Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive219

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Radiopathy's violation of indefinite 1RR restriction[edit]

See [1] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Piotrus topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics until March 22, 2011 (the date on which the topic ban imposed in the original decision was to expire).

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 17:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Concern about administrative conduct on deletion request[edit]

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.


Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions on Tea Party movement[edit]

Alright, I've just placed the 6th full protection for this article. No one is outright violating 3RR, and blocks haven't been successful. I see no other alternative but asking ArbCom to intervene (an unnecessary lengthy and exhausting process) or placing our own probation. As such, I propose general sanctions. As a background, the article has had significant trouble with IP-hopping edit warriors as well. I ask for community input, and administrator to close the discussion. I'm going to propose two different alternatives; other editors can propose other alternatives of course.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 1) :

  1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, the article is placed on indefinite semi-protection until such time as the community agrees it is no longer necessary. Editors who are not autoconfirmed may request changes on the talk page via the {{editprotected}} template.
  2. No editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period.

Tea Party movement is placed on probation (option 2) :

  1. Having new editors and IP editors who make contentious reverts and hop IPs/usernames on the article is disruptive. As such, any new editor with few to no edits elsewhere or IP editor is limited to one revert per week. Administrators are encouraged to use semi-protection should sockpuppetry become an issue.
  2. No longstanding editor may make more than two (2) reverts in a seven (7) day period, excluding new/IP editors (explained above).

While the above exception for new/IP editors may be contentious, please understand that the role of drive-by edit warriors with little to no knowledge of Wiki procedures is causing a lot of headaches (not to mention the sockpuppetry and goading- e.g., this type of edit summary which an editor from the 99.0.0.0/8 range has been using).

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the IP's as much as the problem we're having right now with one editor who keeps reverting against consensus. He's been uncivil to editors, with a very confrontational tone, he's taken up over a week of our time on this without providing any legitimate reliable sources to back up his claims. This morning we agreed to go to the Mediation Cabal, and he's being disruptive over there. Now the TPM page is locked because he won't stop reverting. Seems to me the sanctions might best start with him.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, Magog, what do you mean about the sock puppets? How do you know that?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any username sockpuppetry, but I have noticed quite a bit of IPs jumping in and out, including at least the one on the 99/8 range I mentioned above who is clearly editing as such to avoid scrutiny. Also, while Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has certainly been a problem, I also see other edit warring on the page, e.g., Digiphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? Show me one instance of me edit warring on the page?Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
[2] & [3]. It wasn't particularly malicious, granted, and I wasn't trying to lay blame on you (sorry if it came across that way): I was just showing that the reverting was going on with everyone, from what I could see, and it wasn't just a Dylan Flaherty issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't malicious at all and the discussion (we actually both immediately went to talk) showed that information was not correct as the previous consensus showed. Most of my activity on the page is on the talk page by a significant ratio. I don't care what actions are taken on the page as long as I am not lumped in with those edit warring. There is tons of edit warring so feel free to get arbitration on it or lock it down as far as I am concerned.Cptnono (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right, that was just flatly incorrect. Apologies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, while I don't oppose the current protection (and wouldn't even if it had locked "grassroots" into the lead), semi-protection would deal with the IP's, and the "grassroots" issue that is behind the current page churn is currently under mediation. Putting aside Malke's despicable attempt to throw me under the bus, I think there's a light at the end of this tunnel. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. To clarify, what Malke is describing is that the proposal to remove the grassroots-lead bit diff is as-of-today in mediation. It was BRD to remove-diff days ago, with attempts to maintain it until a consensus otherwise like 1, 2, 3. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If one looks at what is going on over there I think that this is overkill. I think that the scope of the current edit warring is two editors over one word. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree. There are other edits to made that don't involve the grassroots issue. This page has been relatively stable compared to other high traffic articles. The usual IP vandalism is there, but even right before the lockup, the page wasn't even semi-protected. I think Magog has a good idea whose time has not quite come yet. If you look at the talk page history, consensus usually gets reached there. Occasionally having an admin weigh in is nice. But nobody seems to want to hang out there consistently. I could see this two week lock if this were the Murder of Meredith Kercher which had terrible problems, but even that page which had two admins sitting on it didn't get ArbCom sanctions. I suggest letting the editors work this out. Problems come and go over there. I suggested mediation cabal for a problem we're having. We should let that process go forward and free up the page for everybody else.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the semi (not following the article), but I think that non-standard revert restrictions like 1/week and 2/week are a bad idea. It's too easy to violate them accidentally, and, with a lot of intervening edits, it's often hard to figure out if something is a revert or a new edit, both for the editor and for potential enforcement. If you sanction editors for accidental behavior, you will (justifiably) piss them off. If you don't, then every edit warrior will try to wikilaywer hir way out of a violation. If 3RR is not enough, go to 1RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I had addressed the lock elsewhere, and didn't repeat it here, but it appears to be a topic here as well. Here were my thoughts:
"Hello Magog the Ogre. I noticed that you put a 2 week lock on the Tea Party Movement Article. You indicated this was for an edit war....the edit war the is pretty narrow....two people over one word, with several more (myself included) engaged in a general discussion on it, and now requesting and getting mediation. I don't know what could be called the "current" or "changed" version, but as it turned out you locked it a few minutes after the contested item was changed away from what it has been for the last couple weeks. But my main point is that this is a huge article badly in need of work and updating....it was receiving about 15-20 edits a day unrelated to this dispute. It seems a shame to shut all of that work down for two weeks over such a narrow dispute. What do you think about shortening or reducing the lock?" North8000 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
North8000 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem at this point is that there has been edit warring on other subjects in the past, and I still don't have assurance from Dylan Flaherty that he wouldn't remove the term until mediation comes to a close. While I understand your frustration, guys, it looks like this is larger than just the one issue. Although I am at the point of putting it on long term semi-protection instead, seeing the lack of resistance here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New proposal[edit]

Alright, I have a new proposal, based on the feedback I've received:

Tea Party movement is placed on informal probation:

  1. The article is semi-protected indefinitely to avoid edit warring by drive by editors, to be removed by an administrator only on a trial basis or when it becomes clear that disruptive edit warring by IPs is no longer an issue.
  2. No longstanding editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism only. More leniency will be given to editors who act in the spirit of WP:BRD or who remove uncontroversially untrue statements. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large.
  3. The above clause is not a license to revert exactly one time per day, every day. Editors who push a slow-moving revert war to the same item will be subject to blocking by an uninvolved administrator, after a warning.
  4. A message of the sanctions will be placed on the edit notice page so no newcoming editor can miss it. Nevertheless, editors are encouraged to gently warn newcomers to the article of the sanctions should s/he place a revert. Unwarned long-time editors who slightly err in the 1RR clause without warning may be granted leniency,
  5. Violations can be reported at WP:ANI or at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator.

To clarify a few points above:

  • It's not expected this article will be on probation or semi-protected forever. But it certainly could be a long time; hopefully only months, perhaps a year or more, depending on how things evolve.
  • The "same content" clause in (2) is to avoid blocking over common sense reverting two separate parts of the text or over good faith applications of WP:BRD. It is my belief that if an editor can only change one part of the text, it will vastly cut down on the edit warring.
  • If there are common sense reverts (e.g., Cptnono's above, where a demonstrably false statement was added), editors are encouraged to ask on the talk page unless they are absolutely sure the added information is wrong, lest they find themselves blocked.

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit more flexible than the previous proposal. My only concern is that, for the duration of the mediation on "grassroots", we avoid edit-warring over it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to personally enforce a block if an editor removes or adds it according to consensus after the protection is removed - I don't think that's fair to other editors, and it would be an improper endiorsement of the m:the wrong version whereas I'm more interested in general consensus. I will enforce a block if I see the same editor adding or removing the above several times. Yes, I have protected the page, but I did so decidedly neutrally as to the content itself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While I have my preferences about which version should be there, I'm not demanding that it be chosen as the "right version". The fact is that we are currently in dispute over what the consensus is, and this has led to edit wars in the past. If removing protection starts these up again, you'll be forced to slap protection back on it, or worse, and we'll be back where we started.
What I'm suggesting that that, whatever version is selected, we enforce a 0RR policy on it until mediation ends. Nobody will touch it if it's electrocuted. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be amenable to readding the grassroots clause and enforcing a 0RR policy on this clause only until there is consensus (i.e., it will remain up... removal by a new editor could be undone without repercussion)? I realize this may cause existing editors to be more lax in their negotiations, but it does seem that there are more editors who think it should be added right now than think it should be removed. Additionally, this will allow quicker unprotection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, better yet, I readd the text, unprotect the article, and you agree not to remove it during the article's probation; then we don't have to worry about making a separate provision for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I would object to anyone adding "grassroots", because it violates WP:NPOV and is not supported by our WP:RS's. The problem is that requiring only me to leave it alone, besides being rather obviously unfair, would only cause trouble.
For one thing, if you look at the mediation page, I think you'll find that it's not safe to say that there are more editors in favor of inclusion. And, with my hands tied, there would now be an open niche to fill by those who pop up out of the woodwork to remove the offending term. Semi-protection will stop casual IP's, but more determined ones will simply register. This will lead to retaliation, and more warring.
If the article is unprotected, then no matter whether the contested term is included or not, there has to be a global ban on either removing or restoring it. Without this, mediation would become something of a face, as the state of article would be a fait accompli. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid, if we agree to the above conditions, then we will have to leave the grassroots section alone as part of the general sanctions, and it would be subject to the same as the rest. If any one editor reverts it multiple times, no matter the situation, this editor will receive a warning and eventually be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's simply a recipe for a tag-team edit war. I'd rather just leave it protected until mediation ends. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of upping the ante, I'm giving consideration to restoring the article to a predispute version during protection (which is acceptable for an administrator per WP:PP), thus readding the text. I'm afraid you wouldn't still like the article protected this situation, which shows poorly upon your objectivity in drawing up a process to compromise. Just as I just said to Malke on the talk page of TPM, this may say that you are part of the problem, not the solution. I may have to give an outright 0RR sanction against editors who are part of the problem instead of the solution. Do other non-involved editors have no opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Magog, you are certainly within your rights as an administrator to do this. Having said that, I cannot pretend to think it is a good idea. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog I'm for the proposal at the top this "New Proposal" section and I'll put my name to the tweaks you've suggested between it and this comment. I like this page being a contract that we can point too for as long as it goes on. And Dylan he's giving us a way out, and also a way to save face, kind of. We should take it. I'll bet the others will post that they like the proposal too. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me Magog. Two things. 1) My mentors are not fans of me commenting on AN threads, which is why I used the TPM talk page since you'd posted there as well. 2) Your comment to me on the TPM talk page about editors being the problem was not about me being a problem. I was not negotiating to get me a better deal on grassroots. I was seeking clarity about editing different sections because I did not understand what you'd said about it vis-a-vis your 1RR thing. It was not about the word grassroots. So it isn't "As I've just said to Malke. . ." My question was different. Entirely different. A very general question and different. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the version until settled, I think it's more important to bring the mediation subject to a conclusion. And who knows which version has dibs on being called the original version. But it should be noted that, with respect to the disputed portion, the version that has been there a couple of weeks and during the mediation was removed minutes before the block.

Your plan sounds like a good one to me. North8000 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Malke I'm going say this because you and I are obviously in the same camp in this thing and it's become clear we get along pretty well. 1.)Maybe just let it go about the little thing on the now-archived page, because we're really close to getting the page unprotected. In the big picture we're going to get richer just by playing ball than suing for the tiny maybe libel. 2.) Let's not pussyfoot around this. There's obviously a chance Magog might come around to seeing our shared position about BRD in the course of un-protecting, and that would be a pretty nice bonus. Or he may not and it might get stuck up there, and that's just the way it goes. Things aren't always perfect but they don't have to be shitty. Know what I mean? Let's get this thing un-protectedd -Digiphi (Talk) 03:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, good proposal, etc. Hey there Digiphi, I knew you were here, your cat called me. I just wanted to clarify what can and cannot be done on the page so we all don't fall into the sinkhole. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So are we good now?Malke 2010 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, if that was a question for me. -Digiphi (Talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer waiting just a bit to get some more community input. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the expectation that the edit war will continue and mediation will be undermined, I recommend against unprotecting at this time, at least without global sanctions against modifying the disputed term. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about what happens before conclusion of the mediation; after that I think we're assuming sticking with the result for a long time. The passage in question got locked minutes after you switched it to your preferred state. Would your thought be the same regardless of which version is there during the mediation process? North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I do understand that, but my point remains: so long as it's locked down, it's in limbo, but once it's tag-team edit-warred over, the mediation effort will become a joke. In general, when it comes to inclusion of disputed material, we should default against it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(added later) Going from memory, the "grassroots" version had been in for about 2 weeks before the block, and then was removed minutes before the block. Not sure what this should or shouldn't mean. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Magog, I understand you'd like more input but you could just unlock the page with semi-protection, add back the text with the caveat that it remain until the mediation is settled since it's got consensus, and then stay with the page and if an edit war develops send the offenders to the gallows.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Or the gallows. -Digiphi (Talk) 17:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Magog, after/if you settle the question of what version is in there during the mediation process, I'll be we could get all of the involved editors to leave it until the completion of the mediation process. After that, I think it would be very very hard to argue for or put in anything contrary to the result of the mediation.North8000 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does no one uninvolved in this dispute have any opinion on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposed solutions are too lax and will result in gaming and tag-team edit-warring, as they are on article with similar editing restrictions. I propose that the article be put under a revert restriction that would basically codify BRD.
Any editor is allowed to blodly insert or edit material in the article. If the material is contested, any editor is allowed to revert that material once and discussion of the revert must take place on the talk page. No other edits related to the original edit are allowed until the discussion is complete. Violation of the revert restriction will be enforced by blocks starting at 24 hours and of increasing duration for repeat offences. Reverts of blatent vandalism and BLP violations are exempt from this restriction.
Use of semi would be consistent with policy. Also noting that claims of vandalism and BLP vios are not the same as actual vandalism and BLP vios. I'm not sure if this has been tried before, but I think in this case it would stop the reverts and force discussion to the talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Atmoz, we did go to the talk page and discuss and the consensus was to include it. So BRD was followed. Grassroots was put in with reliable sources, reverted, discussion opened up, consensus shown, edit returned.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I really like it. Be prepared for the usual bickering over uncontroversial, but I think you were expecting that. 3RR/article but 1RR/content is a common sense rule that is probably not too complex for the KISS principle. It will be worth checking the displayed edit notice to make sure that IP editors trying to contribute through the semi-protection are prominently directed to the talkpage (it will still be in the general notice, but it might get visually swamped). I think that at the talk page of a knowledgeable uninvolved administrator should be removed, though; it sounds good in abstract, but invites over-involvement and adminshopping. An alternative might be to encourage that simple violations be reported in a new section at the talkpage, while more involved issues are kicked up to AN/I using {{sanction appeal}} or similar. It might also be worth adding some language to the effect that Editor A makes an edit → Editor B reverts → Editor C rereverts → Editor D rerereverts → Editor E rererereverts → ... is an edit war and will be treated as such. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
My concern with a 1RR limit for "content" is that the term is not currently defined, and not easily defined in a way to discourage wikilawyering. if I understand the point, you want a tighter leash on a segment more narrow than the whole article. It would be better to use a metric that is more objection, such as section or subsection. Doesn't accomplish exactly what you want to accomplish, but it should eliminate definitional wrangling.--SPhilbrickT 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to address that on the editnotice clarification page [4]. Feel free to propose another change with the {{editprotected}} template if you think this is insufficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect to any version of "new proposal" please. Came from the mediation page, with slight COI as an editor for WorldNetDaily, and also as being involved with Dylan Flaherty in a different mediation. Magog, I think there is a clear consensus on this page that unprotection should lift asap, and I think the stalling is due to a single party. This being the case, I believe that warring per se will not continue among the established editors due to the single party's knowledge of the excessive force against him, and the ongoing mediation. I believe that any potential warring by new or SPAs will be curbed by the present proposal, especially if you include that 1RR per week for SPAs rule that you mentioned above. If my beliefs are wrong, well, that's an outcome of AGF. (I would also disagree with 2over0, the edit war doesn't start until rationales disappear or same-editor repetition begins.) This should not be a paralysis of analysis issue, and I would be disappointed to find that any party continued to tie up important articles with such stall tactics. JJB 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • <sombervoice>It is done</sombervoice>. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections[edit]

Nominations are now open for candidates to run in the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections.

To become an arbitrator is to take on an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to step forward. This year, an unprecedented 11 arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Nomination is open to any editor in good standing over the age of 18, who is of legal age in their place of residence, and who has made at least 1,000 mainspace edits before the opening of the nomination period; candidates are not required to be administrators or to have any other special permissions. Experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing. Thoughts and advice from past and present members of the Arbitration Committee are available at the following pages:

Nominations will be accepted from today, 14 November 2010 through 23 November 2010, with voting scheduled to begin on 26 November. To submit your candidacy, proceed to the candidates page and follow the instructions given. For the coordinators, Skomorokh 00:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Image vandalism on Islam-related articles[edit]

This is a heads-up to administrators that Commons has experienced significant vandalism to Islam-related images in recent hours. This vandalism has an effect on our articles because Commons images are widely used in our Islam-related articles (as well as similar articles in other projects), and there may be complaints about vandalism here although there is nothing we can do directly to correct it. Wikimedia Commons administrators have been put on alert to assist in addressing any issues, and they can be reached through that project and/or via IRC. Risker (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking talk page creations[edit]

Hi. I'm apparently unauthorized from creating talk pages for the following articles: Talk:State Administrative and Judicial Institutions Employees Union, Talk:Economic-Administrative and Technical Institutions Employees Union and Talk:Judicial and Administrative Institutions Employees Union of Yugoslavia (three articles I have created myself). I get the message "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Not sure what blacklisted item I've come into contact with, perhaps this is an error in the blacklists? --Soman (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Soman, I don't know what the problem was, but anyway, I've created them. I didn't get an error message or anything. PhilKnight (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well from the message, it sounds like it's on either our blacklist or the one on meta. As an admin, you wouldn't get an error message because admins and account creators can override the blacklist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's almost certainly a blacklist pattern matching "Admin" and some other string. I logged out to see the problem, but by the time I had you'd created the pages. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I suppose I got the message as I'm not an admin. --Soman (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, although that's unrelated to the (believed) "Admin" in the blacklist pattern, which is (I suspect) there because it happens to match a favourite vandalism target. (I was going to look up which pattern it was matching.) You'd get the same behaviour for any title blacklisted pages because you are not an administrator. Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
          • It's probably the pattern (Talk:).*[AΑÂĄĂÃÀĀΆẠẬẢẤẦẨẮẰẴẲẪẶḀǞǠȀᾼᾺᾈἉᾉἌᾌἊᾊἎᾎἍᾍἋᾋἏᾏÁÂÄÆÅǺ٩4aáàâäãǎāăảąæåάαᾳᾴὰᾲᾶᾷἀᾀἁᾁἄᾄἂᾂἆᾆἅᾅἃᾃἇᾇаӑӓӕạậ]+dm[ÌÍÎÏĨļǏĪĬİḷŀΙЇɨ!łľıĮįīi]+n.*, added quite recently. Forbids creating any talk-namespace page containing "admin". I don't know if User:MuZemike discussed this anywhere before adding it or what the motivation might have been for doing so, I don't see anything obviously related in his contribs or deletions for that day. I've invited him to comment. Anomie 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to MuZemike's motivations, but I can tell you that, while anonymous users cannot create articles, they can create talk pages (this allows, among other things, anonymous users to submit content at WP:AFC). This may have been a preventative measure against vandalism. TNXMan 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This has caused a couple of other problems as well (I dealt with one at AN the other day). I think the would be more suited to the abuse filter than the black list, if we do want it. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I added the entry due to a recent deluge of vandalism such as Talk:Admins being fucked in the ass being created. Looks like I had a lack of hindsight on good faith contributions. However, we do need some way to keep tabs on what is created somehow. All I know is that most can easily dodge the edit filter, which is my concern. –MuZemike 19:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Belen Echandia[edit]

Resolved: Collapsed it. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...is degenerating into a squabble. The actual matter at issue is being dealt with at an AfD, and the AN/I thread is not going anywhere. It might help prevent bloodshed if someone uninvolved would close the thread. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Within a dream[edit]

Resolved: User blocked by Vianello

I have had issues with this user since he started editing. As you can see on his talk page i have warned him countless times about adding unsourced edits and poor edits in general. Editing wikipedia you must have a basic understanding of logic and reasoning skills. Withinadream with all the warnings continues to add whatever he pleases and will not listen. As you can see on We R Who We R it takes him 5 edits to add something incorrectly. He has been blocked before for additions of unsourced edits and when i warn him he says "block me see if i care" or similar wordings, so, he should be blocked, 99% of his edits are not constructive and i have to go back and clean up after him and im tired of doing so. He is constantly messing up articles ive written which are in compliance and are GA's and its getting ridicules, something needs to be done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Current concerns are on;

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and now the jerk is going around vandalizing my sandboxes. Please see history at User:L-l-CLK-l-l/Sandbox8. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see that he's indeed vandalized a sandbox of yours, and that he has been notified and warned and responded unproductively. Can you please specific diffs and explanations for your issues with his content contributions? Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I further note that you appear to have violated 3RR yourself on We R Who We R today. Please observe Wikipedia's editing and dispute resolution policies. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Apologies i didnt even notice, wasnt paying attention. Sorry - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Checking edit history im at 3RR, havnt violated :P - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes i can, check his edit history, every single edit is poor. I will show the ones from today alone.

  • [5] Which took 5 edits and messed up the boxes, used a fan site (Keshadaily) as a reference.
  • [6] Took 3 edits and added incorrectly again and another fan site.
  • [7] Unsourced
  • [8] Vandalizing the page now.

Check his user page is now calling me an asshole and there are 3 editors reverting his edits as we speak cause hes trashing crap left and right. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The user has just now gone on to much more overtly vandalize We R Who We R. I have blocked them for 31 hours for disruptive editing, their second block for such. - Vianello (Talk) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Wikibreak Enforcer[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is the correct place to request this. Hey, this is Silver seren. I put myself under an enforced wikibreak at the beginning of November because of my participation in NaNoWriMo. However, i've withdrawn from the competition, so I would like to have the script removed from my monobook. I did put this forth to Moonriddengirl here, but it seems that she's offline. Could some other admin remove the script for me? 165.91.173.45 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you just temporarily disable javascript? StrPby (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. Graham87 01:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. SilverserenC 01:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

Edit protected redirect Please edit Mark Felt to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects and possibly add {{DEFAULTSORT:Felt, Mark}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 02:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz talk 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fundraiser launch tomorrow[edit]

Hello AN,

Just a reminder that the 2010 fundraiser will kick off tomorrow morning. Please be on the lookout for any issues; you can report them in #wikimedia-fundraising in IRC, or to me via the user email function. Example: someone blocks the fundraising banners from the main page, that'd be a big deal, but minor issues are important too. The more successful we are, the faster the banners go away, so lets help make this a success. Please also consider joining the Wikipedia Contribution Team if you'd like to assist through article contributions and other non-financial ways. Regards, DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

this is an odd thread. Does 'tomorrow' mean the 16th November? - I'm pretty sure the fundraiser is scheduled to start 15th Nov, but either ways, the timestamp shenanigans are kinda counter-productive here, making the important information almost impossible to discern! doh! Privatemusings (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The fundraiser officially launches on the 15th. However, starting tomorrow (Friday, the 12th) we'll be going to 100% on the banners for final load testing. So, even though the launch is actually Monday, most users will be seeing it as if it were tomorrow. As a result, we really want the weekend to find and address any issues. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 23:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks for the clarification :-) - it was the fact that you appear to have made the op four days into the future which confuddles me :-) (good luck and fingers crossed for a smooth launch too....) Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, duh. Yes, I signed it in the future to make it last longer. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 01:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait, I can sign things in the future? I will be able to avoid WP:CRYSTAL that way! :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, the fundraiser is going great so far! Today we broke an all-time one-day record for fundraising [9], $465,969 and the day's not quite over yet! Congrats Swatjester & the fundraising team! --Aude (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! We don't even technically launch until tomorrow so we are extra excited. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del[edit]

Can someone please move Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) to Ctrl+Alt+Del? This was deemed an uncontroversial pagemove, but I can't do it myself since the article's move-protected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. EdokterTalk 21:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist site-notice[edit]

It seems to me that this site notice is rather.. specific, for something as broad as Wikipedia. Isn't there some amount of discussion required for such a banner?— dαlus Contribs 03:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The WMF can advertise whatever it wants on the servers it owns. It appears to have a fundraising drive every year.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I thought my complaint was clear; that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the site notice on the watchlist.— dαlus Contribs 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo needs a castle you churls. That kind of advertising is what keeps the speaking fees rolling in. Don't you get it? Man has got to eat. Bali ultimate (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I am not talking about the fundraiser, but the notice on the watchlist that advertises a specific event in San Diego.— dαlus Contribs 05:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean the one specific to you as I have one specifc to my approximate geographic(give or take 60 miles) locationHeiro 05:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, he must have updated to the new skin. I don't see any of that stuff. How horrible.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
First of all, no, I have not upgraded. Second, if all you're going to do is sit here and mock me, please find something more productive to do.— dαlus Contribs 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me be clear: I'm mocking the fellow who's using a "foundation" as the marketting wing of his personal speaking empire. As for the skin -- i apologize. I don't see any of that stuff unless i go looking for it. I was born lucky.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should take a step back from the insults and mocking, and be civil and you know, build an encyclopedia. SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The San Diego and other notices seems to be localised. Note also that the fund-raiser banner may be turned off within your user preferences. I'm not seeing it now anyway so I suppose there's some intelligence in that feature too. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's WP:GEONOTICE. T. Canens (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct; it is a geonotice for WP:USPP. Please consider volunteering. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Page history fixes needed[edit]

Resolved: Histories moved to proper locations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Last year Mister Mystery (talk · contribs) (who has not edited for over 6 months) decided to perform some cut and paste moves that affect Stone Cold Sober (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Stone Cold Sober (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The history of all three of these pages need to be merged/split/etc. in some fashion, ASAP, to restore the GFDL attributions. Something may also have to be done with Stone Cold Sober (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, hopefully correctly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, no. Stone Cold Sober (album) now hosts what was once Stone Cold Sober (the song, a.k.a. Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song)). While Stone Cold Sober also hosts the same song. I don't know where the album is now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the album is in the history of Stone Cold Sober (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The refs from June 23 to July 20, 2009, and August 6, 2009, onward in that page are what was once at Stone Cold Sober (Paloma Faith song). Now Stone Cold Sober (album) hosts all from Stone Cold Sober that was turned into the Paloma Faith song after the initial cut paste move.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
All of the history of the album is on one page. But the history of the song is on two now, between these revisions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock message templates[edit]

Since this will concern admins the most, I could use some input on my overhaul of {{unblock}} and related message templates. Please head over to the talk page and give your opinion on the redesigned templates displayed on the test cases page. EdokterTalk 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had some great feedback and made a lot of improvements. Please have a look. If there are no objections, they can go live soon. EdokterTalk 15:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

backlog at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion[edit]

We keep getting backlogged at WP:SFD, and we currently have 1 discussion over 1 month overdue on closing and several others which can be closed. As an active participent in WikiProject Stub sorting, I frequently nominate pages here, or comment on the nominations, which means that I can't close a lot of them. Help would be appreciated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Review by uninvolved admin needed[edit]

Could someone please take a look at "Proposal to amend ban on SRQ..." on AN/I and decide whether any action is warranted? The thread just scrolled off with no action taken and had to be restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request[edit]

After LouisPhilippeCharles had an {{unblock}} request declined, he used his talk page as a sandbox for Ferdinando de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, removing the unblock request in the process. After I reverted him, he started up again with the edit summary of "please dont be rude, the request box is saved on this page just as a hidden message so i have breached nothing!!!!", and continued several more edits. Today, I reverted him, left him a warning not to use his talk page like that, and RevDeled all his revisions. I would like to know if other users think my actions there are correct. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have my problems with this user, but I doubt that revision deletion was correct – because speedy G5 was hardly a valid deletion rationale. He clearly didn't create his own talk page (in January!) in violation of his current one-week ban. What is more, I don't think blocked editors should normally be restricted from doing valuable content work on their talk pages. But I can't verify that that is what happened or whether he was just preparing page versions for future page moves. Hans Adler 14:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not me. Declined unblock requests are only to be kept around to prevent blocked users shopping around between different admins. As long as there's no further appeals while the previous message is absent, there's no particular reason to enforce its presence. As for the revdeletion, assuming there's no vandalism in it that I'm missing, I don't think there's any basis to delete the revisions. I'd have been persuaded if you'd deleted the revisions under RD1 as a blatant copyvio instead.
I think the real test for revdeletion is whether, in the good old days, you would have deleted the entire talk page and restored it without those revisions. In this case I'd be very surprised if anyone would have done that. We reserve that treatment for trolls of the lowest order. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he should stopped from writing legit, non-copyvio articles on his talk page (we often ask trolls to do that to show that they intend to return, but he is not a real troll), and the RevDel doesn't seem completely appropriate. If he doesn't stop being disruptive, you can revoke his talk page ability, but RevDel'ing the content seems like overkill and not covered by the RD criteria. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Not correct, as noted by others: it's just not RevDel material. In addition, whilst removing declined unblock requests is unhelpful, it is permitted. A far more helpful response would have been moving the draft material to a user subpage - if there's no particular problem with the material itself. In combination with that, you could restore the unblock decline, saying that he could remove it if he really wished, but it would be preferable to keep it until the block expires. Rd232 talk 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I've not looked at the larger issue, but this caught my eye: according to WP:BLANKING, they may not be removed during an active block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Huh. How long has that been there? Still, in combination with restoring the unblock decline and explaining it may not be removed, I'd have moved the draft to a subpage. Rd232 talk 18:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. As far back as I remember. :) (Given my memory, this doesn't mean a lot. :/) I think a subpage would have been a good solution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not been permitted to remove declined unblock requests for as long as I've been active. It's one of the few exceptions imposed by WP:OWNTALK. The revisions clearly didn't meet the revdel requirements though, I don't see why they were deleted; even reverting them seems a bit counterproductive if it's a constructive draft; the unblock template could simply have been restored and the draft left in place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Problem with a subpage is that the user now can't edit the draft at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Mm, yes, they can only edit their talk page when blocked, not user subpages... But they can save changes into an offline document while blocked, and paste into the subpage for preview/testing. Rd232 talk 10:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The RevDel was probably wrong, and should be self-reverted. I see no problem with him using his talk page as a sandbox, so long as his talk page remains available for comments. No harm, no foul.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Od, would you mind confirming why you thought Rev Delete was appropriate? I don't think the action was correct, but in this case I do think it's an honest mistake, and I've become quite interested in what people think is in the RevDelete policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also another question here about blanking content. I placed a block on this user of one week with an explanation of why it had been imposed on the users talk page. Before applying for an unblock the user blanked the section, replacing it with an inaccurate summary. Is there a procedure for dealing with this sort of action, as it is time consuming to force a reviewing administrator to hunt through the talk page history to find the relevant information when reviewing a unblock request. -- PBS (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to look at this (second time I ask)[edit]

This is now the second time I ask for this here.

There has been a very long discussion here: [10], someone is needed to go through this entire discussion and see if there is consensus. Its important that you look at the arguments. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Following such a deliciously sweet and tempting request, I hovered my cursor over the link... I am not surprised you did not give a clue as to what the discussion (it is Israel/Palestine, folks!), and the exhortation to look at the "arguments" gives an indication which way you think a reviewing sysop should decide. I have found that in such areas the only way to get agreement between the differing parties is in condemning the poor admin who fails to please either side with their conclusion (regardless on how well the sysop actually performed the task.) Next time, why not be honest and request "Fool with flags and thick skin wanted"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if some parts will "condemn" the admin. Consensus is based on arguments, so this is the only thing that matters in the discussion, not saying "no" and bringing no intelligent argument to the conversation, this is why someone is needed to read through everything. This is one of the few occasions where editors have discussed a problem instead of edit warring within the Arab-Israeli conflict, are admins gonna turn there back on these participants? If admins wont even take a look at it then this will send a message to these editors that dialogue doesn't help. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
If by this coming weekend no admin has fancied sticking their head over the parapet, drop me a note on my talkpage; I will look over it and decide if I am inclined to do a full review and pass a judgement - after all, I have done a bit on Eastern European, Climate Change, Northern Ireland, t/The Beatles, so I may as well try for an Isreal/Palestinian patch... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Above comment is +1, insightful. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is now the second time I ask for this here. Oh, I'm so sorry. If you send me your home address, I'll send you a $500 credit-note as compensation. ╟─TreasuryTagNot-content─╢ 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    Above comment is -1, not funny and not helpful. Rd232 talk 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    Whereas the whinging tone of, "How come I have to ask a bunch of volunteers more than once to carry out an enormous and thankless task?" was both funny and helpful? ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    Are you in need of some wet fish? Because applying it may be both funny and helpful. Rd232 talk 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's an incredibly long and convoluted (but, given the topic, surprisingly polite) discussion about how to address the legal status of Israeli settlements in the articles about them. Several proposals have been discussed in depth. After a brief scrollthrough I'm not sure that any consensus can be found in it, though, but perhaps it's obscured by the sheer length of the discussion. If not, my recommendation for the closing admin would be to extract the most-discussed proposals and set up a more structured and community-advertised discussion about them, such as an RfC. I have a feeling that there may well be a consensus solution coming out of a structured discussion, as the proposals that were put forward seem to vary mostly in phrasing details.  Sandstein  22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese characters in article titles[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Chinese characters in article titles. –xenotalk 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There's an increasing number of articles which use Chinese characters as titles. In fact there's a whole category of them here. It seems to me this is a breach of policy at WP:UE and the guideline at WP:NC-CHINA, and they should all be transliterated into Pinyin. andy (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What harm do they do? They're disambiguation pages! Physchim62 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Physchim. If they were actually articles, that would be one thing, but disambiguation pages are definitely useful in that format. It is highly possible that Chinese users with alternate keyboards will enter in words like that (Don't ask me why they wouldn't just go to Chinese Wikipedia, but it's still possible), so it is necessary to direct them to the proper pages with the terms, especially since these terms seem to have multiple articles related to them, hence the disambiguation pages in the first place. SilverserenC 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention people who are copypasting without necessarily knowing all the pronunciations. And then there's the fact that Chinese characters are also used in Japanese and Korean... Physchim62 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't that open the door to a whole slew of dab pages in other languages? Why should Chinese be different? What about languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet, or Arabic or Hebrew -- should we allow dabs in which the title is written right to left?

It seems to me that this is en.wiki and that all article titles, dab or otherwise, should be readable by English-speakers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record here; Chinese and Japanese characters don't match up 100%. There are some Japanese kanji that Chinese people can't read, and vice versa. As for Korean hanja, that's basically classical Chinese writing; most Koreans don't know more than basic hanja, and most Chinese and Japanese people don't read a huge amount of classical writing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
truism. I know for a fact that Japanese simplifies characters such as 廣 and 龍 differently, and it incorporates a few simplified Chinese characters, e.g. 国、区、学 into its writing. Hence why the "東北大學" debate below was pointless. If we keep strict to native naming standards, then it should have simply re-directed to the mainland Chinese university. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There was at least one AFD that was easily findable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學 that failed to find consensus. According to some of the comments there (and forgive me if I misspeak, I'm not that familiar in this area), different cultures may use the Chinese characters for things but pronounce them differently which causes the English language transliteration to be different. Personally, I can see the benefit of them as dab pages. Syrthiss (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I hate to be anal but the policy doesn't have exceptions for dab pages. And why should the English wikipedia provide dab pages for non-English languages? On the same basis the Chinese wikipedia should be full of English dab pages... andy (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Since there is apparently a extraEnglish (which I thought I was just coining, but apparently exists according to my spell checker) reasoning for them then perhaps we should modify the policy to not be so xenophobic (in a good faith way, to be sure) or IAR and just leave them and bollocks to the policy. If we're going to modify the policy, it needs to take place in a venue that isn't AN (to be anal as well). Syrthiss (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree there should be no exceptions - unless we want to say that dab pages can be in any language and any characters. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ironically enough, the close to that AfD doesn't say what it's supposed to say..."没有公众舆论" means "no public opinion", not "no consensus"... T. Canens (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for an RfC! I can see both sides of this issue, & can live with either decision as long as it's clear everyone with an opinion was given a chance to speak. However, it's nothing that either Superman or an Admin can do anything about (except offer an opinion about), so can this issue be taken there? Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the correct venue for such an RfC? one asks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Article titles seems a suitable location. Physchim62 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
One can't simply create Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Chinese characters in article titles? If so, then many changes on Wikipedia have not been an improvement. :-( llywrch (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
@Llywrch: Perhaps you can, I've just never done anything like a general RfC before, and I thought the venue should be one which would attract people interested in the subject. I've no idea if the RfC area is high-volume or not, or whether, like some other areas, most of the traffic is from "regulars". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
BMK, no matter where the RfC is created, just make sure it's announced at the Village Pump & has a link at Template:Centralized discussion‎. IMHO, those steps ought to get everyone's attention. -- llywrch (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It should be something like Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Non-roman characters in disambiguation page titles as no one is arguing that article titles should contain them. And it should also be announced to all related WikiProjects, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That is a much better suggestion. What would count as related Wikiprojects though? The disambiguation one, obviously, but what else? SilverserenC 07:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Any of the CJKV projects (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese), any projects about topics which generally use Cyrillic, Arabic, any of the southeast Asian projects, etc. Pretty much any which don't use Roman characters as their first mode of communication. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A dab page is an article but it's arguable that a redirect is. So there are two separate issues here. andy (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
again, a DAB page is not an article per se. And considering that a re-direct is an article is irrational. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Moreover it should be Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Non-roman characters in article titles, in which case an awful lot of policies and guidelines are thrown into doubt, perhaps even the idea that en.wikipedia.org is... err... English? (And of course that Russian WP is Russian, Thai WP is Thai and so on). My reason for raising this issue in the first place was to get a view on whether Chinese titles should be transliterated or if I'd missed some finer point of policy, not whether the working language of this encyclopaedia should remain English! andy (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't use that sort of title, Andy, since what we're proposing here is the use of disambiguation pages with non-roman characters in order to direct readers to pages with roman characters. The title you've proposed is misleading and will obviously get people to oppose it. SilverserenC 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I know we're not officially voting yet, but I may not catch when we do so I want to make my opinion heard. From what I can see, most of these articles are about characters or character sequences, and as such, cannot really be transliterated. For example, is pronounced "jing" in Mandarin Chinese, "ging" in Cantonese, "kinh" in old Vietnamese, "kyō" or "miyako" in Japanese, and "gyeong" in Korean. There are probably even more pronunciations if you look at different Chinese dialects. If we insisted on Romanizing every article title, this would have to either be split into many pages, or we'd pick one of them and treat the others as variant spellings. Soap 00:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Darn Chinese characters; you read them and then half an hour later you want to read something... HalfShadow 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason not to have Chinese characters in titles of redirects and dab pages, which is the only place I see them now anyway. Does anyone have any examples of articles with Chinese characters in the title? (Also, this would be more appropriate at WT:NC, WP:VP, or WP:RFC, as it's not an administrator issue). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Some of articles on the 100 Family Surnames may have Chinese within their titles for disambiguation. I don't know readily know which, so... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't we have WP:UE for a reason?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
who are you replying to? your indentation makes this ambiguous. and very interesting SN, BTW. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm commenting on the thread in general. WP:UE is a policy, after all, and having hànzì/hanja/hán tự/kanji and other non-Roman symbols really are not necessary in titles on the English Wikipedia unless it's a redirect solely concerning that character (such as redirects for a (kana), etc.). Having 東北大學 does not help the English language project. Also my username is irrelevant to this discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
oh really? 東北大學 is a re-direct. you somehow contradicted yourself. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) I'm not keen to see this. If we allow the chinese characters thing to stand, then everyone will get into the act. And there are a lot of languages and scripts. Also, we'd have to consider whether to allow only transliterations of the original article or allow transliterations of every redirect page that points to the article. This is going to result in thousands of redirects for every article (I can already see someone writing a bot for this) and that seems both pointless as well as excessive. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An additional point to consider is that this will become a boon for POV warriors. Since most people here can't read chinese, burmese, or maltese characters, it will be much easier to introduce a fringe or nonsense view as a redirect and hope that no one notices. Enough of these show up in English and we can do without the additional problem of detecting these in other scripts. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
od? what is that? "If we allow the Chinese characters thing to stand..." the fact that these debates are being brought up reduces the ambiguity, allowing what you consider to be "everyone getting into the act". and I interpret the sentence "...allow only transliterations..." to be self-defeating. We should obviously only allow transliterations of the original article title (and legitimate variations) in the native language(s). Contrary to what you believe, there aren't thousands of varieties of Chinese.
the re-directs help those learners of the language in question to copy-and-paste in the search field and read more about the subject at hand. They are not pointless. There already are thousands of them, and to mass delete them would infuriate countless users.
give me a foreign-language POV example. As far as I know, re-directs such as 台独分子 don't exist. I understand the concern, but the absence of an example as major as the one I gave (even on the Chinese wiki) indicates something. It shouldn't take long for you to realise this implication... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What I meant was that there are many languages (not varieties of Chinese). Obviously, if we allow chinese characters in redirects, then we will also allow Hindi, Albanian, or Maltese. A page like India has 32 redirects into it already. 100 languages X 32 redirects = 3200 redirect pages. A bit much, IMO. About the POV guys. Take something like 1984 Sikh Genocide, a title that is way fringe. Creating a Gurmukhi redirect with that title would be hard to counter (few editors here can read Gurmukhi). There are many such alternative titles that don't even exist as redirects on the english wikipedia that will get a new life in other scripts. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
no. just no. we shouldn't allow re-directs from languages that are not native to the article in question. ok? issue resolved?
the re-direct POV concern is legitimate but at most means trouble. It should not result in a ban on non-POV, appropriate re-directs. That would be collateral damage. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 19:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(od means he outdented. Syrthiss (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

@Syrthiss: Thanks! --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IRC question[edit]

Am I the only one experiencing IRC trouble right now? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's good. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Or functioning, in any case. ;-) - Burpelson AFB 18:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes in Checkuser/Oversight permissions[edit]

This will serve to inform the community of personnel changes in the Checkuser and Oversight teams.

Mackensen (talk · contribs) is stepping down as a checkuser. Mackensen is a former member of the Arbitration Committee and retained his advanced permissions after the end of his term. He served as one of the founding members of the Audit Subcommittee and helped to establish its parameters and processes, serving on the subcommittee until mid-November 2009. He stepped down as an oversighter earlier this year, and is now stepping down as a checkuser, as his focus on Wikipedia has increasingly returned to content development and improvement. As a former arbitrator, Mackensen will remain a member of the Functionaries-en-L mailing list. We thank Mackensen for his longtime participation in all of these functionary roles, and for his continued commitment to all aspects of the project.

Vassyana (talk · contribs) is a former arbitrator who stepped down in January of 2010, but retained Checkuser permissions. Luna Santin (talk · contribs) is one of the first community-elected checkusers and oversighters. Neither Vassyana nor Luna Santin have been active on Wikipedia in their functionary roles for more than six months, and attempts to contact them via email have been unsuccessful. Because of this, the Arbitration Committee is withdrawing checkuser and oversight permissions, as applicable. Requests for reinstatement may be made to the Arbitration Committee. We thank both Vassyana and Luna Santin for their longterm commitment to Wikipedia in the various roles that they have assumed over their several years of volunteering, and hope that they are both enjoying success in whatever new endeavours they are participating in.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posted to AN by NW (Talk) 21:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Discuss this

Backlog at requested moves[edit]

We are currently backed up 45 days at Wikipedia:RM. Any admins want to jump in? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Or non-admins, for that matter. (Remember, {{db-move}} is your friend.) Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Turqoise127[edit]

After having his favorite article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (3rd nomination) (endorsed at DRV), Turqoise127 proceeded to tag for notability or nominate for deletion articles created by User:Smartse, [11] [12] [13] who has disagreed strongly with Turqoise in that fabled AfD.

Turqoise127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page is full of complaints for incivility and he has received a recent block for it. Smartse is not the only "opponent" to suffer the wrath of Turqoise127. Drmies, another editor who has disagreed with him received this nastygram. Looking at his recent edit history, I question whether Turqoise127 editor has anything left to contribute to Wikipedia, beside personal feuds. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That was not my favorite article, I just worked hard on it is all. During the AfD you speak of, editor SmartSE "looked through the contributions" of a "keep" voting editor (PamelaBMX) and had a picture she contributed deleted. I am simply immitating (learning from) the actions of an experienced editor, and in looking through SmartSE's contributions I seem to be finding quite a few articles that I feel are lacking on notability. It seems that for some of these articles (like DJ Skitz) there are other editors who feel the same, and for other contributions (like Herman Phaff) I may be mistaking and the community may decide "keep". Alas, such is the nature of the project, no? Anyhow, if I am to be repremanded here, I do hope the same is applied to editor SmartSE who I learned this from, so that there is no appearance of double standards or favoritizm.
In addition, I feel it is important to note that my talk page "being full of incivility complaints" only pertain to notes on the AfD in question; so does the block. I do not have a history of uncivil behavior. RespectfullyTurqoise127 19:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the picture I nominated for deletion was File:Lonelydeat.jpg - a blatant copyvio. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support community banBlock of at least one week. While it is perfectly appropriate to review problematic editors' contribution histories for problems, Turqoise127's actions cannot be viewed as neutral cleanup actions for the benefit of the project. Rather, they are, by and large, not based in policy and guideline, which is clear from the overwhelming community disagreement with his assessments. Moreover, Turqoise127 has made a series of uncivil remarks in AfD discussions and talk pages, engaged in canvassing, bludgeoned the process wherever he has gotten involved, and—ironically and falsely—accused numerous other editors of engaging in this sort of behavior. Especially since the deletion of Kresimir Chris Kunej, this editor has shown no interest in improving the project, and abundant interest in disrupting it. Bongomatic 20:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Amended supported outcome. If after a block the editor decides to contribute to the project (including legitimate deletion nominations—something I view as a positive contribution), it would be a good outcome. The fact that there is no hint of the possibility of this potentiality right now, in the wake of a sting, doesn't mean it isn't possible in the future. Bongomatic 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Community ban - I see lots of evidence of disruptive behavior and little evidence of productivity or desire to stop being disruptive. - Burpelson AFB 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The DJ Skitz article and the time of the AfD was quite problematic, and I think that if it had been impossible to improve it, it would certainly have been deleted. (It has now been improved by SmartSE to the extent that the result will be quite different--all the delete comments there were made before the improvements). However, the Hibberd tagging was ill-considered, and the Phaff nomination absurd. It is quite acceptable to look at an editor's contributions if there is reason to suspect there's a persistent problem: I do so frequently in response to what I may see at deletion processes. But to then challenge the good as well as the bad is an unacceptable response, and does indicate harassment. True, this is only 3 articles, not a long-running pattern. But the worst part of this is clarified by your own statement above, that you clearly did this based on personal antagonism, rather than in good faith. This is behaviour that if continued, would be worthy of a community ban. But a community ban at this point would be excessive--the only previous admin action has been a 24 hour block. The normal response to continued activity like what is being discussed would be rapidly increasing blocks, and I think that anything further of the sort will be met by one. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are other articles too. I just fixed this one a short time ago. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
  • AfD for Phaff closed as speedy keep, and blocked one week for self-admitted harassment; it's bad enough by itself, doing it right after a previous block is entirely unacceptable. Community ban at this moment seems to be overkill. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My history with Turqoise is well-known to enough editors here. Around the time of the first AfD I tried communicating with them in a more positive manner (more positive than in the charged atmosphere of AfD), since I would like to see us have contributions from people who obviously have expertise in linguistics, for instance. However, since then things have gone downhill. I am not going to provide a list of diffs with personal insults, pointy notability tags, and such, though Turqoise has followed me, Bongo, and even ChildofMidnight around, tagging articles in a disruptive and pointy manner. I have little respect for their combative rhetoric and ad hominem accusations, and even less for the conspiracy accusations (the Bacon cabal thing) they have flung around a few times, and I think that the one-week block is well justified, and could be longer.

    However, blocks should not be punitive; they should prevent further disruption, and right now, given the most recent of Turqoise's edits, a block is well warranted. The remarks by Canens (feel free to expand and/or clarify; Turqoise will appreciate that and so will we) and especially DGG are a good indication of why this block was executed, and should serve as sufficient warning that future disruptions will not be tolerated--not just by some anti-Kunej cabal, but by the community. In other words, at the risk of repeating myself: it needs to be absolutely clear to Turqoise that this block enforces Wikipedia guidelines and policies on behavior and editing, that it does not simply express the opinion of a select group of editors who shopped around for a friendly admin (for the record, Canens, I think this is the first time I've run into you). Further disruption can lead to an indefinite block.

    I do not support a community ban, because I want Turqoise to edit and write content, and I hope that they will prove their ability to participate in improving the pedia. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • A month Block, but no ban Some very immature behavior but I see nothing warranting a ban. I would need to see socking after a Block, an RFC/U or Arbitration Case before supporting a ban. There a tad over reaction here me thinks The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. No opinion either way here. I did "side" with the individual on trial here briefly. What I don't understand is, from what I have been reading, most participants here seem to be highly educated and intelligent (PhD's. tenures), yet avoid an apparent flaw in this system. The only answer can be, they are well aware but it suits them. I think turqoise has shown us that everyone has an article they like that may be marginal, and we will all defend it dearly. What decides are interpretations of marginal sources and strength in numbers. What was it that made the involved editors try and try again to delete that article with repeated noms so to get desired result? Because I tend to vote and move on, maybe check back once or twice. Despite Drmies' superficial forgiving appeal above, he nominated this article twice, kept coming back, was uncivil (outing editor), etc. Certain others were also very persistent. Had this user reported earlier events here, would outcomes have been different? Is he being punished also for not being so familiar with processes here? I guess I can see this happening to others (myself included) and I do not like it. I guess I expected more from admins, too.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite bizarre to complain about Drmies's multiple nominations when the first one resulted in a deletion—renominating an article one time after it's recreated following a deletion discussion surely isn't objectionable. Drmies didn't nominate it subsequently to the discussion that resulted in a keep. It's also bizarre to complain about "multiple nominations" at all when the article has been nominated three times in total, and the result was delete in two of the discussions. The possibly legitimate circumstances to complain about multiple nominations is when the article is kept repeatedly—that is not the case here. Bongomatic 05:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
That's part of the conspiracy thinking. When it was kept, it was done rightfully so, by the community; when it was deleted (2 out of 3 times), it was done by a secretive group who either bent the rules of the game or simply broke them. Like I said above, I have no patience for conspiracy theories. WildHorses, I have no need to listen to you talking about "superficial forgiveness"--please keep those value judgments about depth and shallowness to yourself. If anyone has gotten s**t thrown at them by Turqoise, it's me, and I don't care. I didn't start this thread here, and I wouldn't have. I've been angry myself, and hopefully some of the people I've hurt have forgiven me or forgotten. Anyway, Bongo has already pointed out the factual errors in your argument, so your contrasting my 'superficial' attitude with my below the belt actions toward Turqoise turns out to be a hoax. Good day. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Aahh, but you admit on your user page to be part of the goy cabal! ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lonnie Athens[edit]

Resolved: There isn't an attribution problem, so a histmerge isn't necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone do a history merge for Lonnie Athens and User:Rstacy2010? Rstacy2010 (talk · contribs) did a cut-and-paste move. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need as Rstacy2010 did all the substantial work on it. Your contribution was putting a space character in! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
More to the point, all of the edits which would be lost by this copy-and-paste move were made by the user, so there's no attribution problem: everything the user inserted into the article on its creation, they wrote themselves. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light[edit]

The Speed of light case is supplemented as follows:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed by motion 8 to 1 at 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Possible Skype Spam[edit]

Resolved

Can someone take a look at this diff, please. I'm not sure why Skype is plastered all over the page. Is this some kind of spam? Fly by Night (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some kind of speech to text editing software? Syrthiss (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
its the skype addon that highlights phone numbers. ΔT The only constant 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
See related discussions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, at least it's not spam. Thanks zzuuzz. Fly by Night (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

unblock request review please[edit]

Resolved: blocking admin has lifted the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say the original block was unjustified, but 198.105.8.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for five years in June of last year. The logged reason for the block is "checkuserblock". The admin who made the block appears to be only semi-active. I have asked for their input but it may be a while and I would prefer to resolve this in a timely manner. The ip is apparently a library and the request states that the library now has monitoring tools in place to help prevent abuse. I'm honestly not sure what the right move is here and would appreciate input from other users and admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is a checkuserblock, I suggest contacting the CU's who may have their reasons for blocking this facility; let them know what the address holder has done, and see if that suffices for them to agree? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If the blocking admin is not active and doesn't respond to an (e-mail?) query about why they thought this long a block was required, I'd support unblocking the IP per WP:AGF. It can always be reblocked in case of problems.  Sandstein  21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Statement on checkuser blocks. T. Canens (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
True. So that decision outlines the route to take if the blocking admin does not respond.  Sandstein  21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think functionaries-l, which includes CUs and Arbcom members (as well as some others) would be a good point of contact.