Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents: July 20, 2005 - July 26, 2005

Contents 1 Unblocking Kim Brunning 2 The Electric Universe model article 3 Request that an admin edit the protected Ted Kennedy article 4 Backlog! 5 Anyone have some time on their hands? 6 How to make a bomb 7 Vandalism in progress page errors 8 Arbitration case - Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell 9 Closing VfD for Authentic Matthew 10 Certain admin's practicing censorship and/or disallowing honest contributions by labelling them "Nazism" 11 Requesting VFD debate links to be added to talkpages 12 Mediation 13 Page move 14 Arbitration case - Zivinbudas 15 Page Move problem 16 Langer 17 User:TV Party Tonight! 18 Anon style sheets 19 Conflict Alert: User:Sam Spade and User:FeloniousMonk 19.1 Up-date 20 Arbitration Committee decision: User:Irate personal attack parole 21 The page Wikipedia:Election Notice needs to be marked as {{historical}}

[edit] Unblocking Kim Brunning

I seem to be permanently in the midst of controversy these days... anyway, there is some discussion of whether I did the right thing in unblocking Kim Bruning, who had tried to stop an escalating problem with GNAA pages. He got blocked for 3RR violation on WP:VFU, but I felt he had gotten the message soon after and unblocked him - mainly cause he wanted to help copyedit Microsoft Jet Database Engine, an article I am steadily working with the view to making is an FA (please vote! on FAC!)

Anyway, here it is: the issue on my talk page in all it's g(l)ory. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

(to User:Lifeisunfair, who wanted to know why I unblocked Kim) This is to stop revert wars. The revert wars had ceased, I wanted some help to contribute to Wikipedia. I unblocked Kim after securing a promise not to continue the edit war. Based on their previous actions, I accepted this. Any admin can do this, if they feel that the problem is resolved. This is all I have to say. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Any admin can do this, but it's widely considered inappropriate for admins who are directly involved in the relevant conflict (or any other conflict with the user) to do so.

You seldom remove intentionally imposed blocks for substantiated infractions, so it certainly appears as though you gave Kim special treatment. Perhaps this isn't the case, but the appearance of impropriety is precisely why involved admins should recuse themselves from such decisions (even if otherwise 100% legitimate). —Lifeisunfair 00:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey... didn't know you could restrict the search like that... Anyway, I realise what it looks like, but in the case of Kim B, we know that he is not an intentional vandal and we also know that it was just a misguided attempt at sorting out a "ForestFire". I don't see any real need to penalise them for the full 24 hours. Especially when they could be contributing to this site in a productive manner, and also he is now fully aware that we want him to continue reverting and will no longer be doing this! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that Kim is not a vandal, but the same can be said of most other users who are blocked for violating the 3RR. As in Kim's case, the usual cause is an overzealous (but well-intentioned) desire to leave a page in a particular state — one that the user honestly believes is superior. —Lifeisunfair 00:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur with TBSDY's decision, Lifeisunfair, 3RR is not meant as punitive measure. I was attempting to cool down a heated situation; TSDBY decision to overide my block was undertaken in accordance with that sentiment. I take no issue with it myself, and did not at the time of seeing it in the block log (I trust him). I also wanted to avoid the charges you bring forth against admin immunity from the rules, but only for the time being as per that heated situation (to avoid it being compounded further from that end). The fact is, non-admins get the same treatment as Kim did, the 3RR is not applied monolithically and legalistically, so your initial premise is false. El_C 00:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Kim definitely should have retained the full 24-hour block, but any decision to unblock him should have been made by you or another uninvolved admin. —Lifeisunfair 00:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

TBSDY was involved, yes, which is precisely the reason as to why he was able to feel the situation better than myself at that point in time. Sure, he could have explained everything in great detail (details I am still largely claiming ignorance over, and would like to keep it that way now) to me and had me lift the block, but I don't see toward what end, except some abstract notion of justice. Myself, I'm concerned with the spirit of the rule rather than its letter, especially for something so minor. El_C 02:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Toward what end? No appearance of impropriety. TBSDY claims not to have intentionally provided Kim with special treatment, but openly acknowledges that this is not readily apparent to outsiders (especially considering the fact that TBSDY has rarely, if ever, handled a similar situation in this manner). And assuming that TBSDY's account is honest (which I believe it to be), it's very difficult to rule out the possibility (perhaps even probability) that personal bias played a subconscious role in the decision to unblock Kim (despite not having extended the same courtesy to other users).

Are you expressing a belief that it's good for an admin to preside over the resolution of a conflict in which they've played a direct role? If so, does this apply only to unblocking, or would it also be appropriate for an admin to block other users with whom they're involved in a relevant dispute (which Kim actually was threatening to do, incidentally)? It's likely that such an individual would be able to "feel the situation better" than an uninvolved admin, but isn't there something to be said for impartiality? —Lifeisunfair 04:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pleased that it was TBSDY who unblocked Kim, as another goodfaith gesture between them, in that sense. "Subconscious role," or good intuition? I say the latter as enhanced by the former. This isn't a court room, it's a community; a community geared toward writing an encyclopedia, wasting further time and energy on this works against that. So, by virtue of consensus, it means sinking into proceduralism and useless moralistic generalizations, which I wish to avoid — though I was accused (elsewhere) of having blocked Kim on purely procedural grounds, this is false (and insulting), and in contradiction with the facts. I doubt I will make any further statement beyond this. El_C 05:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You didn't address all of my questions, but okay; we'll just have to agree to disagree. :-) —Lifeisunfair 05:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I went to unblock Kim the next morning, but saw that you had already done it. Those inclined to cast blame can feel free to do it at me, therefore, since, well, I'm used to it. Snowspinner 04:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You were an uninvolved admin (which is why your page protection was appropriate), so such an act would've been entirely aboveboard (assuming that Kim's admin status played no role).

And to be clear, my intention isn't to "blame" anyone, as I don't believe that any of the involved admins (including Kim and TBSDY) intended to commit any inappropriate acts. I believe that honest mistakes were made, and I hope that all of us can learn from them and become better Wikipedians. —Lifeisunfair 04:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I was involved? I left one talk page note saying that I generally agreed with Kim. And Kim's admin status played no role. The fact that he was putting his ass on the line to try to stop a forestfire of trolling played a major role. Kim was dead right. He did what he had to do to fix an immediate and bad problem, and it was inappropriate to punish him for it. Snowspinner 05:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I said that you were "uninvolved." —Lifeisunfair 05:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK then. :)

Anyhow, Kim is one of our finest wikipedians. Whatever X policy may have been written for, it probably was not written to ban Kim from editing Microsoft Jet Database Engine w the intent of it reaching FA status.

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 05:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems like favoritism to me. Basically, we have a tendency where people will go back to policy and genuine wiki-philosophy when it comes to people they like—he or she recognizes his errors, promises not to get involved again, deserves a second chance, is not a vandal or troll, good faith should be assumed, etc.—but they forget all about that stuff if they aren't interested in helping you out. So when you hear somebody making these arguments, well, it all seems reasonable and good, and it's easy to fall for it, until you remember that they wouldn't do the same for most of us, myself included, in a million years. So we ought to even it out, either we all get the easy treatment or we all get the punitive treatment. Obviously there are some people you have to be tougher with, but I mean within the general category of people who are obviously good faith contributors. Everyking 05:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you what - break policy in the name of doing something that sincerely helps Wikipedia, and I'll be the first one to unblock you. Snowspinner 05:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that we frequently (usually?) disagree on which things sincerely help Wikipedia, and which things hurt. Clearly one of us has bad common sense. Everyking 06:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• In the absence of Calton -- Drink! Radiant_>|< 08:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I love the way some people will show their true colors after an admin vote. While the vote is on, of course, you try to woo me into changing my vote, but I hold fast because I know good and well what you're really like, and then afterwards I get proven right, because then you don't have to campaign and kiss babies anymore. Everyking 04:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• For the benefit of the rest of us, can you please explain what is meant by this comment? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Or maybe both of you have common sense issues. Look, the fact that the two of you frequently disagree may have absolutely nothing to do with common sense; you might (indeed, do) have philosophical differences about how Wikipedia should operate. Differences of opinion do not always have to signal an absence of common sense, and we should WP:AGF instead of leaping to the negative conclusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• OK, so say Snowspinner blocks someone outside of policy on the grounds of common sense, as happens every other day or so, and I happen to disagree with that, because I happen to feel that adhering to policy is common sense and acting outside of it is harmful. It seems to me that either the block was common sense, and I'm wrong, or it wasn't common sense, and I'm right. Or, to take a really radical approach, we could say that "common sense" is a fundamentally unworkable notion because nobody agrees on what common sense is. In that case, the block (if it was wrong) was not wrong because it lacked common sense, but because common sense is totally subjective and therefore not a legitimate factor to consider. Freed from that constraint, we can then say that debating and pondering whether one of Snowspinner's blocks is in line with common sense is useless, and the block is wrong no matter which way we interpret "common sense". So I would say A) according to my common sense, Snowspinner's blocks outside policy are wrong, but B) neither my common sense nor his should even be an issue, so you can't justify a block on those lines no matter what kind of common sense you have. So actually I think the question of which of us has common sense is irrelevant; the real question is which of us is concerned with existing policy. Everyking 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that the word "common-sense" is misleading. It's hardly common. Out of interest, are you using Snowspinner as an illustration, or are you referring to a specific incident? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Er, I think you're both concerned with existing policy. I think you're also both intelligent enough to realize that blind application of policy is not healthy, because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Our rules are meant to be neither truncheons nor straitjackets; we are here to build an encyclopedia, and our rules exist and should be followed only as far as they help us to achieve that end.

At this point, Everyking, your argument no longer seems to be specifically regarding Kim Bruning's unblocking. If you want Snowspinner desysopped, please gather up all your evidence against him and post an RFC. Otherwise, please limit yourself to polite and constructive criticism, and try to address the specific issue at hand. Set a good example of how you think an admin should behave. This perpetual sniping is utterly poisonous, and I imagine that it disgusts most of the other editors here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Kim's record is spotless on that front though, that should not be discounted. I knew it was an unusual move, but at the time I still felt that, situationally, a cool down period was in order (a bit more comprehensive explanation can be read here). El_C 05:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

As a policy note, the 3RR says we may block violators for "up to 24 hours" (my emphasis added). We are not required to impose the maximum block in all circumstances, though for some admins this has become the default. (It may even be appropriate, given the usual problems that give rise to 3RR violations.) A first offense by an otherwise exemplary editor who was attempting to act in Wikipedia's best interests and showed genuine remorse...would seem to deserve a reduction in sentence. If Kim Bruning were to show signs of making a habit of this sort of thing, then we would need to bring out the big guns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether it was appropriate for Kim's block to be abbreviated; it's whether it was appropriate for a directly involved admin to make the decision. —Lifeisunfair 20:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, I'm confused. Was Kim Bruning involved in an edit war with TBSDY? Or siding with him? I'm not seeing clearly how TBSDY was directly involved with Kim Bruning's behaviour, or how it reflects on Kim Bruning's 3RR violation.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

TBSDY was directly involved in the edit war that led to Kim's 3RR violation and the greater conflict that led to the edit war.

TBSDY proposed a new policy to deal with the greater conflict. The page ended up backfiring (in Kim's assessment) by generating heated, troll-infested discussion, so Kim deleted it (along with some other pages), despite the fact that it didn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (which Kim has acknowledged). As a result, DESiegel listed it on the votes for undeletion page, and Kim removed this entry two minutes later (revert #1). TBSDY then restored the entry, and Kim removed it again (revert #2). This was followed by two restorations by Knowledge Seeker and two removals by Kim (reverts #3 and #4).

Apart from the edit war, TBSDY has sided with Kim throughout the greater conflict (which is why the deleted page was created in the first place). And to be clear, I side with both of them in principle, but disagree with these particular actions. —Lifeisunfair 01:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah. So this is a GNAA thing, then? Argh. I think any editor who goes near that mess gets muck on them, no matter how well-behaved and well-intentioned they are. I figure if Kim was repentent, only made one extra revert (and stopped after being warned), was unblocked by one of the parties on the other side of the revert war, and the original blocking admin doesn't object, then all we're doing here now is navel gazing.

Ya did a reasonable thing by bringing the matter to admin attention, Lifeisunfair. The short block ended any prospect of further reverts, I don't think Kim will do it again, and the matter's been thoroughly discussed here, so I think it's a fair outcome. You're right that TBSDY unblocking Kim might represent a potential conflict of interest. However, since we all seem to be agreed that no harm was done (and, in fact, continuing the block would have hindered productive work at Microsoft Jet Database Engine) TBSDY's judgement seems to have been sound.

The point of blocking for a 3RR violation is to stop edit warring, not to dispense punishment or mete out retribution. Since the edit war stopped and all the parties were back on good terms, I don't see what the benefit of leaving the block in place for the maximum permissible time would have been. My two cents. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I find this talk about conflict of interest strange, considering I am the one who strenuously objected to Kim's actions! Yet I am the one who unblocked so we can all get along with our lives. I do agree with El's block, I just knew that Kim had gotten the message. I also don't have a problem with Lifeisunfair querying this unblocking move: all admin decisions should potentially be questioned. I only brought this to AN because a full blown discussion was happening on my talk page, with at least 4 parties involved. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ehehehe, Um, sorry to complicate matters, but...

Well, I typically have this list of personal procedures I use while editing wikipedia. This way if something goes wrong, I can "blame the procedure" as inspired by CMM levels 2-3 or better. (I'm not suggesting we should apply CMM to the entire wiki - yet :-P).

One of these is my own personal revert procedure (invented before 3RR, if that's relevant): It's basically just WP:HEC, with a single additional exception:

• If someone comes by and has apparently missed the discussion, it's ok to revert them with a nice summary politely pointing them to said discussion.

Check the actual reverts I did on that page, and you'll see I followed the procedure pretty well.

Would you agree that if someone follows that procedure, they're not edit-warring?

And yet sometimes on a high volume page, (and people simply not watching their step maybe) as it now turns out, it can run afoul of the 3RR. Knowing that, any ideas on what can be done? I can temporarily change the personal procedure of course, but what else?

Kim Bruning 01:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, reading the above, I'd like to point out that the block didn't exactly have an effect. At the time of the block I was in bed, and Angela & several others had taken over dealing with the forestfire! Kim Bruning 23:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

And note that dealing with a Forest fire was also my aim in issuing the block, as misguided as Kim and other might have found it to be, I maintain that it rested on rational considerations, and I hope there are not hard feelings leftover as a result. El_C 23:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. :) Kim Bruning 23:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; hopefuly my involvement proved helpful, to boot. :) El_C 23:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Your action had no effect whatsoever (I couldn't even use it to escape from helping TBSDY later in the day :-P ). That's why there was no harm. Kim Bruning 17:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Electric Universe model article

Help! I am an admin. I have a user named Joshuaschroeder who circumvented a vfd vote at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model. It was a long, involved vote that I ruled as a no consensus. The vote as I counted it was 17 for delete and 13 for keep. That is a no consensus by most of our methods of tracking. However, within 6 hours of the vote, joshua (who had wanted the article deleted), made the article a redirect to an article he wrote. To me, a no consensus is the same as a keep vote. One user deciding to make the article a redirect seems to me to be a way to circumvent a vfd vote. If I am wrong, say so. Otherwise, someone please back me up on the talk page. Joshua wants a specific policy. I do not know of any, but this seems to me to be an attempt to circumvent a consensus or lack thereof. What he essentially did was delete the article. --Woohookitty 05:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Joshua's argument on the talk page is reasonable, as is a revert of his edit on the basis on content. IMO his action may be unwise, but not against policy as per VFD. Guettarda 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What he did was circumvent the will of the people who voted. They did not vote for what was essentially a delete and redirect. --Woohookitty 05:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD, if I am not mistaken, is not an exercise in voting. I was under the impression that the number of people who vote for a deletion was not as important as how well the arguments are made. I think that this particular VfD was stymied by its own starter who began the VfD under false pretenses. Nevertheless, I admit that the no consensus is a pretty reasonable opinion of the discussion. Joshuaschroeder 05:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A redirect is just another edit. Revert him if you don't agree. Get a couple of the voters who wanted the article kept on board and demonstrate the consensus in action. VfD votes are to keep or delete, not to fix forever an article's form, or to disallow redirection if an editor judges it best. -- Grace Note

Also, a redirect is an action that doesn't require a VfD: people bringing articles to VfD are supposed to do so in the belief that such an article should be deleted. A redirect is not as serious, because it can easily be undone by any user (admin or not), so therefore can be done without a delete. --Deathphoenix 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I can not say this strongly enough. A "redirect" is not a "delete"! The only exception is when a user explicitly argues that the contents must be deleted from page history and that the article should be recreated as a redirect. Redirect is just another edit. As Grace Note said above, if you don't like it, you or any other editor can be bold and revert it. Deletions get extra scrutiny because they destroy the article's history. Converting an article to a revert does not destroy article history. Once an article has been deleted, it requires admin powers to see the old versions. Any editor/reader can review the edit history of an article that has been merely reverted. Undoing a deletion requires admin powers. Undoing a revert does not. A "redirect" vote may be an opinion that Wikipedia should not have an independent article at that title but it is not a "delete" vote.

If you or anyone else considers the decision to redirect to be controversial, the place to thrash out that decision is on the respective Talk pages, not through the VfD process. VfD decisions are binding on whether or not the article is deleted and that's all. We can make a recommendation to "keep as redirect". The VfD recommendation should generally be given a degree of deference just because of the visibility and the breadth of participation that VfD discussions typically draw. For all their failings, they can be a good indicator of the community will. But the final decision whether or not to make the page into a redirect belongs on the article Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• In my opinion, I don't think Josh has done anything wrong. 17d-13k is clearly not a consensus to delete; however, it is also an indication that something may be wrong with the article (at least the majority of voters thought so). That means that rewording, merging and/or redirecting may well be appropriate - indeed they may be appropriate in any case, per WP:BOLD, as none of the three normally requires a vote of any sort. Of course if people disagree with Josh there they should discuss it, but that should be a discussion on opinion, not on whether procedure was correctly followed. If necessary, get a 3PO. Radiant_>|< 13:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

A couple comments. First, given the number of sockish keep votes on that VFD, I believe the closer would have been well within rights to read it as a delete consensus. That he or she did not is a matter of judgment, of course. That said, in most cases where a VFD ends in a keep or no consensus result, I generally agree with Woohookitty that removing the content and replacing it with a redirect is an inappropriate action. In the typical case, a failed VFD indicates that a significant number of people believe the content of the article should be preserved, and circumventing that is generally rude and leads to further, largely unneccesary fights. At the least, it should have been discussed on the talk page in advance. Acting boldly to improve articles is a good thing, but it does not mean one should act unilaterally in the face of known opposition. This VFD established that at least a few people want to preserve the material and so deciding whether or not the page should be redirected should be a matter of building a new talk page consensus. Given the weakness of the keep side of this VFD, there may actually be a lot of support for redirecting this, but unilaterally replacing the page with a redirect because the VFD failed is a recipe for revert warring and should be avoided. Dragons flight 15:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request that an admin edit the protected Ted Kennedy article

Could someone please look into Talk:Ted_Kennedy#Request_that_an_admin_edit_protected_article? I think the article's history makes it clear what happened here. I'd also add that the link in dispute has a misleading summary, that does not indicate in any way that it links to an attack site. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog!

There are a number of process backlogs in Wikipedia that need cleaning up. If you have some spare time, please look over Category:Wikipedia backlog. Radiant_>|< 09:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone have some time on their hands?

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses needs closing. The results are fairly clear. According to -Ril-, who passionately favours deletion, it is 30 keep vs. 21 merge and only a handful of delete or transwiki votes. The main difficulty is that closing requires an admin to remove VfD headers from all 130 pages in Category:New Testament verses. - SimonP 13:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually the voting seems considerably more complex than that; RIL has made an extensive summary and concludes with "Keep as individual articles x 34, Don't have as individual articles x 43", which seems to indicate majority to merge, then writes that this counts some votes twice, which seems to indicate that he isn't so sure about the results either. Californian election, anyone? I hope someone has a bot handy. Radiant_>|< 13:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Right then. Adding a hundred "no consensus" notices is a decidedly unsatisfying task, but that seems to be about what we've been able to come up with. Perhaps this should be a policy discussion or a request for comment? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. Here you go. Radiant_>|< 15:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Those totals are not the results of this debate, they are -Ril-'s attempt to combine this vote with the results of last month's Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses. If we are going to combined votes we should also include those cast at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 2:16, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genesis 1:1. Also -Ril- is incorrect to count delete and transwiki votes as merge votes. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses explicitly states that you should "vote merge rather than delete if you do not feel the verses deserve individual articles." - SimonP 15:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is quite simply a lie. The votes are counted from the one VFD alone. Try it yourself. There are 2 sets of totals, the first is the raw vote - 34 don't keep individually, 32 keep individually - and the second counts votes such as "delete OR merge" as 2 seperate votes, one to delete, and one to merge, the purpose of this second vote being to determine which of the options - delete/merge/transwiki - is the most favoured, if any, since "delete or merge" is not a possible simultaneous outcome, it can only be one or the other or neither. Merge votes and delete votes both count as "dont have as seperate articles" votes, which is the real issue on the VFD. 32 vs. 34 is no majority for the 32, and neither is it consensus. ~~~~ 17:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. And, as several keep-voters in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses have pointed out, gathering consensus on a merge is improper use of VFD. Therefore, gathering consensus on a merge may be proper in some other spot, such as Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses. This is unrelated to the fact that the VFDs should all be closed as no-consensus-thus-default-to-keep. Like I said, I hope someone has a bot handy. Radiant_>|< 15:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • If gathering consensus on a merge is not appropriate for VFD, then why are merge votes, and merge outcomes, allowed? ~~~~ 17:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to make a bomb

On 30 April 2005 the article on Acetone peroxide was edited by IP 85.206.83.143 (in Lithuania) to add detailed instructions on how to make this substance - the explosive material that was used in the 21 July 2005 London explosions, as was another explosives article. Deleted not long after, it made a re-appearance as a separate article (deleted a few hours later) and a number of times as an external link, which I have deleted. I believe that, whilst Wikipedia is not paper, it is incumbent on us to behave responsibly, and to not bring this site into disrepute. In the UK it is proposed that providing assistance to someone creating bombs (including websites) will be illegal, and I'm sure that homeland security in the USA takes a similar view on the matter, let alone the views of other countries around the world. There is also the danger that we could assist "inquisitive" people to blow themselves up in their garages. I believe that WP must be seen as sensible and trustworthy on this matter and that whilst it is right that we continue to inform about chemicals we should not condone, enable or assist in any way anyone to make bombs or explosives. --Vamp:Willow 16:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see the related discussions (started last week) on Talk:Acetone peroxide and at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Wikipedia should not help terrorists to build bombs (now consolidated onto Talk:Acetone peroxide). We should not attempt to duplicate those discussions here. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of those discussions (indeed I have taken part in them!). The point of this note is to draw the attention of other admins to the situation as a general view on how we should deal with such issues on a range of articles, rather than just this particular page. --Vamp:Willow 17:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in progress page errors

Twice I have reverted the Vandalism in progress page as it was constantly duplicating itself. The first time I reverted it [1], it was five times as long as it should be at over 700 kb. Almost the whole days worth of edits were lost. I reverted again [2] today and about 5 hours of edits were lost. I dont know if reverting was the right thing to do, but the page had become very unwieldly and extreamly slow to load. After the reverts it was at least useable. Are any admins watching this page anymore? I don't know what the problem is, but it seems to be firefox doing something odd. See the talk page for more info.
•Zhatt• 20:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Any chance of someone reinserting the text from the lost edits? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case - Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell

A decision has been reached in the above arbitration case. Paul Beardsell was banned from the article artificial consciousness indefinitely and Tkorrovi for three months. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing VfD for Authentic Matthew

Would some brave admin consider closing the debate on this VFD. It is 9 days old, and the temperature is rising with a string of pretty nasty remarks. I make no comment on who is right or wrong - but I think a speedy close would be in the interests of everyone. Doc (?) 00:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Certain admin's practicing censorship and/or disallowing honest contributions by labelling them "Nazism"

Hello all. I have tried to create the following article by the title of "Adolf Hitler's Popularity" but one admin (User:Neutrality), despite his userid's claim, is not being neutral and deletes the article for no good reason and labels me a Nazi. I am not even of European race. Can some fair-minded admins please look into this? I will post the entire article's content here for now:

---

Despite extensive anti-Hitler propaganda and even extreme fear of any sort of expression regarding Adolf Hitler that is not total rejection, insult and distancing oneself from him in the Western World (and by extension in the rest of the world), the fact is that Adolf Hitler continues to be one of the most secretly revered characters of all history.

Many people, quite possibly even some Jews, in their heart feel that a leader like Hitler would be an ideal and a dream-come-true for any people and/or nation. He was brave, intellignet, dedicated, faithful, charismatic, handsome, knowledgeable and extremely honest, and he was courageous and honorable enough not to give his enemies the pleasure of capturing him.

Because of extreme anti-Hitlerism in the world after WW II and practically a "taboo" of speaking the truth about Hitler, people who like Hitler are not allowed to express their sincere feelings about this unique and mignificent character in the way they truly feel about him.

But with the advent of the Internet and the Information Age, and availability of "people-oriented media" such as Wikipedia (as opposed to corporate-controlled media) gradually people will have more and more chance of expressing their true feelings without the fear of losing their jobs or being discriminated against.

---

... words fail me.

Actually, no, they don't. Here's a few for consumption. POV, trolling, original research, no sources cited, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. For starters. khaosworks 02:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

ONE admin deletes the article and labels you a Nazi? That's outrageous! How many admins have we got, 500? Bishonen | talk 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I delete it next? Pretty please? On a more serious note, this type of material–if appropriately sourced and presented from a neutral point of view–should be in Hitler's existing article. Creating a fork for a specific point of view is not an accepted Wikipedia practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

OK, I think presenting it from a neutral point of view would leave the text "After WW II." Would you like me to merge that with Adolf Hitler? Bishonen | talk 03:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You've just got a sentence fragment there, and it's not well tied in to the whole Hitler thing. Perhaps you should phrase it as "After WW II, Hitler sharply curtailed his public appearances and played a much less direct role in setting public policy. Many individuals found this new 'hands off' leadership style more agreeable, and welcomed the change." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, just put this stupidity on VfD and be done with it. That will remove this dispute. User:219.144.196.200, suggest you read the articles about verifiability, NPOV, no original research and citing sources. None of these things are evident. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Have added a note to the anons talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting VFD debate links to be added to talkpages

I have now closed the debate Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, and removed 124 VFD tags. Does anyone care to add links to the talkpages to the VFD debate? I'm feeling a little lazy today... Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

The following seven processes are presently listed for dispute resolution, and are generally some form of mediation or getting people to calm down and discuss rather than argue. It seems to me that at least half of these are either redundant or non-active, or both. The entire situation is rather confusing, especially to newbies. Maybe some of these should be merged or redirected to ones that actually are active? Radiant_>|< 12:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
2. Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates
3. Wikipedia:Mediation (2005)
4. Wikipedia:Wikimediation
5. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal
6. Wikipedia:Third opinion
7. Wikipedia:Requests for comment (section for user disputes)

[edit] Page move

Please could UN Security Council be moved to United Nations Security Council, for consistency with its first sentence and with United Nations General Assembly. Thanks. Martpol 15:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Page move requests should be made on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case - Zivinbudas

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Zivinbudas. He has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zivinbudas#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How come all the evidence cited in the decision is from talk pages? You're banning someone from Wikipedia for a year based on their comments on talk? Everyking 06:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

First, of course they can -- a fine contributor to articles who spews venomous hatred and personal attacks in talk (note:I'm not saying this is Zivinbudas...didn't read the evidence page in any detail) is more than deserving of a long-term ban. That's a violation of site policy, as much as replacing the entire Wikipedia article with the word "penis" is. Second, why challenge the decision here, especially after it's final? A well-placed comment on the talk page of the arbitration decision while it's in process is read and considered carefully (at least I always tried to, and I have absolute confidence that this continues to be the case). I just don't see why these sorts of battles need to be started. Jwrosenzweig 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it shouldn't be considered. I implied that one shouldn't receive such a harsh penalty purely on account of that. If there's equivalent article evidence, fine, but why isn't it cited there in the decision? And moreover I don't see why I should bother to argue anything with the arbitrators. They only listen to a few, and I'm not one of them (and I have tried, long and hard, without luck—even in my own arb cases they didn't pay any attention!). Anyway, I wasn't trying to start a "battle"; I just read the decision and noticed something that shocked me so I thought I'd ask a question about it. Everyking 06:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at the evidence page? Based on even a brief sampling, I would have blocked him permanently as a disruptive, vandalistic troll. I think he was let off easy with a mere one-year ban with option to renew. --Carnildo 07:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I just looked at the decision. If there's article vandalism to penalize him for, that should be cited in the decision. Everyking 07:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move problem

I've got a problem with what I would have thought was a simple page move. I'm trying to move Electronic Stability Program to Electronic Stability Control which is a one edit redirect to ESP. Now, I thought this was a situation in which the ordinary page move tab should work. However I'm getting the error message 'Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself.' So it looks like the real problem may be a string comparison that compares less than the whole string. Would deleting the redirect at the target page be likely to help? -- Solipsist 11:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The destination had a history and that was preventing the move. I've fixed it now. violet/riga (t) 13:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the problem was that you were entering the destination page title into the wrong field. The new title should be entered into the top field, the bottom field is the move reason. By the way, page move requests should be made on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well actually, the problem was that I was looking at the page history for the lower case Electronic stability control which had no history, whilst trying to do a page move to the uppercase Electronic Stability Control which did in fact have a previous history of edits.

Also the genereal text on the page move failure special page needs updating to direct people to WP:RM rather than List of administrators.

Does anyone know how to edit the messages on special pages? -- Solipsist 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think they are generated from a page in the MediaWiki: namespage, but which page I don't know. Thryduulf 17:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have updated the appropriate messages (MediaWiki:Articleexists and MediaWiki:Movepagetalktext). Talrias (t | e | c) 18:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Langer

Tony Sidaway and I have come to disagree over a VfD, and I was hoping for some advice here. Langer was VfDed last November ([3]), and the result was: "The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary". The article has been recreated a few times, and has been speedily deleted each time. When I did it again the other day, Tony recreated it; when I explained the position, and deleted it again, he agin recreated it with the comment:

"I agree that it was decided that the article should be wiktionaried (not deleted) nearly a year ago. Now please stop repeatedly deleting the Wikipedia article. It's extremely frustrating to see you doing this for no discernible reason."

That was a little odd, as I'd given him my reason, which (indeed) he was responding to. When I queried this he argued:

"The VfD, decided last year before the recent vote on transwiki deletions, resulted only in a decision to transwiki. There was no deletion result. Moreover the current article is patently more an encyclopedia article than a dictionary article."

I've replied:

"I take "transfer" to mean "move" — that is, removed from one place to another. That certainly is how I read the VfD debate."

Any comments? I'm not looking for agreement with my position, particularly; I'd just like to know what the consensus is so that I can act correctly in similar situations in the future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

(copied here from my Talk page:)

Well that problem here is that another interpretation is possible--and indeed there was at the time, as far as I'm aware, no practice of deleting transwikied pages. The article was deleted out of process, and with no justification that I can discern. There were only two delete votes, and one of those expressed as "very weak". It was also closed irregularly--Rossami had voted in the discussion and then went on to close it. If there really is a terribly pressing reason to delete this perfectly good article, it should be VfD'd. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The proposer can surely be taken to have voted "delete, which makes three — and one of the "keep" votes was also "weak". Another way of putting it is that there were only two "keep votes, one of which was "weak". But the route to take if you really believe that the article was deleted out of process is to nominate it for undeletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

How about you simply put it up on VfD again, making all the points you have made here? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That might solve the current issue, but I was hoping for a general policy. My current opinion is that this is the recreation of an article deleted (after transwikification) following a valid VfD; if I'm wrong, I'd like to know for future reference. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Transwiki log, after an article has been transwikied, it must be submitted through VfD again, which determines whether it has any potential encyclopediac content (in which case keep) or not (in which case delete). Talrias (t | e | c) 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• According to CSD#A5, as adopted last week, they need not pass through VFD a second time and can simply be deleted if the person doing the transwikiing thinks it is unencyclopedic. After all, no information is lost, it is simply put some place else. Radiant_>|< 23:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this here before; the article is again on VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Langer 2). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:TV Party Tonight!

Me again, I'm afraid. yesterday I blocked TV Party Tonight! (talk • contribs) as one in a long line of accounts created merely to attack User:Chadbryant and to vandalise his User page. Some seven hours afterwards, he edited his Talk page ([4]). My first thought was that he'd been unblocked, though i couldn't think why — but the block-list shows that my blcok should still have been in place. Does anyone have any idea what happened? I've blocked again, just in case something went wrong with the first one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The Block page says "The operation of blocks has changed recently. Blocked users may now edit their talk page even while they are blocked." So if all that was edited was the user talk page, that's the answer. - RedWordSmith 18:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that's it — thanks; I hadn't noticed. That's a slightly odd feature for users who have been perma-blocked, but I suppose that little harm can come of it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This was previously discussed. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive6#Block behaviour changes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, if harm does come of it, just permaprotect the talk page. Bishonen | talk 02:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks all; as this person skips from account to account (see User talk:Mel Etitis/Chadbryant vandals for the current, probably incomplete list), I doubt that it will create any further problems. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon style sheets

• Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Anon_style_sheets as suggested. -- Solipsist 17:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict Alert: User:Sam Spade and User:FeloniousMonk

User:Sam Spade and User:FeloniousMonk have been having destructive interactions recently, and apparantly, also for a long time. I have not enough information to say who is to blame for what, but I suspect it is going to get worse before it gets better. I suggest a relativly disintrested administrator keep an eye on them.

I do not wish to share my opinion on who is more likley to cause trouble, merely alert that this could get very ugly very fast. see the Talk:human and relevant user talk pages for more.--Tznkai 20:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Up-date

Queen Anne's dead. Our reporter, fresh from investigating the religion of the Pope and the toilet habits of bears, has the latest...

I'm not sure that there are any admins who'd be accepted as disinterested in this — it's been going on for too long and has sucked in too many people (not to mention one of the parties' other activities). Move along, there's nothing to see. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

How about me (!)? Am I disinterested, Mel? Comeon be honest with me, & don't spare the Whip. Where is Rossami when you need him? El_C 23:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You're every bit as disinterested as I am. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm about as disinterested in this issue as they come, to the point that I'm not really interested in wading in to see what the issue is. I've never had a conflict (nor much interaction at all) with either one of them, nor do I edit any of the pages there is any conflict between the two of them. If there is something someone really unbiased is needed for specifically let me know. I don't really see the need for that though, as here's all that needs to be done: warn and if necessary block either one of them for obvious abuses such as personal attacks and do the same if the articles they are editing are actively made worse by their edit wars. Short of those, just try what you can to get them to be reasonable, but in the end let them go at it as long as the articles are not harmed. - Taxman ^Talk 18:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee decision: User:Irate personal attack parole

The original decision said:

1.1) If, after the closure of this case, Irate continues to engage in personal attacks, the Arbitration Committee may, upon notification of this fact, choose to subject Irate to a personal attack parole of a duration of one year wherein Irate will be temporarily banned for a short period of up to one week if he makes any edits that an administrator judges to be personal attacks.

As he returned after his ban and appeared to continue as before with personal attacks, the AC has enacted:

1.1.1) Irate is placed on personal attack parole for one year.

Irate was notified 13:08, 25 July 2005, so the parole is current until 13:08, 25 July 2006.

- David Gerard 13:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems Irate wasn't able to restrain himself from attacks even while on parole and blocked. Snowspinner has blocked him for seven days. Irate continued his attacks on his Talk: page, so I protected that also. I see no hope for this user reforming. — Matt Crypto 15:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a list anywhere of which users are subject to arbcom paroles? If not, would it be possible to create one with a simple list like:

• user
  • parole type (e.g. revert parole, personal attacks parole, etc)
  • parole ends: (e.g. 18:57, 25 January 2006)
  • enforcement: (e.g. block of up to 7 days)
  • link to arbcom case

So it wouldn't be a witchunt type page the entries would be removed when teh parole expires. The idea behind the suggestion is that this page will be archived several times between the start and end of a parole, and if someone in a few months time disputes a block then it would just be a quick check to show the admin was acting within the rules. Also, if J Random User is placed on personal attack parole now, and doesn't make any personal attacks until November, then an admin might not be certain if they were on a parole or not - and the arbcom case pages might be named something like "user:I am a naughty boy, user:goody-two-shoes and user:J Random User" so guessing the name isn't always going to be easy. Thryduulf 18:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

which is not fully up-to-date, but I'm working on it as time allows -- sannse (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The page Wikipedia:Election Notice needs to be marked as {{historical}}

The headline says pretty much all of it. I'm trying to clean off well-catagorized pages from Wikipedia:Topical index and while it's obvious that this page is a historical-interest page, I can't add the tag because it's protected. If you add the tag, it would be nice if you would remove the page from the Topical index, or leave me a note on my talk page, and I'll do it. Thanks for all your work with mop and bucket! JesseW 23:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Done, though I question why the page really nees to be protected at all now. --Dmcdevit·t 23:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, it might as well be unprotected, but again, it might as well remain protected. I can't see people needing to edit it, for good or ill. JesseW 00:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)