history on that area, what kind of WP:TE is here?! Romans and Greeks are mentioned, but the Illyrians the people who really lived and inhabited the areas should not be mentioned?! And if they are mentioned this is tendentious?!Why?It is the opposite standing that could look tendentious. Everyone mentioned except Illyrians, the people who inhabited the area?! SO no WP:TE here.
• As for the cn tags I agree that it is wrong to put them behind ref, but I must stress the fact that Int didn't remove anything from the text, he was pointing to the POV standing of the author(maybe in wrong way with his cn tags) and when he discussed in the talk page here [8] none tried to discuss according to WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:R etc wiki rules, the result was a personal attack and a topic ban proposal.
• For the previous accusations of sock and etc there has been much said before, Int wasn't guilty I don't know why it was brought up here again. Aigest (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IIF's persistent pushing of "Kosovo is a country" on Slavic peoples is disruptive and, in my view, tendentious. It illustrates a problem faced by any article whose scope includes the Balkans or any map covering that region: until the statehood of Kosovo is determined either at some binding international level or by en.wiki policy such articles can't do right for doing wrong. IIF accuses Slavic people of non-neutrality because it contains a map - intended to give readers a general geographical awareness of the distribution of Slavs at a resolution level limited to countries - which does not show Kosovo as separate from Serbia. IIF is on a hiding to nothing trying to force such articles to change their depiction of Kosovo, because the Serbians will then be justified in jumping in and demanding a reversion. IIF has ignored the substantive arguments made on the article's talk page and continued to push his own POV. Whatever sanction is applied must take into account not only articles related directly to Kosovo, but also the evidence of IIF's willingness to take his unproductive WP:BATTLEs and WP:SOAPboxes to any other article with a tenuous link. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring: [9] [10] [11] [12], edit-warring and POINTy behavior [13] [14], examples of tendentious editing [15] [16] [17], edit-warring on Illyrians (72 hour block) [18] [19] [20] [21], assumptions of bad faith [22] (opening a bogus sockpuppet investigation), [23] [24] (anyone who disagrees with him is "colluding"), [25] ("an administrator acting in a cavalier way) [26] ("I'm 100% more neutrak), incivility: [27]. He has also cluttered Talk:Illyrians and Talk:Kosovo with countless inane clueless rants for the past two months now, the examples are too many to list. This is an nationalist POV advocacy SPA of the kind we don't need on this encyclopedia. I'm amazed he has gotten away with as much as he's had already. I've seen users get topic banned per ARBMAC for a lot less. I also recommend relocating this section to WP:AE, where it is more appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer a simple dispute. The dispute was a couple of weeks ago. He couldn't accept that Wikipedia consensus was against his POV, and he went ahead with his POV pushing, on the Kosovo article, on many other articles related to Kosovo or Albanians. Let me explain it this way: let's say we all agree that the Alps are a mountain range, but one user simply doesn't and then keeps repeating it. This is pretty much what's happening here. Kosovo is a region, some see it as a province, some as a country, but Interestedinfairness wants it to be a country, even attempting to prove it's not a region or territory. ?!!. I don't even have the energy to repeat all the other Wikipedia rules he has broken, it's all on the Kosovo talk page, or on his talk page... Athenean's examples are proof enough, but there are MANY more examples of Interestedinfairness' disruptive behavior, if you have the energy to look through his edits which are highly disruptive and this is making other constructive editors tired of arguing with this POV-pushing user over and over again. He had his chance, he had many chances, he blew them all. Enough. Simply enough. --Cinéma C 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a previously uninvolved editor, who is even 'on his side' (in as much as I support the independence of Kosovo), yet I still seem to be on the reciving end of this user. Two examples in the last couple of days seem indicative of the general manner in which IIF approaches these topics:

He placed a {{neutrality}} tag on Slavic peoples - we eventually worked out that the sole reason was that one of the maps didn't show Kosovo as a disputed region. The map was so small you couldn't make it out, but cue a large section of soapboxing, disrupting to make a point and some wikilawyering for good measure. Even after being asked to get down from the Reichstag, he still continued trying to make some kind of point, and followed up with a snide comment on my talk page.

In addition, a similar incident at Talk:Kosovo#Neuatrality_tags showed all the same hallmarks - disruption, attempts at wikilawyering etc. To conclude, taking into account his other contribs, IIF does not appear to be able to make wholly constructive edits, and his patter of editing is indeed tendentious. I would concur with a topic ban. ninety:one 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So your opinion is more relevant and correct than mine. This seems to be the general line of argumentation followed in this discussion. Heed the administrators advice and take your requests to dispute resolution. dispute resolution. Interestedinfairness (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about a dispute, but rather a topic ban. ninety:one 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus to ban or topic ban Interestedinfairness on Wikipedia. I ask the administrators to take action now. --Cinéma C 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I stepped over to the Kosovo article a long time ago, after one of the many calls for more uninvolved editors to help build consensus. IiF engages in some of the most obnoxious and obstructionist forms of the 'Civil POV Push', esp. the 'if consensus goes against me today, I can restart the discussion in two to three days and surely prevail' tactic, wherein multiple similar ideas are presented serially in the hopes that eventually he'll bully, bulldoze, or bore people into letting something get by. Wasn't there an ArbCom bit about this topic, already? ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to remove me from Wikipedia because I point out some utterly ridiculous things on Kosovo-related articles is malicious and vindictive to say the least. I think dispute resolution is where you like-minded peeps want to be, Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator attention required.

There is consensus to (topic) ban Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) from Kosovo related articles. I ask an administrator to take action now. --Cinéma C 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice makin'

Resolved

 – lifebaka++ 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I need User:Ryulong/Sandbox/RPM moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/Power Rangers: RPM in order to create an edit notice for said article to replace various items within <!-- --> tags. Also, WP:RM looks dead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

I just noticed that a user just copied and pasted information from the 131st Fighter Wing onto the 131st Bomb Wing. This move obviously violates the move rule. I was wondering if someone could sort this out for me. I know that the information currently on the page is current, but there is now an incredibly short history for the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience at this, but wouldn't Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves#Instructions_for_tagging_a_page_for_history_merging be the way to go? If not, someone please educate me. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

True, and you've inadvertantly educated me in the process. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation needed

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive197#IB Diploma Programme
• Talk:IB Diploma Programme
• Talk:International Baccalaureate
• User talk:Uncle G#IB Diploma Programme
• User talk:Uncle G#Re: My lack of focus
• User talk:Uncle G#Request opinion for archives on IB DP
• User talk:Uncle G#IB article
• User talk:Uncle G#Sarcasm?

I've been giving some suggestions on article development and trying to mediate amongst a group of editors. Unfortunately I am rather busy in Another Place at the moment. Please help to keep this discussion calm, on track, and productive. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a Page

There's a topic, a YouTube video specifically, that I believe has received significant coverage to deserve its own page. However, I'm uncertain if it's truly enough, and am not sure how a page for such a subject would be organized, formatted, etc. Would someone be willing to judge if the video deserves a page (I have links of its extensive coverage by third-party sources), and how to create a page for it? The Clawed One (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Administrators' noticeboard is not a place to make these requests/questions. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Then where would I make the request, oh-so unhelpful one? Considering that if I do this wrong the page could be deleted, I wanted to ask an Admin's opinion. The Clawed One (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:HD or WP:EA. Algebraist 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The Clawed One (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Illustrator-stub

Hey, something's going on with this. —Noisalt (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone edited the template to replace its contents with an article, and then moved it onto the article title, rather than creating a new article properly. I've done the history split to put the new article edits in their proper place, John Shelley (illustrator). The article itself still needs help, but at least the template should be ok now. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputes with moving "Bagram Air Base" to "Bagram Airfield" (Talk Page)

It seems a great bit of confusion has persisted when it comes to the naming of the Bagram Air Base article. Bagram Air Base (or as I'll refer to it from this point, Airfield) is an Army installation. Following military naming convention Army installations that involve aircraft movement are called Airfields. Airforce installations are called Air Bases (outside of the US) or Air Force Base (inside the US).

I have official websites supporting information referring to Bagram Airfield as the official name for the installation[28][29]. One of these is run by the 455 AEW (USAF), the other is operated by the 82nd which is an Army outfit.

Some editors (mainly one specifically which I'll reference later) believe because "Bagram Air Base" has more hits on Google it qualifies it as the most common name for the installation. Being as I am deployed here I have yet to meet a person who considers it that name -- regardless if it is civilian or military. Furthermore, being as this is an Army installation, I would like to point out how many Army installations call themselves a base[30] (beyond FOB which is a generic term.) Bagram Airfield is even shortened to "BAF" by most personnel here. It is on walls, signs, and official leaderheads. Coins have it, medals, everything references it to Bagram Airfield. Why we're willing to use the wrong name because it might have more hits on Google compounds my confusion.

What I'm finding out now after years of browsing and lightly editing Wikipedia is that misinformation seems OK if it is commonly considered that way. The article reads as if it is informing me that Bagram Airfield is actually called an Air Base. I know from experience as when I was leaving to come here I thought it was Bagram Air Base because of the article. This isn't the first confusing article though; NYT has it listed as "Bagram Air Base" too, which is a misconception. The misconception goes deep enough that some News websites refer to BAF as "Bagram Air Force Base", or Bagram AFB. Entirely wrong and probably accidentally gathered due to finding incorrect references to the name.

Finally I feel an editor (User:MickMacNee) here seems to spend more time arguing why something must be done in accordance with rules then for being factual. A quick poke around his User talk:MickMacNee shows many people disagree with his demeanor and short sighted views on articles. If you take a look at the Talk page for the article in question MickMacNee has repeatedly ignored many other editors who support such a move to the point of almost being disrespectful. Even my edits to the article to specify that BAF is actually Bagram Airfield were reverted by the editor -- quoting another reference to a rule that is making this article inaccurate.

I simply feel that factual information must take precedence over naming; this being a very small naming issue but considerably important when conveying facts. I'll even reference WP:Ignore_all_rules as a point here. Why should people be mislead into thinking BAF is actually Bagram Air Base when it can be as simple as a quick move and edit.

This almost makes me question how much is accurate on a Wikipedia article -- not because of vandalism; but rules or overzealous editors. I hope you, an Administrator, can understand and see the issue that others and myself see when it comes to this article. I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time but I don't really see any other direction to take this. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who frequents ANI and is not on this daft Drama Holiday is as ever free to verify this user's claims for themselves, seeing as he has such a low opinion of me, because he seems to get enough free time from doing whatever he does in Bagram Air Base to keep bringing this up despite multiple explanations from multiple people. The recent revert he refers to was not to remove the official explanation, but to actualy restore the name used in the majority of the article to match the title, which has been the subject of three failed move requests so far, after he went so far as to not only change the name in the text, but to also to change the title of a reference, and to create an unnecessary article redirect. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perception is everything, my views are based off of a look into your editing behavior and commenting. With that, this is the second time you've made a reference to my workload or schedule. Your attempt at another subtle insult is actually a bit twisted -- I'm willing to take a small fraction of the few hours I have off to support Wikipedia. Ultimately I'm not concerned about your views or mine, but about facts and conveying them completely, not obscurely. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The lede makes it clear which name is official. Which title it's at probably doesn't matter much. So, with that in mind, you two just need to cool out and someone needs to decide that which title has the article and which is a redirect doesn't matter. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 16:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is clear about which is the official name, so what is the problem? Anyone clicking on Bagram Airfield will get the right page and most users will not even notice what the actual URL of the article is. -- Deville (Talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, standard policy is that the proper name is where any article belongs, pointless flapdoodle about what's in the lede aside. The US DOD naming conventions are well-known and the reliable official sources agree with that, the ignorance of civilians and the pouting of veteran dramamongers like MickMacNee aside. --Calton | Talk 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(repeating myself) Calton, save your bullshit about 'veterans' for times when you actually know who you are talking to. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know what I'm talking about. You, as usual, don't. Spouting off like a petulant child when challenged and doing your Internet Tough Guy act from safely behind your keyboard is par for the course, sadly. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but given that have never seemed capable of self-reflection, my pointing this out was pointless, I suppose. I can understood why a Dramaout would be anathema to you, depriving you of the attention you crave. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I will quote myself here from Talk:Bagram_Air_Base#Requested_Move: Articles are named by most common usage. That is why the article Cat Stevens is not called Yusuf Islam (which is his actual name) and why the article Rhode Island is not called State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (which is the State's official name). Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more information."

Wikipedia standard is to go with the more commonly used title. While as recently as Nov 2008, "Bagram Air Base" was by far the more common of the two terms, today it has changed. A simple google search reveals this data: "Bagram Air Base" -wikipedia = about 116,000; "Bagram Air Field" -wikipedia = about 882,000. Therefore, quite simply, the article now should be called Bagram Air Field. Kingturtle (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So Google is the end-all and be-all of use for Wikipedia? Sergey Brin would be proud, I guess. Cat Stevens was Cat Stevens and famous as such long before he changed his name, so that logic doesn't apply: Bagram Air Field has always been Bagram Air Field. The Rhode Island example is so extreme as to be almost unique, so I can't see how it really applies, especially since "Rhode Island" is the short form of the official name, not, you know, factually incorrect.

WP:IAR to deal with reality seems to apply -- especially since it's not even a goddamned rule in the first place, and being used to(rather petulantly) cling to a factually incorrect title. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone knowledgeable, the proper name is indeed Bagram Air Field, a usage even AFCENT observes. Colloquial use of Bagram Air Base, including by reporters (and sometimes offhand by military personnel), simply reflects a commonplace lack of knowledge of the difference between an air field and an air base in US military parlance (or a failure to be precise). That said, this debate is more a matter for an RfC than AN/I. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find me a single post on the talk page that has ever disputed this, then this 'brand new' information might have been usefull. But as it is, it isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just accept that consensus has gone against you, live with it and move on? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The name was Air Base when I arrived, I told it how it was in the three failed move requests, and all I have done is maintain the article per the Maual of Style, unless or until the title gets changed by consensus. This guy's reading of who is doing what is totally false, and you seem to have bought it. MickMacNee (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked ClueBot III for malfunction

Resolved

I've notice for my talk page, that ClueBot III (talk · contribs) went rampage with following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ClueBot_III/Indices/User_talk:AzaToth&diff=302790668&oldid=302781497 thus I've blocked it (which means AN/ANI wont be archived atm). _→AzaToth 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already been unblocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Query regarding off-wiki harassment

What is our current position with regards to on-wiki responses to harassment of Wikipedians conducted via off-wiki sites? Dragons flight (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Like, what kind of "harassment"? Someone dogging your comments on /. because of an on-wiki dispute probably isn't very actionable. But I would block/ban a person who was seriously (and verifiably) harassing another user, even if that harassment was conducted 'on-line', rather than over the phone or in person. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As an addendum, I should note that obviously blocking someone on-wiki wouldn't "stop" harassment off wiki. The justification for the block would be less to literally present disruption than to excuse someone from the community for violating norms (i.e. how we respond to harassment over the phones or in person). Protonk (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Election notice: please distribute widely

Please forgive the cross post: Because of the nature of this announcement, I hope that you will understand why we are posting this in as many high visibility locations as possible.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you may be aware, there is concern that the sitenotices regarding submission of candidacy for the Board of Trustees election were not seen anywhere but Meta after the 11th of this month. Because of the potentially massive consequence of this, and to encourage a full and active election, the election committee has determined that:

- Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC)

- The period for questioning candidates begins immediately. Candidates that are "late to the party" will, no doubt, be scrutinized by the community. The Committee hopes that the community will work to actively ensure that all candidates receive equivalent questioning.

- The dates of election will not change. The election will begin on 28 July and end on 10 August.

Please know that we recognize the radical nature of altering the schedule in the midst of the election and would not do it if we did not absolutely believe that there was a possibility that others may be interested and qualified and may not have known about the key dates.

For the committee, - Philippe 09:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat

I just received a suicide threat on my talk page from MURachel12 (talk · contribs) and their friend Agm22219990 (talk · contribs). However, I am beginning to doubt its veracity. I already emailed functionaries-en asking for a CU to identify the account. However, is anybody else around that can locate a CU now via IRC or other means to identify the location and contact the appropriate authorities? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not really much of a threat, per se. If I read that right, they're claiming it already happened. Regardless, I've warned MURachel12 about the attacks. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at their follow-on edits and a more careful reading of the deleted articles, I think it is a bad joke. A very bad joke. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to trying to hunt down a checkuser via IRC, it also would be helpful to post a quick request at the SPI page. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles

This page is marked as "superseded." For a long time, it was protected. I noted unexplained edits to it by a new account, User:Overbuljongterningpakkmesterassistent and reverted them back to a version from May 2009. The user did not respond to a question on his talk page for an explanation of the changes to the page. Should this page be protected, deleted, or left for anyone to edit? Do we need a list, apparently of historic interest only, of titles that no one could create? If we do need it for reference, is it a suitable place for new accounts to edit, and were these edits helpful or not, since I'm not sure what the effect of the changes was. Edison (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt the edits were constructive, given the user's previous edit to Midnight. I might guess the user is frustrated, which would be kind of understandable, given that an article the user created was inappropriately labelled "patent nonsense" within two minutes of creation [31], and that constructive content the user added was inexplicably (inadvertantly?) deleted [32]. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: the content deletion was indeed inadvertant (User_talk:Beemer69#Patent_nonsense). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(Topic) ban of Interestedinfairness

Note: This page has been moved from the archive as the issue has not been resolved

Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) is an Albanian user which has strong views about Kosovo. Which is fine in itself, except that he tries to push his views by all means available, violating WP:BATTLE, WP:ARBMAC, and a number of other policies such as WP:NPOV. I'm really surprised how he wasn't indefinitely (topic) banned so far. A few pieces of evidence follow; it's not difficult to find more just browsing through *all* his contribs:

• AN search: [33]
• Previous discussion on topic ban [34] ended prematurely because he was ostensibly indef-blocked. However, the block was soon lifted and he returned to his old ways.
• 1-month topic-banned from Kosovo by Mangojuice on June 6. [35]
• Yesterday, at Slavic peoples, Talk:Slavic_peoples#Neutrality_tag consensus on the talk page is reached that his neutrality tag, based on just the "wrong" map, is unjustified. He reinstates it [36].
• Yesterday, on Kosovo, he inserts cn's just after the references: [37], with a snide edit summary
• A nice example of WP:TE on Serbia: [38]. (Yesterday)
• There's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Interestedinfairness, but it didn't prove alternate accounts other than IPs, and he apparently wasn't Mr.Neutral (talk · contribs).

I propose a complete ban, or topic ban from Kosovo, Serbia and Albania-related articles. Since all his contributions are in this area, the difference between the two is purely nominal. (I probably won't be around in the next couple of days, so I can't submit additional evidence, but I think that contribs speak volumes) No such user (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another ridiculous attempt to silence me by a user who cannot use the talk pages to rebuttal. As soon as I start challenging the status-quo of articles which do not conform to the NPOV policy I have a case opened against me. But just like the past case here and the sock puppet investigation launched here, there is only a vendetta against me, no real evidence. I am not even going to bother to respond to your "examples" of my "unlawful" behavior. The edits speak for them selves. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)).

I feel I had to break a lance in favor of Int here:

• I don't find a WP:TE on Serbia: [39] by Int. If it is stated that the Greeks colonized the southern area IV BC Romans north area II AD so natural question is what did they colonized?Were there any people etc Everyone accepts the fact that Illyrians laid in Serb territory at that time and their history on that area, what kind of WP:TE is here?! Romans and Greeks are mentioned, but the Illyrians the people who really lived and inhabited the areas should not be mentioned?! And if they are mentioned this is tendentious?!Why?It is the opposite standing that could look tendentious. Everyone mentioned except Illyrians, the people who inhabited the area?! SO no WP:TE here.
• As for the cn tags I agree that it is wrong to put them behind ref, but I must stress the fact that Int didn't remove anything from the text, he was pointing to the POV standing of the author(maybe in wrong way with his cn tags) and when he discussed in the talk page here [40] none tried to discuss according to WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:R etc wiki rules, the result was a personal attack and a topic ban proposal.
• For the previous accusations of sock and etc there has been much said before, Int wasn't guilty I don't know why it was brought up here again. Aigest (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IIF's persistent pushing of "Kosovo is a country" on Slavic peoples is disruptive and, in my view, tendentious. It illustrates a problem faced by any article whose scope includes the Balkans or any map covering that region: until the statehood of Kosovo is determined either at some binding international level or by en.wiki policy such articles can't do right for doing wrong. IIF accuses Slavic people of non-neutrality because it contains a map - intended to give readers a general geographical awareness of the distribution of Slavs at a resolution level limited to countries - which does not show Kosovo as separate from Serbia. IIF is on a hiding to nothing trying to force such articles to change their depiction of Kosovo, because the Serbians will then be justified in jumping in and demanding a reversion. IIF has ignored the substantive arguments made on the article's talk page and continued to push his own POV. Whatever sanction is applied must take into account not only articles related directly to Kosovo, but also the evidence of IIF's willingness to take his unproductive WP:BATTLEs and WP:SOAPboxes to any other article with a tenuous link. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring: [41] [42] [43] [44], edit-warring and POINTy behavior [45] [46], examples of tendentious editing [47] [48] [49], edit-warring on Illyrians (72 hour block) [50] [51] [52] [53], assumptions of bad faith [54] (opening a bogus sockpuppet investigation), [55] [56] (anyone who disagrees with him is "colluding"), [57] ("an administrator acting in a cavalier way) [58] ("I'm 100% more neutrak), incivility: [59]. He has also cluttered Talk:Illyrians and Talk:Kosovo with countless inane clueless rants for the past two months now, the examples are too many to list. This is an nationalist POV advocacy SPA of the kind we don't need on this encyclopedia. I'm amazed he has gotten away with as much as he's had already. I've seen users get topic banned per ARBMAC for a lot less. I also recommend relocating this section to WP:AE, where it is more appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer a simple dispute. The dispute was a couple of weeks ago. He couldn't accept that Wikipedia consensus was against his POV, and he went ahead with his POV pushing, on the Kosovo article, on many other articles related to Kosovo or Albanians. Let me explain it this way: let's say we all agree that the Alps are a mountain range, but one user simply doesn't and then keeps repeating it. This is pretty much what's happening here. Kosovo is a region, some see it as a province, some as a country, but Interestedinfairness wants it to be a country, even attempting to prove it's not a region or territory. ?!!. I don't even have the energy to repeat all the other Wikipedia rules he has broken, it's all on the Kosovo talk page, or on his talk page... Athenean's examples are proof enough, but there are MANY more examples of Interestedinfairness' disruptive behavior, if you have the energy to look through his edits which are highly disruptive and this is making other constructive editors tired of arguing with this POV-pushing user over and over again. He had his chance, he had many chances, he blew them all. Enough. Simply enough. --Cinéma C 18:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a previously uninvolved editor, who is even 'on his side' (in as much as I support the independence of Kosovo), yet I still seem to be on the reciving end of this user. Two examples in the last couple of days seem indicative of the general manner in which IIF approaches these topics:

He placed a {{neutrality}} tag on Slavic peoples - we eventually worked out that the sole reason was that one of the maps didn't show Kosovo as a disputed region. The map was so small you couldn't make it out, but cue a large section of soapboxing, disrupting to make a point and some wikilawyering for good measure. Even after being asked to get down from the Reichstag, he still continued trying to make some kind of point, and followed up with a snide comment on my talk page.

In addition, a similar incident at Talk:Kosovo#Neuatrality_tags showed all the same hallmarks - disruption, attempts at wikilawyering etc. To conclude, taking into account his other contribs, IIF does not appear to be able to make wholly constructive edits, and his patter of editing is indeed tendentious. I would concur with a topic ban. ninety:one 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So your opinion is more relevant and correct than mine. This seems to be the general line of argumentation followed in this discussion. Heed the administrators advice and take your requests to dispute resolution. dispute resolution. Interestedinfairness (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about a dispute, but rather a topic ban. ninety:one 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus to ban or topic ban Interestedinfairness on Wikipedia. I ask the administrators to take action now. --Cinéma C 22:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I stepped over to the Kosovo article a long time ago, after one of the many calls for more uninvolved editors to help build consensus. IiF engages in some of the most obnoxious and obstructionist forms of the 'Civil POV Push', esp. the 'if consensus goes against me today, I can restart the discussion in two to three days and surely prevail' tactic, wherein multiple similar ideas are presented serially in the hopes that eventually he'll bully, bulldoze, or bore people into letting something get by. Wasn't there an ArbCom bit about this topic, already? ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to remove me from Wikipedia because I point out some utterly ridiculous things on Kosovo-related articles is malicious and vindictive to say the least. I think dispute resolution is where you like-minded peeps want to be, Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrator attention required.

There is consensus to (topic) ban Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) from Kosovo related articles. I ask an administrator to take action now. --Cinéma C 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Extreme abuse surveys

Resolved

Hi all,

Banned User:ResearchEditor has been steadily recreating a series of pages - extreme abuse survey, extreme abuse surveys, Extreme Abuse Survey, the comically-bad misspelled Ex-treme Abuse Survey and the latest Extreme Abuse Surveys - with a series of socks (see here, here). Could the pages be protected from recreation? I'm guessing a series of ludicrous misspellings will ensue, but at least these pages will be dealt with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Abuse Surveys is now deleted and salted.. someone more familiar might want to add variations to the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? . --Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything with ritualabuse.us or ra-info, or endritualabuse.org as urls in the EL or refs section would work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Request Urls {such as extreme-abuse-survey.net, endritualabuse.org or ritualabuse.us)at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. link to evidence ect. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a report and blacklisted the offending URL's. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Extreme_abuse_surveys--Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of resetting ResearchEditor's one-year block--this is the third reset since his original ban. Blueboy96 00:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I had thought it was an indef block because of the sockpuppeting.

Ra-info could still be possibly added, I remember that one being a problem but don't remember seeing it specifically. I'll keep an eye out and flag it if I notice it being a problem.

Ra-info is used legitimately once on satanic ritual abuse ([60]).

Thanks very much to Hu12 for all the work! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Sock account? Ellenlacter (talk · contribs) see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#endritualabuse.org.2C_etal..hmmm--Hu12 (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Editor user:Panehesy has broken her ban at the above article can an admin step in here thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For any admin who looks at the request, the "credential of the ban" has been seriously questioned, so the whole matter has been dealt with the ongoing WP:AE and ArbCom clarification appeal. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. Of course, Wikiscribe clearly knows it.--Caspian blue 20:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They are still currently banned and actually panehesy ban is not much of a disbute,but any who panhesy is still currently banned,challeneging a ban does not lift it--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I said you should've gone to AE instead, not here. That is what I'm talking about.--Caspian blue 21:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked by admin, thanks for your input caspian blue :)--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic and religious conflicts

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts could probably use a few more responses, and eyes. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed anti homophobic terminology policy

I have created Wikipedia:QUEER and its attendant talkpage. Please contribute, publicise, annote, and all that other funky stuff - I am off to bed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BAG nomination

Hello there. Just to let you know that I (Kingpin13) have been nominated for BAG membership. Per the requirements, I'm "spamming" a number of noticeboards, to request input at my nomination, which can be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Kingpin13. Thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors Promoting Somali Towns

I've been having some trouble with editors who are putting things up to promote Somali towns (Bu'aale, Merca) and relevant militant factions, and then putting them back up when I try to remove the advertising material. On his talk page, Rd232/Disembrangler suggested that if the problem happen again I post something over here.

A particular editor copied back in the offending material to the Bu'aale article, but without the inline flags, and then deleted my discussion page item on it. It is getting kind of old having to change things back with folks who wont go to discussion pages except to clear them out. What is to be done in a case like this? --Nogburt (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I try to watch over the Somali-related articles because the country is related to my area of focus (Ethiopia), but for the most part that topic area is a swamp needing a lot of work to bring up to standards. (Surf thru the articles in Category: Somali clans sometime, & see if you don't agree with me they share the worst features of the articles related to Micronations & High schools.) Unfortunately, that amount of clean-up would require the full-time attention of at least one person, & I have my hands full as it is. I can offer some pointers, but unless you want to take on this challenge, maybe the best solution would be to leave this subject area as clearly a mess in order to warn readers that the material is more unreliable than usual for Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I prowl over the ones I've edited before every now and then as it is. I don't know exactly what "full time" is but I put an awful lot of effort into it already. But I am nowhere near an expert on anything Somalia; and only got into the mess in the first place because I casually stumbled on the offending articles. I'll try and work on it a bit more. Pointers would be very useful. --Nogburt (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is there any way I can quickly search for the term "smart" in a set of articles? The phrase "smartest people in..." is very common in these problem articles. --Nogburt (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I could use some help with the Bardera article. I feel like I'm going postal on the thing. Hopefully I'm not overdoing it but the article is a massive mess of POV and style issues. --Nogburt (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of Somalia-related articles on my watchlist; my involvement with them is basically for the same reason that Llywrch gave. Along the lines of his "leave this subject area as clearly a mess" suggestion, I use cleanup tags a lot (example: the sub-clan listing on pretty much any article about a Somali clan is unwieldy, at best, so I've slapped {{Cleanup-laundry}} on a lot of them). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Somalia project relevant to these towns that I should be joining? Surely there must be one... --Nogburt (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sad to report, there isn't. Most of the country-specific groups are being slowly transformed into task forces of Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa. I know user:Middayexpress works in that area so you might want to contact her/him. But this matter appears to be something Admins are unable to help you with their additional rights; we should take this to either your talk page or mine. -- llywrch (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of the recent discussions...

...about community standards — and I'm thinking in particular of Wikipedia:Civility/Poll — is there something we can be doing to minimize the occurrence and/or impact of threads like this one? I know what my take is, but I'm curious what others think. There's also a related RFC here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why does this belong on AN? Protonk (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because I'm directing the question generally to the admin corps, since we're the ones called upon to "enforce" behavior policies. This is a question about how that kind of enforcement works, but it's not necessarily a call for action, because it's a situation that seems to have largely passed. What's a better forum for that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed the civility "poll", is there an actual outcome? If I had the time and energy, what I would do is this: Imagine we are all encyclopedia editors sitting around a conference table in an office building somewhere. If the discussion between a couple people got too heated over some controversial point, the other people at the table might ask one or both of them to step outside until they calm down, so that the rest of the people could continue their business. Have a cup of coffee, or a walk around the block, or play some foosball in the break room, whatever. Then come back and rejoin the conversation with a cool head. Applying this analogy, I would start liberally handing out 3 hour blocks to editors who can't treat each other with decency and respect, even when they disagree. And I would keep it up for as long as it took to get the message across. But, I fear such an approach would be much too controversial. Better to let people treat each other like dirt, it seems. Thatcher 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Foosball? I'm not sure I'd like to work somewhere where the type of behaviour shown by the editor in question would be anything other than a disciplinary matter. --FormerIP (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

An actual outcome? There's a lot of material generated, and by scanning the topics and the volume of responses, you can get some ideas. It could probably use a lot more input, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We come from very diverse backgrounds where standards of respect and professionalism can (perhaps unfortunately) vary significantly. (This would less likely to be an issue where people are usually interviewed or have some sort of check before they sit at the conference table - this doesn't happen here). Before a fair number of people are ready to ask them to leave (for even a short time), sometimes they'd rather the person be shown ways to address the underlying problem, and that they be warned adequately. Just as blocks are used to prevent harm, even short blocks can have harmful effects on the individuals who can otherwise help make this encyclopedia what it is. Perhaps more thought and consideration to these factors would take care of the controversial elements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. Many people would benefit from calm advice on how to edit collaboratively. However, anyone capable of putting two fingers on a keyboard and editing should know that "fuck off wanker" is not an appropriate way to address a colleague. Want one warning? OK, one warning. Then blocks until they get the message. However, I don't want to be dragged out back and shot myself, so I'll leave this one alone. Got better things to do. Thatcher 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I posted here. I'd like to hear from those who would drag you out and shoot you. Why would they do that? Is there a way we can get a bit more on the same page? Are the admins who would take a stand for civility cowed by some other faction? What's up with that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't understand it myself. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree; there's no doubt about it in such a scenario. But controversy can come from a number of situations. For example, a lot of people advocate (or are under the impression) that the sole purpose of this encyclopedia is to "make a free high quality encyclopedia" (aka content contributions - some believe that such contributions are the only quality contributions that are made to wiki). Some such individuals also believe that the part about "in a camraderie of mutual respect among contributors" is not applicable (particularly to those who generate a lot of content contributions). Another example is where people do not care for civility if they don't treat words directed to them or said about them seriously (because we are merely online) - they are ready to be frank and dish it out because they expect others to be like them. Perceived or actual injustices can obviously also contribute to the problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am cowed. [61] If the blocking admin had been anyone other than Jimbo, the admin would be sharing a cement block with Jimmy Hoffa in the foundation of Giant's Stadium, or wherever he is supposed to be. Maybe one day I'll paint that big ol' target on my shirt, but not today. Thatcher 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If it gets to the point where there seems to be support for a community ban of this user, I'll push the button. I won't call him names while doing it, either. I don't see WebHamster and Bishonen to be similar at all, so I'm not sure about the relevance of that situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others is not an ideal that I would be willing to uphold. If I can't block one editor for calling another editor a "little shit", I don't feel comfortable blocking another editor for telling someone to "go fuck yourself". And at least now, I;m not talking about banning, I'm talking about a series of targeted brief blocks when an editor forgets that this is a collaboration built on mutual respect. It might eventually lead to banning if the blocks don't work, of course. Thatcher 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• (multi-ec) I agree that the situation needs to be addressed. I attempted to "suggest" that the level of tone be dialed down on WebHamsters talk page, but it appears that this is not getting better. I certainly do not believe that telling another editor to "go fuck yourself" is acceptable; and I simply can not buy the idea that "fuck off troll" is "Britspeak [...for] "Go away, there's a good chap..." (ref). I think this needs to be looked at, and some sort of resolution developed. — Ched :  ?  17:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm more inclined to believe that "Go away, there's a good chap..." is Britspeak for "fuck off Troll". I wouldn't address anyone at Wikipedia with either. "There's a good chap"? Get you shot around here... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not judging the situation as a whole, but I'm going to have to assume that the statement was made with tongue firmly in cheek – clearly telling anyone to "fuck off" would be considered extremely rude over here. Unless between close friends, its certainly not "Britspeak" for anything other than "fuck off". – Toon 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Go away there's a good chap" is almost as insulting as "go fuck yourself". ALSO there seems to be a reluctance to do anything about unacceptable behaviour from established experienced editors. I have sympathy for that point of view, but I strongly support the various essays about not giving experienced eds a get out of jail free card. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What you fellows are ignoring is the incivility of posting harassing messages on an editor's talk page. Someone who keeps prank calling you (posting baiting, prodding and poking messages that don't have anything to do with article building) should fuck off. It's time the civility police stop dissecting every little word to make sure it's pleasant enough and start considering how editors actually behave towards one another. It's about respect. And the editor told to fuck off has continued to post baiting and unnecessary comments on an editor's talk page where it's quite clear they're not welcome. If the comments were critically important communciation related to encyclopedia building that would be one thing, but they're not. They're trolling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If telling trolls to "fuck off" works, then do it. However, if it blows up in your face, or if you ever hit a false positive, then stop. Right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM, do you really think I'm playing the "civility police" and "dissecting every word"? Huh? Considering your extremely generous readings of other editors' posts, you don't seem to have any of that to spare for someone who dares to say, "why don't we respect each other?" Don't just be a critic; help us. Answer the question with which I opened the thread.

Also, think on this one: how many wrongs does it take to make a right? Will we get there by making excuses, or by setting a high standard, and then holding ourselves to it? Your post here seems to me like excuses. You criticize the addressing of one side without the other. I say, let's address both. Is that a bad idea? Let's stop the trolling, and educate ourselves on how to deal with trolling without compromising our dignity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Until the civility police start looking at the whole picture, not just the use of one word like "fuck", and begin to adopt a more even-handed approach to whatever it is they perceive to be the problem, then nothing's about to change. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear more about this, so that I can apply a more even-handed approach. That's why I started this thread the way I did. See that?

Help teach us how to do this better, but don't make it a case of making excuses for immaturity because "the other guy started it". Using that kind of language is immature, no matter where you're from, and "he started it" is no better an excuse now than it is in nursery school. Are you willing to step up, Mal, and address the side of the issue that you're indicating in a truly professional manner? If so, I'm with you, all the way. Let's not ignore one side of the problem.

I'm not here to be the civility police; I'm here to make this project run better. If that can be accomplished by telling to fuck off, then I will tell them to fuck off, loudly and repeatedly. I've never seen a situation where that actually helped, but I'm open to learning. Are you willing to teach, Mal? If not... don't complain. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be surprised to find that I somewhat agree with you. My point is that jumping down the throat of one editor driven by the behaviour of another to the point of saying "fuck off" reinforces the equally uncivil behaviour of the other. Nothing good can come of that approach. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I'll complain whenever and wherever I choose, about whatever I disagree with, and in particular here about the hypocrisy surrounding the application of the absurd civility policy. It is not my job to teach, it is yours to learn. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Help" is a word for doing useful things, even when they're not your job. I'm not telling you your job; I'm asking you for help. As you are doubtless aware, you may refuse. As for my "job", I get paid for doing that. It's not Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised; you seem to be a reasonable person. I certainly don't think of you as "bad" or "wrong". Perhaps that surprises you!

Do you feel I've jumped down anyone's throat? I think I opened this thread pretty damn neutrally, and my feelings about WH stem from many incidents besides this one. One "fuck off" is nothing. An entrenched "fuck off" attitude is something completely different. I'd like to address both behaviors, because jumping down the throat of the other guy reinforces WebHamsters immature, intemperate, unprofessional reaction. Nothing good can come of that approach, either. Both extremes suck. People sholdn't troll WebHamster. WebHamster should react less like bratty teenager who just learned to curse.

Now, lest we give the other guy a free pass, talk to me about the provocation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking generally. I don't consider that you've jumped down anyone's throat, no, but I can see a few of the usual suspects preparing their run-up. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of all of this, I think this is an oportune time to direct people to WP:NODRAMA, an initiative that started on this page... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to look at the whole picture, which is why I didn't post this thread as "let's block WebHamster". However, I've seen that he's had issues in the past, and when I think of chronically uncivil Wikipedians, I think of him. Anyone who is unable to maintain civility in the face of some baiting is not prepared to work here. There are people who work in very toxic settings, and never tell anyone to "fuck off", nor say "go away, there's a good chap". There are people who actually employ diplomacy, and do it well. If someone can show me that some other approach is better, then sign me up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I can agree that the behavior was not the best on several sides; but, I think it's rather hypocritical to suggest that just because one person acts improperly, that it's acceptable for another person to follow suit. If you feel that WebHamster was "baited", then it's open to any editor to offer advice or warnings. Respect has to start somewhere, and sometimes it's best to start with the most offensive items first. I don't think anyone is complaining about a little "bluntness" here. I think that many folks feel that it has reached the stage of an outright violation of WP:NPA. — Ched :  ?  18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You and several others have mischaracterised some of the points being made here as in some way "excusing" behaviour some may find unacceptable, or as a childish "he started it" kind of argument, but nothing could be further from the truth. GTBacchus's point above where he writes "Anyone who is unable to maintain civility in the face of some baiting is not prepared to work here" is a very good example of what's going wrong here. It's too difficult to tackle the problem at source, so let's give the trolls a get-out-of-jail-free card and go after their targets. In what world does that seem like a rational approach? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this where the misunderstanding is: If I say "people should react better to trolling", it doesn't mean I condone trolling. Analogy: there are fires around, and we're firemen. Most of us use water, but a few seem to be using gasoline instead. If I ask that person to stop using gasoline, does that put me on the fire's side? My only point about incivility is that it's stupid because it makes situations worse. I don't care if you're civil; be smart.

I am 100% ready to go after the source, but it would help if people would stop pouring gas on the fires. It's triage: we have to stop them first.

Also, if someone baits, and someone else rises to it, both are at fault. If you say I'm going after Peter and ignoring Paul, I say you're going after Paul and ignoring Peter. Why do either? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. I'm not "going after" anyone, either Peter or Paul, and I don't see that CoM is either. What I do see though is a mob forming both here and at the associated RfC for Peter to be sacrificed on the holy altar of civility while Paul looks on in glee. Adults ought to be allowed to sort their own relationships out themselves, without being put on the naughty step. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to put anyone on the "naughty step" (that's a new one). I'm here to learn how we can minimize the incidence and fallout of situations such as this. That's why that was the question I asked. I agree that you're not going after Peter or Paul.

There's sorting out relationships, and there's contributing to a toxic atmosphere. Adults can do the former without doing the latter, if they're clever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the personal attack? He didn't call him short or stupid. He made it absolutely 100% clear that he wasn't interested in further discussion on his talk page. Since the banter had little or nothing to do with article content building or collaboration, I don't see what the big deal is and It hink he was well within his rights to make his views known. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to discuss how best to pleasant when some joker keeps popping up on an editor's talk page looking for trouble and trying to pick a fight. In real life if someone does that, they get punched in the face. Lesson learned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the personal attack? Whoever said anything about a personal attack? In real life, people who make it a habit of punching others in the face get arrested. Even in a case where someone should fuck off, telling them "fuck off" makes things worse.

I don't give a fuck about people not being "pleasant". What in shit has "pleasant" got to do with anything? Don't put those shit-for-brains words in my mouth. I think people can be as goddamned vulgar as they want to be, as long as they're not pigfuckingly stupid about it. Let it not be said that I'm shooting for "pleasant" or "nice". I care about effective, and this "strategy" of WebHamsters - it's fucking ineffective. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ched said something about personal attacks: "I don't think anyone is complaining about a little "bluntness" here. I think that many folks feel that it has reached the stage of an outright violation of WP:NPA."

Thank you for communicating in a language I can understand. I think we agree. Editors shouldn't tell each other to fuck off. And editors who go around looking for trouble should fuck off. I think this is resolved. Thanks everyone. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GTB I also agree with you, of course, so does everyone: It's obviously not okay to tell another editor to fuck off. It's also not okay to keep poking an editor with posts on their talk page and to keep bugging them when it's 100% totally clear that such banter is unwelcome. The appropriate Admin response would have been to ask the frustrated editor to please refrain from telling other editors to fuck off and to ask the other editor posting incessantly where they're not welcome to fuck off (buzz off? please move on? get a life?). That's it. After that it should be dropped and the unhappy editor's talk page left alone. There's no need to keep posting there and to keep discussing it ad nauseum. Move the fuck on. If we don't want editors to use foul language, then we need to actually show them some respect and restraint instead of continuing to poke them and acting surprised when they yell. The focus should always be on article content and collaboration. None of this has anything to do with article building, so it's disruptive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM, no. That's just the problem. It's not true that "everyone" agrees that it's not okay to tell another editor to fuck off. People are arguing that it is ok. Again, I don't give a shit about foul language here. I give a shit about collaboration (which WebHamster is on record as saying he's not here to participate in), and about how stupid, stupid behavior like his fucks up the atmosphere for collaboration. So does the stupid, stupid behavior of the person who was provoking him. Both parties acted like little bitty morons. That's a shame, because I'd bet good money they're not morons at all, when you get right down to it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I challenge you to find anywhere that anyone has said it's "okay" to tell other editors to fuck off. What I believe has been said is that if an editor continues to post where they're not welcome they're likely to be told to fuck off. It's a subtle, but important difference. Rest assured that it's not okay to tell anyone to fuck off, but that such a reaction is to be expected when more subtle clues, like go away and please stop posting here are missed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I would accept your challenge, and either find such a post or not, but the Dramaout has begun! I'll see you in article-space... -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(multi-ec) OK, first, I'm not "excusing" anyone for "trolling". Yes, I think that is improper as well. In response to "Where's the personal attack?" ... Well, if someone can't see that telling anyone, anywhere, to "Go fuck yourself" is a personal attack - well, I'm just not equipped to answer that. It seems obvious to me. You're "real life" analogy might have one other consequence as well, the person who punched someone, in many parts of the world, could be looking at legal ramifications for assault. As I said, I don't think it's right "troll" or "bait" - but I think anyone who's got the tenure that WebHamster does, would be better served by pointing the editor to WP:TROLL and WP:DENY. — Ched :  ?  19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have to bear in mind that this incident had its roots in an article's content dispute, something that most administrators seem to have little experience of. Articles, that is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this another excuse? It doesn't matter whether the dispute revolves around content or policy or something else. Editors should treat each other with the same level of mutual respect as if they worked in the same office building and had to share a copier, conference room, toilet, etc. Baiting should not be tolerated but baiting does not excuse reciprocal bad behavior. (I wonder what really would happen if I decided to try and enforce the simple rule that people treat each other with respect. Best not to think about it.) Thatcher 19:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly objectionable, so I'm not offering excuses for what doesn't really need to be excused. Sure, I agree that "fuck" off is probably a sub-optimal way to end a discussion with a troll, but if it works ... If you're looking to enforce "rules", then I'd suggest that you take WP:NPA a little more to heart and ignore WP:CIV. That way you might feel able to tackle the trolls as well as their victims. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

← In the interest of fairness, I've tried to approach this in a manner that might address the concerns about "baiting and trolling" by posting a message: here. — Ched :  ?  19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the pursed lips. The soul-searching. The hand-wringing, the sanctimonious twaddle, the moron-calling. And all because? A needled B. B told A to fuck off. The upshot: B gave A what he was very clearly asking for.

For heaven's sake. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter. And really, the "atmosphere for collaboration" can survive the odd person acting like a jerk and another calling him on it without sysops getting their knickers in a twist and going all UN Security Council Emergency Meeting. There's no threat to the project here. Mountains and molehills come to mind. And pot-stirring. And storms in teacups. This should have been left to blow over at the pathetic RfC/U. Writegeist (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the tragedy of the commons. Everyone thinks their one little bit of poison being released into the environment is by itself no big deal, but pretty soon you get a toxic atmosphere. If the community can somehow be tipped over into a different mindset, that converting the vitriol into constructive energy is better for everyone than venting it, the atmosphere will start to clear. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Collapse of off topic fork - Ched

So long as Giano and Malleus Fatuorum get to continue to make personal attacks on whomever whenever they want to, with no consequences, there's no point in even addressing civility. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Where did Malleus attack anyone? — Ched :  ?  21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Ha! Where didn't he? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Has the irony of you using this discussion to personally attack me entirely escaped you? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) You've been blocked four times for incivility, and not nearly enough considering the number of times you let the vitriol fly. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC) If you're not going to contribute to the discussion in a helpful way, please walk away. People here, including Malleus, seem to be working, against long odds, to do some productive brainstorming/thinking. It may not work, but so far they might even be partially succeeding, and you are not helping. Indeed, based on your own words, you appear to be trying to derail it. Please don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Really? Giano just got blocked. Doesn't look like he was "working ... to do some productive brainstorming". And what productivity is Malleus providing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Do you really regard your contributions here as helpful, or constructive? Or is it simply your intention to provoke me into a response that will justify you calling for me to be blocked? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Well, let me tell you what I think, which is that you, "gentleman", haven't been blocked nearly often enough for your repeated personal attacks against me and others. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I collapsed several posts because they were not on the topic currently being discussed. If there is something specific to warrant a discussion of another editor or another topic, please start a new thread (perhaps at AN/I). Thank you. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that the rules are not quite as often stated. Established editors, as well as being on a much shorter leash than trolls, are supposed to sit quietly by while being repeatedly insulted. No wonder some occasionally snap with a "fuck off". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  False dichotomy. They're not supposed to sit quietly by or to say "fuck off". Nobody has said they are. They're supposed to respond intelligently. Nobody should sit quietly by, and nobody should say "fuck off". There are much better options than those two. They're supposed to put out the fire without using gasoline. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In a more perfect world admins would actually help resolve editing and content disputes. Imagine how much more would be accomplished if these arbiters of justice actually engaged in content building and article improvement instead of waiting around until an aggrevied party tells a troll to fuck off and then issuing a righteous block. The daft buggers also seem unable to grasp how uncivil it is to block someone with little or no effort to resolve the issues involved in a collegial way. The parochialism reminds me of the parent who smacks around their kids to teach them not to hit. Do as they say not as they do. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of what I think you're saying, which is that more administrators ought to be working at the trenches, and sorting out problems as they see them arise, instead of sitting here waiting to pounce on every report of a naughty word being used. Naturally though I can't endorse your description of "daft buggers". One of the blocks that "gentleman" so gleefully referred to above was for my suggestion that an unnamed editor was a "sycophantic wannabee", so clearly I have to walk on eggshells around trigger-happy administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There's some serious distortion of the situation with WebHamster. His incivility is not confined to his Talk page. After a a Third Opinion was solicited (by moi), he commented on my "stupid comments" and "inane questions" and lack of "a clue." [62]. We were editing an article together, and the comments on his Talk page came from the need to work together. The idea that I shouldn't be posting on his Talk page neglects the fact that he is reverting edits on an article. The idea that he has been provoked by trolling is undocumented and laughable, unless you consider requests for civility to be trolling. The only comment I made that I consider provocative was about his "Nero complex". This was after, oh, six or seven instances being insulted and told to fuck off. I find it incredibly bizarre that his repeated abuse is supposed to be partly excused by "trolling," but my frustration isn't excused by being called stupid, inane, etc. over and over--while having my edit reverted.

WebHamster's incivility isn't a case of a reasonable person just losing his temper, or trolling. WebHamster has flatly stated that he has no commitment to civility: "So you have the choice of no expectation of civility or fucking off and doing what you came here for, ie editing an encyclopaedia." [63] He has flatly stated that telling people to fuck off isn't a personal attack. He has flatly stated he is not going to respect Wikipedia's civility policy. As far as I can tell, admins don't care.

• I have proposed that the civility policy be modified to reflect the rule that is actually practiced, namely, that you can call editors idiots and tell them to fuck off, and there is no consequence. [64] Noloop (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Another point. I find myself feeling (maybe wrongly) entitled to edit-war, because of the lack of enforcement of the civility rules. Nobody deserves to be insulted. If trying to talk to WebHamster results in abuse, you are entitled to not talk to WebHamster. But, you are also entitled to edit articles when he disagrees with you.... Noloop (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just take a moment to think about your position Noloop. Many here have said that "he started it" isn't a valid excuse for bad behaviour, and it isn't. Yet here are you, apparently the Defender of the Wiki, arguing that you may now be entitled to edit-war, because nobody has yet blocked an editor you have fallen out of love with. I see that you can type, but I have serious doubts that you can read, or fully understand what all of those little black squiggles actually mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

re: to Noloop statement. Only one provocative statement you say? That is an interesting, if not unique, counting I would think. I also believe your take that "admins don't care" to be in error - and feel that this thread alone is a testament to that, and have left a closing comment on your talk page as well. As to your entitlement to edit war, I believe that would be an error in judgment also. Best to all — Ched :  ?  12:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of derailing the thread into being about me--you suggested I trolled, and gave no examples. So I speculate. I made one comment I intended flippantly. I didn't say I am entitled to edit war, I described the feeling this situation creates. Meanwhile, Malleus is now suggesting I can't read....incivility in a discussion on the importance of civility. Isn't that special? It's clear that civility isn't valued around here. Please continue the topic specific to me on my Talk page--I think this thread should be more general. Noloop (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As you specifically request this, I will attempt to volunteer even more of my time to provide you with the diffs. you are requesting. The issues of civility have indeed been discussed a great deal lately, GTB indeed started the entire thread with a link to the Poll in question. While that poll has not been closed at this point, and no clearly defined "consensus" has been stated by any person who will be closing the poll, I believe that it is apparent that there are a wide range of views on this topic. Personally, I try to adhere to the WP:CIV guideline to the best of my abilities, and I would hope that others would do the same. Like Thatcher, I am not eager to be taken out back and shot either; however, when I see something that I believe to be a violation of WP:NPA policy - I intend to warn first, and block second. My efforts will be geared at minimizing disruption in regards to those "adminy" actions. Getting back to the direct topic of this thread: I believe that there is enough support here that "fuck off troll", and "go fuck yourself" are unacceptable personal attacks. Two wrongs do not make a right, but there is also evidence here that suggests that "baiting", "trolling", "harassment", and "badgering" need to be addressed as well. At least that is my understanding at the moment. Hopefully all those who have shown an interest in this thread, will not attempt to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. As I also have a life outside of WP, it may take a day or two to provide the specific "examples" that you are requesting; but I will attempt to do so when time permits. — Ched :  ?  16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How would you propose that I should be dealt with Noloop? A week's block for upsetting you perhaps? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One point that should be mentioned here is that far too many people seem to think that the banhammer solves all behavior problems, either big or small. Is someone being abusive? Toss a 24-block at them. Someone said "fuck you"? Block them for a week. All of that is just another facet of the problem behind the rule about templating the regulars -- there are always more reasons to do someting than simple malice. What I believe should be done instead is to first ask that person why they are acting that way, especially if they're an established editor who has otherwise demonstrated good judgment. Take, for example, that other infamous incident: had someone intervened by talking to the (admittedly) incivil party, & explained things, maybe an apology would have been forthcoming & the individuals involved would have worked things out & moved past the incident. Instead, without warning the incivil party was struck by the banhammer, & has now effectively left Wikipedia, while the other party not only feels that their problem has not been resolved but has been treated unfairly for acting in good faith. Yes, approaching problems in this way is far more time-consuming, but it's something all of us -- including me -- can start implementing without waiting for some group of Wikipedians to formulate their own solution, & continue to do so even if we do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A point well made Llywrch; I hope others are listening. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To steal an epigram from usenet, Llywrch wins the thread. Exactly spot on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In the Bishonen example, the issue is that he called another editor a "little shit". That needed to be dealt with. No context justifies it, and if he wasn't happy with serving time for it, then too bad. --FormerIP (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying the rules should be enforced isn't the same as saying "the banhammer solves all behavior problems." Do you think all laws should be ignored, because, hey, even when enforced people still break laws? Why use the "banhammer" on vandals? Edit warring? A wiki is collaboration, period. There is no collaboration where there are insults and abuse, period. As for asking WebHamster "why are you acting that way," it was done and his response was that he doesn't give a "fuck" about civility. Now what? Finally, why does blocking have to exclude talking to the person? Wikipedia has rules on civility. Enforce them or drop them. Noloop (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite "enforce them or drop them". It's more like, "model them", and block to prevent disruption as necessary. If the "enforcers" don't model the behaviors they claim to enforce, that's no good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can add anything to GTB's comments that are as sensible as what he wrote. (Or Noloop's pithy statement, "The banhammer does not solve all behavior problems.") the point wasn't to imply that anyone in that incident had a free pass to be offensive. It was that a personal touch would have made more of an impact on the matter than just another block. And we need to remember that -- llywrch (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, the question is how to follow up the personal touch. Ched tried the personal touch (excessively, in my view). WebHamster's response to the attempt was that he "doesn't give a fuck". What next????? I don't think there is an issue with well-meaning people who lose their tempers from time to time. The problem is systemic contempt for civility. For what it's worth, WebHamster's comments toward me just today include "What the fuck are you on about?....As it happens I don't have to address anything you say...Please get over yourself" and "Because I can read English, you obviously can't." Talk:Anti-Americanism#Edit_Warring How can you expect someone to work toward consensus when it means being the target of personal attacks, systemically? Noloop (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me that your question, Noloop, is "What do I do in this instance?" My answer to that is to post the problem here -- or at WP:WQA. No, it won't be a guarranteed quick solution to the problem, but whne we encounter this problem in Real Life(tm), the problem doesn't always get solved promptly. I think we all can remember the incident where one public official told another public official "Fuck yourself" in public & in a professinal atmosphere, & after several years the first has yet to apologize for his behavior. (Maybe the best solution here is to remind our anti-American friend that he is behaving like a well-known US politician. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing noise

This is something I have been doing lately. If I see a harsh back-and-forth in progress, and it is not constructive nor relevant, I simply remove it from the conversation. I haven't measured how effective this actually is, but I think it's good to stem word wars while they are still young. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vorarephilia Article

The article on Vorarephilia was reduced to a couple of sentences some time ago and there has been several large discussions on its talk page with back-and-forth involving the verifiability policy. One side says that because the content was unverifiable it had to be removed (and if u check the article u can see just how bare-bones it is), the other side has been trying to argue for information to be allowed in the article under WP:IAR. I haven't yet looked at old versions of it, but there has to be some reliable (and hopefully verifiable) information more than what the article looks like today. Sorry for not logging in, I started this unaware that I wasn't logged in (normally handled for me by browsers that remember my passwords and such.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.233.38 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking me (or anyone else) to do here. -- Deville (Talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Have u looked at that article? It's been stripped down to almost nothing. Also I havn't read the full (very very very very long) discussion but what I have read on it shows conflicting views of verifiability and ignore all rules, what in the opinion of all u admins would be correct to do in that case? The article for it on Wikifur is significantly better and is similar to older versions of the wikipedia article. Basically I'm saying that reducing over 11,000 bytes to over 2,000 looks very much like vandalism, which a huge discussion hasn't been able to undo. I was hoping to get an actual verdict about whether to add back in all that removed content. I will do my best to improve the article with verifiable sources in the meantime.Scotty Zebulon (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is about (to put it mildly) a very unusual -- if not unbelievable -- sexual fetish. Examining the change these two users appear to be concerned about diff, this seems to be the central point of dispute; there's a sub-dispute over whether to include an external link to some "Furry" websites. While I agree with you that this article is "bare-bones", I wouldn't expand it more than a sentence or two from its current form (specifically, adding something along the lines of "This is a theme or obsession for certain members of furry fandom.<ref>Here add a link to a random relevant website &/or discussion thread as an example people talk/are fascinated about it</ref>") but not much more. Unless someone can find a reliable source for the additional information. (For example, am I to understand that this has never been mentioned in any FAQ for a Usenet group?) There's an old maxim on Wikipedia about NPOV: write the article in a way that your opponent will accept; find the kind of sources that would prove to an incredulous reader that this is not a hoax, & further details are relevant. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Berne/Bern

I closed Talk:Bern#Requested_move as "moved to Bern", however, a user disagrees with my closure. Outside input is desired at User talk:Aervanath#Berne. Thank you.--Aervanath (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This "outside input" has included

• a flat statement that "Bern" is the English name, which is an absurdity (if there were not two, the discussion would not have lasted for five years),
• a declaration that WP:ENGVAR is not guidance because (supposedly) it conflicts with WP:CN (by an editor who thinks Common name trumps everything)
• a declaration that WP:ENGVAR is not guidance because (supposedly) it conflicts with WP:V.

Fortunately, only one of these commenters is an admin, and therefore in a position to do real harm to Wikipedia; but can Aervanath have some higher quality of advice? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship is vacated and replaced with the following:

Mythdon is placed under conduct probabtion

Mythdon is placed under conduct probation for one year, in relation to WikiProject Tokusatsu and Ryulong, broadly construed. This includes, but is not limited to, edit warring and failing to appropriately pursue dispute resolution and to show better communication skills. Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages.

Conduct probation enforcement

Any uninvolved administrator may utilize discretionary sanctions, including topic bans and blocks, to enforce this probation. Acting administrators are encouraged to apply sanctions tailored to the circumstances and context. For the purposes of enforcing this measure, any administrator approached directly by Ryulong for enforcement should not act directly. In such a situation, raise both Ryulong's and Mythdon's conduct in normal venues for review.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Huh, could have used this information about Mythdon yesterday... Tan | 39 19:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete old revisions

Resolved

 –  Done by Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone do me a favour and delete all the old revisions (ie. before yesterday) on St. George's church, Trotton? I created it in a sandbox and moved it over forgetting that sandbox had a history! Thanks! --Tango (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tango (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

Please process this request of Right to Vanish. I request to vanish and be scrubbed as much as is allowed by policy. Please process this with all haste. Bstone (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Help

I have gotten this on my talk page about when an user vandalized a article, and apparently in there message they want to sue this person because of it. I know that Wikipedia dose not allow any type of lawsuit so i would really like some help in appotching this. I would not like to get caught up in anything like this. Thank you--Kyle1278 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not that the lawsuit itself is against policy, just that editing while the lawsuit is going is. I've blocked the account, and hope to get the threat retracted. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for the help.--Kyle1278 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting that several fully protected articles be unprotected

Hi, a few weeks ago, User:PMDrive1061 mistakenly fully protected several articles when he meant to semi-protect them. I brought this to his attention (his responses on my talk page) and he agreed that it'd be fine to unprotect those fully protected articles. He did a few because he was busy at the time, but he has not gotten around to them since; I bumped the thread on his talk page a few weeks after the original thread, but received no response. I assume he is busy, and he's now on a wikibreak, too, so if any admin's got time, please go through his list of protected articles, search for edit=sysop to find the ones that are fully protected, and unprotect them please, thanks. Gary King (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As a note, he is online right now if you haven't reminded him of this. Just had to deal with yet another sock. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I was supposed to be on a break.  :) Again, I am sorry about the mix-up. I'll see what I can do. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed most of these and I'll review the rest later. There were still a couple with full protection. The rest have either been unprotected or are still under semi-protection. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright I think only Magic Carpet (Aladdin) and Talk:Kronk's New Groove are left. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling valid edits vandalism

An administrator from another wikiproject has reverted my edits a number of times, labeling them as vandalism when they were not. See the history of the page. We're having a dispute on the intro of the article, in which I'm trying to follow the Manual of style (but that's another question, irrelevant to the topic). On the talkpage he called my edits vandalism, which is clearly not the case. I asked him not to do so since he's an admin and should know the rules. The answer was another revert with the edit-summary of Do not vandalize anymore. I decided to post an ANI since he has a history of off-wiki stalking me (including e-mail and skype harassment) and all the personal and racist attacks me and fellow editors have had from him plus the fact that he's an admin and should be aware of the rules of the community. --Laveol ^T 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth he is not an administrator here at the English Wikipedia. Shereth 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But an administrator, nevertheless. I mean all wikipedia projects share the same goals and ideals and stuff, no?--Laveol ^T 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that I've missed mentioning he's n admin on another project. Sorry bout that. I thought I had done that - he's an admin on the Macedonian wikipedia. --Laveol ^T 15:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:MacedonianBoy to stop calling good faith edits vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained replaceable fair use tag

• Page: File:Françoise Rosay.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User: Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [65]
• 2nd revert: [66]
• 3rd revert: [67]
• 4th revert: [68]

This user violates 3RR and does not explain where free image is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmouche (talk • contribs)

Have you tried discussing this with Collectonian? Algebraist 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked where free image exists, but he/she didn't answer, instead reverted again with dismissive. See [69]. This is the wrong way to put dispute tag. Collectonian is well aware of the 3RR rules, having been blocked for edit-warring.[70] Carmouche (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Collectonian of this thread; I see no profit in repeatedly reverting when inquiring and discussing the tag is far more likely to result in understanding and improvement. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Garion96#File:Françoise Rosay.jpg and Wbrz where this was already discussed with an administrator. Image uploader was removing the tag against guidelines, and was reverted. I find it very interesting that as soon as he is warned by an admin, someone else pops in to try to revert as well. I notice Carmouche did not mention his extremely inappropriate refactoring of another editor's remark on the issue on the same image[71] nor his own continually bad-faith and inappropriate edit summaries calling the tag a false claim[72] (same wording used by the image uploader FYI[73]) and using "inept" when his refactoring was reverted.[74]. Further no where is one required to explain where a non-free image can be found nor is one required to provide one. The woman lived and obviously met with fans as the picture currently seen, stolen from a website, has her autograph and comments on it. You really think said fan and others never took her photograph? Just because she is no deceased does not mean such free images magically vanish. As another editor noted, it is also likely that some of her works are now in the public domain.[75] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Likely? This guy is grasping at straws here, there is no evidence that some of her works are now in the public domain internationally. We cannot upload European movie screenshots on Commons unless PD in source country. See [76] --Carmouche (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to upload the images to Commons? The English Wikipedia accepts images that are still copyrighted in their home country. --Carnildo (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images are perfectly acceptable for a person who has died until such time as a free image can be found. If someone has died, it's assumed that a free image can not be created. If one ever pops up, then the fair use would be invalid, but until then, as the person is dead, fair use is perfectly legitimate. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Even a stolen autographed picture? Surely a screenshot from one of the films would at least be a better quality image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Stolen? Where did you get the idea that it was stolen? The FUR clearly states where the image was obtained. As for the autograph, it could easily be edited out of the image. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Stolen as in randomly downloaded from site. Considering Europe's stricter copyright violations, I'd be curious as to whether that is still a valid fair use. In either case, we're far off topic at this point. The basic issue was the reverting. Per what I was told by an administrator, the image uploader cannot and should not remove the tag. If they dispute, fine, add the reason why in the template as the template instructions, and wait for an administrator to review. The tag was added in good faith as anyone can see from the discussion I've already linked to and its removal by the uploader was inappropriate (same as removing a CSD tag). Carmouche's popping in to get involved and his posting here does nothing but inflame the issue. He'd already posted his disagreement on the image, and all that remained was admin review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, the discussion should not be on the information page of the file. I've moved it to the talk page where this should have been in the first place. --Farix (Talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reforming vandal?

Please see the discussion at User talk:DifferentStrokesFanboy. If he's sincere, I'm not against him allowing to edit, but I thought I should bring it up here first. Gotta really get back to my break; been here wa-a-a-a-y too long tonight (heavy sigh). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This request comes after 3 years of vandalism; 142 confirmed and/or suspected sockpuppets; approximately 40 of those sockpuppets (including the one under which he claimed to have reformed) designed to harass me. I don't know if Wikipedia has a "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 143 times, shame on me" policy, but I would hope that something of that nature exists. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I see no reason to believe that he has reformed or made any effort to reform. His attitude during the middle of the conversation shows that he hasn't changed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen that kind of behavior in other editors who want to have their blocks lifted, claiming that they're not like Them, but turn out to be the same true-blue liars (sorry for the PA, but I just had to say it) trying to have another shot at mischief. If they can lie their way through, CUs don't. PMDrive, you really deserve to get some Zs. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• 8 socks with edits this month and probably 2 dozen this year? Not really a sign of any reforming there. Mr.Z-man 05:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All I needed to know, my friends. I hadn't taken these issues into account and I know what GaryColemanFan has been through. Consider his future socks blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is User talk:ECW500 deleted? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Lauer Can Suck It!

Resolved

 – WP:RFD seems like the best bet if someone still thinks this needs deleted. –xeno^talk 17:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Will someone who can and knows how, please delete this page. Thanks, - Hordaland (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? It is a plausible redirect. In any event, WP:RFD is the correct location to discuss redirects that you feel are problematic, not here. Shereth 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems (or seemed) like a good faith redirect.[77] Should have been discussed.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored it. I don't watch TV and have no idea what this is about, but if it's plausible then there's no reason to delete it. Friday (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Under BLP special enforcement, I don't believe this should be restored without a clear consensus to do so. Good faith or not, I don't know that having this be a valid URL (albeit a redirected one) is a very good idea. --B (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Friday deleted it and two minutes later undid his own deletion. Did arbcom really forbid admins rethinking their own deletions? On the idea that it's a BLP issue, it's a movieline from a movie he willingly acted in. I believe in BLP, but let's have some common sense. Do we need it as a redirect? That's a question i'm not sure of, but it's nothing that needs to be handled outside of WP:RFD.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the supposedly maligned party is welcoming the catch phrase, and that it's reflected in the text of the target article seems to contravene this decision. –xeno^talk 17:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I only undid my deletion because my reason for it turned out to be wrong. But, I agree with xeno's reasoning above. Friday (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see from the article anything indicating that he is welcoming it. The end of the article says that he is worried his young children will hear it. Maybe I'm missing something? --B (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In any event, I didn't realize when I typed the above that the same admin who deleted it performed the undeletion. That obviously doesn't violate the special enforcement provision - self-reverts are always allowed. --B (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph. Anyhow, he took the role. It's not like this is some internet meme we're proliferating. –xeno^talk 17:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can tell the tone from text. He could have meant that positively, negatively, or indifferently. --B (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading the interview in its entirety seems to indicate enthusiasm. ("It sounded like a hoot") –xeno^talk 17:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The role sounded like a hoot. We have no way of even knowing if he knew about the catchphrase when he took the role. --B (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't these folks usually get a copy of the script? –xeno^talk 18:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For a small cameo like that, the person in question wouldn't need a copy of the entire script, just their scene(s). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

and not the parts where they're maligned? heh. I think a proper RFD may be worthwhile. –xeno^talk 19:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, because they aren't in those scenes; it really is irrelevant in that respect. Even if Lauer did get a copy of the entire script, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't read it; it's not as if he's got nothing better to do with his time than to read an entire movie script. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless the BLP special enforcement was explicitly invoked by the deleting admin, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this. --Conti|✉ 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA Snowball

I see potential for this to snowball, and the editor seems to kind of be requesting an editor review as well as support for his cause. Someone might want to look at it before it snowballs. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blakegripling ph is seemingly light-spirited about the entire affair; it would be best to ask him directly if he wants it to run the full term or not (though the 'crats can step in if it gets too bloody). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Question

Resolved

 – Issue appears to be fixed, thanks to User:B. Black Kite 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dcousino (talk · contribs) is repeatedly trying to place this image into Chile and Chilean wine. I have absolutely zero opinion on the content of the article...I am reverting because it appears to be a blank image on the two computers and three browsers I have checked. I know there are at least two of us who cannot see it, yet Dcousino states that the image works. Can anyone see it? If so...why can't some of us? --Smashville^talk 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Works with no problems for me on Windows Vista (r1.9.0.11) and Mozilla Firefox (r3.0.11). J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for me too on Mac but the images which were not incidentally taken should be tagged as "fair-use-image", so editors with admin tools on Commons should delete them there.--Caspian blue 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the other person where the image fails to load. Both my systems are still XP; but I've tried IE6 and FF3.0 on one system - and IE8 and FF3.5 on the other - purging the cache in each - and still the image fails to load. Could it be a regional issue? I'm suspecting this may be more of a question for WP:VPT or irc channel #wikimedia-tech. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

i have no problem with ubuntu 9.04 and firefox 3.0.11. Guillermo Sánchez Adrián Barilari (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC) P.S: The bottle is a cabernet sauvignon 2006.

Commons had a banner last week saying that there were image rendering problems. Is it possible that there is still a problem? There is a URL that you can use to force regeneration of an image - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Antiguas_reservas_chilean_wine.jpg&w=150 - replace w=150 with the actual width that you want to regenerate. If a thumb of one size is having problems, this page will force it to be regenerated. --B (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When I use that URL, I get a message that the image cannot be rendered because it contains errors. (Firefox 2.0.0 on a rather old Ubuntu Linux system.) Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Weird. Are you using the exact URL or are you changing it to a different width? It works fine for me (Firefox, XP). Can you tell if it is an error from your browser or from the server? --B (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I get the same error when trying to view the full-resolution file in Camino (a Mac browser using the Firefox code base with Mac user interface elements). It's a browser error. The same image looks ok in Safari, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On my Vista system, IE8.0.6001 and Chrome 2.0.172 both result in fail, but it works correctly in FF 3.0.11. Black Kite 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have recompressed it and uploaded the image. Can anyone who was having trouble before CLEAR YOUR BROWSER CACHE, then try http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Antiguas_reservas_chilean_wine.jpg&w=150 as well as viewing it at Chile#Foreign_trade to make sure that this has resolved the issue? (I tried the original image in IE8 on XP and it failed, the new one works, but it obviously needs to be tested on other platforms that had the problem.) --B (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me now, without even clearing the browser cache. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, works in everything now. Marked resolved. Black Kite 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons Helper (Feb 2009 malfunction)

As explained on a page at Commons, Commons:User:Para/CommonsHelper at some point in February 2009, Commons helper managed to corrupt Image descriptions obtained from Wikipedia projects.

Although some of the information can be recovered from the edit summary recorded as part of the transfer in some places this does not exist.

As a number of these images might now be deleted locally, it requires administrator effort to assist in finding and patching the description information on commons.

Another related issue is that at some points Commons Helper appears to have had some issues with accented characters.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

admining help

I forget, do we delete talk pages of redirects? They serve no real value.... but then again if the redirect is a reasonable they are doing no harm. I have found several such pages tagged for speedy deletion, should I hammer them, or just un-tag them and let 'em be. Icewedge (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, we generally leave those alone. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Lots of times they do have value -- they may, for example, contain the reasons why a redirect is being used. Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, we should keep those but I was referring to times where the talk page is just another redirect with only one revision. (and now I see that the page in question has just been deleted [78] under G6) Icewedge (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• There's been contention on this point in the past. Generally, it doesn't matter, though. Personally, I like having the talk page as a redirect as well, and don't see that there's any good reason to delete them, but at the same time, the argument that there's no good reason not to delete them has merit too. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The good reason not to delete them is given above, by Looie496. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• If there's useful discussion, it ought to be kept somewhere; otherwise, meh? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• In general, leave the talk pages alone as a deletion matter. There is no valid speedy deletion criterion under which those talk pages are being tagged, note, so the correct course is to remove the invalid notices. Redirection does not involve deletion, for article or for talk page.

  There's nothing gained by deleting the talk pages, after all. Doing so is just an unnecessary addition to the database size, and an unnecessary loss to the editors who might have discussed the redirect on its talk page, or might be informed by seeing such past talk page discussions by others. Redirects are cheap, and so are their talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Point of clarification: am I correct in interpreting WP:CSD#G8 "non-existent or deleted page" as applying to red links only, not redirects? It seems clear from this discussion, but I've seen G8 applied to Talk pages of redirects. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Crossover (fiction) redirect trouble

The page Crossover (fiction) seems to have some problem with a double redirect with fictional crossover. Check the page history for more information--T1980 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Between this and this, you had a circular redirect. The full history is at Fictional crossover (just a copy-paste for the other) so it should be corrected soon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI, hiding the links really helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputes with moving "Bagram Air Base" to "Bagram Airfield" (Talk Page)

Resolved

 – Administrative action is not needed to resolve this naming dispute. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems a great bit of confusion has persisted when it comes to the naming of the Bagram Air Base article. Bagram Air Base (or as I'll refer to it from this point, Airfield) is an Army installation. Following military naming convention Army installations that involve aircraft movement are called Airfields. Airforce installations are called Air Bases (outside of the US) or Air Force Base (inside the US). I have official websites supporting information referring to Bagram Airfield as the official name for the installation[79][80]. One of these is run by the 455 AEW (USAF), the other is operated by the 82nd which is an Army outfit. Some editors (mainly one specifically which I'll reference later) believe because "Bagram Air Base" has more hits on Google it qualifies it as the most common name for the installation. Being as I am deployed here I have yet to meet a person who considers it that name -- regardless if it is civilian or military. Furthermore, being as this is an Army installation, I would like to point out how many Army installations call themselves a base[81] (beyond FOB which is a generic term.) Bagram Airfield is even shortened to "BAF" by most personnel here. It is on walls, signs, and official leaderheads. Coins have it, medals, everything references it to Bagram Airfield. Why we're willing to use the wrong name because it might have more hits on Google compounds my confusion. What I'm finding out now after years of browsing and lightly editing Wikipedia is that misinformation seems OK if it is commonly considered that way. The article reads as if it is informing me that Bagram Airfield is actually called an Air Base. I know from experience as when I was leaving to come here I thought it was Bagram Air Base because of the article. This isn't the first confusing article though; NYT has it listed as "Bagram Air Base" too, which is a misconception. The misconception goes deep enough that some News websites refer to BAF as "Bagram Air Force Base", or Bagram AFB. Entirely wrong and probably accidentally gathered due to finding incorrect references to the name. Finally I feel an editor (User:MickMacNee) here seems to spend more time arguing why something must be done in accordance with rules then for being factual. A quick poke around his User talk:MickMacNee shows many people disagree with his demeanor and short sighted views on articles. If you take a look at the Talk page for the article in question MickMacNee has repeatedly ignored many other editors who support such a move to the point of almost being disrespectful. Even my edits to the article to specify that BAF is actually Bagram Airfield were reverted by the editor -- quoting another reference to a rule that is making this article inaccurate. I simply feel that factual information must take precedence over naming; this being a very small naming issue but considerably important when conveying facts. I'll even reference WP:Ignore_all_rules as a point here. Why should people be mislead into thinking BAF is actually Bagram Air Base when it can be as simple as a quick move and edit. This almost makes me question how much is accurate on a Wikipedia article -- not because of vandalism; but rules or overzealous editors. I hope you, an Administrator, can understand and see the issue that others and myself see when it comes to this article. I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time but I don't really see any other direction to take this. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Anybody who frequents ANI and is not on this daft Drama Holiday is as ever free to verify this user's claims for themselves, seeing as he has such a low opinion of me, because he seems to get enough free time from doing whatever he does in Bagram Air Base to keep bringing this up despite multiple explanations from multiple people. The recent revert he refers to was not to remove the official explanation, but to actualy restore the name used in the majority of the article to match the title, which has been the subject of three failed move requests so far, after he went so far as to not only change the name in the text, but to also to change the title of a reference, and to create an unnecessary article redirect. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Perception is everything, my views are based off of a look into your editing behavior and commenting. With that, this is the second time you've made a reference to my workload or schedule. Your attempt at another subtle insult is actually a bit twisted -- I'm willing to take a small fraction of the few hours I have off to support Wikipedia. Ultimately I'm not concerned about your views or mine, but about facts and conveying them completely, not obscurely. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC) The lede makes it clear which name is official. Which title it's at probably doesn't matter much. So, with that in mind, you two just need to cool out and someone needs to decide that which title has the article and which is a redirect doesn't matter. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 16:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Agreed, the article is clear about which is the official name, so what is the problem? Anyone clicking on Bagram Airfield will get the right page and most users will not even notice what the actual URL of the article is. -- Deville (Talk) 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Well, standard policy is that the proper name is where any article belongs, pointless flapdoodle about what's in the lede aside. The US DOD naming conventions are well-known and the reliable official sources agree with that, the ignorance of civilians and the pouting of veteran dramamongers like MickMacNee aside. --Calton | Talk 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (repeating myself) Calton, save your bullshit about 'veterans' for times when you actually know who you are talking to. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC) I know what I'm talking about. You, as usual, don't. Spouting off like a petulant child when challenged and doing your Internet Tough Guy act from safely behind your keyboard is par for the course, sadly. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but given that have never seemed capable of self-reflection, my pointing this out was pointless, I suppose. I can understood why a Dramaout would be anathema to you, depriving you of the attention you crave. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I will quote myself here from Talk:Bagram_Air_Base#Requested_Move: Articles are named by most common usage. That is why the article Cat Stevens is not called Yusuf Islam (which is his actual name) and why the article Rhode Island is not called State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (which is the State's official name). Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more information." Wikipedia standard is to go with the more commonly used title. While as recently as Nov 2008, "Bagram Air Base" was by far the more common of the two terms, today it has changed. A simple google search reveals this data: "Bagram Air Base" -wikipedia = about 116,000; "Bagram Air Field" -wikipedia = about 882,000. Therefore, quite simply, the article now should be called Bagram Air Field. Kingturtle (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC) So Google is the end-all and be-all of use for Wikipedia? Sergey Brin would be proud, I guess. Cat Stevens was Cat Stevens and famous as such long before he changed his name, so that logic doesn't apply: Bagram Air Field has always been Bagram Air Field. The Rhode Island example is so extreme as to be almost unique, so I can't see how it really applies, especially since "Rhode Island" is the short form of the official name, not, you know, factually incorrect. WP:IAR to deal with reality seems to apply -- especially since it's not even a goddamned rule in the first place, and being used to(rather petulantly) cling to a factually incorrect title. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Speaking as someone knowledgeable, the proper name is indeed Bagram Air Field, a usage even AFCENT observes. Colloquial use of Bagram Air Base, including by reporters (and sometimes offhand by military personnel), simply reflects a commonplace lack of knowledge of the difference between an air field and an air base in US military parlance (or a failure to be precise). That said, this debate is more a matter for an RfC than AN/I. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) If you can find me a single post on the talk page that has ever disputed this, then this 'brand new' information might have been usefull. But as it is, it isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Why not just accept that consensus has gone against you, live with it and move on? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC) The name was Air Base when I arrived, I told it how it was in the three failed move requests, and all I have done is maintain the article per the Maual of Style, unless or until the title gets changed by consensus. This guy's reading of who is doing what is totally false, and you seem to have bought it. MickMacNee (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Well, let's see, the place is actually named Bagram Air Field (as the article acknowledges), the USAF calls it that (instead of Bagram Air Base), all the official documentation calls it that, and Kingturtle showed above that googling (outside of Wikipedia) turns up the correct name over 7.6 times as often as the incorrect name ... so what's to "buy"? Why the passionate insistence on keeping the article at the wrong name? This has definitely got to be in the running for one of the more inane "move wars" ever. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I'm pulling this out of archive as it was never resolved. Ultimately I'm not concerned about MickMacNee's editing behavior in the article but more the naming of the article to match with the installation / factual name, not the misconception of the name. With the support and information above I'm hopeful the article name would be changed as result of this discussion. -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 03:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC) This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, in my opinion. Or even WP:RM. Just not here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication of half-year summary of arbitration activities

Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. Comments and feedback are invited on the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Request removal of rollback privileges?

It's been a while since I was granted this, so I've forgotten how it used to work for me, but I think to be able to "revert an edit identified as vandalism" one needs rollback privileges, correct? Well, User:Catterick appears to be abusing this privilege [82]. I believe it should be revoked for him. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The reversions made by Catterick appear to have been done by means of the automated editing tool Twinkle. The user does not have the built-in rollback enabled. Nakon 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK. Thankyou for checking, anyway. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: If this user was misusing twinkle with his reverts, what were you doing with this revert? — Aitias // discussion 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, I did not identify it as "vandalism". This editor is a known trouble maker, by the way. A glimpse into his tendencies can be found with his most recent garbled rant on the talk page [83] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor is abusing my edits to appease Ghymrtle and to be "taken seriously" by his ilk, for he fears their prejudicial hatred of anything percieved as Anglo-British will offend them and then they won't listen to him. This is old fighting and I wish they would leave me alone. Check out Talk:English_people#Trying_again_doesn.27t_help. Apparently, this editor is trying to get rid of my by getting you all involved. Don't take the bait. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are ganging up on me as usual, the same old suspects. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, despite the request to stop doing this from Nakon, he has made the same edit a third time, for the third time labelling it as reverting vandalism. [84] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem revert warring can be interpreted as vandalism. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And a fourth revert. Do I need to waste my time posting a 3RR report or can an admin take action? [85] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey, the same harrassers are back in play. When will they stop their filibustering of all my edits and just leave me alone? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This user could be placed on the twinkle blacklist. Triplestop x3 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know that a blacklist now exists, thanks. Nakon 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have both blocked the user for edit warring and revoked his twinkle access. — Aitias // discussion 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think something stronger is called for with this user. Despite being asked to leave the block notice on his talk page, he has repeatedly removed it. And now look at the language used in their latest post [86] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

CAT:RFU being overrun

The unblock requests category has been rather backlogged for several days now; if you've made a recent block, please stop by to see if it's been appealed; if not, stop by anyway to see if some of these requests can be handled. Please remember to check Category:Unblock on hold as well, those sometimes get forgotten. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno, the size of the category is down by half now. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist preventing me from listing a mirror

I am trying to list a mirror site at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu, but the spam filter is blocking me from doing so. How do I get around this? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• try adding nowiki tags to the link. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that worked. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Hartlepool_College

Could an image expert please take a look at this user's contributions, mainly with regard to his copyright statement? I would do it myself but there are meatspace issues (hence writing while logged out). 79.68.170.99 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message about their image upload copyrights - they appear to be contraindicatory (releasing under CC 3.0 while simultaneously asserting copyright and implying image use permission is required.) Exxolon (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As the account in question has not edited in nearly a year this may require administrative intervention to ascertain whether the images should be deleted forthwith for not complying with our policies. Exxolon (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the account was blocked indefinitely, so it's unlikely that he/she will reply. Some pro-active admin action is required. Note, some of those images have been automatically uploaded to Commons. 79.68.160.150 (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, is it too much to ask for admins to put block notices on talkpages so we don't end up asking questions of someone who can't respond and looking like idiots?? Exxolon (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Guineapiglarcomuseum.jpg

Could an admin please check File:Guineapiglarcomuseum.jpg to see if it has an actual source? I worry that the uploader may have not realized that photos of PD 3d art are still considered copyrighted, and there is no indication of the photographer. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a several-hundreds year old artifact. I don't think there's a copyright on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The question is not the copyright on the artifact, but on the photograph of the artifact. I don't know anything about Peruvian law but in most places photos of 3d objects are considered creative works. The now-deleted local version of the file said only "Moche Guinea Pig. 200 A.D. Larco Museum Collection. Lima, Peru. Free Use. {{GFDL}}" so it's far from clear who took the photo or whether the uploader had the right to upload it. It was uploaded by Lyndsayruell (talk · contribs) who has also uploaded many other similar images. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guineapiglarcomuseum.jpg. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of community ban: Igorberger

Resolved

 – Igorberger provisionally unblocked pending mentoring program with User:Franamax - unblocking dealt with by User:John Vandenberg --VS ^talk 10:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm entirely unfamiliar with this case, but I was clearing out CAT:RFU per Hersfold's prompting above and noticed this user is requesting a review of the ban enacted a year ago. See discussion. User's unblock request reproduced below for ease of reference. –xenotalk 14:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) “ I have been away from editing Wikipedia for over a year. I took time off to think about what has happened and not to have the same situation repeat itself. I was disruptive to the project and I wish to apologize for my behavior. I spoke to admin Barneca, and he recommended that I put in the unblock request. He is not currently editing Wikipedia actively, but he said if the unblocking admin needs to communicate with him, he should email him. Thank you for considering my request. Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC) ” Igor emailed me with an unblock request earlier today, and since I'm not here anymore, I suggested the {{unblock}} template approach. Since this probably counts as one of the "unresolved issues" I mentioned on my talk page, I'll unretire in order to comment. I'd be inclined to unblock. I'm cautiously hopeful that nothing like his previous problems are going to return. The following disorganized points may (or may not) be useful: He and I never got around to the mentorship. At the time, Igor said he didn't feel a need to rush back to Wikipedia (which I took as a good sign) and wanted to wait, I said I would be happy to wait for him to start it up, but heard nothing. Eventually I retired. We did, for some months, exchange occasional emails about miscellanea, much of it Wikipedia related. He didn't exhibit any of the combativeness that marked his last few days of editing here. I seem to recall in the first few weeks someone saying on his talk page that this delay meant that he had "refused" mentorship, or that he was refusing to do things I was suggesting he do. That is not the case. Someone should dig up the old AN or ANI thread and look at the external sites mentioned, and see if the attacks were taken down. I seem to recall they were, but haven't looked in ages. 90% of the problem, I think, was Igor going into bunker-mentality mode, and acting as if anyone who criticized him was "out to get him", and an enemy to be vanquished. I think a lot of it was editing under the influence of adrenaline, and being unable to drop things and move on. A year's break seems likely to have cured that. I note that, for (I think) the first time ever, he's admitted his previous behavior was disruptive. I'm pretty sure he hasn't been socking (at least until February, when I stopped keeping an eye out. No way to guarantee, of course, but for one thing I don't think he'd be any good at it, and would have been found out), which bodes well. While I'm not sure it should be a condition for an unblock, I strongly urge Igor to find an established editor as a mentor, and promise to check in with the mentor for advice if he starts feeling stressed, or if people begin to complain about his behavior. I think this is better than some kind of pre-unblock mentoring. In short, why not? We've given much more disruptive people another chance, even when they'd been socking to evade their ban. Easy to reblock if problems recur, and we've gained an editor if they don't. If the unblock does go through, Just relax and take it easy, OK Igor? --barneca (ret.) (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I'm a fan of 2nd chances, so if there's no objections raised in the next little while, I will unblock based on barneca's assessment of the situation. –xenotalk 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I remember him from last time round and he was an absolute pain and seems completely oblivious to this. I kinda got the impression that he was either completely incapable of change or playing around with some breaching experiment of some kind. I'm very cautious of an unblock since neither of the factors bodes well for his future editing. I'd only be inclined to endorse an unblock if there was a clear plan to manage his behaviour and perhaps some indications that his return was going to add some value on the content side. Otherwise it might be a case of just adding to the drama round here. Wikipedia already has enough editors who wilfully don't get it and who are unnecessarily disruptive as a result. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I would support the unblock as any disruption can be quickly and easily mitigated by a reinstatement of the indef block. In cases like this one does not have to go through the full set of warnings and dozens of paragraphs of discussion before blocking the user as one has to with a new user (or as seems to be the case with disruptive users, whether or not one has to), so any drama which might be caused by unblocking this user can be immediately eliminated by re-blocking on the first offense. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC) As the blocking admin I will/have sent a few other messages to persons closely involved in the original block for their consideration of the matter also. I will also consider this matter and make my own view on unblocking known sometime later today (after I get through a few RL issues).--VS talk 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I don't see any harm in this, since a reblock will be swift if anything untowards happens, so I'd like to leave it up to VirtualSteve along with any input he might want from Barneca. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Not sure a guy who calls himself "Igor the Troll" and runs this website (somewhat NSFW - and I recommend the blog) can be trusted to contribute productively. Skinwalker (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I'd forgotten about that website. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I think Gwen Gale has the wisdom on this. Listen to her. Crafty (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I do not have a final view on this as yet but I wonder what others think about sites such as this one which reinforces the troll theme and details that his contributions to WipiPedia include being a wikipedia stalker - and a comment You fuck with me, I will Troll you for life!. Whilst I appreciate they are off-wiki sites they are the same sites that were listed and argued about during the last ANI diffed by xeno above, and link to another lengthy AN discussion here one month earlier and they are still maintained by Igor. Given that Igorberger did not finalise his mentorship with Barneca and we have nothing but his relative silence over the past year (he has edited slightly at his talk page from time to time) our question should be is there enough here to see Igor unblocked or should he still go through a mentorship program as concluded at the last ANI, and offered by Barneca but not finalised by Igor?--VS talk 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Further to my points above - Skinwalker's link to here is most apt - scrolling down the blog one notice's that Igor has been blocked and banned from other sites and clearly continues at this time to have a strong POV on issues that landed him in trouble here earlier. Thoughts on these points anyone?--VS talk 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I am not currently very active in editing Wikipedia, but did have some communication with user:Igor Berger at the time of blocking about a year ago. I would think that as a general rule, we would give a second chance to any user who has the intention of contributing to this project in a positive way. That would seem to apply here. Although there is no indication that the user has any special area of expertise, they did seem to wish for positive things, although there was a tendency to go overboard with opposition to perceived problems. I hope that is no longer the case. I am not in a position to examine the material from other sites which might have the effect of raising doubts about this user; regarding such material, I wonder if there has been any recent or current activity there which is questionable, or whether there is only the old stuff there. If there is a question of specific offence being given to any particular user, then I feel that user:Igor Berger ought to address that matter in a courteous way. If there is no current problem there then, as I said, I would be inclined to extend our customary second chance in this case, and hope that user:Igor Berger is in a position to appreciate such consideration and act accordingly. Cheers, NewbyG ( talk) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC) How about giving Igor a chance to copy an article to his userspace and work on it there. If he demonstrates the ability to contribute productively, he could be allowed to edit freely subject to a condition that he may be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator if he returns to prior disruptive style editing. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Whilst I still have concerns that Igor will return to disruptive editing at places like ANI etc I do agree with and support Jonathan's suggestion above - although I would suggest a time frame of say a few weeks of editing at his userspace is set at first as this would allow him to interact with others who came to his userspace to copy edit, assist etc with the article he was working on. Perhaps if Igor indicated at his talk page now what article (new?) he would like to work on then Xeno can act as they see fit given that they are considering the unblock request.--VS talk 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) VS pointed me to this discussion. I think a year is quite a lot of opportunity to mature and reflect on things, so I'd have no problem with Igor getting another chance. However I'd like to see a mentor per Barneca and some indication of his intetion to work on content per Spartaz. And I hope we don't see anything more about "Social engineering internet" and the somewhat COI interest in articles about various malwares (if I recall correctly). As far as external sites, if it doesn't spill over to en:wiki, I don't really care. You can have a site advocating poison gas attacks on whales and pandas for all I care, so long as you're making good edits to our articles on flowers and bumblebees. I'm not too enthused about JEH's idea though, little edits may be a better way to start over, rather than trying something overly ambitious. If there's a willing mentor, I say go for it. Franamax (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks Franamax - I note that Igor is now asking for mentoring/support at his talk page also.--VS talk 03:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC) If we're going to unblock him, unblock him and see what he does. If he reoffends, block him for another year. In other words, "What Gwen Gale said". Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Request for provisional unblock of Igorberger I'm in discussion with User:Igorberger about pursuing Jehochman's idea for "2nd chance" editing (+whatever) and created a /Sandbox page for him, which he seems unable to edit. I'll formally ask now for an unblock, conditional on his only editing pages within his userspace for xx days. The unblocking admin can set the quantity xx, and I would suggest a further condition that Igor and I reach a satisfactory mentoring arrangement, and that consensus for a full unblock is reached here. I'm willing to give it a shot, but the first step will be to give Igorberger further access to their userspace. The further reading is at the unblock request thread at the bottom of Igor's utalk. Thanks for the consideration! Franamax (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Y'know, Ivor is (as far as I can tell) an adult. He will either do the right thing by the project and himself or he won't. The whole temp unblock and restricting him to his sandbox for a brief period thing seems a bit pointless. He should either be blocked or unblocked. If he does good, all will be well. If he does bad then I've got no doubts he'll be consigned to WikiHell once again and we'll move on without him. Crafty (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) OK fine. So unblock then please. :) At least give him a chance to start trying to start trying. I've laid out conditions, pointless or not. I just need an unblock. Franamax (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I have provisionally unblocked in order to give the user a second chance. If there are any problems with the mentoring, yell out. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a thinktank of sorts

In reading the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development, it seems clear that users are generally in favour of some sort of focus group to examine issues facing Wikipedia and propose solutions, and are generally against this focus group being invite-only and/or appointed by ArbCom. To make any COI I have here clear: I agree such a group is needed (obviously), I do not agree that it shouldn't necessarily be appointed by ArbCom, I had put my name forward to ArbCom as a selfnom after the announcement, and in deference to community consensus I would not now accept such an appointment in the incredibly remote chance it were to be offered.

Accordingly, I have proposed a framework for creating such a group here (WP:DEVCOM), being mindful of concerns about power concentration, scope creep, and so on. Your input would be valuable. → ROUX ₪ 02:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Get ready for fireworks at New Atheism

Resolved

The article was noticed by a popular atheist blog when it was in this state, which frankly got the entire thing wrong and attempted to define New Atheism by quoting its critics. The article definitely had major pov problems, but now it is swinging wildly the other way due to PZ's ninja hordes. :) Needs some attention, maybe even partial protection, and probably an RfC eventually. --72.226.206.86 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Article was redirected to Atheism, which properly discusses the subject. Pretty much the best result possible. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

History help needed

So I was pulled in at the last moment to do a segment on the history of Wiki Governance at the conference in NYC this weekend. I have some basic ideas at User:MBisanz/Presentation, but I would be interested in some help filling in blanks, ideas, etc that might make the presentation more interesting. I know it's short notice, but I haven't found that magic page that explains everything yet, so I figured I would ask for help. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool heads requested

Hello. I am currently engaged in a dispute with Simon Dodd (talk · contribs) at Talk:Clarence Thomas. I won't belabor it; you can read it there, but long story short: Simon accused me of violating WP:BLP. I disagreed. It went to the BLP noticeboard, in what I considered a somewhat inconclusive thread. Simon chose a contributor to the thread who agreed with him and pronounced the matter "settled" by his comments. I'm now told that if I won't "accept it", Simon "supposes we're going to have an ongoing edit war until you do." Apparently I am "desperate", have "dug in" despite the "round rejection" of my position, and have "rejected compromise" ([87]).

I am now, apparently, edit-warring "to include my defamatory claim". Simon has filed a Mediation request which I view as, simply, a series of personal attacks, imputations of malice, and abuse. I realize this is a content dispute, sort of, but I don't like how heated it's becoming. Let me be clear that I'm not asking for anyone to block anybody. I'm wondering if we can get more eyes on this situation with the goal of de-escalating and defusing it, reducing the level of personal invective, and heading off the edit-war that Simon has promised. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst pages to post a request for cool heads. This is not the place to post a request for participation in a content dispute. We have the Village Pump and probably more than one WikiProject talk page for that, and WP:CANVASS also gives you some leeway in contacting others. This is the place for some editor who was slyly trying to get hotheads who are on that editor's side to get the consensus that editor doesn't yet have, so (without assuming bad faith of someone I respect) it does Wikipedia no good, nor your reputation, MastCell, to post this kind of message at this spot. I suggested yesterday that you take a little time to think about just what it is that you're trying so hard to get in the article: You want to quote an ostensibly neutral report/analysis that calls a U.S. Supreme Court justice someone who is "far right" on the court. You're not asking that someone's opinion that he's "far right" be mentioned, but that Wikipedia cite that statement the same way we would cite any neutral report, and you want an extensive quote. To oversimplify just a bit, you want Wikipedia's endorsement of the idea that Thomas is "far right". And you want that without having proven that this is the kind of description that neutral sources would commonly use, when in fact they wouldn't.

That is not what Wikipedia was set up to do.

Nor was Wikipedia set up to be a forum for ideological battling and political maneuvering over sensitive, controversial topics.

There is an open discussion at WP:BLPN#Clarence Thomas where I have made several points and asked you to consider them carefully. Now that 24 hours and more have passed, and you still haven't addressed those points, I suggest you re-engage in that discussion, regardless of the Mediation case. WP:CONSENSUS urges reasonable discussion, tending toward compromise, as the way to make content decisions.

That's what Wikipedia was set up to do.

Please support that process. -- Noroton (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a request to help defuse a conflict which I feel has become overly heated, and where various behavioral policies are being edged up against or violated. I don't see how appealing for help in defusing a dispute, in an open and non-partisan venue, constitutes some sort of abuse. If people feel this is a simple content dispute and want to direct me elsewhere, that's fine. I responded to your arguments at length on WP:BLP/N; I felt we'd reached the point where we were both restating our premises without convincing the other; so I made a conscious decision not to keep beating the horse, but to step back in hopes that some additional outside input would be forthcoming.

I will not litigate the content issue here. I think you're greivously misrepresenting both the content and the sourcing of my proposed edits, but that's an issue for the talk page. Neither will I participate in the edit war Simon has promised - I decided a little while ago to self-impose 1RR, at most, on the article for my own sanity. Nor do I think a mediation request - or any discussion - premised on the idea that I'm a biased ideologue bent at any cost on defaming a person I detest, and demanding a topic ban as the outcome of "mediation" - is worth my time. So I'm looking for other ways forward. I'm talking about the fact that things have devolved and personal attacks and accusations of malice are blocking the way forward, and I'm asking for help. I would certainly welcome additional input at the WP:BLP/N thread as well. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If diffusing the situation and improving the article is your goal, the most direct, efficient way of achieving it would be to broaden the discussion to include closely related areas where your position is stronger, achieve some good will with those you disagree with and then suggest alternatives that achieve your legitimate, broader goal of presenting an accurate picture of where Thomas stands ideologically on the court. Offer alternative sourcing and wording that amounts to a win-win. That can be done without including one particular sentence that offends both me and the other editor, and by obstinantly clinging to that one sentence, you are the one raising the heat and dimming the light. Because you're clinging to something offensive, and without a believable justification, you're hurting your own credibility with the other editor and me, and that's why he brought you to mediation. You say you want to settle this on the talk page, but it's your insistance on this point, which should be insignificant to your side (you haven't shown why it should even be important to you), that has brought the matter to BLPN, Mediation and now here. Really, you and everybody else knows that when something your doing doesn't matter much to you but offends others (and its offensiveness has been explained reasonably and at length) that the best thing to do is to give in on the small point as you try to succeed on larger points. I think it should be clear to anyone that a Wikipedia-endorsed statement that Thomas is "far right" is offensive to a number of editors and should not be part of a consensus result. You could make a good case that parts of that article are too favorable to Thomas. So please change your approach so that this doesn't have to bother other editors at so many different forums. -- Noroton (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The dispute arises from Mastcell's insistence that the description "far right" stay in a BLP about someone who isn't on the far right, and that it be presented (as Noroton notes) as neutral analysis rather than opinion. He has rebuffed all attempts to compromise and ignored all attempts to explain to him the BLP problems inherent in using so inflammatory a term, especially when it's unnecessary and inaccurate.

That's the story so far. This chapter opens with this AN posting by Mastcell. It is forum shopping, and should not be entertained. After his position was rejected at the BLP noticeboard, Mastcell continued to revert any attempt to remove the disputed material, whether by outright exclusion or by finding alternative sources that made a nearly identical points without the "far right" language. His claim to want "more eyes on this situation" is thus posture rather than reality: more eyes have already looked at this situation, through BLPN. He didn't like and thus ignored the result.

I then filed a medcab request and notified him of it, explaining why I was skipping the RFC step: [88]. He brought the issue here instead. And that action, too, belies his claim to simply want "more eyes on this situation" and "cooler heads" ([89]): he would get that at medcab, so if that was his goal, he could simply participate in the medcab dispute. That he came here instead - to the admin noticeboard - is telling. It's not hard to read between the lines. What he wants is an admin who agrees with him to stamp their imprimatur on his position. What else could he hope to get here, as opposed to elsewhere - the content noticeboard, for example, or the medcab dispute? If his intent was otherwise, he could simply have stayed in the medcab framework, or compromised in the first place.

Unless Mastcell returns to edit warring (he has suspended fire, for now), we should let the dispute resolution process run its course. The issue is now at medcab, and if Mastcell is sincere in merely wanting more eyes and cooler heads on the situation, he can simply assent to medcab's jurisdiction.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would reject a MedCab case myself, Simon. Your accusations of MastCell are the worst kind of ABF - you are clearly not attempting to work to resolve this amicably. I strongly suggest to you that you consider that MastCell is not only highly experienced, and an admin, but one of our best BLP editors. If he says BLP is one thing, and anyone else says another, I will admit to a strong predilection to simply stamp the issue with "Agree with MastCell" and move on. He's that right about BLP, that often. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A wise Wikipedian, KillerChihuahua, once wrote that "AGF is not a suicide pact. We assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. Once that evidence appears, it is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so." [90] Quite so. With all due respect, you are mistaking arrival in media res as the beginning of the story.

I have attempted to work this out amicably with Mastcell - I have proposed compromises (e.g. [91]) and workarounds (e.g. [92]); they have been ignored, rebuffed or reverted. I solicited third party opinions at the relevant noticeboard, and when the analyses offered there differed from Mstcell (with one exception that misunderstood the situation), he dismissed it as "[un]convincing" ([93]), ignored it, and accused me of dishonesty ([94] (edit summary)). When I took the issue to medcab, he went forum shopping and brought the issue here instead. And this, by the way, might be thought to be canvassing ("Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion[, and] ... encouraging them to participate in the discussion"). He notified one participant from the BLPN thread that the discussion was ongoing at the article talk page, and did so in the belief (I think mistaken, but that's irrelevant) that s/he supports Mastcell's position ([95]). And let's not even get into posting links to disputes that I have already linked to as if to imply that I'm misquoting or obscuring sources. I assumed good faith until Mastcell's edits and behavior demonstrated it was absent, and as that wise wikipedian said, "is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of your post, I repeat myself: if anyone ever suggests MedCab to me, I will reject it. No insult is intended to the good people who volunteer there; I have had several bad experiences. I will accept MedCom, but not MedCab. Its that simple. I suggest you stop suggesting MastCell should have accepted MedCab. MedCab is most helpful to those who really don't know WP policy. For more difficult disputes, it is often out of its depth. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WP:RFM's requirement that "parties should attempt informal resolution prior to filing" a request for formal mediation made an attempt to resolve the dispute through medcab the gateway to medcom? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of dispute resolution is always to try to resolve things with the other editor. Other venues exist, such as Rfc, both article and individual; 3o; very informal mediation on a sub-page between several parties, etc. No specific venue is a prerequisite, and very few (I would even say almost none) of the MedCom cases come from MedCab. Generally, parties choose either MedCab or MedCom at that stage, not one then the other. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained on the talk page, I don't think that RFC will be helpful. My experience with RFCs is that it's a crapshoot whether you get any input and they can take weeks - which is useless without some kind of process for determining what the article looks like while the RFC is open (eventualism has no place whatsoever in the BLP context, see WP:BLPSTYLE; see also Wikipedia:Living People Patrol/Development; User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem). In most bilateral content disputes, both sides will always be happy to be patient while an RFC runs provided that the article reflects their desired status for the duration. I'm happy to punt it to medcom if medcab proves unhelpful; frankly, I anticipated going there anyway, in due course (that's why I said above that "we should let the dispute resolution process run its course" rather than "we should let medcab run its course").- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Simon, it would be easier to resolve this if you redacted some of the comments MastCell objected to. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Wikipedia creates an environment where it's easy to get offended and offend on the basis of misunderstandings, innocent errors and minor breaches of various policies -- especially when discussions have turned hot, as they tend to do on sensitive topics. It's particularly easy to get offended and then look like a POV pusher, but MastCell has a good reputation for a reason. Better to tone it down, look the other way and assume you might have been mistaken, and do all this for a while longer than you think reasonable. It really is so much easier than going through dispute resolution (chewing glass is easier). I don't think we're dealing with a POV pusher here. Continued reasonable discussion would lead to a better result. I'm going to redact some of my own comments at BLPN as a start. -- Noroton (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

People with bad reputations can be right and people with good reputations can be wrong. I have no idea what MastCell's reputation is, but in this instance he's wrong, and he's insistent about it, as the history demonstrates. As to removing earlier comments, I'm generally opposed to doing that sort of thing, but if Mastcell has particular comments that he thinks it'll help cordiality to remove, I'll do so.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're serious, it might be worth starting with your Mediation Request - just look through it and strike anything that you think might be hampering cordiality, or successful mediation. For the sake of accuracy, it may also be worth correcting your erroneous assertions about the content of the BLP/N thread, now that the issue has been clarified. However, as your stated goal in entering mediation was to ensure that your edit "sticks", regardless of the details, consider your mission accomplished. Given your stated and demonstrated willingness to edit-war, and the value I place on my sanity and enjoyment of Wikipedia, I'm not interested in editing the article at all in the environment currently sustained there. I don't see a lot of utility unless additional eyes and outside editors are willing to get involved. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) I didn't accept your characterization of the medcab request (or, respectfully, that advanced by KC). Nevertheless, I have edited the wording in an effort to comply with this request. (2) I have not edited the wording on the talk page regarding the BLPN thread because what I said there was neither "[in]accura[te]" nor "erroneous." (3) I have struck through and tentatively withdrawn the medcab request so far as it pertains to you, since it is mooted by your agreement here to cease inserting the disputed text.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that answers all of my remaining questions about whether you were serious. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More eyes on killing copyvios

Could we get a bit of extra eyes on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations? Entries are starting to hang around for well over a week; if we could cut the list in half or so, that'd be nice.

That's all. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction; the entries are two weeks old. It would be much appreciated indeed if fellow administrators could take a look; I'm going to try to take a weedwhacker myself to it in the morning. — madman bum and angel 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please help with CSD

severe backlog Enigma^msg 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Call that a backlog? Pfft! --Stephen 09:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The message is several hours old, I guess some admins heeded the call and cleared it. Regards SoWhy 09:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Backlogged once again. Well over a hundred pages/images. Enigma^msg 07:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just sayin', but 100 is hardly a severe backlog for CAT:CSD. Time to go "nuke" some articles. lifebaka++ 14:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a severe backlog now, but it was when I started this thread (over 150). Relatively speaking, 100 isn't much simply because admins are accustomed to letting the category grow and grow. I would hope it could be kept under 50, but not many other admins are doing a lot of CSD work. Enigma^msg 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu: close requested

I'm requesting an uninvolved admin to close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu, which has been running for 35 days now. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Will someone who has not participated in this discussion come and evaluate it and close it? It's now been active for a little over a month. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Exploding Boy beat me to it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Combined threads under a single descriptive header. –xeno^talk 20:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody? Anybody? We're now on day 36. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. This'll take some time, if someone else is handling this, please tell me. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that 99% of RFCs are never really "closed", they just kinda stop then get archived. Not the way it should work, but that's how it is. Wizardman 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Protect Mark Buehrle (moved)

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

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible highjacked account (moved)

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

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking by a dynamic IP address

Thread merged with identical thread on WP:ANI --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of this page

Traditionally, this noticeboard is used for things of general interest to administrators (and experienced users), often worth leaving up for a while.

The aim for Incidents and help requests on specific issues (user problems etc) is to get help, and archive as soon as the matter goes quiet for a couple of days.

If this page gets used for transient help and incident requests, notices that need wider awareness get lost and removed quickly, and their audience misses them.

Notices posted here that would be better on WP:ANI, might be moved there so that users who check this page for "matters of general interest" can do so.

I've added a simple explanatory editnotice to this page pending consensus.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• ":seems a logical way to go. DGG (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely sure I agree with the editnotice in its current form. As I understand it, AN is for complex disputes and such, while ANI is for incidents requiring immediate administrator intervention. Announcements and general information should go at a relevant village pump. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, even complex disputes are routinely discussed as "incidents" at ANI. What tends to happen is as they get complex, a subpage is created (see ANI example subpages). AN is not for "more complex cases", it's specifically for actual announcements, information, notices, etc of general admin interest. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What about ban discussions? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I think ban discussions belong on AN. Incidentally, this thread really belongs at WT:Administrators' noticeboard. I notice someone there complaining about the size of the edit notice, I've shrunk the font a bit. –xeno^talk 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The archives and subpages of ANI include many discussions of bans and indefinite blocks. Ban discussions, whether simple or complex, seem to be able to get plenty of exposure there. Those are incidents too, as are many other ANI posts needing a good level of admin input. With 2000 or so admins, posts on ANI needing attention still tend to mostly get it. The distinction is notices vs. incidents, not simple vs. complex. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't think it's a good idea. For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI. Ban discussions belong here (especially unban ones). Most of the ban discussions on ANI are subthreads of incidents for users where the ANI thread highlights the fact that they have exhausted the community's patience. I'm not saying those conversations should have a venue change to AN if it evolves into a ban discussion. But if someone is proposing a ban as a thread-starter, or unban, I think this is the proper venue. –xeno^talk 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Agree with Xeno. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
            • This would imply that admins are less calm or less rational at ANI than here, or that calm rational admins preferentially avoid ANI. If that's in fact what's being said, there's a bit more of a serious problem; a wide range of other significant discussions (not just one kind) would be being affected by an implied poor discussion quality of ANI culture. Is that actually a visible problem? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Remeber it's not only admins that respond to these threads. ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just the mentality there (I actually wouldn't mind seeing ANI shut down altogether and forcing the threads to filter to the proper places, though that would probably run counter to your current proposal to move stuff off AN =) Ironically, someone a few months back was trying to do a similar relocation drive to keep stuff off ANI!). AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers. So, while I believe that un/ban discussions belong here, I do see above a lot of threads that should've been posted elsewhere. –xeno^talk 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Then the needed step is to address standards where they happen, on ANI - a step that any admin who uses ANI can help or hinder. Improving calm thoughtful discussion is part of the admin role, so users who act like a shark pool or incite in a "chum-like" manner..... that's the issue you're raising, and if it's so then it'll affect any/all discussions on ANI, serious or localized, not just some. It needs fixing where it's happening, not just shutting down and watching it move. If they won't say it's not okay at ANI, then logically, there is no barrier ensuring they would anywhere else either. We had to shut down the sanctions noticeboard a year or two ago because that was a "shark pool" (so to speak)... at some point we have to realize that shutting down isn't the answer, facing poor behaviors by users, admins role modeling good conduct, and generally requiring good interaction standards, is whats needed, not mere running away from the problem if any. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • I agree, but easier said that done. As with any mob mentality it's hard to pinpoint the trouble source. –xeno^talk 03:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • Solution mirrors the source. It's trivially easy if a few people want it. Source is a critical proportion of experienced users being enabled, allowed, or encouraged to feel comfortable with it and considering "shark mentality" reasonable in some discussions, so much so that others can pick it up from them. Guess what the solution would look like. Hand-wringing and large scale debate isn't needed, it just needs individual users and admins that routinely will speak calmly and constructively, in enough numbers to dilute the disruptive behaviors, to resolve it. Often it only needs 2-4 such users deliberately acting to a good balanced standard in a dispute, to make poor conduct in the dispute less tenable. (And a user who rejects that many calm reasonable uninvolved users' requests to act better is a good candidate for evidenced dispute resolution/RFC/RFAR.) The problem is the "leave it to others"/"Meh" mindset; that doesn't work. Ultimately it's got to be faced. Shutting down or running away aren't an answer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• This is along the same lines as a discussion we had on AN a few months ago, which resulted in a newfound willingness to migrate errant discussions to the proper boards as well as the AN/I edit notice. I'm not sure that I like the prospect of pushing more and more discussions to AN/I but we do have the problem of poor distinction between AN and AN/I. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Partly because of that discussion, and ones before it, I've been WikiGnoming discussions to more appopriate noticeboards both here (example) and at Incidents (example). It takes only a few of the "I agrees." above to do the same on occasion, and to support other people when they do it, to improve the situation yet further. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• My impression, as a regular reader but infrequent participant at AN and AN/I, is in line with the opinions at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#ANI curiosity: AN/I has an aspect of urgency and action. I agree with the moves of Protect Mark Buehrle and Possible highjacked account, but I disagree with the wording of the editnotice here and {{ANImove}}, which could be interpreted to cover most recent AN discussions. Emptying AN into the high-traffic AN/I seems like a bad idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

advice

am a witness and would like some advice. from kenya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.232.246 (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This message is in the wrong place - please try the reference desk. Please note we do NOT give legal advice under any circumstances - consult a solicitor/lawyer. Exxolon (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate mass changes to multiple threads

Resolved

 – This is an inappropriate venue for this, please take it to WP:DR. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Original post

As per this, User:Reconsideration is intent on changing thousands of pages in order to put a see also section without an RfC or anything like that. When this was pointed out to them on their talk page here, they seemed unwilling to even care about WP:CONSENSUS. See also sections are highly frowned upon in FAs and GAs, as we are supposed to keep such things integrated unless absolutely necessary. These links do very, very little and are encyclopedically inappropriate, and it constitutes spamming. They are currently intent on adding such things to all poetry pages, and there has not been one discussion. Here is where they are intent on adding such a section to an ongoing FAC, even though it would jeopardize the FAC. Something really needs to be done, as this user does not respect consensus at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) There was discussion of this at the numbers & dates RfC -- both of them. I got some feedback there. Since when do I need to get feedback first before making bold edits? Did you get consensus somewhere before you suddenly popped up opposing what I was doing? This is an odd time for Ottava Rima to be objecting to having "See also" links in articles. Anyone, take a look at Benjamin Harrison. Sound familiar? That's because it's the featured article for Wikipedia, on the front page, right now. It has a "See also" section which links to List of American Civil War generals. That's very much like the links I added to articles about poetry published in a particular year: A link to the article for the poetry published in that particular year. I pointed this out to Ottava Rima in an attempt to politely discuss the matter on our talk pages. I was met with rudeness there and rudeness here and rudeness by Ottave Rima on SandyGeorgia's talk page. [96] (lovely, isn't it?) Why is it that when I politely engaged you in discussion, you just insulted me and stopped discussing, then went to some other editor's talk page and insulted me further there? The ultimate question really is this: What do you think gives you the right to treat other editors this way when Wikipedia has a policy called WP:CIVILITY? I looked in that policy but nowhere does it say "This applies to all editors except Ottava Rima". This AN complaint is an attempt to get here first after I asked Ceoil on that editor's talk page [97] whether or not I should make a complaint against Ottava Rima here. I asked Ceoil because Ceoil was having behavioral problems with Rima at some featured-article discussion page. Rather than repeat all the links here, I'm just going to cut and paste what I said at Ceoil's talk page: I added this [98] to the Lucy poems article and Ottava removed it (which is his right) with this edit summary (which isn't) [99] (inappropriate and tacky). That's a classic form of incivility (see third bullet at WP:CIV#Engaging in incivility). He and I had discussed this a bit beforehand on our talk pages (last edits about this on each page:[100] [101]) and after insulting me a bit and not replying to my statements, he seemed to shut down after posting more insults at the talk page of Sandy Georgia. [102] I was thinking about maybe bringing a notice to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but then I noticed I wasn't the only one having problems with Ottava. Should this be brought up at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents? I'd like to get him to stop insulting me at the least and engage in a reasonable discussion at most. Any thoughts? Reconsideration (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Is it a violation of WP:CIVILITY if I point out that Ottava Rima has a singularly divisive way of dealing with other editors? Reconsideration (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Bold is not changing thousands of pages, including many GAs and FAs that had consensus to their status and not talking to any of the editors at those pages. And your claims of a breach of civility are blatantly false, which is a violation of Civility. Please link to -any- insult. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Bold is not changing thousands of pages, including many GAs and FAs Changing pages is called editing. Changing thousands of pages is called experienced editing. Calling other people names, dispagaging what they're doing and heaping abuse on them is called incivility. Which of these does Wikipedia policy/guidelines support and which does it condemn? Reconsideration (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Your actions are nothing more than an egregious violation of protocol and WP:CONSENSUS. They are not experienced editing. Furthermore, your claims that I called you names are factually incorrect and a violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Why can't Reconsideration integrate these links as in 'Bad brown stuff is an 1803 poem about a small nugget of fudge found by a small boy in the wake of an elephant parade.'? That way, his articles are integrated and a 'see also' which is thoroughly redundant tot he category link in the Category box, is eliminated? especially since his See Alsos also include purported facts which would be better off integrated. ThuranX (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC) One of the first things I pointed out is the integration of the link within the article and I was attacked for it. I guess it doesn't show off his pages in a big enough manner. The sheer alteration of thousands of poetry pages without even a mention to WP:POETRY or anything close is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Fair question, ThruanX. I'll find the link later (I need to go offline for an hour or so), but in the last two dates & numbers RfCs late last year or early this year, there seemed to be a number of editors who said piped links were not a good idea for year-in-something pages. I thought adding a "See also" section at the bottom would remove that objection and still give readers a chance to know there was an article about other poetry published that year. There's nothing new about "See also" sections. Please see the comments I made on Ottava Rima's talk page about this (link in that note to Ceoil I copied above). The year-in-poetry pages have a lot more information than any category ever could. That's such a standard point that Wikipedia has a whole page on that here: [WP:CLN], as one helpful editor said on SandyGeorgia's talk page. Reconsideration (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Ottava writes just above: One of the first things I pointed out is the integration of the link within the article and I was attacked for it. Does anybody else agree with Ottava that the following comments were an attack on Ottava Rima: So you're talking about the "See also" sections in the "[year] in poetry" articles. In list articles, these seem useful to me, given the purposes of list articles. Given the nature of "year in" pages, mass additions or mass changes are to be expected and are the only way to make some changes, including additions to "See also" sections. You didn't answer my question. Reconsideration (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) [103] Please provide an example. I'm adding a link to the corresponding year-in-poetry page to the "See also" sections of articles on poems and books of poems. It isn't some kind of stretch to see why that could be useful for a reader. I don't actually recall doing so for any GA or FA articles, but if I did, that would be perfectly acceptable, since plenty of FAs (including many recent ones) have "See also" sections. Examples: List of castles in Cheshire#See also, List of tallest buildings in Chicago#See also, List of tallest buildings in Tulsa#See also, Freedom Monument#See also, Anne of Denmark#See also, Fauna of Scotland#See also, Thriller (album)#See also, John Calvin#See also, 2006 Westchester County tornado#See also, and Talyllyn Railway#See also. Please take a look at Benjamin Harrison#See also]]. That article is about to be featured on Wikipedia's main page. The "See also" section has a link to List of American Civil War generals. If I add a link at an article about a book or poem to a list about contemporary poetry, there's a pretty strong reason for that link, at least as strong as the one on the Benjamin Harrison page. The "[year] in poetry" articles and similar pages are, like all lists, partly for navigation, partly for information, partly to help serious students and people who browse to find related information, so in the right spots, they're very helpful. Reconsideration (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC) [104] Which editor was abusive here and which one was trying to politely discuss the issue? I'll be back later. Reconsideration (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Don't administrators give editors who are constantly uncivil "civility blocks"? I think Ottava Rima should get one. His incivility just goes on and on. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with what I've just gone through. Here's a list of this editor's abuses in just four edits by him or her: I am talking about you randomly adding see also sections to GAs and FAs simply because you want to draw attention to your article in a highly inappropriate manner. [105] Isn't this a violation of WP:AGF? There was nothing "random" about it, and I was doing what every WP editor is supposed to do: try to improve the encyclopedia. He makes it sound like I'm trying to promote myself. You're supposed to try to link to articles you're trying to improve. It's part of improving them. It's in WP:STYLE somewhere or some other Wikipedia page suggesting to editors what they should do. To SandyGeorgia: He is just creating what is already done in categories, taking up space, and defacing thousands of perfectly good articles. [106] Obvious violation of WP:CIV To SandyGeorgia: He doesn't seem to care or care about anything but linking his pages where ever he can. I can't stand people who make such low level nonsense and promote it out the wazoo (same link as the last one) I don't care about improving the encyclopedia. He can't stand me? My work is just low level nonsense? Thanks. Thanks a lot. Reconsideration (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Reconsideration - you have linked the pages you worked on to thousands of articles in what constitutes as spam. Those comments about your -work- clearly do not violate civil in any way, and saying that those pages are useless is a fact. You have not gone through an RfC. You have not sought consensus. You have edited thousands of articles in appropriately. I am surprised that you were not blocked at the very beginning of this, as your actions are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC) You were asked to stop and go to an RfC. You refused. You started criticizing me on various pages. There was nothing "polite" nor correct about your actions. Experienced editing is not changing thousands of pages without consensus before hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima, I don't think you should get a civilty block, but do you think you could try to be a little more civil here?--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I wrote or expanded many, many pages that he mass changed. My watchlist has been constantly flooded with his changes. We already have year in literature pages, and Geogre never did anything like this with them. I do not like people going through and making mass changes like that without even a hint of consensus. That is not how Wikipedia works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe not, but WP:POOR. An incivil environment is also not how Wikipedia works.--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Please quote where I was incivil. Saying a page does not contribute anything is not incivility. Comment on work, not on people. That is clearly what I have done. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC) From Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold edit you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them." Reconsideration (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Please quote where I was incivil Ottava Rima, I've quoted it twice, first on Ceoil's talk page and above when I cut and pasted my comment from there. Here it is a third time and I'll just put it in boldface because you apparently find it hard to read regular type: this edit summary [107] ("inappropriate and tacky"). That's a classic form of incivility (see third bullet at WP:CIV#Engaging in incivility). And look at your comment on SandyGeorgia's talk page Now I've quoted you here and elsewhere in this thread, specifically pointing to your incivility and pointing to the specific spot at WP:CIV which you violated. You've told me that I violated something called protocol which I've never seen in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that I violated WP:CONSENSUS except that there hasn't been a discussion that I'm aware of and I'm the one who's attempted to discuss the matter on talk pages. Why don't you point out the specific part of WP:CONSENSUS that I violated and explain to me how I did that. Of course, I asked you to do this before on your talk page, and you couldn't. Reconsideration (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC) If you have been uncivil User:Reconsideration has probably proven that already. Besides, I never said you were uncivil I just asked if you could try to be a little more civil. That's all.--The LegendarySky Attacker 00:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC) There is no policy against see also sections. In fact, the MOS explicitly permits them as a guideline: WP:ALSO. The two well-known books on Wikipedia explain how to use them, as do many help pages. Most Wikipedia articles that are more than stubs have them. None of the FA related pages I can find in WP space give their absence as a criterion. If OR or other active FAC people wish to deprecate them, they should try to change the guideline in the MOS or at least their own pages, which seem to have consensus as informal guidelines--as they well might, since the advice given there about article writing is extremely sensible. Insisting on removing them would seem unjustified. However, to put them in thousands of articles, apparently against known or predictable opposition, is remarkably unwise. BOLD depends on being reasonable, and this is not. An overbold use of BOLD does not help cooperative editing. Insisting on one's own way on style does not help cooperative editing either--nobody owns a page. I suggest the people involved try to discuss the issue and if necessary involve the rest of the community. DGG (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC) From WP:CONSENSUS, the caption there for this says: "When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary." Where on this chart did I take the wrong step? Reconsideration (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) to put them in thousands of articles -- I never put them in "thousands" of articles; you're assuming Ottava Rima's exaggerations, which he's done constantly in everything about this, are accurate, in fact I have put them in a lot of articles; apparently against known or predictable opposition -- where do you get the idea that the "opposition" was either known by me or predictable? Nobody ever said I shouldn't add these links until Ottava Rima did a day or two ago. As I said, the current featured article, Benjamin Harrison has a similar link in a "See also" section, and that article was recently passed through FA. So where's this opposition, even at FA? What is it that I'm doing that isn't done everywhere on Wikipedia? I do it repeatedly because I see places that need these useful links. The year-in-poetry pages have been expanded, going back 500 years, over the past 12 months or so, so these links wouldn't have been made before that, but links have been made to the longer-lasting year-in-poetry pages for some time. I don't understand what people think I'm doing wrong or where in policy/guidelines it says I shouldn't do this. Is there a spot in WP:CONSENSUS that I missed? I brought the matter up when the year-linking RfCs came up but didn't get told I shouldn't do this. When Ottava Rima objected I immediately tried to discuss the matter with him on our talk pages -- and Ottava Rima stopped discussing and abused me. When I added a "see also" section to the Lucy poems article, Ottava Rima reverted it and abused me again in the edit summary. At every step I've tried to follow policy/guidelines and at every step Ottava Rima has been rude and has turned away from discussion. And when Ottava Rima reverted on the Lucy Poems page, I started a discussion at that article's talk page. You don't get consensus without discussion, and I'm not required to wait for consensus when I can't predict that something I'm doing will be controversial. I see some editors commenting here, but there's still no consensus against it. Consensus at FA? It evidently isn't there, as I pointed out to Ottava Rima, who then stopped discussions. What have I done wrong? What has Ottava Rima done right? If I did something wrong, how was I supposed to know? -- Reconsideration (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) revised my statement in minor ways Reconsideration - There are 2720 poetry articles that are part of WP:POETRY. There are many that are not part of the wikiproject. Since you are going by year, it is assumable that you are going through most of these and those not listed. Since you are not stopping and constantly add more and more, it seems obvious that your intent is to cover them all. Furthermore, we already have a year in literature page, so these are unnecessary content splits. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC) From WP:BOLD, a guideline: "Be Bold" has become an informal slogan of Wikipedia" That page also states: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages"Reconsideration (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Which part of your objections is an issue for this noticeboard? If you want to combine all the pages, do an AfD or merge discussion or RfC or whatever. Then you'll successfully run me off Wikipedia and I'll tell everybody to go to hell and you'll be happy. The pages are separate because they have the potential to be a lot like 2008 in poetry which is too big to merge and still doesn't cover its subject because it concentrates too much on English-language poetry. Compare that with the worldwide coverage of 1965 in poetry and then compare with 1945 in poetry#Events, which still probably doesn't cover a fourth of the events involving poetry in that year that it could cover, and there are prose sections, occassional quotes, pictures and whatnot. The field of Indian poetry, surprisingly to me, is huge (see the coverage at 1935 in poetry to pick a random 20th-century example). For someone who wants to either browse or is a serious student of poetry, these pages are valuable, and that's why their traffic statistics show so many visits each month. The number of articles being edited is irrelevant if what I'm doing is OK with policy and consensus. If you object, it's your job to show me where I've gone against either policy or consensus. You haven't. Instead you've been insulting. We know that you don't like what I'm doing, but where's your proof that it's wrong? Reconsideration (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Take it to WP:DR, people, if you can't work it out amongst yourselves. This isn't the place for it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I'm asking for a temporary ban of his actions. That is not what WP:DR handles. It is what WP:AN handles. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Since I'm neither disrupting anything, nor going against any consensus, nor going against any policy, nor doing anything harmful to Wikipedia, there's nothing for this noticeboard to do. At Talk:The Lucy poems the discussion I started is going on. While discussion continues anywhere, I won't add any more links to "See also" sections, but as soon as discussion dies down and no new discussion crops up anywhere else, and if there is no consensus, it seems reasonable to me to resume because I'm just following regular Wikipedia practice. I've also added links to Bibliography sections of poet articles (most recently, see Peter Viereck#Poetry collections). An RfC would probably be a good idea, with a three-part question: Should Wikipedia allow the links to be added to articles about works of poetry? If so, should they be added in "See also" sections or within the text of the article? If within the text of the article, as piped links (with an explanation in parentheses for multiple mentions) or as unpiped links? I want readers to be able to use this year-in-poetry resource. As far as I can tell, despite the fact that these year-in-poetry pages are still only a fraction of what they can be, there is no better poetry chronology with a worldwide scope anywhere, online or offline, than this one. And it's available to anyone with an internet connection, and it has links to articles for in-depth coverage of most of its poets. I don't care how it's linked from poetry-related articles, but it should be linked, and I think most editors would agree. It's also the most footnoted of any of the year-in-subject pages. Against all this, Ottava Rima has insults, disparaging comments, unproven assertions and assumptions of bad faith, but no arguments that I've seen. I think a consensus of editors would agree with me. Reconsideration (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC) This shows that Sandy verified my original assertion about FAs. Your comments about my actions are all equally false. And yes, mass changes like this are incredibly disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC) SandyGeorgia didn't oppose links from poetry articles to year-in-poetry pages. I've said repeatedly that I don't care how the links are made. Can we all agree that the links can be made from within the text? If so, I won't add them from "See also" sections because there will be no need to. Could you ask Sandy whether or not the links should be piped or unpiped (I assume within parentheses). If Sandy can agree on this, can you? Then we could settle this right here and now. In the interests of coming to a consensus, I'll back off from citing your violations of Wikipedia behavioral policies again. Can we come to a consensus on this? I'm trying to be flexible here. Reconsideration (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Oh, and I'd better ask this, too: Can we agree that links such as those at Peter Viereck#Poetry collections are OK, too? Reconsideration (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) The very first comment I made on your talk page is for you to integrate the links into the articles instead of creating a see also section. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Do you want to settle this or quarrel? Your first comment on my talk page could be read either way. Are you going to answer my questions about whether the links should be piped (like this: 1807) or unpiped (1807 in poetry)? Are you going to object later to links such as those at Peter Viereck#Poetry collections? If you and Sandy agree, we have a consensus and can stick a fork in this discussion with no need to continue it. Reconsideration (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC) SandyGeorgia tells me this isn't her fight, so it's up to you, Ottava. Please answer my questions. Reconsideration (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with Lifebaka. DR may or may not handle it, but AN is certainly not the place for this discussion. Take this yoohoo somewhere else.--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I can't support a topic ban of any sort against Reconsideration. He's trying to improve things; I can find good faith in his edits, and I think my skepticism on that mark is well documented. I would ask him to stop, and bring this to the appropriate places - poetry, MoS, and see what can be worked out. It may turn out that linking 'year' in 'topic' articles should be in the same named caegory, and that's how readers can find such articles. I'm not sure that a year alone is enough of a connector for a topic like poetry; certainly the idea that cultural exchange was having much influence on contemporary poetry before the last couple hundred years is still debatable, not carved in stone. I could see 'Victorian Poetry' being a See Also-worthy addition, or Post-revolution french poetry, or some such thematically linked thing, but a year alone may not be enough. I may be wrong. Take it to the experts, sort it out. And Ottava Rima yet again ,rein in the incivility. ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I think that is the point; that a "see also (Year) in poetry" section is spurious if the only relevant information in that article is already in the article being linked from. For example, in Christabel (poem), it is mentioned that the poem was published in 1816 in the work "Christabel; Kubla Khan: A Vision; The Pains of Sleep", but the See Also section is to 1816 in poetry, where the only relevant information to the article is that ... the poem was published in "Christabel; Kubla Khan: A Vision; The Pains of Sleep" in that year. Whilst not wrong, as such, this is just pointless. If the Year... article contained more relevant information to the article, then it could be justified, but I can't see how sections such as the example can be. Black Kite 11:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Black Kite and ThuranX are addressing content issues. Black Kite, please see WP:SEEALSO, which has just been changed in major ways by SandyGeorgia, restoring language previously there (I don't object to the changes, but any reading of that guideline shows that what I've done falls within the purpose of "See also". A sentence in the now-restored part reads These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.). I have a lot to say about why the year is a useful link but this really isn't the place. I'll start a consensus discussion, probably an RfC on its own page, as soon as I have time, probably Monday. Please see the content discussion at Talk:The Lucy poems as well. Almost all the editors who actually are involved with editing poetry-related pages seem to like the links. Ottava, the exception, seems to object mostly to putting the links in "See also". Reconsideration (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC) ThuranX - the topic ban would be to prevent any major changes until an RfC can be created to adjust how to do this. There are many pages that passed FA and GA. I just want some sense of consensus, as these pages represent -a lot- of work and effort, and FAC has a tradition of opposing "see also" sections [108]. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Oh good grief, is this still going on? Ottava, nobody seems inclined to agree with you that a topic ban is warranted. This boils down to a content dispute and cannot and will not be solved on ANI. Please take it elsewhere. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Ottava, learn from me: I followed Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, all in accordance with WP:CONSENSUS, and tried to adjust what I was doing once I saw some uncomfortableness with piped links at the numbers & dates RfC. Then I started using "See also" sections, in accordance with WP:SEEALSO. I never had a hint that what I was doing was either anything but normal editing or objected to by anybody until you left a confusing note on my page. I then tried to engage you in discussion, asking questions and politely explaining my reasoning. When you stopped discussing the matter with me on our talk pages and made personal attacks, uncivil comments and assumption-of-bad-faith comments on SandyGeorgia's page, it was reasonable of me to conclude that you weren't interested in working together. I continued adding the "see also" sections and you reverted at The Lucy poems page with a rude editorial summary comment. When you did that, you didn't add the link in the text, you just removed the link. Then I started the discussion on the talk page there, where, true to form, you've continued your rudeness, although that discussion shows further support for the links. In the face of your immediate and constant rudeness, assumptions of bad faith, lack of interest in coming to consensus and ignoring of my efforts, I eventually went to Ceoil for advice. At no time did I attack you in return, nor was I even rude to you. Since you and one or two other editors have now objected to the way I'm doing it and raised this content issue, I've been flexible and agreed to start a discussion to get a consensus, just as you had suggested. I've been flexible in stating that I can support any kind of links, so long as I can be reasonably sure that what I'm doing has enough support out there that it's likely to stick. Even just above, I asked you if you could come to an agreement on this, and you ignored the offer. Your maliciousness has been baseless and astounding -- it's odd that admins here haven't blocked you already for your campaign of ongoing incivility. There is no further need for this thread, and some editor should box it for archiving. I'm done here and I'll start an RfC, with a notices at Village Pump and elsewhere. Reconsideration (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Here is the consensus decision to allow links to year-in-topic articles. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#When to use "Year in Field" links in November and December 2008. I might go ahead with an RfC to clarify a few things brought up here. But I certainly was not making many edits without any consensus whatsoever. That charge was simply mistaken. I wish I'd had time to find this earlier. Reconsideration (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC) And here is further justification from a Wikipedia guideline. From Wikipedia:Linking#Year linking, a Manual of Style guideline: Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, Timeline of World War II (1942) may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may 1787 in science when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture. If a particular development on the metric system in that year is worth linking to a year-in-science article, then the publication of a book of poetry (or perhaps writing of one) is an obvious candidate for a relevant link to that year in poetry, according to the manual of style. Also, according to WP:EGG, I shouldn't be piping the links except in lists and charts where being concise is important. I guess I'll add something like "published in 1807 (see 1807 in poetry)" although that looks a bit awkward as a replacement of a simple year in parentheses when a book publication year is mentioned. If Ottava Rima objects to the linking, he should take it up at the MoS guideline. If there is a particular problem with a link in a particular article, it can be worked out on that talk page. I'll be happy to avoid adding "see also" sections. What further consensus do I need to continue following the November-December '08 RfC and WP:LINK? How can that be disruptive no matter how many times I do it in the future? -- Reconsideration (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Wilson II, Matthew O'Connor and Patrick Wilson (soccer) (Moved)

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

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI page rename - discussion

A discussion about renaming the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents to a name that will be more intuitive to users.

Talk page link

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Userright removal requested

Hello, can an administrator please remove my "accountcreator" userright? It was very handy at first, but now that I'm becoming less and less active at WP:ACC, I think that it's best if I don't have a userright that I don't need at the moment. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 12:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Euryalus (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Request by Grundle2600 to end topic ban

Resolved

 – Requestor has agreed that the issue is resolved. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I had originally posted this request on my talk page. Then someone on my talk page said the proper place to post it was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Then someone at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment said the proper place to post it was here. So here I go for the third time!

I was topic banned from editing political articles becuase I had created new political articles that, while very well sourced, were deleted based on consensus. The deletion discussions for these articles was wasting the time of other wikipedia editors, who otherwise would have been spending their time on better, more productive ways to improve wikipedia. I now realize that just because a subject is well covered in the media, such as Michelle Obama's arms, or Barack Obama swatting a fly, does not, in and of itself, justify the creation of an article on that subject. When I created those articles, I thought I was following Wikipedia:Be bold. However, I now realize that I was being too bold. As an example of how I have learned my lesson since then, after Michael Jackson died, I thought about creating Death of Michael Jackson, but then I decided not to, because I realized that just because the subject was heavily covered in the media, it did not necessarily justify it having its own article. Eventually, somoene else created the article, which is why it is blue instead of red. I have learned my lesson, and I am being much more restrained when it comes to creating new articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• This topic ban was enacted 1 month from today, and you began making appeals earlier than that. Although your comment suggests you are keen and learning, your responses at that time showed some very fundamental problems with your understanding of (and approach to) Wikipedia. In light of all of this, the fact that this topic ban will expire after another 2 months, and other concerns expressed at the time of the topic ban being imposed, I'm not comfortable supporting your appeal at this time. Oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The topic ban came after continued disruption by Grundle2600, despite repeated efforts by myself and other admins and editors to explain why his editing patterns were problematic (Grundle took this to mean I had some sort of bias against him, but this was not remotely the case). I see no reason to rescind the topic ban at this point, particularly given some of Grundle's behavior over at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. As you can see over there, the article talk page is utterly dominated by a section created by Grundle titled "Changes that I would like to be made to the article" which includes eight subsections (part of the problem to begin with was Grundle's continued insistence that he should get to add "what he wants" and others should get to add "what they want," despite repeated explanations that this violated WP:NPOV). Instead of adding material since he can't do that at the moment, he constantly proposes new additions to the article talk page, and other discussion there is basically dead (Grundle largely took over the talk page prior to his topic ban). Not all of the proposals there are problematic, but several are, particularly this and this. Both are unbelievably non-notable: the first was simply inaccurate, and it's a bit hard to AGF with regard to the second suggestion, which would have us point out, in the article about an entire presidency, that an African American president signed a law which bans flavored cigarettes but excepted menthols (for those who don't know, there is a stereotype, though it is rooted in actual data, that menthol cigarettes are essentially only smoked by African Americans).

So on an article talk page Grundle seems to be continuing his determined effort to include every piece of negative (as he construes it) ephemera possible about Obama. I think the initial topic ban should absolutely not be rescinded at an early date, and indeed it's regrettable that it did not include article talk pages. I'm glad that Grundle now admits that creating an article about Barack Obama killing a fly was not appropriate, but his disruption went well beyond that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There can be no question of rescinding the topic ban - it is quite evident from Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama that Grundle has learnt little about distinguishing between what is significant and what is trivial. Furthermore, to pick just one recent episode which calls into question his behaviour, at Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 he proposed inserting a phrase implying the govt spent $1m on 2lb of ham after it had already been explained at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama that the purchase involved many 2lb units. The questions an examination of Grundle's recent record raises are not an end to the ban, but an extension, in length and/or to talk pages (at least for Presidency of Barack Obama, which as others have noted he's quite taken over with his comments). Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I concur with the above statements. If you (Grundle) want to show your improvement of your understanding how to edit you can and should do so in the talk page area. That would be in my opinion the best way to go for now and could improve your chances for this ban [I'm not talking about the ARB decission, or do you?] to be lifted early or at least not to be extended. Think about it before you keep posting the same old repeatedly on talk pages. IMO you did improve slightly but not yet enough.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per above, plus this[109], where Grundle says, "All I have ever done here at wikipedia is add well sourced information to articles." His sanctions are not based on adding well sourced information, and his apparent inability to understand that is a bad sign indeed. PhGustaf (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. I'll just wait the two more months.

Rd232, I never said the government spent a million dollars on two pounds of ham. What I said is that the government wrongly claimed that it spent that much money on two pounds of ham. The article gives the government response to Drudg's criticis, but the article does note cite Drudge's criticsm. That violates NPOV.

This is how I think the paragraph should be. The bolded sentence is my proposed addition:

"On July 20, 2009, the Drudge Report published links to pages on Recovery.org which detailed expensive contracts awarded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for items such as mozzarella cheese, frozen ham and canned pork. For example, recovery.org stated that "$1,191,200" was spent on "2 POUND FROZEN HAM SLICED." A statement released by the USDA the same day explained that the mult-imillion dollar contracts were intended to purchase food items under The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and defended the expenditures.[47]"

Without that bold sentence, the article does not say what Drudge's complaint was. However, the article does include the government's response to Drudge. That violates NPOV.

Rd232, you're OK with the Hugo Chavez articles mentioning that he supports farming collectives. But you removed the stuff that I added from The Washington Post about how the food production of those collectives is substantially less than what it was when the same land had been previously owned by rich people and big corporations. That violates NPOV. You also removed my addition about Chavez using the military to seize coffee from smugglers who were trying to take it out of the country to sell at a price that was higher than what was legal under Chavez's price caps. Also, you greatly watered down the info about how his price controls are causing food shortages. You also removed the info that I added about Chavez imposing a 15% "luxury tax" on toilet paper. All of those removals violate NPOV.

Bigtimepeace, I suggested adding the thing about banning flavored cigarettes as a single sentence, right after the already existing part about raising the cigarette tax. Why is it OK to have the thing about the tax, but not OK to have the thing about banning flavored cigarettes?

Bigtimepeace, you said, "he constantly proposes new additions to the article talk page, and other discussion there is basically dead (Grundle largely took over the talk page prior to his topic ban)." First of all, it is not possible for me to "take over" the talk page. The fact that other people aren't starting other sections on the talk page is not my fault. I do not control the talk page, or prevent anyone else from talking there. In fact, I put all of my talk page suggestions together into a separate section, so as not to interfere with the rest of the talk page. Second, the reason the talk page seems is "dead" is because everyone else (except me) who wants to add criticism of Obama to the article has been topic banned from the talk page. So the reason the talk page is "dead" is because the article is now controlled by Obama supporters, it looks like a press release, and there is no dissent.

Bigtimepeace, you are correct that the only stuff that you or anyone else objects to me adding about Obama is negative stuff. No one, including you, has ever objected when I added positive stuff about Obama. For example, when I added this (Obama wants to extend federal benefits to same sex partners) and this (Obama wants to close failing schools, and then reopen them with new principals and teachers), no one removed them. It seems that you people only remove the negative stuff that I add about Obama, and never the positive stuff. Why is that?

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the basis for the topic ban, or else you're intentionally misstating it. Either way, I would be opposed to lifting the topic ban at present. MastCell ^Talk 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There was also my edit warring. However, a three month topic ban seems excessive. A day, or a few days, or a week, would have been more appropriate. Three months is excessive. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there are about a dozen or so editors who monitor every edit that I make. If I slip up again, surely they would report me, and I would be disciplined again. And I don't want that to happen. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone "monitors" your edits. Every editor leaves a trail of what they do at Special:Contributions, and when their behaviour is at issue (eg when asking for a community sanction to be lifted less than halfway through!) people use that tool. I must say I'm disappointed at your rehashing of the Chavez issues here, which is both irrelevant and just as erroneous/misleading now as it was then. Rd232 ^talk 12:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can mark this resolved, since Grundle has stated his intention to wait out the remainder of the probation. For the record Grundle, I did not even see the two "positive" edits you mention above and have no idea what I would have thought of them had I seen them at the time. Believe it or not, I'm not among those who monitor your every edit, and indeed it's by sheer chance (popped up at the very top of my watchlist, which I can easily go a day or more without checking) that I even noticed this thread on this page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, OK, and thank you for all of that. Yes, this issue is resolved. I will wait it out, and I will think about how I can continue to change for the better so as to make wikipedia better. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of username policy

The Username policy has undergone a major revision.

The main purpose of the revision is to simplify the policy, and to write each section with its intended audience in mind, so instructions for administrators are no longer mixed in with instructions for new users. In the section for username patrollers and administrators, it clarifies the scope of Usernames for Administrator Attention and username blocks, pointing out other remedies that can be more appropriate to the situation.

It also includes the recent changes that resulted from the Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Blatant Promotion RfC, so if you haven't looked at the username policy in a while, now might be a good time. rspεεr (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at it and applaud it as a major improvement/(clarification). Editors should take the time to read it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A+. Protonk (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Image filter

Resolved

 – Woody is magic. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin mind working the magic to prevent this image^{Caution: NSFW link ahead.} from being used except in related articles (which currently, it's only being used in Genital jewellery)? It was just used as vandalism replacement of Barney Frank's infobox photo. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea how to do that but it's probably worth noting that the image is rather NSFW.  GARDEN  13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, next time, requests can be left at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirmation not working?

Resolved

 – Harlem675 08:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that users could only create a new article once their account had been autoconfirmed after 4 days and 10 edits. How was Kookee22 (talk · contribs) able to create a new page (currently subject of this AfD) as their one and only edit? Astronaut (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Users can create articles as soon as they create an account. Autoconfirmation is required only for uploading files and moving existing articles. --Jayron32 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Raamah

Raamah (talk · contribs) has been making a series of edits introducing unsourced information with poor grammar and spelling into a number of articles. He's probably just being a little overly enthusiastic, but might be a subtle vandal. I would normally keep an eye on him and nudge him in the right direction and see that he not get bitten (or deal with him appropriately should he take a more disruptive turn), but I'm on my way to sleep. Could somebody check in on him from time to time? – ClockworkSoul 05:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and sources (and when those sources want to edit Wikipedia)

Not actually requiring admin intervention, but a sticky situation where some input from experienced contributors would be helpful. The situation at WP:BLPN#Bob Ainsworth (a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Bob Ainsworth) is that British journalist/columnist Peter Hitchens, who edits Wikipedia as User:Clockback, wants to add a detail to (UK government minister) Bob Ainsworth's entry based on Hitchens' own publications. That would be fine if it were that simple, but it isn't - so to avoid rehashing the whole thing here, see my comment at BLPN (diff). Comments welcome there. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Herbert Hoover Article is very Biased and Unneutral

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. Use the article talk page for discussing article issues. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoover did continue the laissez-faire policies of Coolidge. However, the article is hyping Hoover for being a reformer and critic of the laissez faire policies. Many neutral sources, such as this,http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/hoover_and_the_depression have stated my point about his continuation of the laissez-faire policies. It needs to be more neutral and honest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfair multiple deletions, how to retire a banned account?

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to make edits, because if I make an edit then some editor(s) tell that I'm a sock puppet of my first account and immediately delete my new account. BUT how on the Earth could I close my old account if that is already blocked? Here is the section from wiki:

"When an account is discontinued, it is recommended that the old account be noted on its user page as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet. The {{retired}} tag can be used."

And this is exactly what I'm unable to do with for example User:Multiplyperfect account ("You have been blocked indefinitely"), however I could do that with my User:Párhuzamos univerzum account. I would call this case as unfair, and unacceptable from wikipedia and raising many red flags for me. I hope I ask my question at the right place. Any suggestions? Forrasnyelo (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your account doesn't appear to be retired, it appears to be blocked. Creating more sockpuppets won't work, because your account has been blocked because you use sockpuppets. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit the English Wikipedia. Making more accounts will not help your case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Tiptoety ^talk 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ban evasion

Resolved

 – sock blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

According to CU, Lumberjak (talk · contribs) is a sock of the indef banned user Verjakette, please see [110]. Admin action is required. Thanks. Grandmaster 11:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Close RM discussion at Willis Tower

Noting that we are now at past 7 days into the RM discussion at Talk:Willis Tower#Requested move. As I commented in the section below the RM discussion (WGN-TV news), the nominator was an SPA that abandoned editing last Thursday and the other primary supporter of the move, Raime (talk · contribs) has conceded in his words: "there is clearly no consensus for a move back to "Sears Tower" in a comment within the Talk:Willis Tower#WGN-TV news section. There have been 8 additional !votes since July 24 with the overall total being 13 Support moving, 19 Oppose. I am requesting someone close the discussion.

I originally put this in the wrong place, AN/I s/b AN. Please excuse the misplacement. Sswonk (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't Bother  Doing... ~ User:Mazca has already started. Sswonk (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Mary Jones (Bible)

Resolved

 – Discussion closed, article moved to Mary Jones (folk heroine) per article talk page--Jayron32 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Never mind. --Jayron32 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion and straw poll regarding this page here. I initiated the poll a week ago, as there seems to be general consensus to rename it, though not as to what it should be called. As I've been involved in the discussion, could someone who's uninvolved have a look at the options proposed, and come to a conclusion as to where consensus lies. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that the page should be renamed, and that Mary Jones (Welsh girl) isn't suitable. Other than that, no consensus (and discussion ongoing). Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A few more opinions might be helpful, since some proposals were only made recently, but currently it looks to me like Mary Jones (Wales) and straight Mary Jones are the leading horses. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to see the closure reversed, as there was strong opposition to the title chosen by Jayron32. Kusma (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We could keep the article where it is for now, but re-open discussion to see if any other option gains greater consensus. The current title does have more support than the previous title. DrKay (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Johnson (American football coach)

According to the Washington Post, this subject has recently died. I'm not sure of protocol or correct tags, so I wanted to call admin attention to this. Newportm (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a reliable source so just edit the article as usual... –xeno^talk 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, but NOT about the subject of the article. That Jim Johnson was an assistant coach in the NFL, his article is Jim Johnson (American football) and his death has already been added to the page. Dayewalker (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and distinguished. –xeno^talk 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As User:Apparition11 pointed out to me, "...At Jimmy Johnson, we have 6 similar named people who were involved with football (5 pros, 1 college)..." so this was a trap waiting for me to fall in! Fortunate to have some very sharp folks around here to toss me a lifering. Newportm (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

imo, Americans need to get more creative with their childrens names, especially if they are going to grow up to be football coaches. =) –xeno^talk 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So should the Welsh, I think. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve Smith. Never mind the problem of there being what seems like 200 articles for people with this name, we have two, born the same year, both played hockey, both played the same position. That one's always been my example of when disambiguation breaks down horribly. Also, I think North Americans need to get less creative with names. Its no wonder the English language is breaking down when kids are being named Ashtyn, Benjamyn, Benjimen, Brandin, Gracee, Mikenzie, and my personal favourite from Alberta in 2007: Mihsa-Taiyoo-Lily-Jean. Resolute 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least we're never going to need Heavenly Hiraani Tiger Lily Hutchence (disambiguation)... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yebbut didja ever think Tekle Haymanot (disambiguation) would need to exist? (And I suspect there are one or two more persons who could be added to that list.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Need administrator to fix article

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snake_Eyes_(G.I._Joe)&redirect=no was created in error. Never once in the history of the character, was Snake Eyes referred to as Snake-Eyes. Not in the original version, nor in the current version. By consensus on the talk page of Snake-Eyes we wish to rename it Snake_Eyes_(G.I._Joe), but can't since there is a page there already by that name. Can you erase that page, and then give that name to the article? Dream Focus 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Geogre

A motion regarding the above user has been closed and may be viewed at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Appeal Committee

There is a proposal to create an Appeal Committee for sanctions imposed by administrators or the community, responsibility held until now by the Arbitration Committee, and an Appeal policy as well. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Cenarium (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal: EricBarbour

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

Resolved

 – clearly isn't going to happen - Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I.) Proposal

In accordance with Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban and Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Community_ban I request to impose an indefinite community ban on EricBarbour (talk · contribs).

II.) Reasoning

Since this user's first edit, he has not contributed anything constructive or useful. Instead, he uses Wikipedia to game the system, to bring it into disrepute, and, worst of all, to harass, attack and insult other users (mostly off-wiki, in order to be not blocked on-wiki). For those reasons, he has already been indefinitely blocked 2 times; though, those blocks have been undone (each time by single administrators, not per a consensus whatsoever).

III.) Evidence

NB: The following evidence is only a very short outline of this users behaviour; there are countless further examples.

• [111]

"[...] the little shit, Tiptoety [...]"

• [112]

"I'd like to ram a sockpuppet up Hochman's ass...."

• [113]

"[...] these two little boys [...]"

• [114]

• "her initial bitch-off"
• "Arbcom members who won't ass-nozzle her"

• [115]

• "buttsnorkels"
• "on-wiki ass-munching"

• [116]

"the bitch deleted it"

• [117]

"damned fools"

• [118]

"She is crazy, manipulative and 100% selfish"

• [119]

"Mad Bitch"

• [120]

"He's a backstabber and a process wonk"

• [121]

"Keep talking, asshole."

• [122]

• "smartass"
• "Wikipedia is so fucked up [...] till the cock crows [...]"
• "If you want reform, ask for Jimbo, Gerard, JzG and several other bastards to leave."

• [123]

• "The Slim Bitch"
• "Makes one wonder if Tip's nose is buried up Raul's ass"

• [124]

• "a classic robotic deletionist"
• "Humorless asshole"

IV.) Conclusion

As evidenced by the above evidence, this user's only goal on Wikipedia is to insult and attack other users and to circumvent a block by gaming the system, i. e. by posting his insulting and attacking comments off-wiki. However, it has to be emphasised, that he does actively refer to his off-wiki insults on-wiki, cf. for example [125]. As this user has never done anything useful or substantial, the community should no longer tolerate his behaviour. (Community ban proposal added by Aitias at 22:24, 29 July 2009.)

---

Support indefinite community ban

1. Support – Per my statement above. — Aitias // discussion 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Yup. 'Bout time. Also note that he was previously banned and lied to get unbanned: My intention is, and has always been, not to vandalize or cause problems. The only reason I would post to a user's talk page is to inform them that they were being discussed at Wikipedia Review. WP users deserve to know that a discussion is taking place focused on their on-wiki activities, and because there is no mechanism for automatic notification, someone has to do it manually. Raul654 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. iMatthew ^talk at 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support – while off-wiki actions are not punishable here, they are when brought on-wiki, as shown on the the user page. MuZemike 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Yep. He/she attacked SlimVirgin, and a bunch of other users. Attacking other users off-wiki is just as bad as attacking other users on-wiki. No matter how much this user's contributed, should be no less banned than we want. Calling a bunch of people names on Wikipedia Review. We're going to let this user get away with the disruption, period. Whether on or off-wiki, we can't tolerate this behavior. EricBarbour, go find someone else to pick on, because we're not letting you pick on our users. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support – Yes, per request, and add to the list of wrongs the fact that he's using his own talk page as a soapbox to attack a laundry list of administrators he has decided are "untrustworthy". <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - Such strong, bitter language and chronic harassment of other editors CANNOT be tolerated here or in any other WMF site (and this guy even asks Jimbo et al to leave for what kind of reforms?) Period.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support per this discussion, in which he wanted me to be de-adminned (or banned, or RFAR-ed into oblivion) five months after I was already de-adminned. With 1715 posts on Wikipedia Review compared to less than 150 mainspace contributions here, I think we know where his interests are. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite community ban

1. a) No evidence of less drastic attempts at behavior modification less severe than indefinite ban b) Off-wiki behavior, except where it directly threatens action against the Wiki, shouldn't make a difference here. If he's calling you bad names off-wiki, don't read those sites. Insofar as he isn't attempting to be incivil on-wiki, I don't see the real problem. There are lines that can be crossed off-wiki, but seriously, we could indef-ban half of WR for the shit that gets posted there. I have in the past advocated for banning based on off-wiki behavior, but IMHO, this does not qualify. --Jayron32 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: The user does actively refer to his off-wiki insults on-wiki — if that is not gaming the system at its best, I don't know what is. Also “behavior modification” is pointless — this user's intentions are that evident. — Aitias // discussion 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

2. No. Our critics are a needed part of this process. I note that those edits he does make to the mainspace are positive, non-vandal edits. Further, I'm not sure that notifying editors of off-wiki criticism is entirely without merit; it may upset some, but if the criticism is actually balanced (I recognize that some of the WR users are never balanced in their hate of all things WP), then it may actually assist. I'd like to see him contribute more to article-space, and in a less inflammatory manner on WP:Space pages, but I can't see it being to our advantage as a project and community to continually stifle or suppress external criticisms. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
3. EricBarbour is not that disruptive here: I don't see the need for a 24 hours block, let alone a ban. I don't see what a ban will achieve. Also, I remind everyone of this discussion, and should note that EricBarbour has been highly critical of the filer of this proposal in the past, mainly for his own conduct. Acalamari 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I don't agree that off-wiki behavior can't justify a ban, but this editor has so little on-wiki behavior (a total of 298 edits since 2004, including deleted ones) that a ban at this point would be essentially symbolic. Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
5. You don't throw a person out of a library for foul-mouthing the librarians at the bar down the street. Only those with an axe to grind and a burning desire to flex their muscles and declare their turf would even consider such an idea. Badger Drink (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree with User:Badger Drink and others. I don't think evidence of off-wiki harassment is enough for a community ban, and no evidence has been presented of the editor's on-wiki behaviour. I'd like a respected admin to conduct a thorough review his behaviour, instead of us jumping into action without one. Offliner (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Agree with Jayron here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Although I'm well aware that the user in question attacked me for my oppose vote to LaraLove's OS election that he strongly supports, only highlighting on EricBarbour seems unfair. Even several admins/editors who are active on WR do not apply the Wikipedia civility policy to there and loosen their verbal language, so I think his off-Wiki comments is not actionable enough to ban him. --Caspian blue 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Only tyrants react to criticism in such a punitive way. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose : I have no axe to grind either for or against Eric Barbour, although he has opined on WR about my personal circumstances, which are no business of his, or anybody else's. I do what I do, and he does what he does, and that should be the end of it. If he wants to criticise WP on WR, he's free to do so, although obviously he is obviously in more congenial company there than here, among the various malcontents who have been unable to accept our values and processes. Pissing on the tent from outside smacks, to me, of sour grapes. BUt he shouldn't be banned as long as he produces acceptable content here, and does not push the boundaries in unacceptable ways; he is not alone in that regard, because we seem to tolerate producers of extremely good, and voluminous content, whose "political" skills are perceived to be lacking elsewhere. Horses for courses, I say. If you want to produce good content, do so. If you want to change the political landscape here, feel free to try. If you want to make trouble, you deserve all you get. There's a social contract here, and breach has its consequences. Meanwhile, if Eric Barbour wants to resist this proposal, he should either remove the vague criticisms of admins on his talk page, or justify them by raising relevant issues. That's all. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose. per above; seems punitive Pzrmd (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Who gives a fuck what someone says off-wiki. Tan | 39 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
13. I really would have expected at least some on-wiki behavior if you're going to advocate a community ban. If you have a problem with a person's behavior on another site, you're going to have to take it up with that site, not exact some kind of punishment here. Shell ^babelfish 01:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose You cannot be serious. Wikipedia Review is an independent web site and Mr. Barbour has a right to say whatever he wants on that site or any off-Wiki site. If those comments were made on this web site, that would be another story. However, we have no jurisdiction to punish people for comments outside of our digital parameters. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
15. This assertion: he has not contributed anything constructive or useful is demonstrably false... see Moqui Cave or more generally his contribs to article space. I concur with those who question Aitias about whether they are trying to revive WP:BADSITES, and with other opposers generally, such as Badger Drink, ThuranX, et al. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Agree with Jayron, Badger Drink and Lar. Lara 05:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes, he has written a lot of vile & hateful things over at that other forum. However, the example given above of Eric Barbour linking to one of his posts at Wikipedia Review does not contain an actionable example of one of those vile & hateful things. If he's only linking to posts that state his criticism of Wikipedia -- & not examples of language akin to what Aitias shared above -- then he gets a pass. Barely. Reading all of those comments excerpted above makes it very difficult to extend good faith to him. -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Your "conclusion" is pure subjective conjecture, and would seem to be the very antithesis of AGF. Achromatic (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Hasn't reached our jurisdiction yet. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ban Aitias instead

1. Proposed and therefore Support. We don't need this kind of shit from an admin, again and again. Desysop of Aitias also acceptable as first step, see e.g. RfC on Aitias; Arbitration Request on Aitias; revenge edits by Aitias in Majorly's RfA, revenge edits by Aitias in Jennavecia OS candidacy. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Suggest you start an Rfc if you feel there have been such actions: posting such assertions here is inappropriate; posting them without difs is maligning, rather than offering a concern for consideration. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions

1. Who proposes the community ban? --Caspian blue 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   I do. Sorry if that was not clear; I have clarified. Best, — Aitias // discussion 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Its been suggested that EricBarbour links on wiki to posts on Wikipedia review, violating conduct policies in that way. If that is so, why are not those diffs linked above?--Tznkai (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   e.g. [126]. — Aitias // discussion 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   Where are the others? Off wiki conduct is a problem when brought on wiki true, but a single instance of linking (or even a few) doesn't bring a user's entire conduct on another site into play. Those posts that link to objectionable material directly or invite, encourage or otherwise direct users to problematic material are actionable. Spamming is actionable. Being nasty offsite and linking to it in an election may be actionable, but it doesn't bring the "evidence" above into play.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   Agree - Reviewing all the meta-topic edits since he was last unblocked, the comments on-wiki and links to off-wiki WR content appear innocuous. Actionable material in the last 3 or so months would be grounds for proceeding here, but I don't see any. Please post more diffs if they exist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

3. I have no opinion on this issue, but I must say, I couldn't help laughing at "buttsnorkels." That has to be about the most creative insult I've seen used on Wiki. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

MoS protect override

Resolved

 – I undid the change and left a note about the editprotected template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do hope I haven't put this request in the wrong section. An admin [has made a major change] to MoS (long-term protected) which doesn't seem to have gained support. A vague reference was made in the edit summary to the archives. Could an uninvolved admin discuss this matter with the admin?

Please see the talk page, too. Tony (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tags

I was looking through new pags and tagged Clement Hernandez for speedy deletion. the author of the page has continually removed the warning, then added the hangon tag but then removed it again. I'm not sure if this was the place to bring it. Martin Raybourne (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

main page image protections

• [2009-06-27 23:30:54] File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F007416-0008, Bahnhof Bonn, Verabschiedung Apostolischer Nuntius.jpg 5 minutes
• [2009-07-01 09:01:52] File:Richie Hall.jpg 25 munutes
• [2009-07-01 20:40:02] File:MarkusHowell.jpg 30 minutes
• [2009-07-03 02:15:49] File:Etmopterus spinax Sardinia.jpg 5 minutes
• [2009-07-03 05:47:18] File:St Michael's Church, Manafon.jpg 15 minutes
• [2009-07-06 00:03:18] File:Red deer stag.jpg 5 minutes
• [2009-07-07 02:52:01] File:Stamp Italy 1917airmailC1.png 5 minutes
• [2009-07-07 20:58:03] File:Sir Hugh Cloberry Christian.jpg 5 minutes
• [2009-07-08 02:54:02] File:Parish Church of St Matthew, Buckley.jpg 10 minutes
• [2009-07-08 08:51:00] File:Wrought iron bombard 1450 Langeais.jpg 3 hours 15 minutes
• [2009-07-10 08:56:17] File:Plum Edith Stein und Maximilian Kolbe.JPG 10 minutes
• [2009-07-11 00:00:42] File:790106-0203 Voyager 58M to 31M reduced frame.jpg 5 minutes
• [2009-07-18 01:25:30] File:Jean georges noverre.jpg 5 minutes
• [2009-07-22 00:57:12] File:Leonid Meteor Storm 1833.jpg 10 minutes
• [2009-07-22 13:58:22] File:Alex MacKenzie from Canada by land.jpg 5 minutes
• [2009-07-23 19:52:23] File:Lance Henriksen.jpg 1 hour 50 minutes
• [2009-07-28 13:34:07] File:Trojan wavepacket.gif 5 minutes
• [2009-07-29 06:13:02] File:Windmills of Kinderdijk (7).JPG 45 minutes

above is a listing of all images that have been on the main page without being protected. the timestamp is the first report and included is an eta of how long it was posted for. Ive been running an IRC reporting bot about this for a while but response times have been up to three hours. we need to get some method that will maintain protection of these images in order to prevent main page vandalism. β^_command 07:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. A significant number of these seem to be coming from DYK. I'll post a link here at WT:DYK. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since those are all commons file, maybe it would be nice (with permissions from commons) if we could run bot that checked all the "main page feeds" (EG: DYK/PoTD/ect) and posted to their Request for Protection page a couple of days ahead of time requesting that they be protected and tagged with their appropriate template since we can now do cross site protection. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this log, I definitely protected the image File:Trojan wavepacket.gif at 04:13, 2009-07-28 for 24 hours. But the above report says it was on Main Page without protection at 13:34, 2009-07-28 for five minutes? Am I missing something? --BorgQueen (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I deleted the image's c-uploaded copy at 13:28, 28 July 2009, but I am certain that at that time the image was already off the Main Page. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

re Peachey's suggestion: I suggested something like this before, but it was pointed out that it may not be fair, or practical, to protect an image on commons every time it is being used on some other project's MP (keeping in mind that en-wiki is not the only Wikipedia project that has DYK). That was a legitimate complaint, I think; and with that ruled out, I see no alternative to the gritty, painstaking work of uploading local images every couple hours (or at least every time an admin prepares one of the DYK queues). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see with is wrong with asking commons to temporary protect the batch of them in a automated message to their board asking for it nicely because that way we don't need to manually upload it (and probably break some things, but i'm not expert at attribution and such) and they already do it for other projects that ask for it afaik and I have seen them do it for single images of ours before. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You have that backwards. There is even a specific template on commons for protection of enwiki main page files. You all have to realize that they can't protect the images if they don't know which images need protection. For things like DYK, there usually isn't that great of a window from the time somebody decides it will go on the main page to the time that it actually is on the main page. I'm hardly concerned with 5 minutes of unprotection, to be honest. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I know... i've even pointed that template out earlier and suggested a bot that automatically checks the queues (and I guess the current selection). If we wanted we could have the bot record what images it quryies as to prevent it from checking the same images multiple times to reduce possible load issues. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 13:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know? Ah, good. "... and they already do it for other projects that ask for it afaik and I have seen them do it for single images of ours before." threw me off. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons administrators are mixed on protecting en.wiki's images. See this conversation with a Commons admin. Shubinator (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that we are the only Wiki having this kind of problems. Aren't there some where local uploads are disabled? It should be possible to create a software solution to this problem that allows us to fix one "flagged" version of a commons image for display here without touching things there. Kusma (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A shortware solution to grab a specific version of the file to eliminate the need to upload and protect main page images would be a very good solution. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Any alternative to uploading local versions would be welcome. I might sound lazy for saying this, but uploading local files is a royal pain in the ass and Sisyphian-ly every day is no one's idea of fun. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult to write a bot to figure out what's going to be on the MP, upload it locally, and protect it. Similar bots (or scripts, at least) already exist for getting images from here to Commons. All we really need is someone with a toolserver account willing to set it up. A software update would be good too, but it seems like this would be a much easier solution. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot as it was programmed before (MPUploadBot) didn't really work. The bot would upload files late, or would upload them after they were off the main page and deleted from en.wiki. This is because it depended on the link tables (the "list images on this page") which does not get updated instantaneously after every update to the page. On most pages it doesn't matter, but here it does. This is also why cascading protection is not instantaneous. See bugzilla:18483 for more. Shubinator (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If some admin wants to write a bot all it would need to do is null edit (edit/save without changing anything) the main page before checking and uploading what ever images needed to be addressed. this would force a full refresh of all table links for that page on demand and make the cascade protection bug moot. I know its not recommended procedure but for a situation like the main page it would work. I cannot do or say more (I may have already over stepped) due to arbcom restrictions. β^_command 19:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Beta, your IRC bot seems to be suffering from the same bug. MarkusHowell was removed from the Main Page on this diff at 20:35, yet your bot reported it still on the Main Page and unprotected. The Commons log for the file shows the image was always protected while on the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The above list is not entirely accurate, but we have been experiencing a significant problem with unprotected Commons images appearing on the main page via DYK.
I've been checking Template:Did you know and all of the queues whenever I'm online (and protecting any unprotected images that I've encountered). I repeatedly reported the issue in this thread, and I eventually added this editnotice to all of the queues. When that didn't work, I began posting messages on the talk pages of the sysops who were inserting the unprotected images. Since then, the frequency seems to have been greatly reduced.
However, there is a simple solution that has not yet been implemented. Template:Did you know is automatically updated by DYKadminBot (which transfers the content of the six queues at scheduled intervals). In other words, almost all DYK images are placed on the main page by that bot. DYKadminBot should simply verify that each image is protected (either locally or at Commons) and if it isn't, it should post a notification message instead of performing the update. I contacted Nixeagle (the bot's operator) both on-wiki and by e-mail weeks ago, and he/she has not responded (despite performing several edits since then). —David Levy 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange request

Could anybody give me any insight into this rather odd message about help retiring a sockpuppet account on my talkpage? [127]. Clearly I can't help with the retiring, but "the claim accidental creation of a sockpuppet" seems strange to me. What to do? --Slp1 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite curious, the user's only contributions have been posting a retirement notice, and then posting on your talkpage. Perhaps they forgot they had an account and didn't remember until they'd registered a new one? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

It probably requires no action. Additional accounts are allowed as long as there is no malicious intent. Accidentally creating a second account, or forgetting an earlier password and having to create a new account, or anything like that, require no admin action. In both of these cases, a user will likely only be using one of their two accounts, so there is no violation of WP:SOCK. --Jayron32 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this a sockpuppet of banned user Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs) who no longer wishes to be labeled as a banned sockpuppeteer. He was on WP:AN yesterday as Forrasnyelo (talk · contribs).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought something must be going on. I wonder why he picked me.--Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe it wasn't Multiplyperfect [128]. Oh well!!--Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

New subtopic: Why is Wikipedia so juvenile; things an admin can help to improve

Someone who is not involved in Wikipedia asked me why Wikipedia is so "juvenile". They were referring to jargon like "sock of indef banned user". The topic below reminded me of the comment. This is added to AN to see if administrators would like to coin a more professional term and to see if we can re-establish professionalism in Wikipedia. Any ideas on new terminology or new approaches to maintaining order in editing? User F203 (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, we can refer it as "editor --- is exceeding one username per article"? It's a start. Keep ideas coming. User F203 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing unprofessional or juvenile about calling a spade a spade. A user who creates false identities to bypass sanctions imposed is the juvenile, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar: I've noted a lot of users have started using the word "professional" as a positive in regards to Wikipedia conduct. Did I miss something? --Smashville^talk 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "sockpuppet" is not limited to Wikipedia as it is general Internet jargon, so I don't know what that person's beef is. "Banned" is the same as everywhere else – meaning 'you're not welcome here'. MuZemike 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If it ain't broke, why fix it? --Smashville^talk 16:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if I missed something that you find the word 'professional' to be a problem when used to describe experienced or expected conduct on Wikipedia? It's a bad enough thing that Wikipedia has a policy eliminating professionals from editing in their subject area to begin with, that some small number of our editors might do our job competently enough to be described as professional is now bad too? I can't wait to see such a compliment used to push someone off the 'pedia now. A guarantee of permanent amateur hour from 14 year olds with dick jokes. great. ThuranX (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No...I'm saying that my check must have been lost in the mail. --Smashville^talk 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that we're not paid for what we do here, "professionalism" is not a good goal for behavior on Wikipedia. We're collaborators on a labor of love and should treat each other warmly, as other enthusiasts working on a hobby, not as people trying to "get the job done". I say this as someone who does have a professional career in RL and has no bias against people who have that mindset (because I tend to when at work). Keep it easy and breezy Wikipedians. -- Atama^chat 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the other thing. Wikipedia isn't my job...it's a hobby. I will keep an appropriate demeanor for an administrator, but the minute I start treating it like a job is the minute I take off from here. --Smashville^talk 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Professionalism may be changing as a reflection on society. Many people view professionalism as a positive. For example, employees being kind to customers, not saying anything on their mind (instead of "you ugly, fat complainer who wants something free, just take a number" saying "I'll help you as soon as I finish this call"). On the other hand, I now see that some people think professionalism is bad, thinking that professionalism means working. This is a new definition to me. User F203 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point was the preponderance of wiki-speak wiki-jargon which remains impenetrable except for the most motivated wiki-geeks. I too yearn for normal English sans WP:ALPHABETSOUP. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A glossary for new users might be helpful. Do we already have one somewhere? --John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:GLOSSARY. I'm also fairly certain there's a guideline or essay somewhere pointing out that newbies don't know the jargon, so full names and explanations should be used when they're likely to be around. I don't see the issue of using such terms in places like AN and ANI (ahem, the Admin's Noticeboard et al) where the majority of users reading these posts are going to be experienced and know what's being spoken to. Most of the time when acronyms are used, they're linked anyway, since it only adds a couple brackets and a WP: to it. I think this is already well covered. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with a person who is new or otherwise unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, I will never use acronyms or other jargon without explanation. I might say something along the lines of "read the WP:V guideline" but always in proper context. I think that's all anyone has to do, and I'm sure that's what most of us do. -- Atama^chat 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Most societies or cultural groups have their own language, argot, or jargon which helps them to identify fellow members and exclude non-members. WP is no different in that regard. Wikimarkup is another example of this - there's no technical reason why WP couldn't have a WYSIWYG editor, even without raising the technological bar (i.e., using javascript). Tell your friend that this is WP's "secret handshake". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So... was F203's friend's point that using jargon is "juvenile"? I thought juvenile behavior was making up new words to refer to vomit, or laughing at inappropriate sexual innuendos. How is "sock of indef banned user" an example of either? Now excuse me while I go for a hike on the Appalachian Trail... -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of jargon is to permit members of a group to concisely describe things specific to their group. To take an example from my profession (computer programming), I could say "the latest build segfaults on startup", or I could say "during the process of preparing itself for user interaction, the version of the program compiled from the current source code is terminated by the computer's operating system because it tries to access a location in the computer's random-access memory that it is not permitted to access". Which is more likely to be used -- and did you notice that even the "jargon-free" version contains technical vocabulary specific to the profession? --Carnildo (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd have to ask this friend if s/he thinks doctors are juvenile because they use jargon? How about lawyers, or architects? Maybe s/he just used a poor choice of words, and meant "why the hell is it so hard to understand what they're talking about?" In which case, I point to Carnildo's comment: the jargon arose because it's quicker & easier for Wikipedians to understand what's going on. It's not intentionally made difficult for the layman to understand, anymore that particle physics was made specifically obfuscated for excluding the common man. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

'Socking' is an internet term with a relatively long pedigree. The internal operations terms of the 'pedia don't need to be massaged by customer service specialists into phrases that no one really uses for people who'll never really read them. Protonk (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Will Beback (Administrator) (Moved)

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

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

SPI backlog?

Checkuser requests flow through speedily but nobody seems to be taking care of the non-Checkuser listings at WP:SPI. There's one going back to 2 weeks ago that hasn't been touched... I posted this on the talk page over there but nobody responded. Just wondering what the normal timeframe is for sockpuppet investigations. Not complaining, just asking (and poking a bit?) <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... (X! · talk)  · @876  ·  20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still a huge backlog and growing every day... anyone else have a moment to go over and handle some of these? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of non-CheckUser cases is up to 30. Any help from admins who want to clear up the more clear cases would be appreciated. MuZemike 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We need more checkusers who are dedicated to this page. I find it depressing to process sock puppetry cases when I have to wait a long, long time to get checkuser requests fulfilled. In all but the most obvious cases, it is a bad idea to block for sock puppetry without first checking the technical evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bottleneck is at the other stages of the process. Once one of my reports is approved for checkuser attention, it is nearly always run within 18 hours. It's the initial clerk processing and clearing of the reports that bogs down. The bulk of the problem seems to be in the non-checkuser area, where any admin can pitch in and help out.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we recruit more clerks to do the front end processing? I'm happy to help when there has been a checkuser and the result is ambiguous. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Patrolling admins will need this for the more obvious cases.

That's the fast part. It's the evaluation of behavioural evidence that goes slowly, and takes time from the other activities. Unfortunately, until we stop treating checkuser as the equivalent of a strip-search we are going to be stuck doing a lot of analysis of behavioural evidence.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as clerks are concerned, several new clerks have recently come onboard to help, myself included. Most of the cases have not requested CheckUser, either because the behavioral evidence is clear to the point that CheckUser is not necessary, or that the user(s) filing the SPIs are unaware about how to request CheckUser or may not exactly know if one is needed. Most of the legwork needs to be done by patrolling admins who determine if there is sufficient behavioral evidence that sockpuppetry is going on. MuZemike 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent an hour going through cases. If I thought the evidence was strong but not compelling, I placed them on the checkuser queue. There were a few that quacked very loudly, and anyone with the bit can go through, block them, and place tag the case for closing:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fastwaylie
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JJimbo3
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/0Bammer

—Kww(talk) 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All we need is one (or more if more feel like helping) admins to go through the non-checkuser cases, make the necessary blocks and set the completed cases to be archived by the bot. Three cases above are obvious and just waiting for blocks (one of them is actively socking and vandalizing even). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

i need the schools favour

hello sir, its me osifeso ayodele oluwaseun an international student that just gained admission into your school for information technology.actually i was asked the pay some money and due to economic breakdown in nigeria presently.and it as cause some damage to our bussiness.that is the reason why my parents suggested that i should mail the school if they can allow me to pay half of the money now and after few months i will be balancing the payment.pls i will look forward towards seeing your response.thanks for your cooperation osifeso ayodele oluwaseun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayodele osifeso (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Jayron32 18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking abuse filter proposal

See WP:VPR#Blocking abuse filters?. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for unblock by User talk:Macromonkey

Resolved

See Macromonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User was indeffed in april, and does not appear to have edited since. They have asked to be allowed to come back to the fold; I am inclined to think he's been blocked long enough; as he can always be reblocked if needed. What does everyone else say in this case. If there are sockpuppetry issues that we need to work out that I am unaware of, or if there are issues I am unaware of beyond "he deserved the block when he got it" (which he clearly did) then lets have that discussion. What does everyone think of provisionally unblocking him with the understanding that the indef block returns at the first sign of any problems? --Jayron32 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He has indeed edited and vandalized since April using socks:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Macromonkey/Archive

Note that right before his current request, he had removed two notifications on his talk page. I have restored them. One of his actions was to attack me by creating a nearly identical username to mine. Brangifer (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unaware of these issues. It looks like he's been socking less than a month ago, given that, I am amending my comments above. I personally am now ready to decline his request based on recent sock problems, and to inform him to abstain from socking for a reasonable time (several months) if he wants to return. I will wait for a short time to see what others think, however, but given this new evidence, I think that he has not changed enough to consider that he is now willing to abide by Wikipedia rules. --Jayron32 19:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I regret the sockpuppetry: I have no active socks anymore. I did remove the notifications, but not in a malicious way, but to make the page more clear, although I can see how this may be seen. I appreciate my request being considered, so thank you. 86.157.67.12 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, why are you out here making the case? Blocked means blocked, meaning you are not supposed to be editing anywhere outside your talk page. Using another IP out here tells us that you are still using alternate accounts not only to evade blocks, but also to cause further disruption and abuse. MuZemike 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No per Brangifer, I was going to post the same links, but Bull beat me to it. Vsmith (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Decline unblock - Thanks to Jayron for notifying me of the conversation. I'm afraid he exhausted our patience before, and whatever the assertions now the socking above does not give me much trust that the issues of the past will not be repeated. Pedro :  Chat  20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per my comment above. MuZemike 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (even if polling is evil) - "close minded idiots, it doesnt matter if its a consensus, its just group bias", an edit summary used in March, shows the user has very little or no regard for one of our core policies. No reason to believe that he would change his ways at that rate.  GARDEN  20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock request declined due to recent socking. Show that you can honor your block for a reasonable period of time, and then request an unblock. See WP:GAB. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input everyone. I have declined his unblock request this time, but made him aware of the Wikipedia:Standard offer. If he is genuine about turning over a new leaf, he will wait several months before editing as instructed. We can revisit the issue at that time. I am marking this resolved. --Jayron32 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, thanks, Jayron32. However, I do not believe that nondisruptive edits, such as the one I saw on my Talk page from Macromonkey, or the IP comment above, should be considered violations of anything, and I'll be arguing this before ArbComm. Bans allow rapid block on discovery, we do it for efficiency, so that we don't have to debate the same issue over and over. Not editing per the Standard Offer is a demonstration of respect for community consensus. Note, however, that if an editor is desperate to make constructive edits outside of articles known to be of interest to Macromonkey, the likelihood of them being identified as sock edits is about zero. If, later, MacroMonkey comes back and wants to take responsibility for those edits (I'd recommend it), we would not block the editor, assuming that they were, indeed, good edits. But there is an obvious risk.
• Further, I'm going to be arguing before ArbComm that self-reverted edits, nondisruptive in themeselves but only technical violations, are not offenses against ban policy, which exists to protect, not to punish. Even if a self-reverted edit is *wrong*, it's automatically undone and nobody need do anything about it. I'll give the arguments for this at RfAr. However, it can do nothing but improve the project and provide an open door for a banned editor to begin making constructive contributions immediately, and for the contribution to take effect, if this is in an article that was a reason for the ban, cooperation by or with editors who supported the ban may take place, hence the divisions behind the ban may start to heal. The edit summary "will self-revert per ban," per ban "of MacroMonkey" in this case, actually shows respect for the ban and trust in the community (true violating IP socks don't identify themselves so that they can be immediately blocked!). MacroMonkey should know, however, that, though myself-reversion proposal was approved by one arbitrator, previously, about another banned editor, when I later was banned and actually relied on it to make a one-character correction to a reference, I was immediately blocked and editors piled in to approve that action. So this isn't accepted yet. Soon, I hope. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Griffinofwales

Resolved

I've just blocked Griffinofwales ‎for 12 hours for carrying on a revert war at User talk:Jimbo Wales after the protection I'd put on it expired. I've just realised the time and it's far later than I thought so I'm going to have to go to bed. Could other administrators keep an eye on the situation for me and decide whether the block is good? If there's consensus against it, I've no problem with it being removed. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Griffinofwales reverted on the basis of advice I gave, whether that advice was correct or not. I certainly have received no comments on that. Accordingly, I don't regard this as continued edit-warring, merely a misunderstanding. Given that the pubs are now well-shut in Manchester, I am not surprised, and will unblock User:Griffinofwales forthwith. If anyone feels my advice was inadequate, well, I advised on the situation as I saw it. If I misinterpreted it, you know what you can do. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Geogre 2

A motion regarding the above user has been closed and may be viewed at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Peter Damian block length

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.

Block and length generally endorsed, nothing to be done that needs immediate admin action, so let's move on with life. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

From this, Peter Damian has been blocked for one month. I do not disagree with the block, merely the extent of time. I am not Peter Damian's friend, nor do I have any relationship with him beyond an overall combative and adversarial relationship in the past.

The original ArbCom motion states: "If Peter Damian violates this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator."

We have three edits, one is harassing and two are edit warring over harassing. The others seem to be moot. His block log reveals only a 12 hour block, 24 hour blocks, and a 72 hour block for set time limit blocks. The ArbCom motion does not suggest that the block is given longer than normal blocks, but that the condition for blocking becomes less.

As such, I would recommend that this block be shortened to a more reasonable progression of blocks. I would suggest that this block be reduced to one week or two weeks, as a month from 72 hours is a large jump. I suggest this based on the wording "appropriate period of time". I do not feel that a month block for minor edit warring and minor annoyance is suitable. I would feel more comfortable with a time limit of one week or two weeks at the very most. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What is appropriate is directly related to the history of a user. Peter has already had all of those shorter blocks more than a few times, they did not work. This does seem like a reasonable progression. Chillum 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW there were three edits: one to add the sockpuppeteer tag to FT2's page, one to add the sock tag to TBP's page, and one to create the sockpuppet category - the latter two have been deleted. Majorly talk 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We're supposed to be preventative, not punitive. It's highly doubtful Peter will magically become the gold-hearted ideal, but I'm rather uncomfortable with throwing away the key entirely. We can easily reevaluate its effectiveness at the end of one month. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did anyone suggest that? –xeno^talk 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply saying that I think giving time to reevaluate the block is best (either to lengthen it, which I know some people have wanted, or to shorten.) Sorry, rereading that it does come out of left field :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Chillum - if shorter blocks do not work, why is his block log not double the side? And I do not feel comfortable jumping from a 72 hour block for block evasion to a 1 month long block for minor edit warring and harassment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on a linear progression, how do his indefinite blocks fit into it? Chillum 14:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite means without limit. Law's indef was reduced to 7 hours. The first indef was only an hour. They do not effectively add any idea to jump to a month. Also, please not the use of the term "appropriate" by ArbCom, which would acknowledge standard blocking increments. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Shockingly - agree with Ottava. The natural progression being 24,48,72,1 week,(mileage varying, 2 weeks),1 month - at least a step was skipped. –xeno^talk 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Steps? Do we have predefined steps now? How do his indefinite blocks fit into these steps? Regardless, has the blocking admin been notified of this thread? Chillum 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Only as defined by common practice. –xeno^talk 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think common practice is far more varied than the steps you describe. Chillum 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is. And in any case we're not necessarily bound by any generic informal practice. I think looking at the big picture a month is about right. RxS (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I comment only on the overarching issue here, which is that an Admin's Guide needs to be posted to help admins in these types of things, such as standardizing progressive corrective actions (blocks) and the like so that Wikipedia's admin actions will look less arbitrary and more consistent and competent. Cla68 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree on that. Neither WP:BLOCK nor the WP:NAS have any guidance beyond "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future." –xeno^talk 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't need our progressive corrective actions standardized. Different situations call for different reactions. We can't have a predefined set of responses that will work for everyone. Chillum 14:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording by ArbCom, "appropriate", suggests that we need to have a predefined set of responses. Appropriate means that it is correct to the situation. It is also stated as a defined necessary response to a violation. These are dictates, not loose suggestions. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Appropriate" does not mean it has to be predefined. It simply means "don't overreact," which is something that needs judged for each block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block length. Peter has been a disruption for quite a while now. Maybe some significant time away from the project will help him reevaluate his goals. He was given a directive to stay away from FT2, and he knowingly and willfully went against that. He needs to think about if he's here to build an encyclopedia or to create drama. Hopefully, the month will prevent further disruption. Firestorm ^Talk 15:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He was clearly asked to behave better and specifically chose not to. It's not that hard to get along better and those that choose not to don't need to be pampered so excessively. Some people act as if the default behavior is poor and that's ok. Instead we have an encyclopedia to write and we should direct our efforts towards that at all turns. - Taxman ^Talk 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment We're running the risk of a meatball:ForestFire (fragmented discussion) as PD's conduct and resulting block are being discussed on both AN, ANI as well as WP:AE and his user talk page. In plainer english, can we pick a page and stick with it? Also, was blocking admin notified?--Tznkai (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last question, yes the OP notified the blocking admin.[129]--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Techincal note Peter damian has block logs under past accounts as well. Full block logs for main accounts are as follows. :

• Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Renamed user 35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Renamed user 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered this in the past, but is there any possibility that Peter Damian (talk · contribs) is Wiki brah (talk · contribs)? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A buh?? Wiki brah, the barely-literate guy who acts about 15? If they're the same person, he's done a bang-up job of creating separate personalities. I can't see similarities. Friday (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Friday. I don't see Peter doing any help desk trolling, legal article editing, or off-colour comments about how high he might be at this particular time. –xeno^talk 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My question arises because of Wiki brah's penchant for attempting to create disruptive new policies. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse block and its length. I would not object to an indef the next time. It is clearly preventative, because for the next month, Peter Damian won't be harassing anybody. Given his lengthy history, there is ample evidence that he has every intention of being disruptive as often as possible. I see no reason to object to a block of this length given his past history. --Jayron32 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would've agreed with Xeno. However, given that the block logs on the previous accounts need to also be considered (thank you Seddon for pointing these out), given the nature of the misconduct (harassment), and the remaining issues mentioned by Jayron32, I can find no objections. Endorse block and its length. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse PD's been blocked enough on various accounts, and suggested block escalation lengths aren't always the best guide. Protonk (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as per Ncm above. Being blocked that many times clearly indicates a problem. Dayewalker (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse and move we extend to indefinite. Peter's not been anything positive for the project lately, and there's simply no point to putting any length on blocks if all he does is come back and cause more problems post-expiration. Does anyone seriously believe any length of block will prompt contrition and reform? Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement from blocking admin

As the admin who pushed the block button on Peter, I'll say that I believe the length of my block is justified (perhaps too lenient), but if the community decides otherwise, then I'm fine with that. Given his history, and the fact that he has been blocked multiple times since ArbCom passed their motion concerning him back in December, it seems apparent to me that he is not willing to abide by any conditions that are set on him, and that respect for policy is not there. Short term blocks have proven to be ineffective in preventing recurrences. That much is apparent just from looking at his block log -- I didn't even know about his other accounts (as noted by Seddon above) when I made the block. So, given that, it would seem that anything short of an indefinite block would be inappropriate. However, I did notice comments from other users noting that Peter has made some good content contributions. So, given that, and a desire to create less drama than an indef block would have generated, I settled on one month, with the hopes that the situation between him and FT2 would have a chance to cool off in that time. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this in response to Peter, but it is equally in response to you (after the beginning, of course). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The "creates good content" excuse is a red herring insofar as allowing disruption to go unchecked. No content created by one person cannot otherwise be created by another, with the thousands of editors here, no one is irreplaceable. However, one diruptive user can drive dozens of otherwise non-disruptive users from the project by creating an unworkable environment. So the question becomes?

1. Do we mind losing his potential future content contributions by eventually indeffing him,
2. Do we mind more losing the contributions from the dozens of other people he is going to drive away if he is allowed to continue this behavior unchecked.

I will vote for #2 every day and twice on sundays. The deal is, no one is irreplacable, so it comes down to cold mathematics. His contributions cannot outweigh the damage he does in driving other users away. If he doesn't want to be blocked, he can stop acting in a way that he should know will get him blocked. But we should not consider mainspace contributions as a mitigating factor in issues like this. What of the mainspace contributions from all of the people who up and left because of people like Peter Damian? --Jayron32 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ephemeral. I agree with you Jayron, but we can't prove a damn thing, its all speculative.--Tznkai (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Whistleblowers are disruptive. How they are dealt with says a lot about the health of the institution in which it the whistleblowing occurs. Institutions that regard whistleblowing purely as a disciplinary problem, or as a problem of people not pulling together with the team, and which make no effort to get to grips with the matter of whether the allegations made are true, are sick organisations. So I reject Jayron's either/or; there are more reasons why good editors might leave WP than being aghast at the spectacle of seeing speech-restricting injunctions flouted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be great except this isn't a whistleblower situation as much as Peter Damian would like to paint it as one. While he may have had a point at times, there are ways to make good points and point out problems you see without crossing the line into utter and complete disruption. Choosing repeatedly to do the latter is what has gotten Peter into this situation. Not whistleblowing. - Taxman ^Talk 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Whistleblowing would be a Good Thing. Being a general disruption because you disagree with other people is a Bad Thing. You can be a vocal opponent of Wikipedia and its power structure without being just mean and harassing. There is a huge difference between vehement, but civil, disagreement and with just being a general dirsuption. Peter Damian crossed into the latter category long ago. --Jayron32 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

A user repeatedly add his own copyright tags on various articles

See Special:Contributions/Chicarelli7. Unfortunately, his Talk page is not accessible, so it's impossible to warn him about this. He seems to have a "Special Contribution page", but no user page. Hervegirod (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been going on for quite some time. I have cleaned up as many as I can find, and notified the user that it should not happen again. A number of similar edits had also been made to Commons. Also see similar edits from User:Gerson75, and edits such as [130]. Outside Wikipedia itself, a similar notice appears to have been added to http://libero.wikia.com/wiki/Free_Documentation_License -- I don't have a Wikia account, so I won't remove it myself, but it probably shouldn't be there either. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that it was possible to access the Talk page with the little Talk link at the top, even if the user page was not accessible. Hervegirod (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Without having any desire to wheel war, I'm a bit surprised that this editor wasn't blocked for being a vandalism only account. Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. I issued the warning on that talk page prior to researching the other edits from other accounts. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed creation of a new notice board

Resolved

 – never mind. Triplestop x3 15:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose the creation of a new page, the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Abuse". The abuse noticeboard would be for allowing users to report suspicious activity related to long term abuse (eg, long term sock abusers), and to allow users dealing with abusers to track and find reports of occurrences of such abuse. Now, AN/I, AIV, LTA and SPI are sometimes used for this, however users often don't report unless they are absolutely sure something fishy is going on, at AIV not all admins may be familiar with the situation, LTA is only used for more extreme cases, and at SPI the puppet master might not be known. This would also provide a centralized place to track such abuse as well as alerting other users for activity to be on the lookout for. Any ideas? Triplestop x3 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can ANI not continue to handle this like it already does? Why continue to balkanize the admin noticeboards? Having fewer locations to check in on allows more admins to monitor and respond to more situations. Unless there is some new process which would require such reports to be seperated out, I don't see why SPI (for where the sockmaster is known) and ANI (for where it is not) are not currently sufficient. --Jayron32 03:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just a silly idea. ANI is for "right-this-minute" problems while AN is for more admin stuff. We don't need a third board. Oppose. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Props to the proposer for withdrawing this. Things are confusing enough. Crafty (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Triplestop got suplexed for asking for ideas. Calling the proposal "silly" probably wasn't very nice. Cmon, T-stop, I'll buy you a cold one. Tan | 39 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about un-block requests

There is no unblock request to be heard. –xenotalk 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Amisquitta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I read about un-block requests. These are usually decided by one person. But this is a very important issue so there should be Wikipedia-wide administrator discussion so we don't get Wikipedia into hot water. See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts Then see this Amisquitta apparently represented Anthony Misquitta of Farrer & Co, who did in fact co-write the legal notice I received. I don't think it's wise to get involved as an administrator in matters related to the NPG, but neither would I object to an unblock. Dcoetzee 06:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) An administrator already got involved and blocked User:Amisquitta. This looks like retaliation by Wikipedia. Because this is an unusual case, shouldn't Amisquitta be unblocked? If Amisquitta begins to edit badly or threatens, he can be reblocked. Don't shoot the messenger. I am just reporting something that I saw (a block) Acme Plumbing (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC) To avoid confusing any pending legal matters, I oppose unblock. The above comment, attributed to Dcoetzee, appears to have been copied here from the latter's enwiki talk page: User talk:Dcoetzee#National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. The admin who placed the block on 10 July was User:Georgewilliamherbert. The immediate reason for the block appears to be the use of the Wikipedia email system to forward a legal notice to Dcoetzee. Reference above to 'unblock request' might be confusing because Amisquitta has not himself requested unblock. The notice at User talk:Amisquitta by GWH asks that Amisquitta contact Mike Godwin for any further discussion. It is reasonable that Mr. Misquitta and Mike Godwin must have a direct channel available for them to communicate on, so the urgency of undoing this block is not clear. If Mike G. were to advise undoing the block, then it should obviously be undone. For normal legal threats, under WP:NLT the block is kept in place while the case is pending: If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. This appears sensible, so that statements made through on-wiki interaction don't get added to the court case, if one were to be filed. No disapproval of Mr. Misquitta personally is implied by this stance, since he may have felt it was a necessary step in his case to try to use Wikipedia email to notify the person whose actions he is questioning. (He may have had no other means of reaching him). EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I don't see that the user has requested unblocking. –xenotalk 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the summary, Ed. As there is no unblock request to be heard, I am archiving this thread. –xenotalk 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not here to build an encyclopedia

I've had a go at drafting this page. The expression itself is often used and referenced in communal discussions, and a page on it seems long overdue.

Eyeballs and improvements?

Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it an essay, proposed guideline/policy? –xeno^talk 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a userbox? {{user-encyclopedia|-1}} This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and wishes more Wikipedians had secret pages to discover. Badger Drink (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that this page helps building an encyclopedia? I think it would be better to cut down WP:NOT to readable length instead of adding even more pages that people point at using alphabet soup but nobody reads. Kusma (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is used often enough that providing some insight on what people are talking about is worthwhile. Not sure if it can exactly fit right into policy/guideline form though. It covers a lot of area. –xeno^talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Westchester Tornado of July 2006

Resolved

Article history and article talk history has been lost in some page moves. Could the historical edits be moved to the new page locations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any orphaned revisions floating about - could you be more specific about what and where the problem is? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the talk page should have a lot of history before the page move. There should be DYK award diffs, GA nom, GA pass, FA nom and FA pass diffs on the talk page. The article history now seems complete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything is there as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What am I seing here and here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Page move, and subsequent redirect fixes. Nothing related to the revision history of the article itself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Jacquesderrida.jpg

Resolved

 – photo deleted

Hi, I'm a sysop from the German Wikiversity. An user at our project used the picture File:Jacquesderrida.jpg. We don't believe, that this file was releaesed with a proper free license. We would advise you to use this file in the future with the fair use-licence. Yours Michael from Germany. --Michael Reschke (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the photo is on Flickr and tagged as CC: [131]. It's possible that it's mis-tagged or that whoever uploaded it didn't actually have the rights. I'm not seeing it elsewhere on the web, so it's tough to tell. Do you have any active reason to believe the image is not actually CC? (I can't read the conversation in German) Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that photographer's work, they seem to tag everything as CC-BY-SA, including things like screen captures or magazine covers (example) that they plainly don't hold any rights for. Moreover, their blogger profile [132] says that they are (or were whenever they wrote it) thirty years old, but the original photograph is dated from 1985 - they would have been twelve years old at the oldest. I'm inclined to believe that this is just a scan of someone else's photograph that they don't hold any rights to, and consequently I don't believe the licensing can be correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, the file should be tagged for deltion, citing the problems with the flickr user misapplying cc-by-sa tagging of other inappropriate material, and the reasons that this tagging is called into question. If we have reason to suspect that something is mislabeled at flickr, we should not in good conscience continue to host it here. --Jayron32 03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendement regarding Obama articles

The Committee has amended several remedies of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles as follows:

The remedies 4, 5, 9.2, 10.2, and 13 are rewritten as follows: (User) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, User is subject to an editing restriction for one year. User is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should User exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

The amended decision may be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Remedies.

On behalf of the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Topic ban on User:Finneganw at Anna Anderson

There is a clear consensus below for a topic ban of User:Finneganw from the Anna Anderson article and its talkpage; I have informed him of the conclusion reached. --Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to request a topic ban on User:Finneganw (previous account: User:Aussiebrisguy) at Anna Anderson on three grounds:

• Civility. Finneganw has goaded other editors, e.g. [133][134][135][136], despite being advised against it [137]. Further warnings were issued: [138][139]. Nevertheless, another attack occurred [140], and another warning was issued [141].
• Verifiability. Finneganw insists on removing from the article or denying the validity of any source in the article when it disagrees with his own point of view. For example, he claims that a biography written by Robert K. Massie, a former Rhodes Scholar who studied history at Yale and Oxford and won the Pulitzer Prize for biography, cannot be used as a source because it's "wildly unverifiable rubbish" [142]. There are no sources supporting that viewpoint.
• Trolling. Finneganw's talk page contributions consist largely of repeating the same unvarying statements, e.g. accusing his opponents of being rabid: [143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150].

Two years ago, Finneganw's previous accounts User:Greergarsony, User:Marrygracer, User:Elizabethcrane, User:Deustchman, User:Harrietbrown, User:Alexiacolby and User:Aussiebrisguy were blocked after disruption at Anna Anderson. While his behaviour has improved (I don't see any further instances of sockpuppetry), it is still concerning, and still contributes to a toxic atmosphere at the Anna Anderson page, which has meant that normal editing there is impossible. I do not see any evidence of disruption on other pages, consequently, I feel that a ban on any contribution at Anna Anderson or Talk:Anna Anderson or its sub-pages would be the best way to prevent further poor behaviour. DrKay (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone involved on Talk:Anna Anderson, I'm tired of Finneganw's incivility and dismission. He's so blinded by his disdain of Anastasia=AA supporters that he's gone ahead to accuse a well-intentioned administrator (John Kenney), who is trying to prevent this article from turning into The Skeptic's Dictionary, of being a AA supporter. Although Aggiebean has not engaged in the same level of incivility and otherwise disruptive behavior, she too is so blinded her biases that she refuses to accept the valid policy concerns raised by several administrators, including myself. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support a topic ban on User:Finneganw, having been asked to look at this earlier as an uninvolved admin. One way or another, Anna Anderson is the unhelpful mess that it is owing mostly to the unencyclopedic sway Finneganw (under all those usernames) has had on it. All reliable sources clearly support the assertion that Anderson was an utter, straightforward fraud, but the article does nothing towards showing readers how she fell into it and pulled it off for so long, which very likely only leads some readers to thinking the article is so biased and lacking that maybe she was Anastasia, which is not on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely disinterested observer checking in. Is there a possibility of introducing a mediation process and have the individuals involved in the content issue, vent there first? I realize that there is also an issue of temperament and decorum in respect to the heated discourse that has been engendered by the topic, but perhaps mediation may be of use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

There have been mediations before, first one by User:Trusilver, then one by User:AlexiusHoratius, and one now. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should there be mediation on a user who has had numerous accounts blocked previously for the same behavior? It's obvious they're not interested in collegiality. (Unbiased observer). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of my own wikipedia life, I am here try to right an injustice to plead his case. What happened to Finneganw was very unfair and biased. This man has fought tirelessly against POV vandalism, disruptive editing and discredited info being passed off as fact in the article for 3 years. In the past, it was never him who got in trouble, it was the outrageous Anderson supporters who attacked him. Now we seem to have a change of attitude due to one particular mod being swayed by his friend who espouses the pro Anderson point of view. This is not fair as Finneganw has done nothing wrong. ChatNoir24, on the other hand, has been very disruptive and quite over the top for years while touting his agenda which has long since been proven wrong. He has been banned, suspended and warned several times. Yet now, since a newcomer to the discussion agrees with this incorrect viewpoints, Chat is okay and sudddenly, after three years of it being the other way around, Finneganw is the bad guy? I do hope before anything is done to this kind person (Finneganw) that the entire history of the AA talk page even the archives and history be reviewed.

As for what is happening now, it is a strange anomaly that is not fair but being passed off as so. Due to wiki demanding everything be sourced, this falls right into the hands of the Anderson supporters since they have loads of pro Anderson propaganda to use, with much less being written after the DNA tests proved her a fraud. What has been written many times borrows from older sources, and doesn't say in so many words THIS STORY IS NOT TRUE. Because of this, a lot of really stupid stuff that could not possibly have really happened since we know Anderson wasn't Anastasia is being sneaked into the article using the excuse that we don't have a reliable source to say it isn't so, therefore it can stay. I believe this to be the wrong thing for the site, as wiki needs its articles to be up to date and accurate. With the final 2009 DNA tests proving all members of the Romanov family are now found and accounted for, Anderson is proved without a doubt to be a fraud, meaning some of the things she claimed are now impossible. We should use a little common sense and logical deduction here and leave out these things. The only real 'source' I can show you is the DNA, so far no one has written a book mentioning each AA incident one by one and specifically stating 'this couldn't have happened', but this does not mean they should be in the article. As one other admin told us before, wiki does not regard all opinions equally and are under no obligation to give equal time to a lopsidedly wrong and disproven POV. This is the case with AA. For 3 years now, it has been the Anderson supporters who have been stopped from doing this, but now thanks to the addition of the pro Anderson JohnK I(yes, he is, regardless of his denials, I've seen these arguments for years on many sites, NO ONE but NO ONE backs her that avidly, actively, prolifically and strongly if not a supporter) backed by Dr. Kay, it has completely turned the opposite way, which is the wrong thing for the article if it is to be fact based and verifiable and free of myths and allusions to a 'mystery' that no longer exists. If anyone has any comments or questions please answer here or on my talk page, I have much evidence to back myself up if anyone will please take the time to listen. Free Finneganw!Aggiebean (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009

...Can a motion be 'quadrated'? (Too late to be 'seconded'.)===

• For what little it is worth, I am a royal pain, and I too plead for the topic ban on user Finneganw. How the stench of his rot has escaped your noses I cannot tell. And I will further beg you to take note of the user who has posted above, aggiebean, who has if nothing else been a staunch defender and enabler of Finneganw. I see Finnegan is still posting away, so I guess court's adjourned. There weren't this many admins involved in my ass-kickin' regarding Anna Anderson, I'll tell you that!75.21.101.78 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)--Sorry I posted again to state that I accidentally messed up a tiny end-portion of the signature of the preceeding post. Also I wanted to call to your attention that Finneganw has had in the past protection from adminstrator Nishkid64, or perhaps from DrKay himself. I am blocked from posting messages on Finneganw's talk page, and I am nearly 100% certain Nishkid64 is responsible for this. Investigate those who enabled Finneganw before you slap a topic block on him. Brought to you by the Revolution.75.21.101.78 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Finneganw has responded at User talk:Bzuk#Mediation - Anna Anderson: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bzuk&diff=prev&oldid=304231347. DrKay (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of User:Finneganw from the Anna Anderson article. If the ban is intended to improve the editing climate, he should also be restricted from the article's Talk page. Keeping him off the article proper would not have much effect, since Finneganw has only edited the article itself three times in July (the last time on July 8) while he has edited the talk page 128 times in July. Finneganw has been active on this article over a long period, and seems to have placed himself on a permanent war footing due to the former activities of Anna Anderson supporters. (A quick glance shows that the present article is not at all pro-Anderson, so his militance seems unneeded). His present attitude seems to be getting in the way of normal article improvement, and the sharp and negative comments about the abilities of other editors are not helping. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also support this. I've been aware of problems around Anna Anderson for a long time as I have previously had to deal with Finneganw and his various and numerous socks. Frankly, he was lucky he wasn't banned as his socking was extensive, disruptive and extended to emailing me under a female persona (User:Alexiacolby), informing me it was time for me to go on a lengthy wikibreak because, according to him, my actions as an administrator trying to contain his disruptive socking and block evasion were basically just "trash" and "vandalism", appealing to me "woman-woman" and chastising me for treating a fellow "woman" that way (blocking very, very obvious and transparent sockpuppets). I think his disruption of the articles is extremely problematic as he is so fixated and seems unable to embrace Wikipedia's policies and due to the long term nature of it, the numerous blocks under various accounts etc, it seems he's not getting the Clue. The Anna Anderson article seems to be the centre of the problems (though in the past it has extended to various royalty and puppeteering (truly) articles a well). I also suspect that there are COI issues as well but that's not really got anything to do with my support of this proposal which is based entirely on his behaviour. I have also been concerned with the amount of personal commentary and battleground type editing that has been going on at that talk page in general, not just with him. Rather than dealing with the content, the editors there seem to have been spending an awful amount of time talking about each other. Hopefully with Finneganw taken out of the scenario that will improve but I recommend looking out for more socks and enforcing behavioural policies and guidelines on that talk page. Sarah 04:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a plea for justice. Banning user Finneganw from Anna Anderson in totality is fair and just. This user, immersed deep in deliberate sock puppetry and personal attacks, is the reason I have been indefblocked from the subject and even from talk pages of other editors. I deserved what I got for what I did. However, Finneganw has over the course of 3 years chased away valuable editors, casual users and even administrators...all people who could not bear his attacks. He successfully coordinated his hounding attacks in tandem with user aggiebean, though I do not address that user here. Now, DO YOUR JOBS and topic-ban Finneganw. It is a user like Finneganw that opens the doors to Revolution. ;)75.21.101.157 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the IP's comments. This is a conceited and annoying (who refers to themselves as the Revolution?) individual who used to go under the username "RevAntonio" before being blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(removed another IP comment) For the record, I support a topic ban on Finneganw. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to close this thread. I have placed "Finneganw is prohibited from editing Anna Anderson, Talk:Anna Anderson, and subpages of Talk:Anna Anderson." as a community sanction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I do note, however, that Finneganw has voluntarily avoided the Anna Anderson page for the last seven days. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an uninvolved admin should close this and notify the user what the outcome of the discussion is and very clearly set down the terms. Sarah 03:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, 144.134.177.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) currently editing the Anna Anderson article is Finneganw. He edits on IPs on a couple of different Telstra IP ranges and in the past when he's been blocked he has simply logged out and continued on his merry way with dynamic Telstra IPs. It's clear he intends to continue editing the article whether logged in or out so I think this needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin and he needs to be informed as to the outcome of the discussion. Sarah 14:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. DrKay (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1, much appreciated. I've removed the archive tags because I think there is a broader problem here. One of the reasons that Aussiebrisguy/Finnegan etc came to my attention originally was due to his edits to various Australian pages. One of the articles he wrote was David Logan (playwright) and has used socks to fiercely protect it, removing any attempts to tag etc. David Logan is currently on AFD and it's now come to my attention that Finnegan seems to have moved on yet again to Saschapav (talk · contribs) which is being used to spam David Logan books, references etc into a broad range of articles and has also posted a collection of articles about a vampire book that Logan has written, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dracula's_Return, including character and fictional location articles, all based entirely on Logan's book with no secondary sources (for example Daria Borisovna Semovsky, Semovsky Palace and Alexander Pavlovich Semovsky), as well as spamming into any vaguely related articles such as Count Dracula, Brides of Dracula, Alexander III of Russia, and Amalienborg Palace. I've removed the most obviously problematic instances of spamming but there's now also a report at Spam#user:Saschapav. I've been reluctant to address this in depth (hence my vague comment above about COI) but it now seems unavoidable as the spamming has now spread across many articles and is clearly, IMHO, geared at promoting David Logan. I think we need to consider stronger and broader restrictions on this user. Sarah 03:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)