Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Socks and more socks 2 On-wiki discussion of GFDL/CC changes? 3 Informal debate on wiki-nationalism 4 Technical problem with article "air-raid shelter" 5 Today is the day to revisit the topic of non-admin rollback.... 6 Pedophile activism on Wikipedia 7 User:Mikkalai is abusing power 8 Admin...well, not abuse...regarding spam talk pages 9 WP:UAA 10 The category tracker is back 11 Big backlog at WP:AIV 12 IP evading a permanent ban 13 Non-admin closures of AFDs 14 Weeding required in odd walled garden 15 Anti-United Kingdom Editor 16 Backlog at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion 17 User edit warring, pov-pushing, harassing and attacking another user 18 Userfication request 19 Oversight action needed 20 AWB Approval List 21 User:Haudcivitas 22 Very old unclosed RfA 23 Vandalism stats 24 AfD Canvassing 25 Moldopodo's complaint 26 Backlogs 27 AWB/Checkpage 28 Alison given oversight access 29 Non-free image policy 29.1 Administrative best practices 30 Deletion policy discussion 31 IFD backlog 32 IP signing as user 33 User:Vintagekits 34 Would I be allowed to distribute Huggle? 35 runescape pages 36 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 37 Rollback for RyRy5 38 "Likely" sockpuppet reports 39 CheckUser policy description 40 A troubling edit 41 Wikipedia:OptOut 42 A Very Odd Move and Vandalim to J.K. Rowling 43 Unacceptable 43.1 Even more unacceptable! 43.2 Sigh... 43.3 Renaming? 44 Erm... 45 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ 46 Complete bot policy rewrite 47 Our HP Fan 48 Quick Note re: 'Turdman the Vandal' 49 Policy Across Different Language Wikipedia 50 Persistent vandalism and imposition of one version, suspect of sockpuppetry 51 Complex talk page instructions 52 Semi-protected 53 User:Trishlockwood 54 Help? 55 Please Help with my Page 56 Inappropriate AfD 57 User:PHG blocked and mentor requested 58 SSP/RFCU merger proposal 59 Vigilance requested 60 Please pass on spam reports to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎ 61 Major CAT:CSD backlog 62 Revert war at Mark Speight 63 WP:SNOWEDUNDER 64 User:Electrobe 65 Nothing444

[edit] Socks and more socks

I'm a noob when it comes to this sockpuppet business, but could someone take a look at the latest batch of results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove and do whatever needs to be done with regard to the accounts that haven't already been blocked? Deor (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the following blocks need to be done after the confirmation that was given at WP:RFCU:

• Confirmed sockpuppet of Boomgaylove that is currently unblocked:

• Willbeg4food (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Confirmed sockpuppets of Storyrates1987 that are currently unblocked:

• Bricksense1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Pennyplanet1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Brickexist1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sye2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Earthtried1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Ninthlocal1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Liam1101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Regards, — Κaiba 07:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Thatcher in the same case, these accounts are also all confirmed as the same editor, but are still unblocked:

• Lord Uniscorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Noble Sponge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• AnteaterZot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Only Zuul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Aipzith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• PatrickStar LaserPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I have also updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove with additional evidence as it looks like yet another account may be related. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that Casliber has blocked the above; however, another unblocked sock farm has been uncovered in the same case:

• Willirennen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Moosato Cowabata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Dr Tobias Funke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Homo Saffien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• AnnaLogge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Lara Dalle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Garth Bader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Metallicash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Knock-Off Nigel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jamest54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Lauren Norton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On-wiki discussion of GFDL/CC changes?

Is there any on-wiki discussion here on enwiki about the pending GFDL migration to Creative Commons changes that is being discussed on the Foundation mail list? Lawrence § t/e 18:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

not quite 'on-wiki' but I suggested this as a topic for a conversation at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - take a look, and join us if you're interested! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informal debate on wiki-nationalism

Have fun. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MOWAAR DWAAHMAH! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ultimate aim is to try to ensure there's LESS DWAAHMAH! on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technical problem with article "air-raid shelter"

I was trying to fix some sources for this article when for some reason several sections, including the "references" disappeared in article although they seem to be in the editing page. Article needs help as I'm unable to fix it. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there was a > missing from a closing ref tag, which made everything after the ref disappear. Fixed now! DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, DuncanHill, I never noticed this. Great. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You would think the software could warn people about this. I mean, if MSExcel can tell you you've missed out a bracket, can't Mediawiki do the same? Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be very helpful, and enable editors to be more productive. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today is the day to revisit the topic of non-admin rollback....

Ok, so as promised I have went ahead and started a conversation in regards to rollback as promised a few months ago when the previous conversation was closed. Lets try and keep this drama free, and civil. You can find it here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Its that time.. Tiptoety ^talk 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophile activism on Wikipedia

I noticed on AfD that there was an article called "List of films portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." Then I noticed that there was an article called "List of *books* portaying sexual attraction to children or adolescents." The problem with the titles of these lists is that they are calling child sexual abuse "sexual attraction to children or adolescents." (Look at the lists, they clearly list sexual abuse.) Calling sexual abuse of children "sexual attraction to children" is clearly an extreme fringe definition of child sexual abuse from the pedophile point of view. It appears that there are five of these disturbingly titled lists, and that they used to all be titled "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in <fill in the blank>." When and why then titles were all changed to reflect an extreme fringe pedophile activist point of view is not clear to me. I am also disturbed that the stated purpose of the Wiki Pedophile Article Watch Project is "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues," but that no one on this project has noted the extreme POV problem in the renaming/redefining of these articles to an extreme pro-pedophile fringe stance. I also do not understand why "pro-pedophile activism" is included in "Other resources" on the Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Other_resources I thought this was not the place for activism.

former titles of lists, currently how they are titled on Pedophilia Article Watch:

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (girls) Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in songs Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the theatre

Active link to one of the articles from the project site, so you can see that it goes to "List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_child_sexual_abuse_in_songs

Link to Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch

-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place for this or not, but I don't think that the current titles of articles such as List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents are endorsing the pedophile point of view. It just states that the subject matter deals with sexual attraction to children and adolescents and that it may or may not involve sexual abuse.--Urban Rose 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps you should read the "songs" list? Here is the beginning of it, which gives clear examples:

"Alive" by Pearl Jam, from Ten A song about a boy who looks like his real father and is raped by his mother "Ambitious Outsiders" by Morrissey, from Maladjusted A song about child murderers scavenging suburban neighborhoods for potential victims, probably inspired by the Moors murders. "Amelia" by The Mission, from Carved in Sand A song about a girl who is molested by her father and he threatens to hit her if she tells. "Amy in the White Coat" by Bright Eyes, from There Is No Beginning to the Story A song about a father who abuses one of his three daughters.

These are songs about child sexual abuse. The only point of view from which they are about "Sexual attraction" is the point of view of whomever is "sexually attracted," i.e., pedophiles. The lists define sexual abuse solely from the pov of pedophiles. It's pretty weird and creepy, imho. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I always find it unusual when a new editor comes here and immediately starts listing articles for deletion. Nothing in particular but just odd. Since there's a ton of articles on AFD at this moment, I really don't see anything that requires admin intervention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I brought it here when I realized there were *5* of these article, so it probably wasn't a productive idea to AfD the other 4--only one is up for AfD. The problem seems to be no oversight of POV pushing at the pedophile wikiproject; more eyes should be on it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm seems to be the one POV-pushing and WP:POINTing here, as User:Swatjester has [1] warned him/her about on user talk. And now taking it to Jimbo's talk page: [2] [3] Jfire (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, reverse the order. I was alerted to Petra by her(?) comments on Jimbo's talk page first, then warned her. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm is a very likely sock, and has within days of arriving on Wikipedia attempted to disrupt extensive discussion and consensus building (as noted by Jfire), without any regard for NPOV. The problem is not lack of oversight of POV pushing on the pedophile wikiproject; the problem is POV pushing from you. Funny that within just a few days of arriving here, you are familiar with fringe point of view policies, have nominated several articles for deletion, and managed to find the single most contentious WikiProject on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Petra, make yourself familiar with our polices and then edit contentious material with an eye to WP:NPOV. Don't expect an easy time but hard work does equal progress and the pedophilai articles are considerably more neutral than they were a year ago, IMHO. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is true. they were in bad shape. But note that reason that the work is hard is because it is difficult to maintain NPOV. Simply trying to force changes through by butting heads and shaking things up, doesn't work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, the article name seem to have been the subject of extensive discussion and consensus building, and the most recent changes were discussed at Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents#Requested_move. As another editor noted, the discussion there was "as close to consensus-building as I've seen on Wikipedia", and that sentiment seems accurate to me as well. Jfire (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia activism, on my Wikipedia? It's more likely than you think. William Ortiz (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia? How about the entire community's Wikipedia (pedophiles and all). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a catchphrase popular on the *chan picture boards. He's not really saying that it is his, rather it's meant to be taken with a heavy dose of sarcasm, like a display shock at something totally expected. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I have read through the discussion on what appears to be the very recent name change of all 5 articles from "Sexual abuse and pedophila in film/books/song/theater" to "sexual attraction to children in films/books/songs/theater," and all I can say is that the consensus was among a tiny number of participants, and their arguments don't hold up. Hence, more eyes should be on this. If the "consensus' on the UFO article is that UFOs exist, that doesn't make it so. The argument for changing the name seems to be that "sexual attraction" subsumes "pedophilia and child sexual abuse." Uh, only from the perspective of pedophiles. It looks like someone named Will Beback attempted rationality:

"If the concern is that people looking for books portraying those topics will have trouble finding the list(s), surely links to the "sexual attraction to children" list(s) from Wikipedia articles on pedophilia and on child sexual abuse would do the job. As Haiduc points out, those specifics are subsumed under the more general "sexual attraction to children". SocJan (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, sexual attraction and sexual abuse are two different things. Some of these books are written from the adult's side and focus on the sexual attraction/pedophilia, while others are written from the child's point of view and may focus on the sexual abuse/molestation. The title should reflect both aspects. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Leaving aside the fact that this does not address the problem with integrating depictions of adolescent experience, where does this leave works in the style of "For a Lost Soldier," which depicts the youth's point of view as experiencing the sexuality as positive (whatever you or I, or even the author, may think of it now), and as reciprocating the man's affection? At best, this would impose a reading avant la lettre on works where it would be inappropriate. Haiduc (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not familiar with that book, but if it depicts an adult's sexual attraction to a boy then I'd think that it could be described as involving pedophilia, regardless of the boy's feelings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Not if the boy is above thirteen. The problem is that you are inadvertently excluding a whole range of adult/minor relationships, a range that is often legitimate in the eyes of the law, and that does not fit either the pedophilia or the abuse paradigms. Haiduc (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)"

-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate forum, Petra. Take it to Talk:List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents.

Also, thinly-veiled accusations of paedophilia against other Wikipedians ("only from the perspective of pedophiles") are not acceptable, policy- or logic-wise. You've already been warned about this. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to attract more eyes to this project, and hence this is the forum. Also, sexual attraction to children=perspective of pedophiles. Or is there another group of people besides pedophiles who are sexually attracted to children? The POV problem in the renaming of these articles, that Will Beback also pointed out, is that it is not "sexual attraction" from the pov of anyone *but* pedophiles. From the pov of children who are abused, and from the pov of mainstream society, sexually abusing children is sexual abuse, not sexual attraction to children. All these list clearly describe the sexual abuse of children. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If your aim is to attract more eyes to a given issue (in order, one supposes, to ensure that actions taken on insular pages are consistent with the will of the community), you would do better to raise that issue at the village pump or at the article's talk page, with, if necessary, a listing at requests for comment; this noticeboard is, as the header observes, "not the place to raise disputes over content", and exists principally to alert administrators to issues that might require their intervention as administrators (as against as "regular" users, in, for instances, disputes over content and policy like that which you outline) and to permit the coordination of administrator activities. Joe (I can has barnstar?) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Will has been tireless in his own attempts to ensure that we have neutrality and quality on the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found this thread. Thanks, SqueakBox, for your comment but it's not true. I'm tired of dealing with dealing with this stuff. Recently, SqueakBox has been far more active than me in dealing with this stuff but even as "tireless" as he's been I bet he's getting tired too. This is an uncomfortable topic that few editors or even admins want to touch. I was recruited long ago by User:Katefan0 but peronal invitations aren't necessary. I urge all editors and admins to consider adding the WP:PAW project to their watchlist or watchlisting some relevant articles. Without going into details, it's a probable fact that there are people who are trying actively to push a POV onto WP articles. The best way to handle it is with more eyeballs. Please lend yours.

PS: This PetraSchelm character seems odd and I suspect a troll. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the articles, they do appear to concern mainly sexual abuse. The articles seems to rest on the premise that sexual abuse of children is but one aspect of a more complete spectrum of behavior. Not only is this premise itself a contested point of view, but it doesn't appear to really reflect the content of the article or the reason the topic is significant. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So I'm confused. PetraSchelm claims that mainstream society doesn't view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children. If so, then what is it? No, mainstream society does view pedophilia as sexual attraction to children, but it views actually performing sexual acts with a child as "wrong".--Urban Rose 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly in the UK a pedophile is synonymous with a sex offender who commits child sexual abuse either directly or through viewing child porn, as well as the more traditional "attracted to children" definition. Really this is an issue for the pedophilia articles rather than the admin noticeboard. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Folks, please review and watchlist List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I just removed all those entries which were not sourced to credible independent secondary sources (i.e. removed unsourced, sourced from personal observation of the lyrics, blogs, web forums, freewebs and the like). It is now standing at one entry: Don't Stand So Close to Me by The Police, which is unquestionably a song portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents as is well established form credible sources within the article. I am confident this set of edits will be reverted, because poeple want to keep the list and the list only has one entry after the removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced entries. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, except technically couldn't it be perfectly acceptable to source from the lyrics using the song as a primary source? By personal observation do you mean contentious interpretation? 86.44.26.69 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because it requires a value judgment: is lyric X about subject Y? Where the subject is contentious, solid sourcing is absolutely necessary. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, of course, there is the small issue that that particular song specifically namechecks Vladimir Nabokov, who was the author of Lolita - the subject (of sexual attraction) being a pubescent girl, and therefore unrelated to paedophilia; which is the attraction toward pre-pubescent children. Therefore the schoolgirl mentioned within the song is not a child, so the song does not belong is a paedophile related category (although if there is a category related to "lolitaism" then that is appropriate.) I raise this point (or WP:POINT, if you prefer) to illustrate precisely why the subject of paedophilia needs to be handled so carefully, much of what is written in the popular media regarding, and supposed examples of, paedophile attraction is not - it is something else which is equally impermissable upon being acted upon, but does not equate to the encyclopedic definition of paedophilia. Hence it is imperative that accusations are not bandied around, and those experienced Wikipedians who have taken on the editing of this thorny subject be allowed to calmly and objectively do their work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mikkalai is abusing power

He has protected the page Bender, Moldova and got it protected a second time. The correct name of the article was Tighina previously.

Mikkalai abused his powers in previously protecting the page. Refer to the Wikipedia protection policy at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Move_protection:

"administrators should avoid favoring one name over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current name."

However Mikkalai has stated on the talk page that: "This is the official name of the city, according to the evidence presented. Period" in order to justify his actions.

There was previously a proposal to move the page, however it ended with no consensus. This definitely doesn't favour either name. He is now going around threatening to block people who change it back to Tighina.

I believe that if he wants to move the page, despite the recent "no consensus" verdict on the move proposal, he should start a proper debate on the talk page rather than act in a way such as that of a dictator with the moral high ground. Rapido (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I live for the day that we get a comment about Mikka from someone who was not engaged in edit-warring to promote a particular POV. Let me go and see if the day has arrived... Nope. Copy-paste moves are Bad, ethnic disputes are not best solved by edit warring. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, if by POV you mean only mainspace-related issues, and not philosophical differences regarding RfA, here's at least one: Mikka can be unfriendly as hell and frequently displays behaviour fully and utterly incompatible with a position of trust in this project. However, I agree that the issue at hand happens to be purely content-related. Dorftrottel (harass) 15:48, April 8, 2008
  • Make that two, I can't disagree with anything Dorftrottel just said. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Discuss it on the talkpage and come to a consensus on the name according to the best sources available. Moving it back and forth is counter-productive. While I don't necessarily think the protection was good, I'd be in favor of leaving it in place to prevent a move-war from going on. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Mikkalai was asked about the protection, then removed it. Mikkalai then requested protection via RFPP which I granted, as there was an active dispute about the pages title. It is currently protected for about 19 more days. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

With two threads in a row claiming it, "Abuse of Power" is becoming the new "Wikistalking"--do we maybe need to invoke WP:CLINGPEACHES?Gladys J Cortez 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin abusing power = admin doing exactly what they should do, except they did it to me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like all the admins are having a good laugh about what other admins do, no matter whether it's right or wrong, and despite whether it might be disruptive to Wikipedia. It also seems to me that administrators are considered more important that other editors, which surely should not be the case. I don't consider anything has been resolved here. Rapido (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin...well, not abuse...regarding spam talk pages

More like "foot-stamping", "because I said so", or, maybe, "vague-handwaving-attempts-at-bullying".

I've made it my business to tag for speedy deletion spam disguised as user pages (such as Cheap keyword advertising (talk · contribs) and Adnet-keywording (talk · contribs), to name two of many such examples). As part of that, I leave a notice on their talk pages -- because if I don't, a bot will leave a generic spam-warning message anyways, so I leave my own warning template ({{spam-warn-userpage}}). Of course, this means that the spam name lives on as a real page for Google to pick up, so I also add {{temporary userpage}} so that the talk page will eventually be nuked itsownself.

Well, Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and a few others have apparently gotten a bug up their butts by the fact that I tag indef-blocked, about-to-be-indef-blocked, or obvious spammer user talk pages with {{temporary userpage}} and Ryan Postlethwaite has ordered me to stop. When asked why, he simply says (to paraphrase) "because I said" and (directly) "This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted". Many admins have deleted such pages in the past as being, well, "inactive and containing no versions requiring archiving", as the tag itself says. When asked to expain why I should stop doing something supported by actual practice and is just good housekeeping generally, he falls back on demands that I "stop wikilawyering" without giving me the slightest reason why I should, why I'm doing anything wrong, or why he's not pestering the admins who perform the actual deletions. The closest he's come is the question begging assertion that "[t]his is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted."

Perhaps a word with him (and others, perhaps) to actually do more than wave his hands and issue threats would be helpful here. Such as 1) why it's important to save these pages; 2) why it's disruptive to tag them; 3) why he feels the need to throw his weight around regarding something this ridiculous. --Calton | Talk 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've let Ryan Postlethwaite know about this report, so I imagine he'll stop by to explain what's so urgent about keeping those talk pages. I can't see any convincing reason for keeping them myself. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the same as, or at least very similar to, another discussion on this board a few days ago? Were any conclusions drawn from that thread? _{The public face of GB}^T/C 15:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not at least what I can recall. Rudget (review) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My problem with Caltons tagging is that there is nothing to say that we should delete user talk pages for users that have been warned once or twice about creating non notable pages. Many of the users that Calton has tagged aren't even going to be blocked - he's tagging talk pages that aren't his, aren't of blocked users to be deleted for no reason whatsoever. There is no harm at all keeping talk pages of users who have one warning to their name and who have the possibility of contributing constructively in the future. {{temporary userpage}} isn't the most friendly template we have, it's bitey and suggests to our new users that they aren't even allowed their own talk page. We should educate new users, not warn them and have their talk pages deleted. The reason why I decided to throw my weight around is because 5 users have now asked Calton to stop this, but he refuses every single time. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody else has asked Calton to stop, because I was preparing to do so myself. There is absolutely no reason to be tagging these pages into CAT:TEMP. There is no reason these pages need to be deleted. Pages in CAT:TEMP are usually only pages of indefinitely blocked users, where there is no benefit of keeping them. I've seen Calton say that he's just tagging the pages, and if they shouldn't be deleted then it is the problem of the deleting admin. That is unacceptable. Wasting time to fix the incorrect tagging is not necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wait until after an indefinite block before placing this category, which is part of the indefblocked template anyway. I'd even suggest nominating the "temporary userpage" template for deletion. What else is it used for? User nominating their own pages for deletion can use db-author or similar tags. And even when this category has been placed, circumstances may change. It seems Calton is being impatient and jumping the gun. He should calm down and wait for blocks to be placed before completing paperwork like this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know of any instances that the tag is actually used (appropriately). Indefinitely blocked users are placed in the category, like you say, with various templates including {{indefblocked}} . - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Look closer. Indefinitely blocked users are placed in the category only if the blocking admin actually adds the notice, which they sometimes don't. See Anglo American Autos (talk · contribs), Jtplasticproducts (talk · contribs), and Ravensbruck films (talk · contribs), to pick three very recent examples. So unless I keep track of which ones AREN'T given the notice, pages with the spammy names remain in perpetuity. This is not "jumping the gun", it's back-up for the about-to-be-indefed and reality for the one-shot spammers. --Calton | Talk 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And if Calton must tag such pages, he should design a more specific tag. eg. This user is a spammer. Or something. But phrased more politely. And better designed. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally mustered up the time to leave Calton a message, his taggings have long been an annoyance when going through CAT:CSD. Calton, surely you can find something more constructive to do than tag userpages for deletion? John Reaves 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Way to go Ryan! There is no need to assume bad faith and tag other users pages as such. Pages should only be tagged if they are indef blocked. And yeah, the conversation in regards to this a few days ago was heading that direction as well, but no clear consensus. Tiptoety ^talk 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the user talk pages, no? I definitely saw correct user pages tags for spam G11.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No we are not talking about taging pages for deletion, but placing {{temporary userpage}} on them. Anyways Calton could spend the time he takes tagging the page to try and help the new confused user. Tiptoety ^talk 18:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah; I've seen those as well... So let me just add, that his userpage taggings for blatant spam are something useful, which he may want to consider when deciding where to spend his time.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I terms of useful things you could do for the encyclopedia, that's pretty low on the list. It seems to be some sort of personal mission he has. John Reaves 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that his taggings of userpages for blatant spam coupled with reporting the usernames at WP:UAA does constitute a useful contribution to cleaning up one particular part of WP. I've yet to decline a delete or UAA report that Calton has made, and I can always tell when Calton's been busy from my watchlist (suddenly it says that UAA is backlogged with 9 or 10 names remaining!). However, I agree that adding {{temporary userpage}} is unnecessary and even a bit BITEy. (a) The username-softblock notice contains the same category, so the earlier tag is unnecessary (b) the tag doesn't speed up deletion of the talk page, as the talk page of an unblocked user won't be deleted, and (c) slapping the category on the talk page of a newbie editor who (AGF) doesn't know our stance on spam userpages is a tad harsh for my particular tastes. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Calton tagged this users talk page with {{temporary userpage}}, I removed it and look now, he clearly did not understand that we had a username policy, and that he could not create promotional pages. Just a little WP:AGF can go a long way. Tiptoety ^talk 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I just saw this, I logged on tonight to create the same thread myself. I raised this issue last week on here in another discussion but it was a little off topic. See this thread User talk:Rjd0060#What_do_you_suggest_we_do_to_address_User:Calton.27s_tagging.3F and the many discussions on Calton's talk page that it refers to. Amazing that Calton brought this here! This is very problematic as admins often assume the pages in CAT:TEMP are indef blocked and even if they check everything carefully it greatly increases the backlog unnecessarily. Adding {{temporary userpage}} is more than unnecessary, it's very harmful. The only reason the tag exists in the first place, as far as I know, is to deny trolls the pleasure of a big orange indef blocked tag. Many of the users Calton tags aren't even blocked, let alone indef blocked.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Huzzah! to Ryan for forcing this issue with Calton.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Calton, surely you can find something more constructive to do than tag userpages for deletion?

If forcing you to delete spam is difficult, perhaps you, too, could find something you're more comfortable doing. There are plenty of admins willing to do the housekeeping.

There is no reason these pages need to be deleted.

Of course there is. General housekeeping, elimination of spam names (like User talk:Cheap keyword advertising and User talk:Anglo American Autos, and, like the immediate cleaning of subway cars that NYC used to do, discouraging the creation of further such pages and attempts at spamming by removing rewards for doing so. Kind of like, oh, revert, block, ignore, right?

Amazing that Calton brought this here!

No, not amazing at all: I got tired of the fact-free attempts at bullying, occasional outright falsehoods, content-free complaints, and the general empty sputtering. Which continue. Speaking of which...

Adding {{temporary userpage}} is more than unnecessary, it's very harmful.

I'd say that begging the question is downright harmful when it comes to honest debate, don't you?

Yeah, Calton tagged this users talk page...

You mean for the role account for a public relations firm, whose only contributions were to add a section to an article promoting one of his clients -- even adding his own name? Role accounts get blocked: this isn't even a slightly difficult concept.

As for Bencherlite's comments, thanks. The reason they come in clusters is that I only really have time to check in once or twice a day, so I look at what "New pages" throws up, and lo, plenty of material to work with. As for his specific points

(a) The username-softblock notice contains the same category, so the earlier tag is unnecessary - Only if the blocking admin actually adds the notice, which they sometimes don't. See Anglo American Autos (talk · contribs), Jtplasticproducts (talk · contribs), and Ravensbruck films (talk · contribs), to pick three very recent examples. So unless I keep track of which ones AREN'T given the notice, pages with the spammy names remain in perpetuity.

(Speaking of unnecessary, I've noticed that User:Doug is going around removing the {{temporary userpage}} tags from pages which have had the block notice added. Given that said pages remain in the same category whether or not the {{temporary userpage}} tags are there, this strikes me as unnecessary to the point of spitefulness -- or is there some subtlety that I'm missing here? Like his cries of "Huzzah!", maybe?)

(b) the tag doesn't speed up deletion of the talk page, as the talk page of an unblocked user won't be deleted

Who's claiming that {{temporary userpage}} =/= "speedy deletion"? It's not what it says on the tag itself -- it says after some vaguely defined "reasonable period of time". Without the tag, that "period of time" = "never", so between "never" and "reasonable period of time", I opt for "reasonable period of time".

(c) slapping the category on the talk page of a newbie editor who (AGF) doesn't know our stance on spam userpages is a tad harsh for my particular tastes.

I'd say it bears no relation to their activities, nor is it message to them: it's housekeeping. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just blank the page. It won't have the spam (and if it's on a user page it shouldn't be crawled anyway) and most people won't fight about it. Besides, I would rather the edit available if I see that the user is spamming everywhere so I can block him for much longer time (rather than having to look through their deleted edits). Who cares if the history remains? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. A little education: a blank page still exists as a page, a deleted one doesn't; existing pages get picked up by Google, non-existent ones don't. Your logic, frankly, could apply to any and all pages of oft-created spam, and yet, surprisingly, someone came up with the universally used "protected titles" solution instead. If "blanking the page" was sufficient, why was "protected titles" necessary? --Calton | Talk 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on one of Calton's points, if the blocking admin fails to add the notice, then surely two things should happen - (i) it should be brought to the blocking admin's attention and (ii) someone should add the notice. As far as I can see, neither uw-ublock or uw-uhblock need to be added by an admin, as there is nothing in their wording to imply that they have been added by an admin. If, however, the notice isn't added then we end up with the clearly unacceptable position where we have a user who is blocked (potentially only soft blocked) without knowing why they've been blocked, not being given the notice that tells them how to go about getting unblocked and changing their username, and then (if the {{temporary userpage}} tag is placed on the page) having their talk page deleted a while later.

Despite having had my fair share of run-ins with Calton in the past, I find myself taking a fair bit of issue with some of the comments above. Calton's work tagging spam userpages for deletion is valuable - anything which keeps the encyclopaedia spam-free is a valuable contribution to the project overall, in my view, and I don't agree with those who see it as being less valuable than any other housekeeping task. And although we've disagreed in the past over articles in the mainspace he has tagged for CAT:CSD, I don't think I've ever had reason to decline speedy deletion of a userpage which he has tagged as being spam.

If you doubt the accuracy of his taggings, I suggest a quick look back through his contributions. The sheer quantity of those userpage links in his edit summaries which are now red are testimony to the accuracy of his tagging. The few that are blue have either been recreated by the users concerned, or were merely blanked by him rather than tagged for speedy. Display the most recent 500 - there are dozens, if not hundreds of properly deleted spam pages. It is an unarguable fact that there is a constant stream of new editors who ignore the warnings about creating spam pages and go ahead and create them anyway. His reasons for taking on the tagging of those pages as a personal tas are irrelevant - the fact remains that he is one of the few people does, and I think he deserves credit for the thoroughness and accuracy with which he attends to his chosen task.

Despite what Ricky says above, user pages and user talk pages both turn up on Google searches - search for "Wikipedia Gb sockpuppetry" and my userpage will be the first result, and my user talk page the second. I have no reason to think that a spam userpage created by a spamming-SPA would also not turn up, but as Calton's work seems to ensure they get deleted pretty quickly, I can't actually find an example of it to cite here.

I also second Bencherlite's comments about his reports to WP:UAA - I can't think of a single instance where I have not soft- or hard-blocked a report he has made there.

As for whether he should be adding {{temporary userpage}} in the circumstances discussed above, I don't have a particularly strong view one way or the other. Where the username is such that he knows he's going to be adding them to WP:UAA, and that they will in all likelihood be blocked, I would prefer that he didn't, and that instead he kept an eye on the usertalk page to double check that the uw-ublock template has been added by the blocking admin, and add it if it hasn't been. A little more work, perhaps, but it avoids the unacceptable situation I started off this (now exceedingly long) comment with.

The question is probably more relevant, therefore, only where he comes across as user whose contribtuions are spam, but whose name isn't. Personally I'd treat them much like a user whose contribution was nonsense - warn, then maybe monitor their contributions to see which direction they go in. Judging from the above there are views on both sides of the above - whilst the last of these discussions didn't reach a resolution, I'd hope that this one could so that we can all get on with what it was we were doing in the first place. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through the past couple weeks of Calton's {{temporary userpage}} tags and found I'd estimate about 10-15% of the tags are to pages of users that have never been blocked let alone indef blocked (I can get a hard count with some work, as I've removed the tags with an edit summary that says this). Nobody is questioning Calton's speedy deletion requests (although there is a comment on Calton's userpage about this - that's an entirely different issue). The problem is that this is sort of like a PROD in that the deletions occur after an extended period; however, only pages of indef blocked users should be in CAT:TEMP, that is very clear and {{temporary userpage}} puts pages in this cat - that's the whole point of the tag. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Template:Temporary userpage for deletion (please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 10#Template:Temporary userpage) - all comments welcome. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UAA

Good size backlog, has been there for a while now. Could use some help please. Tiptoety ^talk 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty much cleared up now, only a few left hanging around. Thanks for all the help guys! Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For the future, generally putting pages into Category:Administrative backlog will catch more admins. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The category tracker is back

Template:Category tracker <--- HERE.

Since the old one hasn't updated in months and STILL appears on several admins' pages, I hacked up a new one using the magicness of magic words. A few comments:

• This uses expensive parser functions. Don't put this on pages that have lots of these.
• There are some nonsensical values. Some explanations in order of decreasing likeliness:
  1. A type of cleanup that lacks a category like Category:All pages needing cleanup (an example would be articles to be merged). You'll need to create one, edit the (protected) template and then update the tracker. GOTO 2.
  2. Database lag. Purge the cache and/or wait for the job queue to go away.
  3. Persistent database lag. This would need a null edit to fix, but you don't want to pad your edit count in this way (it's boring).
  4. A MediaWiki bug. Report it here.
• There are no statistics on the numbers such as mean, range and z-score. They will have to be manually done, so no funky colors (my understanding of wiki markup doesn't go that far, but it's possible. See first comment).
• Updates in "real time", but see #2 above.
• I'm too lazy to write any formal documentation, categorize or do other pretty things.

I just copied and pasted the list of categories on the old category tracker, minus a few. If there are others that are worthy of inclusion, just add them. MER-C 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nice. I'll need to figure out why it's giving -3 members in some categories, but seems very cool. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bug reported. MER-C 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big backlog at WP:AIV

Reports keep piling on, could an admin "take care" of them. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 13:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved for now. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP evading a permanent ban

I put a month-long block on the following IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.186.213.96 Looks to me like a clear-cut case of evasion of a ban by User:Licorne. See User talk:Licorne for more information on this persistent anti-Semite, who was banned indefinitely a few years back. The above IP, along with being in a known IP range of the user, has the same obsessions (obsessed with homosexuality, with Catholicism, with "Jews", using all caps when confronted, and, most of all, with the idea that Albert Einstein plagiarized the work of Henri Poincaré and others). I thought I ought to report it in here, since it has been awhile. I have no doubt myself that this is the same person, the likelihood that a similar IP would be editing Wikipedia in all the trademark ways of this past abuser seems nil. --Fastfission (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-admin closures of AFDs

Anyone interested in revising/updating/confirming the NAC guidelines?, Let me know, I'd like to participate. The broad issue has nothing to do with SM or Stifle. closing the thread. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Today I noticed that User:SynergeticMaggot, a non-admin, had closed two AFDs, namely Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Baksh and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Age communities, as keep. I reopened both of them, per the provision of the deletion process which says "Decisions [of non-admins closing AFDs] are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". It also says "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." At the time of closure, the "vote count" on the AFDs was 3-2 in favour of delete and a 9-9 tie. SynergeticMaggot has protested my decision to reopen these AFDs for another admin to close them and has suggested listing the matter here. I am not stating that these AFDs were closed with the incorrect result, merely that the established deletion standard is that close results are dealt with by admins only. Some opinions will be welcome. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if this means that WP:DPR needs to be revised, let's agree that it should be and do so. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Should be and are, are two different things here. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was a non-admin, I did a similar thing: best to bring to some form of a review elsewhere. Rudget (review) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to close AfDs as a non admin fine, but if an admin re-opens them just accept that, or go to DRV. That being said an admin should not reverse a close unless they are concerned it was done incorrectly, or that the decision was not clear cut enough for a non-admin closure. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Synergetic Maggot asked me to look at these AfDs and his closures on my talkpage. After looking at both AfDs, I agree, that according to our current guidelines and essays and established practices, that these two AfDs should have been left to an admin to close. Stifle did the correct thing in reopening the debates, neither of which was a clear, noncontentious, obvious keep. SM has made numerous NACs, the vast majority of them are solid and noncontroversial keeps. These two are exceptions to what, in my experience, are generally very good closures. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Keeper's thoughts. SynergeticMaggot should have left them for an admin. GlassCobra 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there. This isn't resolved just yet. I went ahead and looked, under Wikipedia:NAC#Inappropriate_closures and I found that these were not inappropriate at all, and that one of my closes meets the requirements for SNOW. Any thoughts along those lines? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which one was snow? Neither were snow, SM. I closed this thread for your benefit. (meaning, it should go away, giving you the benefit of the doubt...)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of letting this particular thread die, I'll leave this to other talk pages. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those were snow closures. I suggest you only close AfDs that are more clear cut in the future. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is resolved here. It's ongoing on keepers talk page. And thank you for the suggestion. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd frankly trust SM as much as any admin.. I'm amazed (s)he wasn't already an admin! <ducks> --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) no, I don't nom people for RFA anymore. I don't think decent people should be wasted on mere admin work O:-) I wonder how much interesting trouble THAT statement is going to get me into.'<ducks some more>'

More serious point: People will always get attacked for closing *FD, it's thankless work that typically is pretty much wikisuicidal (*FD admins should not leave themselves open to recall, among other things). It's amazing that SynergisticMaggot got overturned only twice... and then it turns out the decisions weren't even that bad! heh. Crazy. I figure it's just people forum shopping then, and finding that SM had this single weak-spot of not having the flag. Hmph.

I think people like SynergisticMaggot probably should be given whatever space they need to close AFDs if they really want to. That silly admin flag is just for tools. Determining consensus should be done by wise people. An admin only needs to know if their actions might damage the wiki (like deleting the main page, anyone? O:-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weeding required in odd walled garden

All socks ironed and blocked. _GB^T/C 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A question: what's the best way for one to proceed when one comes across a large collection of either socks or a crowd of friends using Wikipedia, both in project space and in userspace, to develop backgrounds, characters, corporate pages, and various other things for a bunch of cyber- or fantasy-wrestling organizations? My first instinct is to just go around blanking all the talk pages and leaving notes about WP:NOT#MYSPACE, but thought I'd check on whether that fits current policy before doing it. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your first instinct was about right. If they carry on after a warning, particularly if there's no constructive edits, block em. Neıl ☎ 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorting out in progress. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RSI in my block-finger, after blocking the 43 socks revealed by the CU, as well as the accounts listed at WP:SSP. _GB^T/C 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-United Kingdom Editor

I would like to bring to attention User:Keizuko's regular anti-UK edits, which can clearly be seen through their editing history page and talk page. I have been speanding a lot of time trying to stem their anti-UK conduct but is tiring work for just one person who isn't an editor themselves so I would be grateful if any administrators could keep an eye on this person's conduct and edits. Their edits are not only against the United Kingdom article itself but against UK related articles as well. Signsolid (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he'd call you a "Pro-United Kingdom Editor", see as you're edit warring with each other. Monobi (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Are my Pro-United Kingdom edits vandalistic as his Anti-United Kingdom edits are? If I'm in an edit war with them it is only to reverse their Anti-British edits as they edit an article towards their Anti-British POV before I edit it to reverse it, according to our history pages anyway. Signsolid (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed some of his edit history, and saw edit warring with a willingness to discuss the dispute based on the reading of reliable sources...Certainly not a blockable or even warnable offence, aside from a warning not to edit war. Sorry to say, but you'll either have to live with the fact that someone consistently disagrees with you and continue on with dispute resolution as needed, or actually prove your accusations with diffs that show a consistent NPOV violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy is clearly heavily pushing a POV. From my 60 seconds review, seriously, changing an expenditure ranking based on an exchange rate change? Denying Shell is a part UK company? Denying the UK is a participant in Afghanistan? He is a blatant POV pusher, just a very smart and determined one. Like the commentor says, this is a bit much to deal with for one person. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(per the Shell Fortune 500 issue, anyone who uses a magazine to go against a source from the actual magazine article subject clearly has an agenda to pursue) MickMacNee (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, MickMacNee hasn't checked the facts very well. The article dealing with Shell builds in its entirety on a well-respected source, the Fortune Magazine. All the article in question does is to list the main companies, as described in the article. In that article, Shell is described as Dutch company, not as a British. So all Keizuko has done in this particular case is to removed WP:OR and to keep the article in line with the source on which it builds. That MickMacNee should consider such an action "blatant POV pushing" may be saying more about his own views that about Keizuko's.JdeJ (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Magazine listed Shell as a Dutch only company. It was decided by other editors to add a footnote stating that Shell, although listed as exclusively Dutch by Fortune Magazine, has dual headquarters in The Hague and London. Signsolid has recently edited the article, removing the footnote and writing that Shell is both Dutch and British, which goes against the source used to write the article. Enough said. As for the other accusations, it's too silly to answer really. Keizuko (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are simply recreating the 500 list from the magazine, rejecting other sources, you are basically in breach of copyright, WP is not a re-publisher for the Fortune 500. And if you remove infomation backed up by the primary source, the company itself, in favour of a third party source, it's pretty clear what your motive is, and it's not an interest in reliable sources. And your other edits only make that clearer. Editing towards a POV across multiple articles is against policy, and should be acted on. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I've never thought of Royal Dutch as being anything other than a Dutch company - and I am very British. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps a bit of the Pot calling the kettle black. Is User:Keizuko an anti-British POV-pusher. To the best of my knowledge, after several interactions with him, I would say that he probably isn't. He has another view than some British users regarding the calculation of GDP, but that's a very far cry from pushing an anti-British agenda. Is User:Signsolid a pro-British POV-pusher. Based on my own numerous encounters with him, well, he's pro-British and he accentuates pro-British facts, but not necessarily a POV-pusher. And despite his outbursts and the nationalism, he is prepared to discuss and to make compromises. It may take some time to get there, but he seems to respect the compromises once they are made, just like User:Keizuko. I don't see any case for any action here, unless some heavy edit warring erupts. JdeJ (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The user in question seems to be interested in countries in general. Perhaps he just dislikes unsourced facts (dont we all?)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

In case anyone's sitting around asking themself, "Just what can I do with my tools today?", there are open discussions here dating as far back as March 20. I've boldly closed the obvious keep results, but I don't have the tools to deal with anything else. Any help is appreciated. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User edit warring, pov-pushing, harassing and attacking another user

A few paragraphs up on this page, user Signsolid launches an attack on user Keizuko. Having looked into the matter a bit more, I'm amazed that Signsolid had the guts to do so, since the facts seems to be 100% the opposite. For a long time, Signsolid is repeatedly attacking Keizuko with very aggressive and personal attacks, often accusing Keizuko of being "hateful" and attacking Keizuko over his nationality. For the record, I haven't found a single such attack by Keizuko, while they seem to be a trademark of Signsolid. The following diffs are just a few examples, many more are easily found [4], [5], [6], [7]. As the user accused Keizuko of being motivated by "nationalist POV", I'd like to point out that I've found no such pattern in Keizuko's edits, while they are very obvious in Signsolid's edit history. At the moment, he is repeatedly first changing a sourced article and an agreed upon compromise as well as inserting meaningless nonsense that looks quite much like vandalism to me (inserting a country called "Heffo" in a table over countries). [8], [9], [10]. I think it is rather obvious that in the conflict involving Signsolid and Keizuko, it is Keizuko who has behaved in a calm way and respected Wikipedia policies while Signsolid has failed to do so. JdeJ (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userfication request

Could an admin please copy the deleted article Escape chute to my userspace? I'm writing an article on this device and would like to see if there is anything useful in the old article, which was apparently deleted as spam. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oversight action needed

While happily browsing the block log I came across this. A vandal releasing someone's phone number. An oversight should delete this from the page's history pronto.--Urban Rose 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually, this isn't the place to report oversighting edits. You need to e-mail the request here. BoL (Talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I only learned that oversight existed two days ago, so I'm still getting the hang of how it works.--Urban Rose 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Alison ^❤ 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (wow, an oversight appeared out of nowhere! :)) Majorly (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's that new-to-the-job eagerness...probably the engine that gets much of the work of the world done. (Congrats on the oversight, Alison!)Gladys J Cortez 13:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Approval List

It looks like the AWB reg list hasn't seen a sysop for a few days, anyone able to take care of it? Thanks guys/girls. AL_LOCKE|^talk 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Haudcivitas

I am pretty immune to personal abuse but I think that accusing me of having paid the subject of an article I have edited, here and here, is going too far. I should be grateful if a dispassionate editor could draw User:Haudcivitas's attention to WP:AGF, please, since I think it would have more effect. TerriersFan (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done by User:Al.locke, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very old unclosed RfA

While warning a user for incivility this evening, I noticed that he happened to have an old RfA that was never closed. I would presume it was because he never trancluded it onto the main RfA page. Regardless, it's from June 2007, never had a chance of passing (he had like 30-ish edits at the time of the RfA), and the only vote anyone cast was "no". Can someone close this or otherwise dispose of it? Gromlakh (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed, nice find. Keegan^talk 06:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anyone let it known if they have a problem with the closure. The RfA was never transcluded, so by technicality I suppose it is still "pending," but I think this is pretty cut and dry. Keegan^talk 06:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the closure. If he wants to start a new one, he's welcome to. Perhaps he'll be able to better follow directions now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism stats

Anywhere where long-term unreverted vandalism can be reported? I just reverted vandalism that lasted 20 days. How depressing. Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reported for what purpose? You've already reverted it, what more can we do? There's not a lot of point blocking the vandal if they've already stopped doing it (if they haven't, they'll get blocked for the recent stuff anyway). --Tango (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was helping people to get an idea of how long vandalism goes unreverted for, and how much vandalism gets missed like that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is something worth advertising. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

*Gives Carcharoth a cookie.* Neal (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] AfD Canvassing

AfD is closed. Nothing to see here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I haven't brought this to the right noticeboard, but is there anyway to deal with blatant canvassing on an AfD discussion (see evidence [11], user in question specifically asked WikiProject members to vote keep) or should it just be brought to WP:DRV once its closed. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I diagree with the comment. User Mr. Senseless has proposed an article I created (Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)) for deletion. I strongly disagree with the proposal. The article concerns a landmark church that has been referenced about 400 times in the Los Angeles Times. I have cited numerous articles about the church from the Times and other publications. When the proposal was made to delete the article, I posted a single note on the Wikipedia Catholic Church project letting people know about the discussion and suggesting, if they agreed that the article was notable that they support the article. How is this improper? This is a valuable article that I spent the better part of the day creating. Am I not permitted to make a single post to the project supporting my position? I've been editing on Wikipedia for about a year now, have created 200+ articles, at least 20 of my articles have been rated as good articles, and almost 100 of my articles have been posted to the Did You Know page. If this type of speech suppression is the rule, then this is very discouraging.Cbl62 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To avoid any possible complaint, I have added a disclaimer encouraging people to simply take a look at the article and decide for themselves. See[talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)] I trust Mr. Senseless cannot have a problem with that.Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The posting of a notice of an AfD to a relevant WikiProject is usually not disfavored (as WP:CANVASS provides), but it is a bit disconcerting that your notice was worded at least a bit non-neutrally. You seemed to advance a particular position in your explication of the issue, but I don't know that that was particularly pernicious; more worrisome was your noting that if others who agree with you might do well to "vote to "Keep" the article", for which you would be "appreciat[ive]", implicit in which is a suggestion that those who disagree with your analysis oughtn't to !vote (to be sure, most [all?] editors aren't going to elect not to participate in the AfD because of that language, but it's still suboptimal). Nevertheless, this was a one-off posting that would have been entirely appropriate were it worded a bit more neutrally (and that was surely offered in good faith), and I am sure that we can expect members of the WikiProject who happen upon the notice to be deliberative and not to !vote reflexively, and so in the absence of any evidence of the AfD's being deleteriously affected by the participation of "canvassed" editors (it is likely that the AfD will be well visited having been posted at AN as presenting a potential canvassing problem, such that there's unlikely to be any real problem), we might safely, IMHO, regard this as resolved, although Cbl would probably be well served to give WP:CANVASS (most specifically its contrasting "friendly notices" with less acceptable communications) a quick read. Joe 06:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time one of my articles has become embroiled in a deletion debate. I was unaware that even mild advocacy was frowned upon and am not sure why such a policy would exist. In any event, I have added a disclaimer asking people to simply look at the article for themselves and decide. I will now try to "cool down" and let people decide.Cbl62 (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the matter. It seems that Mr Senseless is a rampant deletionist that nominates articles for deletion within literally one minute from their creation and then goes on to even close AfD debates with "delete", in spite not being an admin. I see no article building and no other constructive work from him. While Cbl62 on the other hand has built a pretty nice article that Mr Senseless now is set on having deleted, using any means available (such as advanced wikilawyering). Since I am not experienced in handling this kind of things I suggest some experienced admins take a look at Mr Senseless and see what they can do to mitigate his disruptive behaviour here at Wikipedia. Yes, I use strong words here, but this is the impression I have gotten after taking a look at the matter.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to support your accusations? -- Naerii 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed on the AfD for the above article that there was a discussion going on here. Let's see now, "Administrators noticeboard"? Oh I get it! A place to come and have a sook because for goodness sake the article I so desperately want deleted now looks like it's going to be kept! Another Wikidrama has fallen upon us as he is also wondering if he should take it to WP:DRV once it's closed? Why? Because you can't accept community consensus? You won't be the only person to nominate an article for deletion to then have the community decide to keep it. Just build a bridge and get over it. Instead of carrying on about canvassing etc. How about withdrawing the dodgy nom before someone puts it out of your misery and snows it! Don't worry Cbl62, you've done nothing worth worrying about. It's editors like you we need more of. I voted keep and nobody canvassed me.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how 'bout everyone just relax about this. It was a good faith nom. It was a good faith post (although poorly worded) at a WikiProject. The AfD went snow. The nom withdrew, stated his original nomination rationale, and is moving on. I suggest everyone else does as well, no need for attacks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moldopodo's complaint

Thanks for taking time to answer, even though sometimes to somebody else an dnot to me. the Kosovo thing has nothing to do with me, no idea where this comes from. All I was basicly looking for was appreciation of Fut.Sunr.Perf. actions by a third party. I don't really care for any action as such, to be honest I don't give a damn about it. The images are deleted, so there is nothing to be done and I do not feel like spending another 2 hours to upload them back again. Let those articles remain empty text pages, as, I guess, this is how Wikipedia articles look better in her/his eyes. All I asked on the noiceboard is appreciation of her/his actions and words. If you consider this ok - say it, don't like it - say it, may be you could even explain why (that would be great). Otherwise, what's the point of leaving a comment in the "this is not a diff but a link /translation: leave me alone" style? I am not asking some robots, but human beings after all...--Moldopodo (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backlogs

Hi. I'm not an admin, and this is just a general question-comment. If a page is backlogged, meaning that the page has many posts that are not done to what they should be done so, can I add another one, or should I wait until the backlog is at least partialy clear (or should I try to clear it myself)? Also, are the backlogs over hundreds of thousands like expand and cleanup, ever going to clear, or can we only clear one bit at a time and try to reduce its expansion? Is it the result of wikicrastination (which I have too much of these days? If I add one more to it, like if there's a dozen currently backlogged, should I try to clear a few of them so a few less of them are still backlogged? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You should never hesitate to tag something just because there's a backlog; while yes, it does add one more item to an already lengthy list, it's still good to have that sort of stuff properly tagged.

As for why there are such backlogs, it's a result of the entire community being volunteer-driven; I know I'd be able to devote more time to looking for sources if I didn't have to worry about a pesky job just to keep the lights on. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB/Checkpage

Ahem....the checkpage carries a note asking for a 'gentle reminder' if there is no action for over 24 hrs. Well, it does look like this is the case, and above is my gentle reminder. Hope somebody comes by to clear some approvals! :) Prashanthns (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Prashanthns (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alison given oversight access

After a considerable amount of Arbitration Committee discussion over several months, User:Alison has been given oversight access for English Wikipedia. This is primarily in recognition of two factors: she is already given and trusted with Checkuser and has been very active and does thorough and helpful work in that role, and, she is also very active in dealing with harassment issues of users on Wikipedia, which has continually required her to approach others to deal with oversight matters resulting from that. This will help her in that task.

For the Arbitration Committee,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(As a personal side-note, some users have in the past expressed concern about Alison's posting on Wikipedia Review. Briefly addressing these, 1/ Alison has stated many times that she visits such sites to assist with resolution and dialog where possible, and to address differences rather than encourage them, a statement bourne out over time, 2/ Alison is trusted by the community with Checkuser access already, 3/ the community will benefit from Alison being able to oversight such material herself, especially as she has proven active, dedicated, skilled and sensitive at identifying and handling it, and 4/ the Committee has taken account of the events of the last month, and, having considered this for some months now, feels that Alison would be a capable set of hands to trust with oversight as well as checkuser.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Wikipedia Review isn't bad in itself, it's the users. All of her posts there are helpful. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved. Rudget (review) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I trust her with it. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't anyone who's trusted with checkuser be trusted with oversight as well? Grandmasterka 09:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my feeling that misuse (or more to the point, questionable use) of oversight privileges is more problematic than checkuser. Each should only be given to users that are tasked with a specific job that requires its use.--Father Goose (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue the opposite - oversighted edits can be restored; if personal information is released through misuse of checkuser it cannot be "un-released". Black Kite 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They cannot be restored without the help of a developer. Majorly (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But they still can actually be restored. Unlike Checkuser results, which once released cannot be un-released. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight users have access to every past oversighted diff through the log, which isn't trivial. There is no practical difference in the level of trust required for either position. The difference in users with access is, in my opinion, due to the sensible concept of limiting access to as few people as necessary when sensitive information is involved. Dmcdevit·t 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriately releasing personal information gained through checkuser privileges is a very visible violation of trust; oversight, as I understand it, makes things disappear quietly, and can easily go unnoticed. This is what concerns me more. I suppose "fishing expeditions" could be quietly performed with checkuser, with only the CU logs to show for it, though I'm not especially convinced that fishing expeditions are a bad thing in the first place -- and I'm a staunch supporter of privacy.

Regardless, the overall principle of limiting access to as few people as necessary applies to both privileges.--Father Goose (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the more admins etc. who do post there the better, especially if it does anything to reduce the adversarial nature of the place. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well-deserved - congrats Alison :) Orderinchaos 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Ali! -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

and now the waiting game for {{RfB-nom}} to appear at her talk so I can Support. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MBisanz, but you could be waiting an awfully long time :) I've more than enough work right now with what I have. Besides, there are far more worthy people than me that I'd rather see as 'crat. - Alison ^❤ 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'crat? -- "je früher desto besser" -78.19.75.148 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A fitting person to fill the shoes I think. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! You can haz Oversightz! - Philippe 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what oversight is? :)--Urban Rose 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is the ability to permanently delete certain revisions of pages. Normal admin delete can be reversed - oversight cannot. It's reserved for sensitive information that normal admins should not even be seeing, such as phone numbers. Anyhow, this is excellent news. Alison is an extremely hardworking checkuser and admin, and I'm sure she'll do just as well with oversight. Majorly (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Oversight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't be happier with the appointment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your kind words and support. I promise to do my best :) - Alison ^❤ 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I'm just a lurker who occasional contributes. I have seen your work at reaching out to troubled users over at WR and I would urge you to continue to do so. Mending fences, even with people we do not like, is always the preferable option. In the long run, it saves much time if the festering bad feelings that eventually boil over into sock-attacks and other malicious behavior are addressed before they manifest. Congratulations on your new level. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I trust Alison 100% with those capabilities and I fully believe she will not abuse them. Very wise choice indeed.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As do I. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pile-on! bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

110%. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free image policy

Recently, a small group of editors took it upon themselves to declare a "consensus" to remove one of the most important parts of the Foundation's non-free image policy WP:NFCC#8. I have reverted their change with fairly intemperate, but accurate, edit summary, and have posted to WT:NFC commenting on it. Such a major change isn't something that can be quickly rushed through a fairly non-visible talkpage. At the very least, it should go through WP:VPP, and there should probably be a very much more visible forum for this type of thing. Thoughts? Black Kite 23:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your inappropriate reversion has been reverted. Nothing was "quickly rushed through"--discussion was extensive and lasted for two weeks. The claim that "a small group of editors took it upon themselves to declare a 'consensus'" is specious--not a single voice was raised in opposition, and the actual change was only applied well after the consensus had become clear, allowing ample time for objections to be registered. Finally, a very clear notice was posted at WP:VPP: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 42#Non-free content: proposed change in Criterion_8.—DCGeist (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted what was inappropriate. See mine and Carl's comments on talk. This should not have been even tweaked - totally against Foundation policy - when it is such an emotive subject. And especially by an editor with such an obvious disregard of policy. Black Kite 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, you are still misrepresenting what happened. The change made was not against Foundation policy. The change produced this: "NFCC#8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Compare that to the wording of the WMF resolution: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works [...] or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." There is nothing specific in the WMF resolution about significance (other than the reference to historically significant events) or to detriment to understanding. What you have to realise is that Wikipedia's NFCC has a different history and different emphasis. All the project EDP's need to satisfy the WMF resolution, but they can be more restrictive and use different wording, and that is the case for en-Wikipedia. So talking of something being "against Foundation policy" is simplistic. We are supposed to be on the same side here, so why not discuss things instead of edit warring? Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested at WT:NFC that we set up a working party to look at the wording of NFCC and, possibly more importantly, at the interface that editors see when they upload non-free content. I am quite happy to set up such a party. Thoughts, again? Black Kite 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever read WP:NFCC-C? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. 99% of the issues, I think, can be narrowed down to two, possibly three sections of NFCC, and that's 3a, 8 and possibly 1. Of course, these are the three that need a human to analyse, which is where the problems arise. Have you seen this, incidentally? It's very out of date, and a lot of those articles have since been "fixed", but I'd guess that at least as many have become problematic since then. Black Kite 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Minimal use can mean different things. If lots of images from the same copyright holder are used on Wikipedia, they won't care whether they are used on a list article, on a single article, or spread out over hundreds of articles. They will just see overuse of their images. Then you have minimal use in terms of an image - is it used once or more than once? Then you have minimal use in terms of the product (eg. screenshot from a film versus a 3-minute clip from the film; and low-resolution versus high-resolution; cover of a book versus the whole book). Then you have minimal use in terms of Wikipedia as a whole (300,000 images in 2,500,000 articles; or should that be 300,000 images in 400,000 articles where no non-free content is possible). What does minimal really mean? It means different things to different people. What is needed is a coherent policy that calms things down on the ground. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, although ironically the articles that we have most problems with are the ones where the image overuse is the least controversial in terms of NFCC - that's why the second clause of #8 was so important in explaining the problems nicely to recalcitrant editors. Black Kite 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The criterion was not removed. It was discusssed at length in an advertised discussion and changed with a view to coming up with a wording that is less conducive to endless arguments. That talk page should be more visible, and more people should have it watchlisted. It is in no way "non-visible". By all means join the discussion, but don't ride in and disrupt things. I'n not going to edit war over this, but please, Black Kite, don't misrepresent what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I see it's been protected now. Probably best. Seriously though folks, this was a really retrograde step. Just wiping that important section of #8 was a really bad move because it leaves that section even more open to wikilawyering on FU abuses. As someone who deals with NFCC on a daily basis (in the last 48 hours alone I've been called a "twat" and a "nazi" for example) I don't disagree that NFCC needs re-writing - it's far too confusing and open to interpretation and causes people to fly off the handle because they haven't been told that their 24 images of anime characters aren't appropriate for that article - but this was a very bad idea indeed. NFCC as a whole needs a long and very open look by editors from both "sides" and it needs to be fixed by a proper consensus, not half a dozen editors making a quick agreement. Carcharoth, I'm sorry if you took it that way, but it's frustrating when editors who are trying to enforce Foundation policy are undermined by little coups like that. Black Kite 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are two ends to this spectrum. There are the old pictures (usually B&W with little photographer information) that may be public domain or will be soon, and which are usually encyclopedic and historical. And then there are the images of modern copyrighted works, uploaded ad nauseum by thousands of editors, producing a tide of images that you and others do good work in keeping under control. But please, join the debates instead of surfacing briefly from the trenches to fire off a volley of frustration and then going back to work. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • See above. (dives back into trench). Black Kite 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative best practices

Administrators, I've always thought, should be setting the standard for behavior on Wikipedia. Here we have a case where two administrators quite openly defied our standard process of consensus building and preemptively reverted a change to policy language that was enacted after it was (a) extensively discussed on the policy Talk page with the necessary eye toward larger-scale concerns of policy and practice, (b) well advertised at the Village Pump, and (c) supported by a clear, unambiguous consensus. The change was enacted without controversy—on a page that attracts controversy, the lack of it is indicative of the validity and strength of the relevant consensus. The page was entirely stable for nine-and-a-half days until editors Howcheng and Black Kite—both administrators—summarily reverted the consensus-based wording, without even making an attempt at forging a new consensus. That Howcheng and Black Kite (belatedly) disagree with the substance of the properly enacted change is fair enough; their manner of displaying their disagreement, however, was abysmal. I warrant that most non-administrators who find their way to the policy pages know better than to make substantive changes to policy in defiance of duly arrived-at consensus.

If this is how certain of our administrators are going to behave in regard to our most core procedures, in as crucial a realm as our policy language, how can we expect our contributors to accord the respect to our (a) administrators, (b) procedures, and (c) policies that they deserve? For shame, gentlemen.—DCGeist (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• IMHO, the lack of controversy merely demonstrated how few people actually noticed the debate. Black Kite 07:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose that section change to the greatest extent as well. Did anyone in that discussion post a notice on AN or AN/I to notify users who may like to comment on the changes? That is a serious change, a change that would likely cause more lack of understanding of fair use and all around wikilaywering. This is a core policy of this project, and any change needs to be with a confirmed consensus with the majority of editors (If there is, I would like to know exactly how many participated in that discussion). Furthurmore, a band of a couple editors cannot expect to make changes of that magnitude, a lot more discussion and time needs to take place before anything like that occurs. And as for your clear and unambigious consensus, I think it's cloudy and full of holes if there are administrators reverting you. — Κaiba 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Kaiba? A consensus forged over two weeks of discussion in which all the participants support a proposal and none oppose it suddenly becomes "cloudy and full of holes" because someone comes along nine days after the fact and disagrees with it? That's your view of the Wikipedia way? Wow.—DCGeist (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, stop arguing over the process and restart the discussion. Advertise it as before and notify the previous participants, and advertise on AN as seemingly people think the village pump is not good enough any more. Also try WP:CENT, and then see what consensus is. Any this is not a substantial change to the meaning, but only to how to get a workable criterion in place. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already brought it up at the pump. Can you handle WP:CENT? That thing gives me a headache.—DCGeist (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very easy to miss things at VPP. I've got it watchlisted, and I missed the single posting to it advertising the debate. Black Kite 08:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

DCGeist, looking at it, it was about 7 editors who decided that change. Does 7 editors suddenly represent the entire community (much less, the 1,000+ administrators) of Wikipedia? You posted on the Village Pump, now that's good and all, but what was wrong with posting a notice here and at AN/I (where a lot more discussion happens than at the VP) saying "come here and discuss this", or were you afraid of someone actually looking to see what you were changing? Posting a couple more notices wouldn't have hurt or made it any less of a centralized discussion. — Κaiba 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, Kaiba, do I or Tony really seem afraid of discussing anything with anyone anywhere at any time? If you believe that any change to the policy page under debate is such a "serious" one, as you wrote, surely you keep an eye on that page and its Talk page all the time. Why didn't you post all these notices you now say should have been posted? (Including on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents?? What incident?) What were you afraid of? Or are you just late and very loud to the dance?—DCGeist (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I know your presence is very much here, and your edit warring on policy makes that very obvious (your block log makes your agenda towards images clear as well). I have better things to do than to moniter NFCC 24/7 for editors who try to change policy to make Wikipedia more unfree than it already is. The reason I didn't post these notices or participate in the discussion this far is because this is the first I heard of anyone attempting to change it. Maybe had you posted it on AN or AN/I instead of VP, you would have double or triple, ZOMG, the amount of participation you had other than your 6-1 editors "consensus". — Κaiba 08:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaiba, while I share your concerns, could you please assume good faith here, please? Black Kite 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

His previous history and my history with this editor leave me little room to assume. — Κaiba 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note here that however perceived in the debate, there was no administrative action that was undertaken (that is, in the form of closing a poll, rollback, etc...) and no administrative action can resolve this situation. This is a content dispute, and does not belong here. Keegan^talk 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• As policy compliancy is an administrator issue, I brought it here as a visible point for interested administrators to be aware of, since, as noted above, content can easily be overlooked at VPP. Black Kite 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Centralised discussion now at Wikipedia:NFCC Criterion 8 debate. Black Kite 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Textbook WP:SILENCE situation: the guy you didn't talk with is the guy who reverts ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion policy discussion

There's a discussion at WP:VPP#Deleted article about the extent to which editors should be allowed access to deleted content. Not surprisingly, non-admins tend to think they should have such access pretty freely, while admins would guard their privileges jealously. There seems, though, to be a shortage of convincing arguments (aside from cries of beans) as to why mortals should generally be denied access to ex-content that admins are allowed to see. Presumably there must be some good reasons why things are the way they are; would anyone like to pitch in?--Kotniski (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IFD backlog

There is currently a one-week backlog at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, consisting of about 70+ nominations scattered across 7 daily logs). Help would be appreciated... Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh what fun... I dealt with April 3 for you. If any admin with more IfD experience than me (which will be 98% of admins, I'm sure) thinks that my one "keep" was the wrong call, feel entirely free in overturning it. Bencherlite^Talk 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (I'm working on April 2 at the moment). As for the one "keep" close, I think it was the right call: it's a user-created freely-licensed image which could be used in and contribute to an article (it's not used right now, but that could change...). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I added some comments. Will keep looking through and see where I can help. Won't actually close any, but hopefully my comments will make the closing decisions much easier. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Has this image been deleted or not? It looks like it has, but no entry in the log! Issue complicated because the italics ('') markup appears in the filename. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the user's upload log, I'd say that it has... I have no idea why there's no entry in the deletion log. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would the italics markup thing have confused the log. I would have thought not, as it should represent it as %27. I'll drop a note over at VP:T. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP signing as user

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanket clemency we have a !vote from an IP with a signature that appears to be a named user. One editor want to strike the vote claiming sockpuppetry. Unless there's specific evidence of socking, I think noting the oddity is sufficent, but would appreciate an administrator's opinion. Thanks, Jfire (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

IPs are users. This one has simply piped-linked a name to his special contribs link. There is no lack of transparency. People do all sorts of funny things with their sigs, some of which are indeed worthy of complaint, but not this one. Not An Admin Opinion (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the gentleman/lady above --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vintagekits

Is there a policy on blanking a banned user's page? There is an almost edit war by User:Giano II at User:Vintagekits. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that is set-in-stone that requires a blocked user to have their userpage blanked. It just appears to be common practice by most blocking admins to replace the whole userpage with the blocking template. Probably this is because the userpage simply cannot be used by its owner anymore, so what's the point. However, I think it's a fairly trivial incident to have an edit war about. Lradrama 10:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Might it be protected please? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(There is nothing here in Wikipedia:Blocking policy that states a userpage should be replaced by a blocking template.) It's up to the admin, as the blocked user shouldn't care - he/she can't edit with that account anymore.

I'll look into it closer, but I think rather than protect the userpage over something as trivial as this, the people who are having the edit war need to be dealt with. Lradrama 10:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Giano II on his talkpage. If he continues to have an edit war over it all, he will be blocked. The userpage in question needn't be protected. Lradrama 10:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to leave VK's list of possible boxing articles to update or create - it may be useful to someone else. Black Kite 10:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Then move it to your own user space. DrKiernan (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Or, better, Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing. DrKiernan (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As above, a copy of the list can be taken from the history and readded elsewhere if Giano plans to use it, but his trivial edit warring resulted in the userpage being protected one time and he has continued being disruptive. — Κaiba 10:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, he has been given a warning, and if he continues to be disruptive, he will be blocked. A page shouldn't need to be protected over something as minor as that. Do we agree? Lradrama 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering he has reverted four editors, Kittybrewster being the fifth to revert, make his opinion known on this, I would agree with a block if he continued, instead of protection. — Κaiba 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this rationale. A block would stop a productive editor with regular mainspace output from adding content and improving the encyclopedia. Protecting Vintagekits's page will stop users from editing a banned user's page, which, apparently, should remain unedited anyway. How can the former be better than the latter? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what I'm getting sick of. I'm tired of going about sorting out these problems because a Wikipedian is being disruptive and showing lack of understanding and then getting a bucket-load of insults thrown at me. I know many other users who've experienced it also. It is the reason why RickK and RadioKirk left, and all that happens when this occurs, is the person in the wrong gets all the support. Lradrama 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't wish to upset you, nor do I pretend to know who is in the wrong, but wouldn't the problem (edit warring over trifles in userspace) be resolved without negative side effects by protecting the page, indefinitely? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No no! You misunderstood me! YOU haven't upset me - Giano II has upset me - I've never tried to reason with a more insulting person in my life. It's like talking to a stubborn child. Lradrama 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussed before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive134#Brief_protection_at_User:Vintagekits. It was left as a userpage, so it'd be best if editors who don't have an axe to grind with Vintagekits would just leave it be. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For what history is worth, a quick check through this list shows that only about 5 or 6 of the two hundred or more banned users have been permitted to keep their user pages. Almost all, even of those who have bans of defined lengths, don't have one; that surprised me. I couldn't find any delineating factor between those who do still have user pages and those who don't. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When thinking about it, I've come to a similar conclusion. When putting an indef-block onto a userpage, usually that is the first thing to be entered onto a userpage anyway. However, most other examples simply replace the whole page with the template, e.g. with former editor Runcorn. This argument (on Giano II's talkpage) has been ridiculous, and from what we've all gathered, it's best not to block an editor who can make good contributions when he wants to, but protect the page in question after all. Just keep the peace ( ;-) ). Lradrama 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not copy the useful contents of the page somewhere and leave a link in the template. Why not link from the template to the page history? Creative solutions like that might help resolve incidents like this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would I be allowed to distribute Huggle?

A user commented that he sent an e-mail for Huggle and that it had been over a week and he hadn't received it. As a Huggle user myself, I was wondering if I would be allowed to send users the application via e-mail.--Urban Rose 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're best off talking to User:Gurch about this. I'm not too sure if I'm being honest because he does a lot of updates to the software and needs to send these out regularly himself. Might be an idea emailing him to discuss it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A week lag is not unusual. I got my first version of Huggle via email, and when I asked Gurch to add me to his list, it didnt seem like a problem I got it elsewhere first. Also, I think he prefers emails to User talk:Huggle for requests for the software AFAIK. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know he has said he'd rather people no give it out, and to send requests his way. Possibly for updating purposes or tracking, I don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When Gurch was AFK for a while some people did start to redistribute it but then he same back and all that stopped. I think he is trying to control who has it. All people need to do is e-mail him and you will get sent it and added to the list for further newer versions. And yes he sure does do a lot of updates. Also some of the older versions don't work due to bugs. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And that was only one singular case. I know you only applied for it very recently, because I helped you out with it, and you got the tool almost straight away. Gurch had been inactive on Wikipedia for some time even then. So I think it's still best left in his hands at the moment. Lradrama 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if Gurch is inactive, who is the user Gurchzilla?--Urban Rose 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that appears to be Gurch, because GurchZilla simply re-directs to Gurch's talkpage. Don't know why he made that account though... Lradrama 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gurchzilla is like Bishzilla, the accounts were created primarily for reverting vandalism too keep those mass edits out of the main account's contributions. Keegan^talk 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gurch may be inactive in his user but he also uses the username huggle as well. He is also active on irc from time to time. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] runescape pages

hey im trying to make redirects to runescape plz can you help me, here is list of armas that need making http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Ranged_armour ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for this- perhaps try a related WikiProject? However, I personally question the need for all those redirects... Is someone really going to try searching for it, wanting information about Runescape? There are plenty of games that have all sorts of items similar to Runescape. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hey why are they being deleted?--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason given was R3: redirect from an implausible title. Those redirects are not really needed, make a list instead. --Tone 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

what is a implausible title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your questions on your talk page and on my talk page; you can read the answer in either of those places to save me the effort of typing it in a third place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

well why does Blackplastic get his redirect name then and like 100 other names? why are you guys picking on me for?17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs)

They probably still had a redirect because nobody had noticed it. That redirect has now been tagged for deletion as well. --Onorem♠Dil 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

what about all the others too??--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag any inappropriate redirects with {{db-r3}} and they'll be dealt with too. _GB^T/C 20:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

there is probably hundreds i gonna make it thousands soon!!--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a threat? JuJube (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at this user's edits, all I see is an account for the purpose of vandalism. Others have tried to help him, and he doesn't seem to care, nor does he care to find out how Wikipedia operates. It seems clear with edits like the one above, and edits like this that he is well, a troll. I don't know what to say further, his contributions and remarks speak for themselves.— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, in response to his above edit:

there is probably hundreds i gonna make it thousands soon!!--Z3Z1AAA (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe he should be blocked before he further disrupts WP.— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, almost 160 redirects, several of them R3. Anyone interested in cleanup? --Tone 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that question directed to an admin? If not, I'd be glad to if you told me how to.— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone needs to check them. If admin, you can delete the redundant ones straight forward, if not, just place sd tags on them. --Tone 06:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, before I continue to place sd tags on the runescape redirects; as pointed out by Tone, there are many, many redirects, some from names of towns in the game, some weapons, the list goes on. The question I am posing for admins is: Do we need all of them? Can all of them be deleted except in the instance of mispelling of the main title of the game? Thankyou for your time.— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 05:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

Remedy 1.1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2, which provides that "Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages," has been amended (as a result of a successful motion) by striking out the words "or their talk pages." Thus, Andries is now permitted to edit the talkpages of these articles, but not the articles themselves. In doing so, he is cautioned to be mindful of all applicable Wikipedia policies including those concerning conflicts of interest and biographies of living persons.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback for RyRy5

RyRy5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

RyRy5 is a relatively new editor who I granted rollback to in the past but this was recently removed after a wrong rollback was initiated. Discussion ensued and so did the agreement that rollback should not be granted again within at least a week or so. I am here to ask if this is the correct thing to do. Some other links that may be helpful are:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback/Denied/April_2008#RyRy5
• User talk:RyRy5/Archive 4/4-6-08#Rollback 2. Regards, Rudget (review) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call Rudget. MBisanz ^talk 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, how long was consensus? I notice on one of your links, Jossi has told RyRy5 to wait for a number of months. I won't deny I have serious problems with the social networking nature of this user and his method of increasing mainspace edits (adding and removing commas where they are not needed to be altered), but is granting rollback so soon after losing it a wise thing to do? George The Dragon (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't re-added it yet, hence the note here. Rudget (review) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was somewhat dismayed that he started asking for it back almost immediately after it was removed. This combination of eager and clueless is a bad thing. I think the suggestion to wait a few months was a good one. He has mentors/coaches- I think they should be giving him guidance here. Maybe someone should get him to use IRC? He needs more guidance than is easily provided on-wiki. Friday (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I don't think rollback should be asked for just yet, especially after Jossi's (in my opinion, correct) comment that he should wait for a few months. Sure, rollback is easily removed, but then there's no point re-adding it if its going to removed again, which I fear is what will happen. Rudget (review) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to back-up my comments about inflating mainspace count with unnecessary edits: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. These are all in the past 24 hours and there are a lot more. The problem I have is somebody needs to go around cleaning a lot of his edits up but that would look like edit stalking. And single world edit captions such as "grammar" or "fix" or "typo" when there were no problems in the first place are worrying. I know this is slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd mention it rather than start a brand new discussion elsewhere George The Dragon (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, his mainspace contributions are sometimes helpful, but frequently harmful. Come to think of it.. I'd rather see him rolling back obvious vandalism than trying to copy edit. He's way more likely to get it right. This is, as you said, a bit off topic, but this is why we should not find myspacers and tell them "You have to go edit articles." I'd rather have them playing in userspace where they're not touching anything important. I've fixed a few of his harmful edits, but I haven't said anything to him about it- I see no evidence that he is responsive to concerns left on his user talk page. Some greater amount of hand-holding is needed here. Friday (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, in hindsight it would be better if such users were out of article space. The problem is that this particular one clearly wants to run for adminship, and I think he has mentioned in August of this year. I think somebody needs to be clearly tell him that it is not going to happen. While that may sound harsh, surely it is better than seeing a user running around, thinking they are helping, adding "as above" to multiple AFDs in an attempt to get a higher edit count? Wouldn't it be fairer to say "Go for adminship if you want, but you haven't a snowball's chance"? Otherwise, between now and August, poor RyRy5 is going to be wasting time trying to achieve something that is impossible - surely we have a duty to prevent that? George The Dragon (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

people can learn a good deal in 5 months. But they need to do it more carefully than he seems about to. Encouraging him to use automated processes would seem exactly the wrong way to go about it. DGG (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: I have informed RyRy of this discussion. - Philippe 16:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been told to wait a little less than months, probably a few weeks. I will find the diff if I can. And I decided not to have plans such as waiting until August for adminship. I decided to wait auntil one of my admin coaches nominates me so I know more that I am ready.--RyRy5 ^{Talk to RyRy} 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made alot better contributions. Please check my edit count and my contributions. May I have rollback again. If not, I will wait a month. RyRy5 (talk • contribs • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dude, you are a wikignome. You do not need rollback, just do it manually. Read this essay and see if you get some ideas. WP:The twilight zone Take your time and learn the circular motion of wiki. Igor Berger (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Likely" sockpuppet reports

Hi, guys. I have a query about sockpuppet reports.

User:Stone put to sky has had checkuser requests filed against him. As you will see four accounts were found to be "likely", but no action appeared to have been taken over them. Three stopped editing but were not blocked. But the fourth, Aho aho, continued to post.

Sky has been blocked for sockpuppetry, so if these accounts can be tied to him then that would show he is attempting to avoid sanctions. But he has also been accused of continual sockpuppetry by other users, so a lack of admin response has led to ill will. I would appreciate if:

1. I could get clarification of what a "likely" report means and how they are dealt with/should be dealt with.
2. Whether any action will be taken over the continued editing by Aho aho, the other "sockpuppet" accounts not being blocked, etc.

A recent report on the ANI page was pretty much ignored by administrators, even though a number of editors had comments to make. John Smith's (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

John, you have touched on an area that is, by definition, a grey one: Checkuser evidence is not conclusive proof, no matter which side it finds in, and indeed, even a confirmed result is not a 100% one. To that end, "likely" is very much open to interpretation, and I imagine it is viewed differently by different Checkusers. You may wish to get in touch with a few active CUs, including Thatcher, who performed the check, to get an idea as to how robust the likely finding is. Anthøny 02:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok - thanks, AGK. John Smith's (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser policy description

User:FT2 has written a description of CheckUser policy at User:FT2/CU, along the same lines as Wikipedia:Oversight. This seems to me to be an accurate and informative description of what CheckUser is, and dispels some of the "magic pixie dust" myths, so I propose to move it to Wikipedia:CheckUser, currently a sort-of-dab page. FT2's page includes references to everything currently at that page, so nothing will be lost, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I have documented how CU works now, rather than improvize anything novel or "new proposals". There is probably more that could be added, but as it stands, my own aim and feedback on its talk page are more around "does it accurately represent CU norms and practice on enwiki as they stand today", more than anything. I think it does. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with JzG, this page is a good explanation and should probably be moved there. Cbrown1023 talk 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks marvelous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Endorse a move. Rudget (review) 14:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there a discussion among other checkusers, in any place. The discussion at FT2's page seems rather sparse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't promote it much, but I did seek views in private to double-chck my work. Checkuser comments where received were broadly positive; non-CU's found some minor edits which were incorporated. If you reckon visible CU confirmation's needed then that's probably no bad thing. Do you reckon it needs some CU's to comment on it, for the record? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very pleased that this page has been authored. The coverage of oversight has always struck me as somewhat higher in quality to that of checkuser, and I do believe that this will address this imbalance. I'd endorse this being moved to Wikipedia:Checkuser. Anthøny 18:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the page has gone live I believe it moot, but having the current CU's lined up saying "Yup!" would have given it that extra degree of authority. I had assumed that the text was circulated, but didn't know where. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, the sanity check having passed, I have made it so. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A troubling edit

This edit [20] by John254 (talk · contribs) is troubling in a couple of respects. First, it includes an edit summary which assumes that his assertion in making the case was valid, based on musing by one arbitrator, yet it entirely ignores another arbitrator's unequivocal comment that Reject. I find the request to be distinctly tendentious; there is a minor content dispute and an issue over whether a source is reliable, but there's certainly not the egregious BLP violations claimed. Few if any of those commenting on the case appear to agree with that. Second, it's removing a case on which arbitrators were actively deciding. Yes, it was not going to be accepted, but there was at least some chance of a resolution in respect of John's repeated vexatious use of process. Third, one is not, unless one is an ArbCom clerk, supposed to interfere with the statements of others in requested cases - I am as rouge as they come and I would not remove a case or anyone else's comments, I'd simply comment that I withdraw the request. Fourth, by removing the case in this way, no archive or record is made of the case's rejection. I don't know if we even keep records of rejected cases, I'm not much of an arbitration watcher, but it seems to me that the clerks are there for a reason and if you want something quietly nuked because you've made an ass of yourself then you should ask the clerks, who are nice people. In this case, John seems to be asserting the opposite: that everyone but him is the ass.

Not that I'm sorry to see the back of that vexatious request, quite the opposite, but I think that it represents yet another exercise of poor judgement in a sensitive area by John254. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but what is it that you suggest we do? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If I had an easy answer I'd have suggested it. I brought it here for mulling over. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A brief post on WT:RFAR, asking a clerk to review and possibly handle properly (archiving and whatnot)? --barneca (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, even better (if it exists, which I haven't checked), on the RFAR clerk's noticeboard. --barneca (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It is fairly obviously an out of process removal, and one for the ArbCom clerks to consider. If there were sufficient votes to deny the request they may not reinstate it, but make note of it, and if it still needed a couple more votes they might. I suggest bringing this to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Or the talkpage of same... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:OptOut

I'm aware of much discussion about how wikipedia handles biographies, but haven't been able to find a concrete proposal.. so I started one! (click above). All thoughts most welcome - the other area I feel this is being most clearly discussed in currently is User:Doc_glasgow/The_BLP_problem... Privatemusings (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of related discussion to a parallel proposal to Semi Protect all biographies at WT:BLP as well... Privatemusings (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit thin on the ground and I can foresee problems with verifying the RL identity of BLP subjects in a reliable yet confidential manner, but there's nothing that cannot be resolved with a bit of effort. I think this is an excellent start! - Alison ^❤ 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And that is those in a position to approach the foundation. People in jail or without English skills would be at a disadvanmtage. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently there is nothing you can do, making it possible is a step forward, its more than it was before. People in jail/that can't speak english well can't do anything now either :) (in fact even less, the english speakers can at least rail against the injustice of it all etc o.O) I think this option (if coupled with a solid way to validate identities) would be a step forward on the touchy subject of BLP's.195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this policy. First of all, Doc seems to take a rather extreme viewpoint on BLPs. His essays do not necessarily reflect the broader view of the editors and seems to be euro-centric in their legal reasoning. Like WP:BADSITES we are once again considering censorship in the pursuit of making some individual feel good or to right some perceived wrong. Quite frankly, we don't need more rules to cover ones we already have. Either there are facts to make a decent article or there aren't. It isn't our business to judge what is right or wrong - we are neutral - so we should simply present the facts and let the chips fall where they may. If they want someone to coddle them, then go find a therapist or hire a PR firm. Or even better yet, provide better sourced material for their article while keeping their contributions within the scope of WP:COI. It is not our job to make them look good or feel good, no matter what their circumstance. WP:NPOV must be adhered to, which means we don't take side for or against said subject. Meanwhile, we should not allow them to opt out because they want to. People don't get to opt out of news coverage, it should be no different here. Wikipedia is covered under US laws, so your overly-lawyerly EU libel laws do not apply. It is well established case law that the 1^ST Amendment provides the publisher with the right to publish accurate information, no matter how insignificant you may feel it is. Again, if there are facts to justify a decent article and the subject doesn't want it, well that is just too bad. We don't operate based on feelings of WP:IDONTLIKE. The only sticking point is we get the facts right and not allow opinion or emotions to interfere with our editing. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dragon. It violates NPOV, which is not an optional policy. It also takes content decisions out of the hands of the communities consensus, and outsources it to a person with a clear conflict of interest. The proposal even states that it cannot be appealed via DRV. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Really not a fan of this idea. Really, what someone thinks should have no bearing on our content; it's not their call. If they don't pass our notability guidelines, it's because of our guidelines, not because of their opinion. Like 1==2 said, the community has the final say in such matters, not the subject. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. All these untended BLPs on marginally notable individuals are like ticking bombs scattered throughout the project. It's only a matter of time until a disgruntled ex-spouse or business competitor trips the fuse on one, and it blows up in our faces. We can't let George W. Bush opt out, obviously, but obscure people should be allowed to have their articles deleted as a courtesy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. If their obscure, then their not notable. If they are notable, we should have an article on them. Look at WT:OptOut for a much more extensive reasoning of why this is a Bad Idea. MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. without NPOV why should we bother working here? if we wanted to work on doing PR, there are paid jobs available. The net result of this criterion is to let anyone other than a politician remove any article about them they dislike seeing. The provision was for obscure, it was for anyone. DGG (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What alternative are you proposing? Everyone conveniently forgets that doing no harm is a fundamental pillar, merely because Google have abandoned it (as a money making company they had to) does not excuse us for abandoning it via wikilawyering, what I see is lots of excuses for wikipedian teenagers to trash whoever they want with not only impunity but our support, and that is so far from our original goal. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we haven't tried semi-protecting all BLPs, or a specialized XFD for them, or a protect on request system, or flagged revisions, or subject rebuttal area. Those are all steps I'd take and fail at before this. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put up the proposal Wikipedia:BLP subject response which will allow the subjects of BLPs to respond to the biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about people AfD the articles they think should be deleted. Even the subject of the article can do that. just send them a link to the AfD instructions. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Very Odd Move and Vandalim to J.K. Rowling

Need some help with this mess: J. K. Rowling. Check the move to the talk page as well. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew Woody remerged the talk page histories.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether FAs get protected or not, we probably should move protect them and their Talk pages, at least for the day that they appear on the main page. Corvus cornix_talk 00:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is move-protecting TFA Talk pages standard practice? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No (although move-protecting the TFAs themselves is). Gracenotes^T § 02:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be hopelessly daft, but what happened in the pagemove? My eyes don't see a difference. ^.^; JuJube (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling → J. K. RowIing. The "l" was replaced by an uppercase "I"—there's no visible difference in Arial. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable

Includes 2 FAs! Sceptre ^(talk) 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't have articles about controversies? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see the problem with having the word "controversy" in an article title. Things are controversial. WP:NPOV requires that we cover them neutrally, not that we whitewash the issue. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts. At the risk of sounding naive, what is wrong with articles such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or NSA warrantless surveillance controversy? Should we rename to "dispute"? Does that make it better? Perhaps if you could be more specific. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the comments above about it being okay to use the word "Controversy" in articles, some of them do appear to be forks. Global Warming controversy, Thiomersal controversy, Stem cell controversy, Scientology controversies, etc. off the first page of results jump out at me as being possible forks... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ding ding ding ding. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:FORK is that the four articles bobblehead listed above are probably legitimate examples of spinoff articles. It isn't wrong to have articles about controversies if their inclusion on the main article page would overwhelm the article. The controversy would need to be notable in its own right, but those four seem to easily meet that hurdle. The trick is making sure the article about the controversy stays NPOV. (No opinion on all the articles that come up in the Google search; undoubtable some of them are POV forks). That is a good list of articles to keep an eye on, but I don't think it's a list of mostly unacceptable articles. --barneca (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with general "controversy" articles is that by and large they are used by editors to shuffle controversies off the main article and into the controversy article, generally with a comment along the lines of "We have a whole article for these, moving to subpage", while the controversy articles themselves become cesspools for every minor controversy about the subject of the main article regardless of the proper weight the controversy deserves. I've been involved in the dismantling of a number of "controversy" articles and have yet to find one that "overwhelmed the main article" with its content. Particularly given that many pages have sub-articles into which "minor" controversies can be added, leaving the "major" controversies to be interleaved into the existing prose of the main article.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is true, and this nuanced approach is far superior to Sceptre's renaming of the articles under clumsy titles, no offence intended. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In the case of general controversy articles... A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(N.B. The 2 featured articles referenced are Boy Scouts of America membership controversies and 1996 United States campaign finance controversy.) --Ali'i 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, it's better to treat stand-alone controversies as separate articles rather than overwhelm the articles on the participants or concepts involved. That's particularly true in cases involving living people who may be otherwise non-notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with articles with "controversy" in the name, as long as a) there's a summary in the "main" article; b) the controversy article is linked to in the main article with {{main}}; c) the conditions demarcated on Wikipedia:Summary style are met; d) the summary and the controversy subarticle remain neutral, etc, etc. And why is this on AN? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre doesn't mention that he's on a campaign to move these articles to other names, without any talk page discussion or even consensus here. I urge him to use the talk pages to discuss this with the editors of the articles rather than to unilaterally decide what the best names for these articles are.

Moved "Boy Scouts of America membership controversies" to "Boy Scouts of America restricted membership public debate"

Moved "Video game controversy" to "Video game explicitness debate"

I dispute the premise that "'controversy' is a POV term". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's never used legitimately though. It's nearly always used to say that one side in the dispute is invariably wrong (the BSA case might just be a legitimate use, but many others fall way clear from the mark) and thus fails NPOV. I don't need to have consensus or discussion to enforce that policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You do need a consensus that you are enforcing policy, rather than just enforcing your opinion. (I have no opinion on this yet). Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All respect to you, Carcharoth, but this isn't NFCC#8. On Wikipedia, "controversy" is always the word people use because they can't use "scandal". Sceptre ^(talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And "debate" is evidently the word people use when they can't use "controversy". --barneca (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are expected to listen to others when then disagree with your interpretation of what is or is not neutral however. Though I agree "controversy" can be misused, I also believe there are many cases where "controversy" is simply a factual description of events and both sides recognize the existence of a "controversy". I think you are painting with a broad brush where individual discussion would more generally be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Unless people dispute that it fails the policy, in which case you should discuss and get consensus. If everyone thought they could do whatever they want without discussion because policy was on their side, this place would be even more chaotic than it is. Those page moves seem odd, and phrased awkwardly, and in no way that I can see linked to fixing NPOV. --barneca (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Controversy is a perfectly suitable word. To quote the dictionary "a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views". Recognizing that there is a dispute is hardly a violation of NPOV. Changing the titles to debate ignores the fact that these were acrimonious issues. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did check Merriam-Webster before making a big deal about it. It's used incorrectly on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth distinguishing "controvery", the noun, from "controversial" the adjective. "Controversy" is a fine term and is often the most neutral and accurate word to describe a major disagreement that involves numeorus parties. "Debate", by comparison, implies a more limited disagreement that is carried out in a defined manner between few individuals. "Controverisal", can be abused as a short-hand label for people and groups who have been criticized widely. Perhaps some of Sceptre's objections are more about "controversial" than "controversy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Both words. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what is wrong with an article about controversies having that word or a variation thereof in the title? Both FAs are about controversies and there is nothing wrong with this. Sceptre has apparently embarked on a crusade to fix a problem that doesn't exist and has targeted about anything he/she can find that has that word in it. I prefer to AGF, but in this case it's hard to do so, esp re the two FAR's that Sceptre has filed. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles must be neutral. Use of that word in an article's title isn't. Therefore, they shouldn't be featured articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sceptre, your theory that the term "controversy" is a NPOV violation is distinctly unsupported by consensus. If you continue with this crusade, it could be deemed disruptive editing. Unless you bring it to the talk page at WP:NPOV and get agreement that you are in the right here, I'm going to ask you to stop doing this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."

This doesn't mean we can't have articles about controversial subjects, or even about controversy itself - it means that every significant viewpoint needs the same weight; we can't be biased. Tan | 39 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the word "controversy" on Wikipedia 95% of the time means "one of these sides is wrong". Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, consensus is wrong then. The only articles in Google's top ten results which have no POV issue are the summary article and Prince album. Tells you something, doesn't it? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, you are totally out of control here. Controversy does not mean one side is wrong, it means one or more sides don't agree, that's all. That's what the articles are about, differing views. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Even more unacceptable!

• Includes 50,000 FAs! Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, Category:Scandals and Category:Controversies. Admittedly, some of these are problems. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for linking us to even more POV violations. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  No problem. Have fun, but please stop renaming them "debates". See Category:Debates for what should be in that category. At the moment, the way you are trying to use the word "debate" is even more of a weasel term than scandal or controversy Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Some of them are deletable per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, to be honest. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Is that a new speedy deletion criterion? I'm serious, though, please link to the specific bit you are referring to. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Principle 4: Summary deletion of BLPs. Which is a restatement of G10. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Google searches like this that give us needed homework. Thanks for these, my to-edit list just grew a bit. Lawrence § t/e 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just having a look through some of them. The range is interesting. From Apollo 15 postage stamp scandal (seems fine) to 2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy (huh?) and Burrell affair (something there, but feels wrong at the moment). 39th District corruption scandal looks a bit bare, but it led me to Mumia Abu-Jamal (a featured article). Of course, we still have this as well... Many of these could be used to build up a portfolio of examples of the best and worst about such articles. Anyone want to try and do that (rather than repeating the same old arguments)? Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I wish we had 50,000 FAs... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh...

The approach shown in taking an 18 month old article, Mark Foley scandal (prior version), with 2500 edits, dozens of contributors, and 153 references and turning it into a full-protected redirect is emblematic of why I get frustrated with Wikipedia. People worked on that article, some of them probably care about it. Even if it is the most vile filth from hell, it is rude and disrespectful to those contributors to toss their work aside without so much as a word of discussion or explanation with them about what you see the problem as being. Even if it were 100% the right thing to do, we shouldn't carelessly tear down the things that other have invested time and effort in building up. Well-intentioned editors deserve more respect and consideration than simply having an admin come along and wordlessly stomp on their work. Dragons flight (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WTA#Scandal, affair. Textbook example. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment again. Even if the outcome were entirely justified, the agressively destructive approach with no concern for the contributors involved is not. You and Cobaltbluetony provided the editors involved with neither an explanation of the policies involved nor an opportunity to correct the issues. Such an approach is rude. If we are ever going to maintain a friendly working environment on wiki, then resolving issues with old, well-devolped articles ought to be done more gradually, with respect for the time and effort already invested by others. Dragons flight (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that really is shocking. People have invested a lot of time and effort into these articles to make them neutral and sourced. I see no reason to redirect and protect without discussion. I'm half tempted to revert this ASAP because I see no BLP violation here which is implied. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't. You can get desysopped for doing so. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Desysopped for overturning a really bad decision, with no discussion at all, on an article that has been around a very long time? I don't think so - this was stretching badlydrawnjeff to the extreme and not what the remedy intended. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "really bad decision". As someone who thinks what Foley did was very wrong, I found the article very opinionated against him and basically unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Failing to see what any of this has to do with the administrator's noticeboard. If you have a problem with these articles existing - well, that's what we have AFD for isn't it? -- Naerii 23:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of a disputed title as being a reason for a speedy delete. If the title is at fault then suggest a better title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles need to follow the same rules as article text. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A bad title is not a reason for speedily-deleting a mature article. Please restore the article with a better title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A bad title, maybe not. Egregious violations of BLP, yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the reason you gave in your DB notice, which referred only to the title. Please describe the BLP problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the claimed CSD reason,[21] did the CSD nominator individually verify each of the 2400 versions for "significant" BLP violation? Gimmetrow 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the title has to follow the same rules as the text. If an article's title fails NPOV, there is no way the rest of the article can pass. Seeing as passing NPOV is needed in a BLP (which this falls under as it's about an LP), and this doesn't, it fails BLP substantially. Thus being eligible for summary deletion per RFAR/BDJ.

To Gimmetrow: the article contained the word "scandal" in its entire history. Proof enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles can be fixed with a technology called the "move" button. Poof. No more word "scandal". Gimmetrow 00:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you edit revisions too? Thought not. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You were talking about the titles, not the revisions. When a page is moved, the titles of the revisions changes. Gimmetrow asked you directly if you had looked for previous versions that were more neutral. Did you? Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, please do it. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Ryan, please go ahead, else someone (I'm happy to) will start a DRV on this. In such a case, poor content can be removed and cleaned up, it doesn't need to be systematically deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Right, I'm giving this 15 minutes - if there's any real concern that this was a BLP violation which required the whole article to be gone and on the spot redirect without discussion, please voice your opinion ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  Come on, how was it not? 100kb about a few emails a Republican sent is way past undue weight regarding events. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the article should be restored. Saying that something is a BLP violation does not make it so. -- Naerii 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't redirect, full protect a sourced neutral version. In the US this was a major scandal that led to reforms in the way congress operates and an immense amount of media coverage, separate from Mark Foley as an individual. Just because its negative doesn't mean we can't have it, it just means we need to make sure its accurate and balanced and protected from vandalism. Take this to AFD if you must, otherwise, restore. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, can we all agree that the WP:BOLD part of your activity should be over now, and that a more appropriate measure would be to initiate article-specific discussions, or perhaps a centralized RfC, regarding your concerns? — Scientizzle 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done anything to any controversy articles except for two moves and a speedy tag. Though we need to get this dispute over, yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Badlydrawnjeff arbitration does say Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy.. It seems like something like this should go to the Arbcom for review. Corvus cornix_talk 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and Cobaltbluetony's judgement agreed with mine. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to end. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the judgment shown by Cobaltbluetony (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) in this set of edits and actions, as part of the sequence of events surrounding the redirect and protection of Mark Foley scandal‎ and associated pages:

• Removes "main article" link from the Mark Foley "Scandal" section, with the edit summary "office action".
• Redirects the article Mark Foley scandal to the main article with the edit summary "OMG that was ATROCIOUS!!!".
• Redirects the talk page with the edit summary "omg".
• Protected both redirects with the edit summaries "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff".
• Left Sceptre the message: "I think I puked in my mouth a little... Good night!"
• Leaves Sceptre an additional note: ":...and thanks for the star!"

The article was not the best in the world, and needed severe editing. Ultimately, a redirect may have been correct, but Cobaltbluetony clearly showed, by his edit summmaries, that he was reacting emotionally to the content of the article. When an article has affected you emotionally, is that really the best point at which to make a BLP judgment? Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm particualrly concerned with Cobaltbluetony's protection of the redirect, which appeared intended to forestall any reversion of the delete, and his description of an edit as "office action". That term is normally reserved for an edit made by an official of the foundation that is not subject to discussion or reversion. It is inappropirate for an admin who is not working at the direction of the foundation to use that summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's quite right. Assuming that Cobalt was not acting at the explicit behest of the Foundation (which seems unlikely since the protected redirection was taken just after the article was tagged by Will as {{db-attack}}; if the assumptions many of us have made here are wrong, we will, of course, owe Cobalt an apology for having directed at him criticism that might properly be directed elsewhere), his essential invocation of WP:OFFICE suggests either that he means to confer on his redirection, etc., some official sanction or that he misunderstands WP:OFFICE and thinks it simply to be shorthand for WP:BLP and its progeny; neither alternative is particularly heartening. Joe 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I picked up on that myself - perhaps it was an oversight? Most of these cases have been office actions before. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he thought the article was really crappy with regards to weighting, points of view, et cetera, not an opinion about the subject of the article itself. Personally, I think Mark Foley's action were very very wrong, but Monicagate is 10 times shorter (and 10 times more important) and having such a long article is potentially harmful, even were it NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorri Will, but I endorse restoring the article. Quickly. The article was certainly... a bit crappy and needed pruning (those message transcripts were clearly unnecessary), but the body was well sourced to high-quality material. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and V are not mutually exclusive. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you add Responses to Mark Foley scandal in there as well? Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it myself. The second redirect was just housekeeping the first. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected the redirect. Redirecting may or may not have been the right thing to do, but protecting the redirect certainly wasn't. --Carnildo (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming?

After the DRV the article was moved to Mark Foley congressional page controversy. This title is unacceptable and unencyclopedic. It's not okay to call this a controversy because indeed it's not. There's no controversy about whether congressman can sexually pursue the congressional pages. I agree that in 95 percent of cases, the word Scandal should be avoided. This is a textbook scandal, the very definition of the word. This was unambiguous "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety" that Mark Foley himself would not dispute. There are not WP:BLP or WP:NPOV concerns with calling this one a scandal. Scandal, congressman resigns, this is the very epitome of the word. If the talk page is restored and unprotected, I'm of course open to hearing other arguments, but this current title is not something the event has ever been called -- or could even accurately be called -- so perhaps we need to keep looking?

A little further clarification of why this is within the operative WP:ATA guideline:

In current affairs, a controversial episode is often described as a "scandal" by the media. In politics especially, claims of scandalous behaviour are often used for the express purpose of campaigning against political opponents. Editors should therefore exercise great caution in using the term since it may imply wrongdoing. The party at the centre of the controversial episode will probably deny wrongdoing. Editors should avoid using "scandal" without first qualifying it, as it can otherwise be read as an endorsement of one side's assertions.

First, these are not claims. What occurred is at this point undisputed. Second, there were not allegations made as part of a political campaign, but rather a proven instance of a congressman behaving inappropriately toward congressional pages. It played no significant part in either campaign and is recognized as inappropriate by both Republicans and Democrats. I think that, quite literally, nobody in the country defends Mark Foley. Thus, controversy is somewhat of an absurdism. Everyone has since admitted that this was indeed wrongdoing (again, look at the circumstances, this was not controversial), so the title scandal does not endorse the claims of one side, but merely reflects the dictionary definiton, and common name, of what occurred.

Please understand that I'm someone who strongly supports the BLP policy, and someone who strongly agrees with the wording you'e included at ATA. But I believe this is a clear exception. We should refrain from having the "Barack Obama's pastor's remarks scandal", "The Hillary Clinton Bosnia trip distortion scandal", the "John McCain lobbyist affair scandal", etc. But if we take it too far it becomes a sort of unencyclopedic political correctness that does not reflect our standards. --JayHenry (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll leave this for others to sort out. I won't move it again. Not an edit warrior, though I believe that encyclopedic titles should be accurate. I urge consultation with a dictionary (this is a sadly rare step on Wikipedia) before people entrench their views too firmly. --JayHenry (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Now how did that happen? Unprotected and renamed. Blueboy96 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps sounding naive again, but don't we name things based on the most commonly used name for things? Isn't that how the naming conventions work? And unless I am mistaken (likely), "Mark Foley scandal" or "Mark Foley congressional page scandal" are the most commonly used names to describe this event. Now if the article itself is a cesspool, then that can be dealt with, but I think to try and rename something to an uncommon name, just to avoid having buzzwords in our titles seems odd. No? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We could rename it "2006 congressional page scandal", but then no one would know what it's about because no one has ever referred to it that way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erm...

OK, this is a bit awkward, but I just updated DYK, and... I'd never done so before :) Could someone check if I've, you know, not screwed up royally? Thanks in advance. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted the Main Page. Did you press the big red button? Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: joke works better when not posted over an hour later... Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be even better if the developers hadn't modified the software so you can't do that. Hut 8.5 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

you can still delete the main page if you know what your doing :P β^{_{command 2}} 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG where be baleete main page buttonz? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TransylvanianKarl is urged to refrain from editing International Churches of Christ and any related pages until he has fully familiarized himself with the English Wikipedia core policies. TransylvanianKarl is also urged to raise issues and suggestions on the talkpage before making potentially controversial edits to articles, including deletion of cited material and citations.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 19:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete bot policy rewrite

The bot policy rewrite mentioned earlier on this page has gone live. Further input would be appreciated on WT:BOT to ensure that the changes have consensus and to discuss the possibility of further changes.--Dycedarg ж 20:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Our HP Fan

Seems the HP fan most of us are aware of is strolling by or is encouraging others to stroll by (see this article history). Should we close the gates temporarily and reopen after an hour or so? I'm personally a fan of just revert 'em like crazy and leaving the Main Page open in the spirit of the time honored practice. However, our RC patrollers could always use a short break from that kind of nonsense.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Now protected by VegaDark.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As this has become an issue recently, is it not possible to simply add "HAGGER?" to the list various vandal bots use to identify vandalism, and have it reverted on sight? - auburnpilot talk 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Note re: 'Turdman the Vandal'

I have created a sock drawer for this particular miscreant and have linked his blatant sockpuppets there. I don't think CHU is required for the current socks [it isn't hard to tell that 'Turdman the ...' accounts are related!]. Anyway, if any of you with the mop block more of his socks, slap the template on for organisation. ><RichardΩ612 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Across Different Language Wikipedia

I've been asked the following, and didn't know specifically how to answer - so, for my reference: if a user is blocked on the English language Wikipedia would it be a violation of WP:SOCK if they edit on another language. Presumably not, since WP:SOCK/WP:BLOCK are English language policies - is that correct? —αlεx•mullεr 19:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Every language version is independent from others, and blocks and bans are not valid on other wikis. Though if a user is blocked on one wiki and continues disruption on other, they are generally far more likely to be blocked on other wikis if they continue disruption there. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just languages - for example, bans and blocks don't carry over Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc. either. I've only seen one case where a user was banned across all Wikimedia projects. x42bn6 Talk Mess 06:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for clarifying —αlεx•mullεr 10:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent vandalism and imposition of one version, suspect of sockpuppetry

• User:Anietor continues to revert back his favourite version of Christianity in China, deleting my edits. Various users have noted that the article is severely POV. I suspect also he is a sockpuppet of User:Brian0324, who shows similar behaviour against attempts to make the article NPOV. --Xi Zhu (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• You are describing an edit conflict, and sysops are not here to decide on which POV is most neutral. Try the article talkpages, ask for a third opinion or take it to a Request for Comment. I would gently suggest that there may be the slight possibility that if two editors share the same opposing view to that of yours (and presumably others) that they are not sockpuppets as you are not with those who share your views, per WP:AGF. In any event, there is nothing here that admins can act upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complex talk page instructions

I just came across User talk:Snookerhorn and found that the instructions are too complex. I've left them a message about it but I said that I would post here in the event they wanted another opinion. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Textbook case of WP:OWN as it applies to user talk pages. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit of reading makes me think this may be a joke. If so, it's very amusing. Especially the bit requiring all posting users to "personally type their name, in bold, regular sized (otherwise unaltered) font", specifically banning the use of ~~~~. – ClockworkSoul 07:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't ban the use of ~~~~ - he requires more. What he expects you to type is: '''<username>. Verification:'''~~~~, with the <username being replaced by the username of the user in question. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to file a case at ArbCom (and see it through 'till it was resolved). . . but the page did make me chuckle. R. Baley (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser shows a sockpuppet farm in use here. No time right now to fully root through it all though. Maybe later/tomorrow. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is hilarious. -- Naerii 12:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone loves a good sockpuppet farm. Good luck Matthew :) Daniel (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They have some overcomplicated edit summaries too: [22][23] Hut 8.5 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BJAODN. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

As we're being hit by another round of Grawp socks I've semiprotected this page for a few hours. Hut 8.5 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief WP:LTA notice about Grawp and I'm considering filing an abuse report on his IPs.--Urban Rose 15:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've filed the report. Who knows if it will do any good.--Urban Rose 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a copycat, not the real Grawp. Thatcher 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Trishlockwood

This question is about the above named userpage I found on recent changes patrol. It asserts that a named person, apparently the editor creating the page is a "well known detective" and "arrested many people" and gives a birthdate which would make her 18 years old, something of a contradiction. I feel that a userpage such as this is a fine place for a user to let others know her background and interests, but there is also the potential for WP:BLP violations which would not be tolerated in an article, if someone else wrote the userpage. We have no assurance that the named person is actually the Wikipedia editor. How much license is allowed for statements about a person in a user page? Should a userpage making assertions about a named living person be allowed to say anything without limit, in the absence of the named person sending in an OTRS complaint? Edison (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a new user experimenting and can't think of anything to write about. No harm done here, the editor appears old enough to know what they are revealing and we allow editors wide lassitude on their talk page. If they turn out not to be contributing I suppose we could go to MFD but frankly I'd personally see it as a waste of time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My only concern is if John Jones creates a "Mary Smith" userpage and makes statements like she is a cop, or a spy, or a prostitute, and gives her birthdate (which would never be allowed to be included in an article about a person who is not extremely well known). In what police department are eighteen year olds made detectives? A userpage should not be a substitute for an attack article whhich would get speedily deleted. Edison (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the "biography", you'll notice that it's clearly a piece of fiction. (She became a detective in the year 2019? My, she's accomplished a lot in the last negative eight years.) I can't possibly imagine that someone would really go through the effort to create a fake future for someone else. The odds that this is someone other than who she says she is are, in my opinion, miniscule. - Revolving Bugbear 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

One of my userscripts went bad on my main account... (I'm using my doppleganger) so could someone remove
document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/ubergodmode.js"><\/SCRIPT>');

document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"><\/SCRIPT>');
from User:Yamakiri/monobook.js? User:Yamakiri on Firefox 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help with my Page

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to respectfully request that my user name either be taken down or that the messages on them be cleared, as i have been wrongly accused by unprofessional adminstrators particularly Theresa Knott. I specifically told her that I would not post my biography on wikipedia. So she unblocked me so that i could edit. Then when I asked her why other people posted their biographies, she complained that they were more "famous" and therefore it was okay for them to post biographies. She has responded with many assumptions about me in a hostile manner, and when I finally said that I was going to seek assistance from another adminstrator with more sense of understanding and professionalism, she turned around and simply reblocked my talk page without even giving me a reason. I checked the log which quotes her telling another adminstrator that I tried to repost a "resume." She Blatantly lied about my actions. Please check my records as you will find that since the time i was blocked (which was due to my misunderstanding that wikipedia welcomed biographies --I am not a vandalist) their is no record that I have ever done or even attempted to post a biography or anything on wikipedia of any kind. I am an innocent person who had trouble working the wikipedia. I ended up pushin wrong buttons but meant no harm to anyone. Now, I am faced with people contacting me asking why the strange page titled user: [ real name removed as a courtesy ] with those distrubing messages of being blocked etc. I want to have my name cleared. I want my pages to be cleared of these negative messages which falsely accuses me fo things that are untrue. What Theresa did was a misuse of her privileges as an adminstrator. Please consider my thoughts and feelings and imagine what it's like to have your name googled only to find the name splatted on wikipedia saying: this page does not work, and here are the reasons etc.

If you have any consideration, please help me to resolve this mess. You may call me cell at any time if you wish: [number redacted for privacy; things like this are handled on-wiki usually].

[ real name removed as a courtesy ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.248.204 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Crossref: this userpage FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact this isn't quite the entirety of the case.

You posted a resume... so far not a problem. That resume was removed with explanation by User:Bfigura at 03:08, April 9 (Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Blanking a resume in userspace), you reposted,... removed at 03:22, April 9 with further note (Again, not webspace. Please see WP:NOT), you reverted... removed at 03:30, April 9 (Blank per WP:NOT webspace provider. See repeated spamming by this user), you reverted... nominated for deletion at 03:36, April 9...

Carrying on... 03:39, April 9 you removed the nomination notice and it had to be reinstated... 03:48, April 9 you removed it again and it had to be reinstated again... 03:50, April 9 you removed it again and it had to be reinstated again... 04:01, April 9 you removed it again and it had to be reinstated again... 04:08, April 9 you removed it again...

And again... the note explaining not to do this at 03:44, April 9 was removed by you at 03:48 (hence you obviously knew about it)... a repeat notice to let you know again at 03:51 was removed that same minute, 03:51.....

You get the idea. In fact I'd say by the end of checking that lot, frankly I agree completely with the block(s). If you are directed to do something many many times, and told not to do what you're doing, then it might be worth some time, pausing to consider if you might be actually mistaken.

I have also checkuser'ed your account to look for signs of other people "hacking" and vandalizing using your account but there are none. Your account (as best I can tell, and the evidence is fairly good), has been essentially used by you and you alone - or at least, the same user who vandalized is the same user who posted the requests you have argued, in caps, to allow you a resume on Wikipedia.

A significant number of users have reviewed its usage. To reiterate Theresa's words, you need to consider if you are visiting here to write an encyclopedia, or create self-promotion. If you are okay with the idea that it's unlikely you'll be allowed to post a resume of any kind for the foreseeable future (bad motive to edit), or to blank pages, as you say, then we may have a way to go forward. If that's the case and you are genuinely hoping to add encyclopedic content to the project, as are others here, then do please say so, and we'll probably be able to sort out the rest. Thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked the user talk page, and it will be removed entirely in due course if there is no further disruption. I strongly suggest you don't post any autobiography, and as suggested above, that you also listen to any advice already given you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd fully support that action, as well as removing the related checkuser case which was recently created by Blow of Light (talk · contribs). If this user is being effected in real life, I believe we should do our best to minimize that damage. I don't even understand the reasoning behind the checkuser request. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note on this user's talk page, trying to be as non-bitey and jargon-free as I possibly can. This is not intended to be any criticism of others who have interacted with her. Bovlb (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the page once, as well. Strictly as A7, non-notability as a local news reporter. I never heard from the author or said IP address with a problem concerning the page. Why not just courtesy blank the talk page and tell her not to use her account again? I don't think Theresa did anything inappropriate in response, I am generally cold but polite in responding to these sort of vanity complaints. Keegan^talk 07:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed a reply to the further request for help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just piping in as I'm involved here. This user contacted the AC list and I responded stating that she must not post a resume. She told me that she wished to edit articles so I unblocked her. Her next mail was to tell me she was unable to edit her userpage thus making it clear that she had tried to edit her userpage but could not.. The only reason she has not readded a userpage is because she is unable to because of salting. When I told her not to post a resume she got personal. In the time she was unblocked she made no attempt whatsoever to edit an article, and as this was the reason I unblocked I decided to reblock. She is clearly upset with me and continues to post abusive emails to me, three in the last day, despite requesting yesterday that I not reply to any more of her emails. I intend to honor that request and not reply. If she continues to rant at me I shall killfile her. As for what to do about her, I think deleting her talk page is probably the best action. This should satisfy her need to put this behind her. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite: she edited [ real name removed as a courtesy ]. But this raises a question in my mind: if someone posts a resume in mainspace and it's tagged A7, I will typically move it to the user page and post {{nn-userfy}} on talk. I don't have a problem with nuking the user page after a while, if the user does not contribute tot he project, but I guess we must also allow for good faith and not bite the newbies. That said, in this case it's pretty clear that all she wants is to post her resume on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• I've deleted her talk page. Any admin who needs to see it, could if they wanted to. --Haemo (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• I guess I could have userfied instead of deleting this page, but I believe she already had a copy at This user page, so there wasn't much point. I see that my carefully phrased explanations lasted almost twelve hours before the page was deleted. Oh, well. I guess I should have written them earlier. Bovlb (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate AfD

I'm certain I am in the wrong place. Nontheless, would an administrator please close this AfD to prevent any time being wasted on the topic? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posttranscription regulation It is surprising Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Post-transcriptional regulation until some poor soul bravely and inappropriately wrote one that is a copyright violation. I removed the copyright violation and left a stub. However, with almost 10,000 recents google scholar articles[24] it seems unlikely the topic will fail notability or any other criterion Wikipedia has for including an article. It's sad the state of molecular cell biology and genetics articles on Wikipedia (meaning the many missing topics, rather than the state of individual articles, some of which are excellent, others less so). But there is no need to attempt to delete major topics that are already poorly covered. Thank you. --Blechnic (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There was the nominator and then your keep. From your one vote, you are asking for a close per WP:SNOW. Blechnic, why don't we wait until we have more than two or three views there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why bother when the topic is a major scientific subject? There are not many topics where you get 10,000 recent Wikipedia scholar articles that should be up for deletion. Isn't there a point where editors' time should not be wasted?

I could be writing the Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus article rather than discussing deletion of this article which should be carefully tended to a full article to make Wikipedia complete rather than be deleted. No biologist, geneticist, or molecular cell biologist on Wikipedia will vote for deletion. So, anyone who knows the topic will be surprised it's up for deletion, it won't possibly be deleted, and we should discuss it for how long? --Blechnic (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD; aside from the rather compelling argument above, sufficient editors have weighed in at this point that I felt comfortable closing it as a Speedy Keep. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PHG blocked and mentor requested

I have blocked PHG one week and strongly advised him to accept a mentor. Is anyone willing to help him? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#PHG_and_L.C3.A9gion_d.27honneur — Rlevse • Talk • 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Though not required, familiarity with French and Japanese would be a plus, as well as easy access to a large university library. --Elonka 01:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If any easement of his current restrictions is to be entertained, fluency in both French and Japanese is very strongly advised. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I suspect PHG may not accept, I'd be willing to mentor him. I am fluent in French and reasonably capable at reading Japanese with the help of a kanji dictionary. — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSP/RFCU merger proposal

I've been thinking about some simplification here. It seems daft in a way, to have two sets of pages, both essentially for dealing with socks or suspected socks. What we really need is one set of pages for all sock concerns, with a tag for "requesting checkuser investigation" (+ rationale if needed) for those cases that merit it.

Can I solicit views on the idea of merging these?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Now moved to subpage /SSP-RFCU merger proposal for further discussion - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Vigilance requested

[edit] Please pass on spam reports to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎

Spammers seldom stop after being blocked. If they've been persistent enough to merit a block at WP:AIV, then they'll probably be back, either after the block expires, or more likely sooner with a new IP or user name. That's why blacklisting their domains is such a powerful tool.

Such a spammer also usually has additional domains we'll want to blacklist. The volunteers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎ have special tools and skills for tracking this stuff down and making sure all the necessary domains get blacklisted. These templates give a sense of all the different things they check:

• {{LinkSummary}}:
  • example.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com
• {{IPSummary}}:
  • 127.0.0.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
• {{UserSummary}}
  • JimboWales (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)

We then make a determination as to whether to monitor the domains using XLinkBot, blacklist them on the English Wikipedia only or blacklist them across all Wikimedia projects.

Looks pretty tedious, huh?

Fortunately, WP:AIV volunteers don't have to fool with all this. If you get a spam complaint there, please just make sure you or the complaining editor also gets word to us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎. Block the IP or username here and then we can take it from there.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major CAT:CSD backlog

Admins needed to help deal with a major backlog at CAT:CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war at Mark Speight

Mark Speight is/was an English TV presenter who is believed to be dead[25]. His body has not yet been identified (at least according to BBC) but there seems to be a bit of an edit war over which tense should be used and whether he is alive or dead. There have been 50 edits in 2hrs. Further administrator intervention would probably help (at least one is already involved), possibly when it has been agreed what should be used the page should be locked. There seems to be masses of conversation at Talk:Mark Speight. Computerjoe's talk 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already semi-protected the page until more detail is available; but User:Islander and I are having great difficulty explaining WP:BLP and WP:RS and WP:V to some editors. I was prepared earlier to fully protect, but held back. He is still unconfirmed as dead, but that's not good enough for some editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC are now reporting him as dead. How can a formal identification have taken place already, within 8 hours? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so... Take a look at the Main BBC article - "Mr Speight's relatives have been informed of the discovery, police said, but a formal identification has yet to take place.". Still unconfirmed. _TalkIslander 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OTOTH, BBC News 24 have just headlined "The body of Mark Speight has been found", without qualification. How on earth can we apply policy when an authoritative source gets the detail wrong? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple: WP:BLP clearly states that poorly sourced info should be removed. If the media, indeed one organisation within itself, cannot agree as to whether the body is confirmed as Speight or not, it's not well sourced, and so we err on the side of caution. As User:Steve keeps pointing out, to no avail, there is no rush - there is no need to 'report' Speight's death before anyone else. _TalkIslander 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Two suggestions, lock it overnight and it will sort itself out in the morning. Alternatively, how about adding a hidden comment at the top directing editors to the talk page. It worked a treat when Bob Woolmer died. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, we've tried adding hidden comments, but they kept getting replaced with spurious sources. However, if it gets to midnight, I may well lock it for eight hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While we should not at this point state that he is dead, it is appropriate to state that a reliable source (the BBC) and other British news sources say he is dead [26]. We are not required to bury our heads in the sand. Per WP:BLP, WP:V , and WP:RS this can be in the article about him. Edison (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I just note that there was no revert warring or vandalism whatsoever by IP or brand new editors on this point prior to Rodhullandemu's unprotection @ 14:24, 14 April 2008 ? It was full protected due to autoconfirmed users revert warring, at which point warring continued between admins,[27], then semi-protected. Now the article has been again semi-protected due to "vandalism", two blanking edits in the 90 minutes it was open. [28][29] 86.44.28.245 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SNOWEDUNDER

A number of important matters needing attention have been snowed under by other important matters needing attention.

I wanted to post this note here so people know 1/ they aren't ignored or forgotten, but 2/ I'm tackling a long backlog and there's problems with the volume of it. A number of inquiries and things that people are waiting for are just dragging on.

It's not a matter of "free time" so much as "amount of work needing to be fitted in and tools available to do it efficiently".

Not ideal, but I want to say so honestly; if anyone's chaffing at the bit for specific help on anything, nudge me, I'll try. Anyone else -- please be understanding as I try to get the mountain down a bit. I expect I'll get it sorted out.

Thanks.

PS I am also looking at this with an eye to "whats actually going on and how to avoid it again in future".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As this post is sort of an "FYI", I thought I'd use it to point out that there is a misconception among many editors that WP:SNOW is a policy/ideology that states something along the lines of "if a consensus is "snowballing" one way or another, it can be closed in that direction". Although a lot of the time the results are the same, the policy is actually about something not having a snowball's chance in hell. Tan | 39 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

True, in this case a wilful misuse of a page name :) I would have chosen a better one if I could have thought of it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I really wasn't commenting on your use of it - just in general. Something that has been bothering me for some time ;-) Tan | 39 17:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be renamed to determined responsibility or whatnot. Rudget (review) 17:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Electrobe

This is the second time I have had to come here regarding this user the first being here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive137#User:Electrobe with also links to his wikiquette alert WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:Electrobe, going through his contributions you will see he has been chaning several dozen template to his new format [30] which includes changing the wikilinks text to black this is discrouged in the WP:COLOUR MOS I am not the only user who dislikes this new format see Template:RussianPMs it tried to discuss this with the user Template talk:Pictish and Scottish Monarchs#Link colour and get accused of vandalism --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The user is still using inappropriate images on templates see Template:Head of Government of the Isle of Man he has already been warned against this [31] and Template talk:Scottish First Ministers#Coat of arms... could and admin please talk action this user is becoming very disruptive --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just start warning the user. Rgoodermote  01:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing444

• Nothing444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Nothing444 (talk • contribs • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

It appears that Nothing444 has been blocked by Maxim (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) for not contributing to the encyclopedia for a period of 72 hours. I'm not a huge fan of these blocks - I really don't see how they're exactly protective when Nothing444 hasn't really caused harm to the project, but I think we should maybe enforce some kind of restriction on him, such as banning from Userspace for 6 months and encouragement to use User_talk space for encyclopedia building work only. Possible wording is;

"Nothing444 is banned from editing the user space of any user, for a period of six months. Furthermore, Nothing444 is encouraged to keep the majority of correspondance on user talk pages directly related to improving encyclopedic content. Users are prohibited from posting material on behalf of this user, where it would breach the aforementioned conditions. These restrictions are enforcable by blocks, starting at 24 hours and proceeding upwards at administrators' discretion."

I'd appreciate thoughts on this, I think we should try and help these younger users wherever possible to contribute, and this just might point them in the right direction. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A block? Sometimes I'm a bit concerned about the amount of redundant pages or over-releases of newsletters he does but seriously...a block? I would probably be willing to unblock if he does request it on his talk page. I think what you are suggesting is more appropriate Ryan. I'd support that over a block. This user has not harmed the project in a way that requires a block.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been doing that, and managed to be quite disruptive. Now, I've taken Friday's recent comments to heart; some users just aren't capable of contributing. I've block Nothing for three days; I hope he truly thinks about what he's doing. If he decides to actually contribute, I'm fine. If he continues to waste good admins' time, then I don't think he should retain his editing privileges. Maxim_(talk) 01:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Persian Poet Gal, I think you may forget that we're building an encyclopedia. And Nothing444 isn't, he's only being disruptive. That's why revoked his editing privileges for three days. Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxim, I do not forget that fact. I just think that this block was much too punitory in nature. I am not saying your actions were entirely wrong, but they were incredibly harsh.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would I want to punish Nothing444? I only want to prevent more disruption so me and basically, everyone else can continue making an encyclopedia without having to cast a wary over Nothing444's talkpage and contributions everytime we log on. At least for 72 hours. During which I'm hoping he'll realise that he's disruptive and hopefully again, try to take action by himself without admins forcing him to do this or that... Maxim_(talk) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Wikipedia space needs to be added on a restriction. A lot of the issue at hand here is his Wikiprojects and task forces (and related newsletters) but no follow through on the article space for the projects he's so interested in. Metros (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to watch this and maybe enforce at a later date. Hopefully if we can prod him into mainspace, he could contribute constructively to wiki-space. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of Nothing444's close contributers. I have seen very little edits that contribute to articles. He recently told me today that he was but I guess he wasn't. I agree with Ryan's offer of banning him from editing his userspace. But I do have one concern. What if Nothing444 is banned from editing his userspace, but he doesn't contribute to articles much, or at all?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you have to ask, why is he here? There's plenty of encyclopedia building taks you can do, without directly adding to content - I think Nothing treats this more like myspace. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about his userpage he has now? Is it going to be like that for six months?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you care so much about a userpage? Personally, I have one because it helps me out with editing articles, because it looks better for an admin to have one; half my time here,, it's been a redlink. Maxim_(talk) 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuck like that for half a year?? Then he'd probably be thought of as a crappy user like that metros' guy who hasn't updated his userpage since August. Metros (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nothing444 may be looking and planning on what to do in six months besiades editing articles. I was thinking of blanking his userpage, but I am begginning to have second thoughts about my plan.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not being able to edit his userpage should be the least of concerns about this situation RyRy. Its strict but its far better then allowing him to continually edit in a fashion that causes administrators to feel the need to enact a block. (edit conflict:I would just recommend to leave it alone all together)¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone to encourage them to contribute more? There may be some logic there but I cannot see any. His most recent contributions seem to include (amongst other things) several welcome messages, stubbing, converting refs to inline. Has anyone actually been prevented from editing by him? Has he engaged in personal attacks? Has he vandalized articles? Has he violated BLP? Is there some "productivity quota" that editors are now obliged to achieve? DuncanHill (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of the encyclopedia is something that should prevented by blocks. Reasons for blocking aren't limited to personal attacks, vandalism, BLP vios and the obvious like. Nothing444's deleted edits are rather telling. Maxim_(talk) 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at a [section on this page] and comments by Friday (between two of my comments) may be worthwhile. Although it is about another user - RyRy5 - there may be some mileage in the comment "...this is why we should not find myspacers and tell them "You have to go edit articles." I'd rather have them playing in userspace where they're not touching anything important." George The Dragon (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making Nothing444 trying to edit the mainspace by force... If he wants to edit very much, he by all means should try. But he hasn't really. I've seen Friday's comments, and I think they are quite wise. The thing that pushed me to block Nothing444 is that he was disrupting a group of editors that are trying coordinate efforts to make encyclopedia article, not coordinate efforts to make pointless newsletters! Maxim_(talk) 02:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and I should clarify, I fully support the block and would like to see further blocks extended to members who treat Wikipedia as a social network. We are funded by donations, and while the public may be happy to donate to a free encyclopedia, I doubt they would want to donate to the "Facebook everyone can edit"! George The Dragon (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, we're too mired in pointless, circular meta-discussion and bureaucracy and the like to do that. Such a block would never stick, it fails one policy, yet passes another one... Maxim_(talk) 02:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the time to ignore both policies and do what's right. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You suggest we ignore WP:IAR? :O still works though. :-p Incidentally, I was referring to WP:BLOCK and WP:IAR. Maxim_(talk) 02:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Supporting this block. Between spamming my talk page, filing frivolous BRFAs, socking at his own RFA, and the endless myspace activity, I dont see this user being here to contribute. Ryan, your right that users can contribute in ways other than mainspace content. They can wikignome, do techie stuff, dispute resolution, sorting, etc. But if one is not doing any of those things, than how are they improving the place? MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oh I don't know... I edit my userspace a lot too. I don't think this is the kind of thing we should be blocking people for - it seems a bit OTT, no? I admit I haven't spent any time on MySpace, but it doesn't seem like the kind of site where people create projects to improve encyclopedia articles, so comparisons between it and Wikipedia seem a little inaccurate. Does anyone have specific diffs showing disruption? -- Naerii 04:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into specifics, I'd say the difference is that userspace edits make up roughly 12% of your edits, but roughly 30% of Nothing's. Additionally, the main space only makes up 16% of Nothing's edits, but 34% of yours. Interesting flip of percentages. (Just for comparison, the main space makes up 39% of my edits, and userspace makes up 4-5%). - auburnpilot talk 05:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this block is supposed to accomplish. It seems a little too mean and a lot too punitive to me. I too have been feeling some frustration with this user. After all, I was the one who un-permablocked him a couple of weeks ago on the condition that he participate more in encyclopedia building. It's clear that he really wants to help, but unfortunately he seems to not quite understand the point of the project, and as a result he's continuously distracted by the "ooh shiny" aspects of his endeavors. His actions can be a bit maddening (the multiple newsletters in so many days is a fine example), but I would hardly consider that disruptive. The user is clearly very young, and apparently isn't quite mature or have a sufficient attention span for serious contributions. I would support an enforcement of minimal user space edits for a period of three months. That should be long enough for him to learn what it's like to contribute in a meaningful way. – ClockworkSoul 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that remedy. He's not being a very productive user, but I don't see a reason to block him -- I would prefer blocks to be placed to prevent actual harm to the encyclopedia, not just because people keep reading his edits and keep wishing they had those minutes back. Encouraging him to contribute more to the encyclopedia and less to user space is the right idea. A block is far too blunt a tool for the job. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see how very little of Nothing's edits are on articles. But I say he is too enthusiastic. Sometimes I'm that way too. But I have learned my lesson. 1000+ of my 5700+ edits are mainspace edits. Nothing has only 450+ mainspace of his 3000+ total contribs. Back towards the end of February, Nothing started contributing to articles, and I noticed his mainspace boost every day, but ever since he got interested in these non-article related things such as userspace, talking, making more subpages, ect, he has stopped editing in the mainspace. Due to his enthusiasm, I'd say he is around 13 years of age, and hasn't matured yet. I'd say banning in the userspace for about 4-5 months. I also know that Nothing will try for adminship in the begginning of 2009. At this rate, being blocked 3 times and including all his recent incidents, his RFA would be snowballed with opposes unless he changes quickly.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 05:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this block. There is mainspace work in his recent contributions; in the contributions list it gets swamped by all the other stuff, but if all that other stuff wasn't there, no one would be saying we should block him for making too few edits overall (of course, that would be preposterous). It appears the complaint is simply that he doesn't edit the mainspace enough as a proportion of his total edits. Well, I find that reasoning to be poor; if his positive contributions were only a small fraction of his negative contributions, then we could justify a block by saying he does more harm that good, but in this case it isn't that he makes harmful or disruptive contributions, it's just that a high percentage of what he contributes serves no particularly meaningful purpose. Why should those edits concern us at all, if they aren't harmful in nature? Sure, we don't want a segment of Wikipedians who treat the project like MySpace and contribute nothing, but clearly Nothing has an actual interest in the encyclopedia and does do some constructive work, and that should be enough. Everyking (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm unblocking. Any other encouragement we give him to focus his edits more constructively will take place after that. – ClockworkSoul 07:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this unblock. ClockworkSoul, you really should have at least made a note at my talkpage, and secondly, there's no consensus to unblock here. Maxim_(talk) 12:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(Posted to User talk:Maxim) You're right that I should have left a note here on your talk page, but there was a clear agreement that a block was a bit excessive. I apologize for not posting on your talk; I didn't mean to be rude. I should probably think twice before adminning at 4 in the morning. :) – ClockworkSoul 15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support this block, there is only so much that talking with the user about their disruptive actions can do, and it has proven to be ineffective. Ultimalty we are here to build an encyclopedia, not make the next myspace. Tiptoety ^talk 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose the block. There is no quota on how many edits a user must make in any specified part of Wikipedia to avoid a block, or what the ratios of edits in different spaces must be. It causes me concern about attitude when Maxim says on the userpage of Nothing444[32] "I've deleted all pages you've created in the subpages of WP:HOCKEY; they're simply not needed and they become a tad disruptive. They wouldn't have survived MfD anyhow so I didn't see the need to look up the instructions on how to MfD a page as it's a waste of my time." We are generally far more polite than that even to raving vandals. Edison (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to note this user has now been blocked again and has had a script added to their monobook George The Dragon (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support block and namespace restriction for a while. I've personally spent a while MfDing, moving, and deleting several of this user's contribs, and it takes too much time to look after their often disruptive contributions. They need to stick to mainspace after the block expires. VegaDark (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)