Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive119

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

Noticeboard archives



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There doesn't appear to be a problem here, other than that of a Single-purpose account being a bit disruptive, making a complaint without merit. Any admins who feel this isn't resolved are welcome to revert this, but I doubt that will happen. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BigHaz is being uncivil (see his talk page, contributions, and activity logs). He is telling a user very rudely that they have been blocked. I know it's OK to tell someone that they have been blocked, but isn't this going a bit too far? He was even giving a threat - see here: [1]. Please block him. (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

the lack of merit of this block request is, indeed, obvious from the talk page of the user being complained of. DGG (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh? (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Submitter must be joking. RlevseTalk 02:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This ain't no joke. (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please block him - I don't want him to get away with those nasty comments. (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Request for Comment Backlog[edit]

For about the past ten days, people have been complaining about apparent inaction of the RfC bot at the RfC talk page, and no one has been responding to complaints/queries. Can someone knowledgable about the bot review these comments and respond? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

as the author of the RfC bot Ill get my copy running. βcommand 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that backlog was caused by improper template usage. βcommand 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


[2] Cross post, Mercury 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

... just in case anyone is, like, really bored :) - Alison 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ive been slacking, Ill get BCBot working on WP:MTC βcommand —Preceding comment was added at 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BigHaz (again)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User being disruptive, again; Making complaints with no merit. IP temporarily blocked. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please block BigHaz - I don't want him to get away with those nasty comments that he made on his talk page, contributions, and activity logs. (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like you asked above? Where it was comepletely rejected? If you continue to post in this manner, you'll likely find yourself blocked. — Scientizzle 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) both resolve to the same set of IPs...I'm blocking based on continued disruption. Go play elsewhere. — Scientizzle 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath[edit]

The above Arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed at the link above. RodentofDeath is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and Susanbryce is reminded of the prohibition on using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthøny 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

1000 featured pictures[edit]

The 1000th featured picture - A Tau Emerald, Hemicordulia tau, in flight over a creek

The English Wikipedia now has 1000 featured pictures. The 1000th FP is of a dragonfly in flight, see its nomination. Congratulations to Fir0002, who took this image and all those who have contributed to the featured picture process here on Wikipedia! MER-C 03:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Help Please[edit]

Resolved: John Reaves sorted it :) - Alison 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I need an admin. Please see my talk page / Discusion Thanks Gth629jHelp (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This person is requesting Right to Vanish on their already blocked other account. From their talk page, it looks like it's being taken care of - Alison 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Now the user wants the talk page of this account deleted as well.--Urban Rose (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Move reversed; discussion at Talk:Sting.Gimmetrow 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin sort out the mess of double redirects and dubious page moves (some of the redirects now have a proper history so I can't do it myself) at the following pages:

There seems to be some disagreement over what Sting should contain/redirect to and that can be discussed later at WP:RM but at the moment the pages are not even navigable. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that Sting was moved to Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner. If that were to be reversed, all the above will work again properly. I've made the move request at WP:RM. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. One redirect had already been "corrected". Please discuss what should be done somewhere, but there are a lot of redirects pointing at Sting assuming it's the musician, including Gordon Summer, Sting (music), Sting (singer), Gordon Matthew Sumner, and Sting (artist). Gimmetrow 06:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think things are fine as they are now. Any discussions should take place at Talk:Sting, correct? Someone should contact the editor that made the move and explain how such things work. I'm not sure I'm feeling that articulate about that at the moment. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave a note for the user. Gimmetrow 06:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Am I the only one who finds the new lime-green {{resolved}} hideous? — Coren (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: that we change the color of this template!
 :) —Kurykh 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're kinda not the only one, I went by AN today and found this to be (insert ??? here.) BoL 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Resolved: I think Coren would like this better. BoL 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, the old was was ugly. I've went ahead and removed the explicit solid background, keeping the new (admitedly nicer) icon and spacing. — Coren (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
An, now that looks better. But I think you should have created a sub-template with that. I think I kinda liked the lime green better, but, eh, BoL 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I tweak it a bit further? I can make it green without making it obstusive (It's now transparent). Also sizing could do with a little tweaking. EdokterTalk 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter to me as long as we use it often and wisely. 1 != 2 16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't own it — all I wanted was to remove the horrid lime-green background. I'm partial to transparent (because it will then take the light tinge of non-article namespace), but not attached to it. — Coren (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There, tweaked the (font) sizes and softened the colors a bit. Can you see it's green...ish? EdokterTalk 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You'll love my userpage then! </sarcasm> James086Talk | Email 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Any rules allowing swapping pages?[edit]


It has been borught to my attention (through CAT:CSD), that the content of Alina should be moved to Alina Smith, but that page already exists. I was thinking of the following solution to the probelm:

  1. Move Alina Smith to a temporary name
  2. Move Alina to Alina Smith
  3. Move the temporary page to Alina, to preserve the history. The resulting redirect can then be speedied under G6.
  4. Change Alina into a redirect/disambig page.

Is that okay? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. This is what I was intending:
  1. Delete Alina Smith; since it's a copy
  2. Move Alina to Alina Smith; since Alina Smith is the proper name and Alina has the history.
  3. Redirect Alina to Alina Smith.

--Dan LeveilleTALK 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This would meen loosing the history of Alina Smith - unless it is just a copy of Alina, I don't think this is appropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed everything up, hopefully. east.718 at 11:53, December 30, 2007
Like I said before it IS a copy, so my way would be completely fine. There was no history that needed to be kept. But anyway, East718 already did it the way you were intending --Dan LeveilleTALK 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Review discussions regarding naming of UK Skyscrapers.[edit]

There has been ongoing debate and an independent administrator need to review the arguments regarding the articles. As wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy the number of support and oppose "votes" are irrelevant. Also the discussions have not concluded and changes to the articles have been made before the articles the discussions have concluded. Please review 201 Bishopsgate, 110 Bishopsgate, 25-33 Canada Square, 301/3 Deansgate, and 1 Blackfriars. Some of the articles did not even have discussions regarding the name on the pages and were moved unilaterally, with the full knowledge that discussions on the names of other buildings were being conducted. I believe that the naming convention needs changing and a proposal has been made Here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You again! That's twice in a couple of days I've seen you cause disruption on wikipedia by stubbornly going against concensus. When you have no support among the people who actually edit these pages what do you hope to gain by asking an admin to overide the concensus? Sorry if I sound irritated but really you have to learn to work with people. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Lucy-marie, as per the warning on your talkpage, I am fed up with your permanent edit-warring, sockpuppetry and forum shopping. WP:BOLD gives you the right to make changes; it does not give you the right to forum-shop and disrupt when every other user who's expressed an opinion on the matter disagrees with you. As per my warning, you are well past your final warning - if you weren't an established user, you'd have been indefblocked long ago - and if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, sockpuppeteer and make WP:POINTy changes, I won't hesitate to not only re-block you but hardblock your IP.iridescent 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting History[edit]

Could someone have a look at Dual Irish international footballers, and review the appropriateness of this article's use of flags with reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Do_not_rewrite_history, thankyou Fasach Nua (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Offensive and disruptive userbox[edit]


This is serious mother (talk · contribs) has a userbox on his/her page that is inflammatory, offensive, highly disruptive, and I believe a violation of WP:SOAP. [3] It says that the user sympathizes with Nazis. Userpages are not meant to be personal bullhorns for degenerate political agendas, and this particular userbox might as well say "I believe that the deliberate genocide of 6 million Jews and other people was a good thing." I asked the person on their talk page to please consider removing the userbox, however they refuse to do so. [4] This racist garbage has no place here. Would someone please tell this person to remove this drivel? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page. In the meantime, he seems not to have been here for almost 8 hours - lets wait and see what happens. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I see your point but I'm not particulary sure what action to take here, its obvious that Nazis represent a lot of negative things to most of the world (racism and genocide to mention just two) but the userbox only says that he "sympsthizes" with them, not directly stating that he supports the genocide of millions of Jewish people, now the problem is that we allow all other kinds of politically based userboxes, some that may seem irrelevant to the encyclopedia itself including those that state "I support X candidate for president" and we probably not want people to think that there is discrimination against a certain believe in Wikipedia, I would remove it but after seeing if other admins agree with me. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) It seems that trying to ask for approval of fellow admins can result in one being accused of being a "Nazi apologist" in here so I must as well remove that before this BS gets spreaded further, guess all my arguments against racism motivated edits in the past don't matter after all when the time to call somebody a "Nazi" comes, people with strong POVs of a subject should try to avoid making baseless accussations that may upset users before doing them, its quite obvious after all my anti-racism, anti-Nazi support edits during the course of my stay that I don't and never will support them, but as I can't remove the comment to avoid further misunderstanding I just tought that that I would let it clear. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't call you a "Nazi apologist", CaribbeanHQ. I said you dithered in the face of Naziism on this site. Please read my remarks more carefully. I also said not standing up to this sort of crap not only discredits this project, but helps those who espouse this POV get stronger. you seem to be offended that I commented on your not enforcing policy and guidelines here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have removed it, per WP:USER. I see no need for debate on something so offensive and polemical. Policy clearly prevents the editor from having it on their page. Jeffpw (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A glance at the contribs of This is serious mother (talk · contribs) suggest they're not here to be that productive anyway... and that this is not their first time around. Worth keeping a discreet eye on them. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok scratch waiting for him to respond, this user is obviously a blantant vandal, just check his contributions [5]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Block and forget. Avruchtalk 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the quick response. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, he hasn't been blocked yet. Corvus cornixtalk 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I was just checking it too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
And now he is :P — Save_Us_229 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


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

It appears that User:Bishonen has left us, having deleted her user and talk pages. Should her alias User:Bishzilla be deleted too now? Would WP:MfD be the correct process to follow in this case? Martintg (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why delete it? Lawrence Cohen 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Leave it. God. Bishonen is welcome to return at any time. There's no reason to go around salting her subpages. Marskell (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps I got the wrong impression, but the manner in which she left seemed like a slap in the face of the Wikipedia project and community in general. Martintg (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if it were, which I'm definitely not saying I think it was, why delete her pages? Lawrence Cohen 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What he said. If anything, Bishonen has taken slaps in the face from certain users and deserves better. SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No action required and suggest that this thread be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, btw, she edited yesterday Addhoc (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well correct me if I am wrong, as I understand it this account does not comply with Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternate_accounts, but because we all love and admire User:Bishonen it's been tolerated. But now she appears to have left, there is even less reason to retain this alternate account. Martintg (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No Avruchtalk 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete 'Zilla? Not fair, what harm she do? Admit little 'shonen pretty useless admin. 'Zilla take over admin bit, be better admin! Little Martintg confused. 'Zilla the loved and admired one ! bishzilla ROARR!! 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

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

Code shops[edit]

There are currently three "shops" on MFD at the moment.

Vintei has 230 mainspace edits out of 1350 edits. Runewiki777 has 1489 mainspace edits out of 3188 edits. IXella007 has 29 mainspace edits out of 345 edits. This is a dangerous pattern here. These users are spending way too much time with their shops and whatnot instead of working on the encyclopedia. In the past, these pages (autograph books, signature shops, secret pages, etc.) have been discussed on a case-by-case basis. We seriously need to come up with some sort of policy dealing with these unencyclopedic pages and unencyclopedic contributors soon. A user with 29 mainspace edits with the rest to his/her userspace that make up several hundred edits total should not continue to waste resources such as these MFDs and their non-contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Two of them have been already been deleted and I doubt the third one will survive for long, if a user is using Wikipedia as a host space I see no reason why these sub-pages can't be just directly deleted instead of consuming time on MFD. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I completely and totally agree (which is why I nominated several of these for deletion). See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart which was basically the same situation. In addition to the users who create the shops, there are also those who frequent the shops and who work at them. These are basically walled gardens of non-encyclopedia contributors. Something does need to be done. Metros (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I recommend having the users adopted, I used to be something like that, but lookee here, 360 mainspace out of 985 (wait, is that good?), and mainspace is the one that's at top for me. If adoption doesn't work, I'd say block. BoL 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not good. 10.5% of your edits are to userspace, whereas only 0.2% of mine are - and that's only towards a place where I collect sources for article writing. east.718 at 04:24, December 28, 2007
East718, which edit counter are you using? While your premise is correct, I'm not sure your math is.—Kurykh 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
44 edits to my userspace aside from JavaScript out of 16336 total edits (but then again, kate returns more, which it should never do, and river just breaks). east.718 at 04:55, December 28, 2007
Well, counting my edits every time I nominate an article for speedy deletion, the user:mainspace will go down. BoL 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
...and it will still constitute 36.7% of your edits. —Kurykh 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
If pages such as these aren't helping expand, edit, or maintain the encyclopedia, then I would agree that they need to be deleted. However, I don't think that a sweeping policy is warranted, since many "shops" of these types would already fail existing policies, and would be (justifiably) deleted. I'll also add that there are contributions made outside the mainspace that still contribute to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, and that raw numbers of contributions aren't necessarily a clear indication of a user's willingness to improve the project. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the gist of these. Code shops are very much an embodiment of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - however, by the same token I'm planning to create a page in my userspace about creating infoboxes - would that be allowed under policy??

Infoboxes fall into both project improvement and maintenance, and are a skill to learn. --Solumeiras talk 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

True. We can really use an example on that new codesnippets wiki, that should put the shops to rest forever. If someone comes to Wiki to build a shop, immediately delete it, but only after you transwiki the source code to the new wiki. BoL 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Solumeiras: You can do it in project space for Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. –Pomte 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling and WP:BITE[edit]

Recently I learned about New Page Patrolling and I tried my hand at it a tiny bit. I also looked at what others were doing and, frankly, found it disturbing and, IMO, not beneficial to the project. Here are a few examples:

This was just a few that I encountered very quickly. I am not here "going after" the editors that did this as they were all different and that indicates a more general problem. The problem seems to be a very WP:BITEy system wherein editors are rushing to mark new articles, often with speedy delete tags, instead of asking nicely that the author expand them a bit or even finding a reference or two themselves. This is a bad scene, no? --Alfadog (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • What admin action are you seeking here? Being an admin doesn't actually give you any extra status to deal with this kind of thing. You should address your concerns with the editors concerned. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • One could argue that feedback on the use of the delete button in the context of new articles might be of interest to all – or a substantial subset of – administrators. Reminding admins to look into new articles just a bit before giving them the axe might not, in some cases, be a bad idea. I presume that Alfadog is concerned about a general pattern (of which he gave only a few examples) rather than about the specific cases he mentioned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I should note that the revision of Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) tagged was technically speedy deletable in that form as either A1 or A7. If it was tagged a minute after it was created it might be inappropriate, but the creator had over half an hour to come up with more info than name and place of birth (the version previously deleted, created 18:54 was identical). National Coalition for Child Protection Reform read as if it was written by the group. Notability may have not been a good reason for deletion, but a speedy deletion does not prohibit recreation in a better version. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I've had to deny way too many speedys. A1 and A7 are possibly the most abused of the criteria. I admit I tried using A1 once to get rid of an article, but I've changed face since then. If you understand clearly what the thing is, it's not an A1. And A7 only applies to people, bands, groups, and web content, but I see people regularly use it for TV shows, songs, and other things. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict - reponse to original post)The best way to ensure that as many articles are treated fairly (according your viewpoint) as possible is to continue to newpage patrol - everyone works that task in the way they think best serves the encyclopedia. The more people doing it means that more time is available to check things over. Hmmmm... I think I will spend the bulk of my evening doing just that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That way lies madness. Trust me, I've been there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That's okay - my attention was quickly diverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that some newpage patrollers can slap a speedy deletion tag on an article without giving it enough review. There are indeed some hopeless cases out there, such as people writing articles about their garage bands or their classmates. There are other times when people apply a speedy delete tag within minutes of an article's creation, even though the subject matter appears at first glance to be notable and the article is still under construction. I prefer to be a little more conservative when using the speedy deletion criteria, and to apply a dose of WP:AGF when necessary. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of CSD taggings are correct. The exceptions are what stand out, but you can't adjust our CSD policies based on exceptions. The chief bad-taggings are made by new New Page Patrollers and by (oh yes) TWINKLE operators who run riot at these things and never accept responsibility for their tagging.
The real problem lies hidden in the original post - the misuse of tags in profusion ("tag and run") by (oh yes) a FRIENDLY user. More automated crap editing. Clean-up "tagging and running" is worse than tagging for deletion in many cases - I've had it done to me when I've created an article and, honestly, you just look at the tag in complete disbelief. Tags are often needed, but automated editors never follow up with a welcome message to the article creator, let alone any advice - they just tag and run. Even when they're tagging "for clean-up" a perfectly well written article from an experienced contributor.
So, again, and there is consensus for this, if you come across someone mistagging articles using automated tools, pay a visit to their monobook.js, blank it and protect it for a few days. It's not punitive, it's just protecting the 'pedia from this type of editing. Chop chop. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we've been here before, and recently. The tools are being used by people whose intentions are good, but haven't the experience to distinguish between a nascent, but notable topic, and a no-hoper. When I use NPW, I will Google for notability if it's plausible, but not asserted. OTOH, if it's a loser from the start, I'll tag it. Conversely, I've untagged allegedly NN articles which clearly assert WP:N, and have tagged "wikify", etc., articles which have turned out to be copvios, and again used Goggle to do that. NPW is not meant to be used without thought. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Normally the majority of taggings are correct. Normally I check that page once or twice a day, deleted a dozen or so articles, and decline one or two. (a higher proportion of declines than truly representative, because I try to work on the more difficult ones that are not immediately removed). Over the last few days, it's becoming declining one out of three. Equally careless in the other direction, there have been an increasing number of obvious copyvios which have not been spotted. I admit i never thought of doing as Redvers suggests, but it sounds like a good idea. Did inadequately prepared editors get the bots as a christmas present? DGG (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've recently refused a number of expired prods for much the reasons as above. (Examples: Fire It Up ! (EP) is a mediocre article, but it's a real release by a notable artist; Icho Larenas wasn't much, but the 1st Google hit brought up usable information; Ben Olson is the starting QB for a major college football program w/ plenty of sources, and another admin tagged is for deletion without doing the simple sourcing that immediately makes the subject plainly relevant.) At least with prods, it's not gone in a flash...but the solution for middling quality articles is to improve them, not delete them.
I, like DGG, find most CSDs to be fully burninatable, but there's always an example or two of a completely salvageable article that needed 4 minutes of love and attention rather than a TWINKLE slap upside the head. I may have to start blanking monobook.js pages of repeat offenders! — Scientizzle 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just refused the prod deletion of Picnik based on the availability of dozens of Google News hits and the relative ease of removing the promotional material from the article... — Scientizzle 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the respondents here have grasped my point. This is a New Page Patrol issue, not a normal problem with CSD tags. The problem is that NPP has no prequisites for participation, no prerequisites for "common sense", if I may be blunt. Actually, it is less common sense than a degree of maturity and a sense of where an article might go combined with a willingness to do a bit of work rather than just "tag and run". Tag and run is only a big problem, IMO, in the case of the speedy tags because then some, not all, admins may, most likely in the effort to clean up backlogs, go ahead and do the delete without themselves exercising the maturity and effort required. That is understandable but I simply point out that if NPP can be done by editors without the required maturity and sense that is only tolerable because they cannot actually delete anything and the actual deletion is done by someone that has, supposedly, demonstrated that maturity and sense. --Alfadog (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is worse than that. Many new articles slip through CSD because they, for example, assert notability, and the lucky ones get a "wikify" tag or a stub template slapped on them; but without the original editor having either the time or inclination to expand, we are left with a huge backlog in Engine Room B; and for an editor who has no expertise in a particular subject, tackling that backlog has to be cherry-picking merely to ensure some sort of reliability. That leaves a pool of articles that are hard work to sort out, and for volunteers with limited spare time, even here, and other agenda(s) to pursue, it seems to be asking a lot. More up-front advice from NPW might limit this, especially if it were seen as being more of a responsibility to the, er, encyclopedia. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the tags do come from NPP, though. I've never actually checked when they were started, but based on the fact that quite a few have {{hangon}} tags, it means that they were recently created and recently responded to. Sometimes I've done CSD tagging from CAT:UNCAT, but that is rare. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes me shudder. There must be some sort of WP:TEMPLAR analogue for well-meaning little new articles, or at least the willingness to allow for some breathing room. New page patrol is a two way street, you have to be willing to lend a hand to keep useful articles from being deleted because of technicalities. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. When I saw all those tags I looked for a policy or guideline that would say something like "One or, at most, two general tags per page". I thought I saw that once but was not able to find anything. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me tell that majority of new page patrolars become too hasty to tag for deletion (it is a fact that there runs a competition between several new page patrolars that who will take the credit for highest number of speedy deletions). This is obviously not good. And I have seen that A7 is heavily misused. I have seen many new page patrillers use A7 for singles, places, fictional characters - which will obviously create a problem. And regarding this, I agree it was overtagging and I will not do this in future. I will be very careful regarding these facts in future. I propose to create WikiProject:NewPagePatrol, which will specify guidelines and will monitor new page patrolling. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The Project is a great idea, OC, and you are commended for your commitment to self-correction. I hope that you will forgive me for not informing you, and the other editors that I used as examples, of this discussion but I really did not want to make this about the individual editors on NPP but rather about the general issue and the admins' responsibility, if any, and ideas for correcting it. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that there is a problem with NPP.

There's another problem with the guidance given for starting articles. The marking of Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) as a speedy looks reasonable to me, as it didn't (at the time) start to assert any notability. Earnest would-be contributors who take the trouble to digest "Your first article" will see that their contributions must do this, but they won't see anything short and simple like "Tips for writing biographies", with its excellent (in my perhaps atypical opinion) instruction that no article should be posted, even with the intent to revise, until it's coherent and at least slightly informative and has had its facts checked [...] and should clearly state why the [subject] is notable enough to be included.

Not that discussion of this obviously belongs on this page.... -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"(it is a fact that there runs a competition between several new page patrolars that who will take the credit for highest number of speedy deletions)."

This is exactly what I was afraid was going on. I knew I smelled this but I did not give my suspicion enough credence to mention it. This is the bad scene I mention and must be stopped. --Alfadog (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to name names? If this is actually happening, a very big stop must be put to it. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly propose to create WikiProject:NewPagePatrol. It is very much needed. This project should be created as soon as possible.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and create it then. Anyone can start a project. Just click the redlink and start typing. Don't worry, others will join in and help. --Alfadog (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created it. Wikipedia:WikiProject New pages patrol I need assistance from other editors.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject won't magically eradicate bad judgment among patrollers. Why not channel that energy into fixing up new articles? Not just tagging or deleting, mind you, but verifying, copyediting, formatting. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. If that was the case, there would be no Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. This project will draw all new page patroller under a single umbrella. Moreover it is true that nonsense pages, non-notable pages are randomly created in wikipedia. This project will conduct research on what frequency they are created, what type of pages are created most etc. etc. Please join it.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion actually mirrors my thoughts recently. I've seen a lot of overly aggressive new page patrollers recently, seemingly tagging anything that they don't personally know about for speedy deletion.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Kiki Harbster[edit]

Resolved: as below - Alison 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is returned. See here. Please protect both of her pages and add the block-image to her userpage. Thanks. Fightmo1 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua[edit]

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to raise this issue. I am concerned about the behaviour of User:Fasach Nua. I have contributed to Ireland national football team (IFA) and believe this article should be maintained. However Fasnach wants this article merged with Northern Ireland national football team. I have also contributed to Dual Irish international footballers. Fasnach is now re-editing this page in an inappropriate manner. This seems to me to be bullying and harassment. Is their someone here willing to mediate in this situation. Fasnach actions are seriously spoiling my enjoyment of Wiki. Djln --Djln (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you notify the user about this thread? If not, do it, do it nauwgh! BoL 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


I started to create a page for All India Christian council ( but made a typo with India typed as Indian. Then I saved another page for All India and tried to move the earlier one to the new one but it does not allow me. I request administrators to change the Name of All India(n) to All India. ThanksRecordfreenow (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw this listed on the recent changes page, and took care of it. The main page is All India Christian Council; All Indian Christian Council redirects to it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"can of worms" user[edit]

User:Superatlantis is placing copyright notices on his/her contribs, possibly uploading copyvios, has had quite enough media deleted, is here only to soapbox, is publishing unreferenced and downright unfactual info, is editing quite brazenly with a sockpuppet (look at user page history) etc. There are plenty of warnings to give, and I can give them, when I have time to sift through the can of worms, but if anyone else wants to begin, be my guest. Placed here for quite an extreme example of what is getting under the radar here. Really, this case is so extreme its amusing! aliasd·U·T 06:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

With three edits on his talk page, all bots regarding images, it's likely he just doesn't know. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine so, but where do you start? :) Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! You are doing everything wrong! aliasd·U·T 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I really feel that this guy could become a bad antagonist if this isn't handled well. aliasd·U·T 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Superatlantis is a start. I'm also leaving him a warning on his talk page. Sandstein (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick read of his edits at Location hypotheses of Atlantis makes me wonder if the whole lot shouldn't be cleaned up or a previous version restored. As it stands now they've introduced a lot of problems, such as the proliferation of images with his own copyright in the caption, as well as "In addition, Mr Nikas, in his abstract, disregards all the other theories that pinpoint Atlantis anywhere outside the Mediterranean Sea." [6] which seems to potentially have WP:OR and WP:COI problems. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Anome got rid of it. Hut 8.5 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:DoctorWorm7 using wikipedia as a warez sharing site ?[edit]


Hello, I'm not 100% sure about this but is User:DoctorWorm7/Sandbox not against policy and illegal in the USA ? It seems to be a list of links to a whole series of comics in violation of copyright. Also what about User:Josh.oosterman, User talk:Onelab (almost certainly warez) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackaranga (talkcontribs) 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly against Wikipedia policy, no matter what: it has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like someone has already deleted the Sandbox, and I have deleted the two user pages. These are clear cases of user space abuse, and wikipedia has a rule not to link to off site copyvios. I'm going to say this is resolved.-Andrew c [talk] 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I got the sandbox, and left a note on DoctorWorm7's talk page explaining why. Resolute 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

This user was blocked because he/she continued to blank Street Fighter III but it looked like he was simply trying to let editors know that the article contained false information and didn't know how else to contact us. I think we jumped the gun a little bit with this one by simply giving the typical warnings and then issuing a block.--Urban Rose (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have asked them to detail what their concerns with the article are on their talkpage, which is an excellent approach. When they supply an answer then post the diff here so people can see if the complaint has validity. I would note, however, that there were already messages on the ip's talkpage requesting that they not blank the page and to detail the problem - so perhaps a block was required to get the editors attention. Once there is a response then the question of unblocking (and guiding the editor to the correct manner of editing an article) can be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This does not look like constructive editing. JuJube (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, wouldn't it be nice if for once edits with summaries like "correcting false information" actually corrected false information? ^_^; JuJube (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Question/help on reporting a sockpuppet...[edit]

I am actually posting this because I suspect that Doc aga (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of blocked user Mike rodrin (talk · contribs), who does vanity edits. I also know that this case will be stale because Doc aga hasn't edited for a while. But can this still be reported? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP? Hut 8.5 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've already been there and read this:

The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.

That's why I said that this case will be stale. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably not worth reporting then. SSP is frequently backlogged anyway. Hut 8.5 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Anthon01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) joined us in October 2007 and has spent virtually every day since advancing alternative and fringe medical ideas, attacking those who promote the mainstream, and in particular attacking the Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), banned from the project for much the same, has a mentor and partner, Anthony Zaffuto, who is a notorious kook and is also part of her humanitics foundation. I've been watching Anthon01's edits pretty much convinced that he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of several banned users with an agenda against Quackwatch, I only today looked back at his history and found:

  1. 20:37, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎
  2. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Wheatgrass‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
  3. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
  4. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wheatgrass‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
  5. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
  6. 03:27, October 3, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass‎ (Undid revision 161619050 by Healthfood07 (talk))
  7. 11:59, October 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass

So: edit number one was promoting the wheatgrass health meme, edit number two was to use the Undo button, edit number three was a page move, edit number four used the Minor checkbox, edit number 7 created a disambiguation page. This does not loko like a genuinely new user.

I would be grateful if people with more experience of Ilena and her cohort could review the contributions of this user and come to a conclusion as to whether this is covered by the existing arbcom findings against Ilena in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal and if so what, if anything, should be done. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG. I don't see how my first few edits proves I am not a new user. Among other things, I am a computer programmer, so computer related things come easier to me. All you have to do is review my WP:CCC claim to realize I am just learning the 'ropes.' I probably have a handful of edits prior to signing up. I read the policy guidelines. Edit boldly is everywhere you go, when you first start. If you look carefully, over time, you will see that when I first started editing that page, it was being used as a promo piece for wheatgrass manufacturers. I removed those items. I began eliminating the 'wheatgrass sellers website references' and adding peer-review supported text with citations. The page has a ways to go, but I was distracted by the QW debate and saw it as a way to learn the wikipedia ropes. I also debunked a very common claim among wheatgrass users, that is "1 oz. wheatgrass juice is equivalent in nutrition to 2.2 lb. vegetables." Admittedly, it looks like it may be SYNTH. But I didn't know that when I started. That is not POV pushing is it? I just followed the data where it lead me and published it. Now before you all go and tear that page apart, please make comments on the talk page. JzG: A notice on my talk page would have been nice and CIVIL. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I also think you characterization "attacking those who promote the mainstream" is grossly unfair. Who have I attacked? You might consider retracting the comment. Anthon01 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggest you present more evidence to support the claims. If you can make a convincing case that this is the meatpuppet of a banned editor, then her ban applies to this account as well. Other than the Quackwatch focus this appears to be editing other areas of alternative medicine, so the matter isn't open-and-shut. Unless there's a different banned account that you can link to this as a sockmaster. DurovaCharge! 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the comments to talk:Quackwatch and talk:Complementary and alternative medicine look suspect to me, but I have a big problem with fringe pushers so I think what I'm hoping for is a few more eyes. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about your problem with the fringe pushers. I have not spent much time at many of the pages where they congregate, so I don't know how bad it really is. I did notice the removal of Benviste affair in homeopathy and agree it should be reintroduced (RS), in spite of the fact that I suspect that there is some merit to homeopathy. In the reverse, I see the same think happening at QW in 'pro QW editors' refusing to allow RS material that criticizes QW, are and then trying to spin the same into a positive review (OR). I think some so-called "fringe POVs" are valid on wikipedia if they are well sourced. Some of the best data is hidden in peer review journals, something one would never know unless they have spent time in the 'stacks.' Abstracts alone don't cut it as there is much significant data not published in the abstract. I think some editors think that all fringe is fringe and is therefore unacceptable, but I don't. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

After comparing and contrasting the contributions of Ilena and Anthon01, it appears that they do have similar article interests and editing patterns. Most of Anthon's edits were to Quackwatch, a website that actively goes against unscientiific medicine use; most of Ilena's edits were to Stephen Barrett, who is the webmaster of Quackwatch. Also, they both have a habit of adding POV edits and citations to those articles.[7][8] It is therefore likely that the two are related. However, even if Anthon is not a meatpuppet, he is still the cause of several disputes on that article, and has not been a constructive infuence on the project. Maser (Talk!) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and for giving me the opportunity to comment. Spend sometime at QW and see how constructive you can be. There are two sides to the debate there. Editing on that page is contentious with some editors of the pro QW side refusing edits critical of QW, that are WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's comments like this from Anthon01 that give me the greatest worry. Rather than working with other editors, he views everything as us vs them, not noticing that some editors are more concerned with creating good articles and a productive editing environment. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea why you take my statement to mean I am unwilling to work with editors. You characterization that "he views everything as us vs them" is totally unjustified. There are two sides to the debate, is a statement of fact. The issue is how to compromise or reach consensus when this occurs. I think that you are not AGF on my part. Anthon01 (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
While there were many red flags at the beginnings of Anthon01's editing that made such meatpuppet suspicions quite logical, his further editing leads me to dismiss those suspicions. I do tend to agree with the characterizations regarding editing problems, sympathies, and conflicts.
He is apparently editing from Connecticut, which likely rules him out as Ilena or her husband, who are located in Costa Rica, or when in California send from San Diego and the LA area, but he's still worth watching.
He has a question here: "Do you know which medical orgs criticise Quackwatch?" [9] (Sent from Windsor, CT)
It is in response to this lie: "It has been rediculed by many including some medical organizations." told by a user (Dogen3) at the top. The question can be answered simply: only by one, the extremely fringe, fanatical, and small Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. They are against the FDA, vaccinations, are AIDS denialists, gay bashers, etc.. Only fringe sources criticize Quackwatch. All mainstream sources are positive about it, even recommending it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, you know better. The J Law, Medicine & Ethics, Consultant Pharmacists, Village Voice and the ACA are not fringe orgs. Among these, the ACA is the only org that is likely to have been criticized by QW. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Technically your are correct, in that my statement was pretty short and lacked any nuancing. I was referring to serious criticisms and attacks. Sure, Quackwatch could be improved in a number of ways. I have even written an email to Barrett some time ago and made a few suggestions, which he promptly dissed and ignored. Generally any type of "criticisms" from mainstream sources (and a few do exist) are of a minor nature, and not concerning the main thrust or accuracy of Quackwatch as a source for exposing quackery, healthfraud, and health related scams.
The sources you mention do include people who are supportive of alternative medicine, and the ACA is the largest chiropractic organization. Chiropractic is the flagship of the whole alternative medicine field and has been attacked many times by Barrett and the whole of mainstream medicine and science. So whether one wants to consider it "fringe" is just a matter of semantics, IOW whether we are referring to number of believers or to non-scientific underpinnings. On the latter point it is definitely the epitomy of fringe since its fundamental belief (vertebral subluxation) is the unproven figment of Daniel David Palmer's imagination, the very foundation of the profession's philosophy and actual practices, and is used as its legally defined right to practice and get Medicare coverage. It is stuck in a very tight spot, because to admit it was built on a fictive foundation would be to admit it's legal right to exist had always been improper. -- Fyslee / talk 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The sources I mention include 1 org that supports alt med. I specified that in my response. Regrading the vertebral subluxation. The belief doesn't matter. If the philosophy is wrong but the results can be demostrated then thats what counts. No one knew how aspirin worked until 1983. Would you call the use of aspirin prior to that quackery? Anthon01 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Some other reasons why I don't think he is a meatpuppet or sock of Ilena are the fact that she can't resist making very direct and personal attacks, she totally ignores Wikipedia's policies, and constantly spamlinks her website. Her interests are also in some other areas.
Anthon01 has made some attempts to learn policies and can abide by them at times, even cooperating (for a few edits) with editors who have opposing POV, but not consistently. It is when he is editing in tandem with User:Levine2112 that his editing becomes more questionable. They are an unfortunate cocktail, because Levine2112's support seems to encourage him to edit in a confrontational and non-NPOV manner. (If they were always apart from each other I think he could become a good editor.) That's when his editing begins to look more like Ilena's, with direct attacks on myself using references to the Barrett v. Rosenthal ArbCom, which involved her and was her demise. Users who use that ArbCom against me consistently fail to recognize that my opposition to Ilena's misuse of Wikipedia was vindicated and Ilena lost big time. Unfortunately the wording of the "findings" has never been changed, even though they were formulated before any evidence ("findings") was even introduced. They were false charges made at the beginning and very little if any evidence confirmed the charges against me, yet the charges were left there unchanged, and that wording is still used against me by fringe editors. The maker of those charges is self-admittedly mentally unbalanced and has not been editing much since then. He made a serious mistake in supporting Ilena, even aiding and abetting her in her disruption, and also deleting my evidence against her, etc.. A sad story. If he ever returns he could become the subject of an ArbCom for his abominable behavior that led to his unsuccessful ArbCom against me. It backfired.
Anthon01's first edit on his user page was quite an eye opener to me and others who notified me! This obviously made many suspicious that he was an incarnation of Ilena, or a meatpuppet. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of the learning process. ArbCom was new to me and your anti-alt-med and pro QW POV is evident. The ruling discussed QW as a partisan site. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Other problems related to Anthon01's editing are another subject. I suspect that he is an experienced editor who has learned some things while editing under another guise, and may well be a nemesis of mine (another user) who is using this user name and trying to control himself, which I don't mind....;-) He is naturally on my watchlist, along with a number of other POV warriors. I also keep an eye on disruptive editors, just as the rest of you do. As far as I am concerned we all have POV and therefore his POV is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is his editing in an NPOV manner and willingness to collaborate. If that's okay, then personal POV is irrelevant. If we see improvement, then he should be given a chance, otherwise he may end up sharing the fate of his POV-allies, some of whom have been banned, and others who are on the verge of being banned. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I take the "experience editor" comment as a compliment. Fact is, I am not, although I have written health related articles elsewhere. I think that with the anti-fringe pushers, alt-med will not get a fair shake unless someone using the rules of wikipedia show them that alt-med deserves it. That's my POV. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
While some of these problems are irritating, I don't believe that Anthon01 is a malicious person, only a fallible human being like the rest of us. We all have blind spots and naturally see things from our perspective. Therefore we should be careful in our judgments of others since we often suffer the same failings and are in need of helpful criticism from others. -- Fyslee / talk 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee: I appreciate your attempts to be fair, and respect that. Regarding Levine2112, we share the same POV on the inclusion of some criticism of Quackwatch. Generally I believe QW has done a good job of uncovering health scams, but is not always balance in its coverage. I think the article should reflect that. If there was an attempt to include excessive amounts of criticism into QW I would be arguing from the other side. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch doesn't try to be "balanced" since it doesn't attempt to give equal coverage on subjects that don't deserve it. It is very open about this very proper and respectable policy. It isn't an encyclopedia, but a website with an openly declared POV. That fact irritates those it criticizes, but that is not a legitimate criticism of Quackwatch. It is what it is, and it has a right to be that, just like most other sites on the internet that also write from one POV. It should be accepted on its own merits. The Quackwatch and Barrett articles have been notorious dumping grounds for large amounts of criticism, including the worst and most illegitimate types. The worst have promptly been dumped since they violated so many of our policies here, and the struggle since then has been to find criticisms that can be included without violating policies. I do not agree with some of my would be allies in some of their arguments regarding what to include or exclude, but have chosen to stay out of many of those arguments and have let them battle on their own. Some criticisms should be included, and I have always supported that effort. If some people didn't improperly believe that I have a COI, I would no doubt have made my views known. I don't like too much conflict and sometimes it is more interesting to just be a spectator....;-)
The articles have indeed included "excessive amounts of criticism of QW" before you came here, but a balance needs to be reached. Unfortunately the editors who hate (yes, they really do) Barrett and Quackwatch are still active there and will no doubt continue to attempt to use the articles and talk pages as soapboxes for getting illegitimate attacks included at Wikipedia, IOW they want to use Wikipedia as an attack site. Therefore eternal vigilance is called for until fringe editors are better controlled and regulated by improved policies. But this is all getting into other subject matter than the current matter here. See below. We need closure. -- Fyslee / talk 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO, I think wiki would be better served if you contribute to those articles even when your would-be allies are advocating suggestions that you disagree with. In those instances, I don't see how a COI charge could be leveled against you. I also believe your contribution, even if brief, could sometimes reduced or eliminate unnecessarily prolonged arguments. Anthon01 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I move that this matter be closed. Anthon01 needs to be let off the hook on this one, and I'm sure he has learned from this experience. -- Fyslee / talk 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur. I'm certain he'll learn from this incident. Maser (Talk!) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Before you close please consider some comments I will make shortly. Anthon01 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to know sincerely, what I am to learn from this incident. I suspect you would like me to learn something more than I might have already learned. I sincerely am interested in becoming a better editor. For this reason I am interested in your comments. So far
  • I've learned that information about my whereabouts could be revealed on this noticeboard putting myself and my family in jeopardy, and for what? Consider I have placed this first.
  • I find that I have been falsely accused of being a "sock or meatpuppet" and that an admin has accused me of "attacking those who promote the mainstream" and "attacking the Quackwatch article." I've ask for clarification or a retraction and have so far received neither.
  • I've learned elsewhere from that same admin that SA's "I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer." are given a pass because "Pretty simple: SA is pushing the dominant POV, he's more of an NPOV-pusher." [10] This same admin has admitted his intolerance for what he view to be fringe editors. My response to him on that page has likewise, not been answered. I've just recently discovered SA's statement was presented as primary evidence against SA in a proceeding that has lead to his being blocked for 72 hours for incivility.
This noticeboard posting deals with "sock or meatpuppetry:" the other issues I comment on here because they are raised here.
  • I've learned the Fyslee, in spite of thinking I "may well be a nemesis of" his, which I am not, is capable of remarkable fairness. I also see that Fyslee has accused me of being a POV warrior, which I would , in some cases, agree with, since, in IMO, minority views on the pages I have been editing need better representation via RS, for the sake of wikipedia and the subjects of those articles. For instance, the AK articel is a total misrepresentation of AK. It is probable that many of the criticism of AK are justified, but the article itself doesn't even identify AK properly. For posterity sake, I would like the criticism tof AK be directed directly at AK and not an AK 'copy cat.' As for editing from a non-NPOV, well we are all blinded by our POV's, including Fyslee (I know you have admitted it). Non-NPOV edits are not intentional as I am "learning on the job," so to speak, how to edit with NPOV, and am sometimes blinded, like many other editors, by my own POV. Disruptive editing? It has been alluded to by Fyslee, but I am not sure he is accusing me of such. Anthon01 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the Levine2112/Anthon01 "cocktail," our position on the inclusion of QW criticism are similar. It is on the QW page that the "cocktail" has been evident, and I don't see that changing. NPOV is achieved through contrasting statements from RS.
Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy is WP:NPOV. In matters of science, the scientific method means that the dominant scientific point of view generally is the neutral point of view. That does not mean subjects which repudiate science should be written to disparage the subject, only that the dominant scientific view should be properly represented for context. It may well be that people sincerely believe drinking goji berry juice will prevent 75% of breast cancers, and we can say they believe it, but we should note that according to the scientific community (and indeed the Federal regulatory bodies) this claims is pure hokum. There is little risk to the project or the public from overstating the scientific POV, there si much greater potential risk from overstating views which go directly against scientific thinking. This is why edit warriors pushing fringe science and pseudoscience are more of a problem than edit warriors pushing the mainstream scientific view. Both are harmful, but one is much less harmful to the end product, the encyclopaedia. You must also be very wary of the "false middle" fallacy. Neutrality definitely is not the average between two opposing points of view. In most cases I've come across, neutrality is not the midpoint, it's far closer to one extreme than the other (because one of the extremes is not, actually, an extreme at all; science is not prone to extremism, only to degrees of conviction based on volumes of evidence and the amount of scrutiny applied to that evidence). The default in science is "prove it"; lack of evidence is usually represented by the mainstream as just that: lack of evidence. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the anecdotal evidence should be published and any evidence for or against should clearly be included. However, I disagree with your equating dominance with neutrality. My understanding is the dominant doesn't mean neutral. Neutral means reflecting all significant POV from RS giving weight according to their prominence in the literature. Pushing the dominant POV without giving proper weight to minority views will also damage the project. Science evolves and although we may agree in most cases which view is dominant, the minority view is also important to the evolution of Scientific evolution. My interest is to see that minority views reflected in RS are included and given proper weight within the article. I also believe that anti alt-med edits can go too far and damage the project as well, as is illustrated here. Anthon01 (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non administrator rollback[edit]

We are now in a position where the developers have made it possible for administrators to grant and remove the rollback permission for non administrators. Over the last month, we have been discussing the ways in which it can be given, and we're now at the point to try and get a consensus for it's implementation. Please could I ask as many people as possible to review the proposal and come to a conclusion to support or oppose the proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. What a can of worms is about to be opened. Corvus cornixtalk 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at Twinkle. It's a rollback script, that means I (kinda) gave myself (kinda) rollback rights. I'd say invitation-only by ArbCom, because there are vandals who will misuse the rollback right. And as for the rollback, it is a faster alternate, but there are some problems when using it. BoL 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom invitation? They're already bogged down as is. bibliomaniac15 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
True, but you gotta prevent abuse, especially when you got a sock threat. Believe me, users who never used TW or is not an admin are not ready for how powerful a rollback is. BoL 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why should I believe you? You haven't used rollback. I don't see what's wrong with people just getting Twinkle. Administrators are entrusted with such tools because the community has come to an agreement that they can be trusted with them. Why should we go handing out rollback access to those who don't have community trust demonstrated in the form of a successful RfA? From my point of view, it is more likely to be abused. And please, no one bring up the "well, admins can abuse the tools too, not just normal users" – administrators who abuse the rollback tool significantly are more likely to be persuaded to stop, blocked, or desysopped through an Arbitration case (on the subject of ArbCom, they shouldn't have to deal with rollback requests, they have enough to do), although they shouldn't, because as I said, they have been decided by the community to be trustworthy enough to receive such tools. Anyway, this place isn't the best to discuss it, the talk page for the proposal is better. Spebi 04:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's because I'm a sysop in that new wiki. But, yeah, I've never used rollback. But, yeah, I'd agree with conseneus like AWB when you need approval. They should have a clean block log (unlike me), 1000 mainspace edits (unlike me), and 6 months in Wikipedia (check!). BoL 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Restrictions that tight almost defeat the purpose, I passed RFA with only 5 months of experience. The primary use of this is vandal reversions. It doesn't take 6 months to get used to that. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Won't be vandals generally if the rollback has to be granted by admins. Also, ArbCom? Oy. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, 'tho - as BoL says, Twinkle's got it and there are other alternatives (edit revision, save). Avruchtalk
The "can of worms" I refer to is the drama that is about to ensue concerning who "deserves" the right, who doesn't, who will award it, who will remove it. Corvus cornixtalk 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
But, yeah, it does have to be granted by admins. If not, this can wreak havoc on us. BoL 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I really don't understand what everyone is so afraid of here. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought rollback was functionally equivalent to manually selecting "history, edit (last rev I want to keep), save" just in one click. How is that going to be a problem? "Rollback vandals" can be themselves rolled back. We have page move vandals, which cause more damage than rollback would, but page moving is not restricted to admins. What gives? <eleland/talkedits> 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For perspective, There are 6,093,451 registered user accounts, of which 1,450 have administrative tools. Obviously this doesn't mean there's six million vandals, but lets put this in some context. --Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As long as we have a minimum standard to prevent the mass creation of accounts for the purpose of misusing this tool, then I say let's do it. Minimum standards are part of the proposal. NoSeptember 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
We list this on WP:RFA on a conseneus-based system. As I said, the requirements above must be met for someone to get rollback. BoL 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Antony Santos Gallery[edit]

Hi. Sorry, this may be the wrong place to ask, but is Antony Santos Gallery a valid article, or does it fail WP:NOT#REPOSITORY ? CultureDrone (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It fails WP:NFCC. Half the images are fair use, and mislabeled public domain to boot. In fact, Romanence (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 40 non-free images as public domain. EdokterTalk 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion taht neither of these photos are copyright ownership of the uploader. Those which are not album covers look like photos of photos from magazine pages to me; see my nomination of Galleru for deletion. `'Míkka>t 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The non-album covers actually have camera meta-data, so they could have been taken by the uploader. EdokterTalk 03:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Does that tell us whether those photos are of non-copyright material? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Of the eight photos in the article, three of them have metadata indicating they were taken with a Nikon D70, one indicates it was edited with Photoshop (but has no camera metadata), and four have no metadata. Without convincing evidence otherwise, I'd say these were taken from various websites, rather than being the uploader's work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Subset of this board[edit]

The 3RR board is the most uselessly bureaucratic noticeboard I've seen here yet. Because the reporting requirements are such a pain in the ass, the board is a waste of time unless you like fooling with templates and doing a half hour of cut and paste to get someone to even take a look - which doesn't happen often, because it looks like 80% are dinged as 'Malformed' and ignored anyway. Avruchtalk 16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the bureocratic procedure there is tedious, and its all for reporting a offense that can usually be resolved by just informing a admin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I avoid the 3RR board because of its ridiculous reporting rules. Corvus cornixtalk 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, then it should be fixed or blasted, burned, drenched and ejected into space. Avruchtalk 03:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Once when I finally got the courage to try and report to the 3RR board, I went back and saw that the offenders had already been blocked! Either strip it of its tedious requirements, or just redirect it back to the incidents board. bibliomaniac15 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor complained to me about the difficulty of submitting a report. Another editor who patrolled the page saw the complaint and offered to help. If there was a list of such helpful 3RR patrollers available on the page then the page may yet prove to be more negotiable as well as useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Cobi created a test version of ClueBot that would compile 3RR reports automatically whenever it saw some reverting going on. These reports were not submitted to admins, but simply collected into a file that anyone could view. If you thought you saw 3RR violated, you could go and visit ClueBot's file and pick out the readymade report with all the diffs, and submit it yourself if you felt it was valid. In the bot approval discussions, this idea did not get enough support, though I personally would have liked to see it happen. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps re-initiating that discussion at talk:3RR and getting some consensus behind it before re-submitting it to the BAG might be an idea? Or...Perhaps instead of the bot patrolling could it be configured to sit on the page awaiting an editor to submit a block of diffs from which it could generate a report to be used on the 3RR page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There were two big problems with the bot.
  1. Several users thought that it would give already-trigger-happy administrators even more reasons to block. Because they thought that too many people were getting blocked for 3RR when there wasn't really any disruption (i.e., vandalism reversion, etc).
  2. The bot used a ton of resources. And there is no real way to get around this. It has to record every revision in the last 24 hours to be useful. Then, for every time it *thinks* it sees a reversion (the same user editing an article for the fourth time), it has to download the content for all four of those changes and compare them. It also caught 'many more legitimate reversions than blockable offenses.
I can run this bot if there really is a desire for it, and administrators can see the reporting page and the BRFA. The first was deleted because of the number of false positives (see reason #1), and the second was deleted because I planned on using that page for another, completely different bot. If anyone wants to see that information, just ask an administrator to post the deleted content on a user subpage for you. Thanks. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Its clearly spelled out in 3RR that vandalism reversion doesn't count towards 3RR. If people are being blocked for this, the admins responsible need to have their powers removed for not properly applying them.--Crossmr (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


mw:Extension:Title Blacklist has gone live on Wikimedia wikis. It allows titles containing certain words or character combinations to be banned using regular expressions. The local version is available here; instructions are on the talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I helped test out this extension on a (it was either yours or Mr.Z-man's, I forget which) test wiki last month, and I am concerned that this provides no indication to administrators that a new page they are creating appears on the blacklist; since, like editing a protected page, this constitutes an administrative action, I think there should be some provision for a warning of this. I have confirmed that this issue still applies as installed here. —Random832 07:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious evasion of a six month ban[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) turned up today to make this as the IP's first edit, then edited an AFD that closed months ago[11] and vandalized another editor's user space by cutting and pasting a ban notice I had made in September when I was an administrator (including my signature).[12]

Some people would find this topic distasteful: it concerns the (now deleted) biography of a gay male porn star who had claimed to have an affair with a very famous actor. There might be legitimate BLP concerns in relation to that actor, but I have been unsuccessful at outreach to communicate with this editor. So I'm requesting:

  1. A block on this IP per WP:BAN.
  2. An attempt to communicate with this person so that any legitimate concerns may be handled appropriately.
  3. A sockpuppet investigation on Fuzzyred, which may be an unblocked sock/meat from the same farm.[13]

DurovaCharge! 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IP appears to be static; hard to tell if it's the same person, but strongly appears to be related. Have currently blocked until the expiry of Robin Redford's block (March 2007). Courtesy blanked the AfD page. Since the article is no longer present on Wikipedia, I'm not sure what the continued dispute is over, but I'll drop off a note on the IP's talk in a moment. No action on Fuzzyred, yet, will look at that in a bit or leave it to someone else's eyes. Welcome review of this response. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a fair solution. Please look into the Fuzzyred account. DurovaCharge! 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Middletown Connecticut[edit]


Hi there. I recently added material to the history section of Middletown, Connecticut: good material, very NPOV, references with solid sources (including the town website itself). I added the material in response to a neutrality tag that I posted on the history section of the article which had been deleted several times by a user with a state of Connecticut IP (a Middletown IP?). Again, the same user (this time using a Wesleyan Unisersity IP), has deleted material from the article. Can't seem to bring the user to the discussion board; very combative & unwilling to discuss. Not sure how to proceed. It seems that someone in the Middletown government is intent on re-writing the history of the town according to a specific agenda--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored your edit and left the IP user a warning. Jehochman Talk 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
And I warned the IP again, but he is still at it. Protect or block? EdokterTalk 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Block, it's only one editor. We don't protect when it's just one. In the last edit there is a remark that William Cronin is not a reliable source for urban development in Connecticut. This is a joke because William Cronin has written numerous books on urban development and has served as a professor at Yale University. We appear to be dealing with bad faith here. Jehochman Talk 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow up. The user has been hopping IP addresses and badgering Pgagnon999 [14] and Edokter [15]. Jehochman Talk 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, the diff you furnished on Pgagnon's Talk page isn't prolematic. You should have linked to this earlier comment from the same IP address, which Pgagnon had deleted (for understandable reasons) & this person restored. If this is the same person who left this bizarre accusation, we have a case of tendentious editting. -- llywrch (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed, and a new proposal[edit]

I have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, as agreed on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Since I don't know how this process is supposed to work, I may have done it wrong. If my closing comments belong at the bottom of the page and not the top, then anyone is free to move them.

Based on a suggestion at the RFC by TomStar81 and Warlordjohncarter, I have started a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Please comment on that proposal's talk page.

I hope everyone will understand that my decision to close the RFC is not "the last word". My goal was to summarize the suggestions that were made, and to observe that none of these suggestions has garnered consensus. Further discussion is welcome, as always, in the usual forums. With best wishes for a happy new year, Shalom (HelloPeace) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposed, unneeded, more bureaucratic, and as predicted, lengthens the process. RlevseTalk 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious backlog at Wikipedia:Requested_moves[edit]

We have a serious backlog at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog, with the oldest outstanding move request being over one month old. I'll endeavour to process one or two myself, if everybody else who is around now could process a couple too we can get this cleared. --kingboyk (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I missing something here, but I've done a bunch myself, but what do I do with the listing, whether I find no consensus for the move, or consensus for it? Maxim(talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just remove it from the WP:RM page I think. That's what I've been doing and nobody has complained so far. Oh and don't forget to remove the template from the talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just gave myself a big backlog. I've done about half of it, either mentally rejection or the actual move... --Maxim(talk) 13:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
(after 2 conflicts) I was just about to ask the same question :). Is there a standard way to close a page move discussion that either fails to reach consensus or indicates a consensus against the moves? Or just remove the entry from the backlog list? It seems sensible to leave some sort of note on the talk page indicating the move was declined so people won't continue debating it. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, close and archive the debate noting that you haven't found consensus or that consensus is against the move, then remove the listing from RM. See Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators. Talk:Farid ad-Din Attar is one I've just closed - you'd close it the same if you declined the move, except you wouldn't have to then go clean up any double redirects of course :) --kingboyk (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI length[edit]

ANI is long by necessity. It may be very slow to load in people with dial up service. Is there a solution for those WPedians? Perhaps a ANI1 and ANI2? True, it's a content fork but is it a WP:IAR to try to improve the delivery of the page to users? (Content forks are normally not permitted, IAR is not an excuse to do anything one pleases but is a tool to improve WP when the rules seem to overlook a special circumstance of the situation) Archtransit (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on the idea, but I thought I would point out that it wouldn't be a content fork. Your idea would be splitting discussion to smaller boards, not rewriting a policy/guideline on a second page. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we tried to send discussions to other pages before, and after much community hassle, they were sent right back here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Timestamp Mercury 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the idea of some bot that once an ANI discussion gets beyond say 5,000 characters, its automatically moved and linked to a subpage. MBisanz talk 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It'd be easier if threads that were marked with archive templates got actually archived after an hour or two - is that already being done? Avruchtalk 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, either would work. Avruchtalk 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That I don't know, but if you look at the first section here, on User... that should def be a subpage with that title, as its a long, running, detailed conversation. Once it gets to taht length, there are enough people involved that it won't get hidden. Maybe some issue-reporting system, with transclusions and summaries and all, like AfD, could be set up? MBisanz talk 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help determining consensus[edit]

Help! I'm a bit rusty when it comes to closing close debates. How would you close Talk:Odo#Requested_move?

My thoughts:

  • The editors who support the move basically argue that most readers would expect to find something other than an article on a recent fictional character. This is generally good, because we optimise for readers. It wouldn't be good if it's merely due to bias against Star Trek but I find no evidence of that.
  • Those who oppose make the very fair point that this article is the only one named just "Odo" (or "Odo (some disambiguating word or phrase)") so by convention it should be the primary topic with a dab header if needed.
  • On the other hand, there is a large list of historical figures named "Odo of..." which we may reasonably consider to be "Odo"s.
  • Even if we discount the "Odo of ..." historical figures (and it's not at all clear that we should), there are actually several other uses of "Odo" listed on the dab page, including 3 other fictional characters and a genus of spider.
  • The Star Trek character has several hundred incoming links, but some of these are due to a template.
  • Numerically, the "support"s have it (just) but I don't give much weight to that fact at all.

I'm not inclined to relist, as I feel all pertinent points have likely been made by now. The question is how to close it - I started to write a "no consensus, leave it where it is" outcome but I'm really wondering whether the best outcome for readers would be to move Odo (disambiguation) to Odo as requested. Thoughts? How would you close this? --kingboyk (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely move the dab to Odo. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the article is at the proper title because there are no other characters or article named Odo. However, there are many names that do contain "Odo", that would justify making Odo a disambiguation page. I would close it as Move to Odo (Star Trek). EdokterTalk 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Orangemike and Edokter - there are enough Odos to warrant making Odo a disambiguation page. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Given the comments here, and the numerical support for a move, I'll close it that way. --kingboyk (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the article on the DS9 character should be at Odo (Star Trek); not being from the original series doesn't mean this shouldn't be used - see Data (Star Trek). —Random832 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ack. Now you tell me! :) I wish I hadn't tried to help out now, sigh. Still, not too late to stop and change. --kingboyk (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of titles to List of Doctor Who serials without reliable source[edit]

RambutanKing (talk · contribs) is adding a title to the List of Doctor Who serials page without a reliable source despite being told not to both in the edit summary (see page history) and on his talk page. StuartDD contributions 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate when people discuss through edit summaries instead of a user or article talk page. Create a discussion in the article talk page and tell him in his user talk page to go there to discuss. If he continues, tell me and I will block him for 3RR. Of course, by the time I end writing this, some other admin may have already blocked him, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite blocked yet, but the article has been protected until January 7. — Save_Us_229 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There's really no need for a full-protection or an ANI post, and you should really know that, StuartDD - the list gets unsourced additions all the time. By the way, the user's username is similar to Porcupine (talk · contribs)'s old name of "Rambutan", which might need looking into. Will (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I will report people who vilate wikipedia rules if they ignore warnings. Yes the list gets unsourced titles a lot, but that's no reason to accept it. I acually agree with the protection - it means we won't have to deal with this sort of thing for a while. This is the second time in recent days that I've had to warn someone about this, and I'm getting a bit fed up. StuartDD contributions 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Note also that I did not request protection - it was done by an admin after RambutanKing reported me to 3RR for reverting his violating edits. StuartDD contributions 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since RambutanKing has been blocked idefinitely, and was the only editor adding the unsourced information, I think that protection is unnecessary. I'd like to unprotect it, but not without consult. EdokterTalk 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect looks good, per your arguments. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like he is blocked because of his username, not because of the edits he was making. I'm a bit confused as to why he was blocked because of his username.. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Will explained it above. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it was too similar to User:Rambutan, but that reason is: (a) not particularly good (the rambutan is a common enough fruit that you would expect variants on the name to be common - cf. Apple or Mango, or Rambutan itself; and (b) not explained at all at User talk:RambutanKing. Also, I'm not clear if this is a coincidence, an imposter, or a sockpuppet. Are the same type of articles being edited? Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Oooh, ok. I thought maybe rambutan had become some kind of slang term for some body part, or something... -- Ned Scott 04:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify the above. Assume for the sake of argument that User:RambutanKing is a new user (and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that should be the default assumption). Now look at the block notice:

    "This account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

    That is a laundry list of no less than ten different reasons for the block. Instead of telling the user which one is the reason, the user is left to try and work it out for themselves. Does anyone think this is severely wrong, and that those leaving such warnings should be taking the time to say "in this case, it is a confusing user name" or "in this case, it is too similar to that of an existing user"? Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on both points. The similar-name-argument seems kinda weak, but regardless of that, something needs to be done about that block template. I myself stopped for a moment thinking about it, did some Google searches, and was still confused. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know, but if starting a thread on the Wikipedia admin's noticeboard on New Year's Eve regarding Doctor Who episodes isn't trolling, I'm not sure what is. :-P j/k happy new year! -- Kendrick7talk 04:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No matter what RambutanKing was blocked for, the block did remove the reason for protecting. I'll unprotect it. EdokterTalk 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And it's been renamed anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Close a merge[edit]

Can an uninvolved admin consider closing the merge proposal at Talk:Clark Kent#Merge proposal regarding merging Superman and Clark Kent. It's been under discussion since October. Hiding T 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, closed as no-consensus for the merge. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Hiding T 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There's another outstanding one at Talk:Kal-L about whether or not to merge in the Earth 2 Superman. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ED problem[edit]

We're having a bit of a problem at List of encyclopedias by branch of knowledge, which is that an entry to ED is being added with a link to a google search that results in the site coming up first. This is obviously a bald attempt to work around the link blacklist. If other people would watchlist this article, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Chick Bowen 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • ED is knowledge? I thought it was just for troublemaking, rabble-rousing, and griping. If ED is knowledge, then I'm going to go down to my local library and check out some books about 4chan memes and 9/11 conspiracies. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ED is to knowledge as Taco Bell is to Mexican food. JuJube (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could google searches with "btnI" be added to the blacklist? I can't think of a valid reason to link to "I'm feeling lucky" searches except _possibly_ on googlebombing. —Random832 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this about erectile dysfunction or Encyclopedia Dramatica? Jehochman Talk 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Dicks either way, really. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Now blocked. He's a troll and