Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive174

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

Noticeboard archives


Possibly inappropriate deletion of material from talk page[edit]

I was patrolling some anonymous, unsummarized edits. Normally, when I see something like this deletion of material from a talk page I feel confident on making the call whether or not to revert it, but since the content removed was partly mine and partly someone accusing me of bad faith, I don't think I'm the person who should wade in there. Could I ask someone else to please have a look? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just archived the whole talk page. The newest section was over six months ago. There is no need for two year old sections to remain there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Archiving is fine. But he didn't archive, he simply removed. - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User page in mainspace[edit]


page deleted, no continuing problems. Guest9999 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Crazyaboutlost has created Usuario:Crazyaboutlost as a user page in mainspace. I'm not exactly sure who to inform about the mistake as User talk:Crazyaboutlost redirects to User talk:Crazyaboutlost (usurped). I'm not really sure if this is one user or two as the two similar userpages would indicate one but why would they have to usurp their own account? Very confused but either way the page in mainspace should be deleted or moved to the correct location in userspace. Guest9999 (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Price Is Right using Wikipedia articles?[edit]

Resolved: There are more pressing matters at hand.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

During today's (October 24th) episode of the U.S. game show The Price Is Right, they had a Showcase which featured the models reading facts about the prizes. The copy was attributed to Wikipedia, and their style was pretty reminiscent of our style, but since it was spoken and I wasn't expecting it I couldn't check and see if they actually matched up with our articles or not. No mention of the GFDL was made to my knowledge, though it could have been stuck in the credits somewhere. The show will be available on sometime this evening.

My question is this: one, if they are indeed Wikipedia articles, and the GFDL wasn't credited (though Wikipedia was), what do we need to do? And secondly, I'm not sure on the specifics of the GFDL, but if they used a Wikipedia article on the show, would that mean that entire episode of the show is GFDLed? (We could illustrate many of the articles about the show with screencaps from this episode if so...)

Also, of note was that the final "article" read was apparently supposed to be a parody of a vandalized article. Since the prize was a boat, we might want to keep an eye on boat to see if any imitative vandalism happens. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

People are free to use our knowledge by reading short excerpts or paraphrasing. The GFDL notice is only required if they republish substantial amounts of content, according to my lay person's understanding of copyright law in the United States. Jehochman Talk 17:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And no, I'm really quite confident this isn't a loophole and that they've somhow voided their copyright to the show. --barneca (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
But if they did publish large portions of material without proper GFDL notice then the price is wrong, bitch! Cirt (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It could work the other way - they use some copyrighted material, so the whole show's copyrighted. DendodgeTalkContribs 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Danger: excessive navel gazing can lead to nearsightedness. Please go edit the articles. ;-) Jehochman Talk 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
They could quote small parts under Fair Use without satisfying the requirements of GFDL. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We should be encouraging this, rather than worrying about the nitty-gritty. This is exactly what Wikipedia should be used for. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting, especially when one recognises the vocabulary, on a game show Amanita muscaria was described as 'quintessential'...which is used in the lead of the article XD. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Aye, WP:AGF and all. It just proves that despite all the claims, people do actually use Wikipedia. Important people, too. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The real question is what the hell were you doing watching the price is right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just not the same without ole Bob making subtle passes at all the beautiful women... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 06:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It went downhill when Bill Cullen left. They never quoted Wikipedia on his watch. Edison (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle issues[edit]

Due to recent problems with the API, if you report someone to AIV using Twinkle, it does this. Would anyone object to me putting a watchlist notice to try to get people to stop doing that? J.delanoygabsadds 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Do it to it. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)'
Uh, we could just remove that part of twinkle... (comment it out...) ffm 21:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer to comment out the function. This is not a major announcement for the community. Cenarium Talk 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've disabled the ARV script in twinkle.js. Feel free to revert when it works. ffm 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it wrong to just cut and paste warnings from the WP:WARN page, adding in the names of the relevant articles? I have never found it necessary to do semiautomated editing via "Huggle" or "Twinkle". Edison (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not wrong, it's just... slow. Semi-automated also tends to be much easier and convenient, etc. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 05:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of newcomers[edit]

Resolved: Newcomer welcomed, article being worked on, over-eager newpage patroller counseled. Fut.Perf. 08:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I am told this is the right place to come and mention this. I joined only yesterday having always supposed Wikipedia is the place 'anyone can edit', so I did. I am qualified with two higher degrees in linguistic related subjects, and I have publications in this area. I started an article scalar implicature which is a well-known subject area in pragmatics, also known as quantity implicature. As soon as I started writing the article - I mean literally as soon as I started - someone put a rude template on the page saying it was 'patent nonsense'. I admit I had some trouble with the formatting as the editor here is not easy to use, and it didn't read properly until after a few attempts. But it was not very nice to a newcomer to have this happen. The article is a bit longer now and is referenced, but needs a lot more work and frankly I am not encouraged to do any more. With best wishes, and sorry to be complaining like this. Americanlinguist (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I can only apologise on behalf of the community for the thoughtless action of that newpage patroller. Please understand that people who patrol the new page creation log have to deal with quite a lot of nonsense, which makes some of them a little trigger-happy, but cases like this really ought not to happen. Also, a piece of advice, please keep in mind that our articles need to be written in a way that makes them understandable to laypeople as far as possible. Maybe you could try to make the article a bit less opaque to the non-specialist, by making a bit less concentrated use of technical terms in the first sentences? Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope this first frustration won't spoil it for you. Fut.Perf. 08:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thank you I am sorry to have been rude above. I was thinking about an easier way to communicate the first paragraph. However I took the terms straight from textbooks and I understand Wikipedia does not allow original research in the sense of interpreting source material. Americanlinguist (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a good consideration, but I guess "original research" that just consists in finding more layperson-friendly ways of explaining the background assumptions behind a statement are really no problem. I actually think it's now a nice little article as is, but being a linguist myself I can probably understand it more easily than many others. Perhaps we can still come up with a way of making it more accessible. In any case, thanks for your contributions, and feel free to contact me if you need any help. Fut.Perf. 08:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This happens all the time. I swear I'm going to write WP:SHITANDRUN one of these days. Jtrainor (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:BITE also applies to new page patrollers as well. The ideal is that the new page patroller learns to patrol better, and the bitten new contributor is (as happened here) properly welcomed and apologies given. Speaking of which, someone should say something to User:Simplebutpowerful, as they were also involved in this. Oh, and instead of writing an essay, why not take part in new page patrolling (you probably do already, so ignore that). Hey, I have an idea, we can have a system to patrol the new page patrollers! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam filter keeps me from undoing spam edit[edit]

The wikipedia spam filter keeps me from undoing an edit which replaced Talk:Social network with spam because the vandalised talk page contains a link to What can I do about that? — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rolled it back for you. Dayewalker (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing article[edit]

Why is there no article on Hoopla? It just redirects to an article about a film. Hoopla is a notable game - see [1] [2] [3] (BBC is as reliable source as you get) [4].--Porollostracuos (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoopla is mentioned at Funfair#Sidestalls and games. It's not easy to find though. Maybe set up a disambiguation page at Hoopla? I'll do that now. Actually, while looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Hoopla, I found quoits. But still, this area does need a bit of tidying up. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure[edit]

I have recently noted a few problems with AfD closure process. Since this is mostly an admin process, this seems like the best page to discuss it.

The main problems are that AFD's are closed too soon, and that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is updated too soon. The WP:DPR clearly states that "Every day, the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." This is what Mathbot does, but people can't wait for it and add the next day (much) earlier. As an example, the page for the 17th was added early on the 21st[5], which means that many AfD's were only 3 1/2 days old, instead of the required 5.

Today, 18 October was added some 12 hours before Mathbot would have done it automatically: more serious, at that time (less than 4 1/2 day after the last AfD's were started), only 20 of the 112 discussions were still open! Excluding Speedies and relisted debates, this still means that many AfD's were closed before the page was listed on the /old page (as the Deletion Process mandates", and that they were closed before 5 days had passed (e.g for the second one, 4 days and 2 hours had passed).

I am not arguing that these closures were incorrect wrt the result: I have not checked them. But five days was the compromise between a swift process and sufficient time for everyone to research articles and improve them (and the suggestions to lengthen the period are regular fixtures on WT:AFD). Could we all please try to not close regular AfD's before five days have passed and before the page is listed on /Old, and could we also not list new dates on /old manually, since Mathbot does that automatically? Thanks... Fram (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue here. Mathbot does not list the days on /Old automatically. The AFD page is listed when the page is more than five days old — the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 18 was created at 00:00 on October 18th (i.e. the start of the day) and that page became five days old at 00:00 this morning and was listed on WP:OLD at 03:19 this morning, at which stage it was just over 123 hours old. Process has been followed here, although as you rightly point out, Kurykh added the 17th too early.
It's a side effect of the instruction that an AFD listed at 23:59 on the 18th will only be open for four days and a minute when that AFD page becomes eligible for listing at WP:OLD. However, the current instructions are being followed as written.
On a side point, there is a discussion at WT:CSD on lengthening the delay on delayed speedy deletions to seven days; it's been suggested that AFDs should go the same way. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect, Stifle (and I'll revert your change to the AFD/Old page). Mathbot does list pages if given the chance, e.g. here[6]. Pages should only be listed five days after the page has been "closed" for new entries, so that all discussions get at least five days. If this is stated differently somewhere, those instructions should be changed / clarified. I'll take a look at the CSD discussion, hadn't seen that one yet. Fram (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not what the procedure says — it says that they are listable on /old when the AFD page is five days old. If you wish to change the current practice, please establish a consensus for that. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Or just call over to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Time limits where we're trying to unify all the limits anyway. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry for inadvertently removing two of your comments, they have been kindly reinserted by Tikiwont) The prodcedure says to movethem when it is "more than five days old", which is open to interpretation. Five days and one minute? Or at least 6 days? In the end, all guidelines have to be in line with the policies, and the deletion policy clearly states that "The discussion lasts at least five days". If you wish to change the policy, ... ;-) (by the way, the discussion at CSD will not be good enough tochange time limits for other kinds, this has to be done at WT:DP or the Village Pump) Fram (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a specific issue? Some AfDs become speedy deletes. Others become snowball keeps. There are nonadministrative closures. Specifically what is the problem? Things that should be deleted that are kept before their time? Deletes that happen before the appointed time? If I were to name a single problem with AfD procedure it is that nonadmins sometimes jump the gun by closing as keep in unclear cases and before the discussion is done. And a close second is the participation of sockpuppets, hotheads, and SPAs. Wikidemon (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The specific issue that I understand Fram is making is that AFDs are being closed earlier that he feels they should be. (Feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you, Fram.) Stifle (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. For a number of reasons (one being guidelines that are unclear or not in line with policy), the correct procedure as described in the deletion policy is rarely followed anymore: while on the one hand we have discussions to lengthen the time deletion discussions stay open, on the other hand actual practice is to close them (individually) or move them to the "old" page (in group) before five days have passed. As long as the policy is to have at least five days of discussion, we should stick to that and not close AfD's early en masse. Fram (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
About the duration of the AfDs - I have started to go down the list of AfDs and see what the results were and when the decisions were made (currently at User:Od Mishehu/notes). In the first 40 we have 2 relists; 7 speedy delete; 2 withdrawn; 1 with a WP:SNOW deletion and userfying; 1 early non-admin closure; 1 still open; the other 26 were all closed after anything from 4 days 2 hours till 4 days 11 hours, mostly by MBisanz around 1:43-1:49 UTC today. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the technical instructions when to list log files are subordinate to the policy covering the time for the deletion discussion. As that is five days for AfDs the section marked 'old' should only include AfDs that have passed that limit. As AfDs aren't listed single but in logs, the log should be moved there only when the most recent AfD inside is at least five days old. Which seems to mean once the log is six days old. People can still close those AfD individually that are five days old or close to it. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry sounds like process wonkery for me. From what I've seen, any close that isn't clear more often sticks around 6-7 than 5 in the first place; and those that get close by shaving the 5 day delay are the clearcut ones that aren't going to be saved at the 11th hour by a cleverly rewritten article. Unless a demonstration can be made that there are cases where the result would have been different a few hours later, I'm certainly not going to stand around XfD with a stopwatch and yell "out of process" if a clear discussion is going to be close early. If this leads to actual abuse, then it needs to be examined. If the only problem with the rounded delay before closure is "it didn't last the specified duration", then it's a non-issue. — Coren (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coren (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy)- but the question is: What is the minimum time? When Serpentera was deleted, it had 3 votes to delete, none to keep. In the 21 hours it had till the end of the 5 days, a couple votes may have been cast to keep - and then there wouldn't be a clear consensus to delete anymore. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Even if the keep votes had just been 'this is an interesting article please don't delete it'? I'm getting tired of 'no consensus' closures when all the policy arguments are one way and the SPAs, first time editors who have edited nothing else, bring up a blog or a self-published website and the decision isn't made on policy grounds but, as you say, on 'votes'. Doug Weller (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's another issue entirely. The reason things happen as they currently do is simply one of practicality: XfD nominations happen at all times of the day, and administrators closing them have better things to do that trawl the page looking for the ones at the right time for closing... hence we organize into daily pages; which tend to be closed in one fell swoop (regardless of the time the XfD was put on that date's page). In practice, the clear XfD get closed really fast (which means that some may be 4 days and a few hours), the others not so fast, but all are potentially closed. Unless that few hours' difference actually changes outcomes (which would be made obvious by DRV), there I don't see an issue at all.

An argument could be made that we should have one (entire) extra day of delay, but (a) I don't see a need and (b) wanna bet some people will then start complaining that debates that should have been closed 23 hours ago!!1! have been affected? — Coren (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Process wonkery? Then why have a policy at all? I am not complaining about some individual AfD that should get overturnd because it was closed 15 minutes too soon. I am complaining about the culture we have here of closing almost every AfD too soon, listing them on Afd/Old too soon, and so on. Admins are supposed to follow policy, except where it harms the encyclopedia. Waiting five days to close an AfD will probably not harm the encyclopedia. However, if you think that 3 days is enough for most AfD's, let's just change the policy to reflect consensus. I don't care either way, but it would appear a whole lot better if discussions actually run for at least the amount of time they are supposed to. Fram (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't. As I've stated just above your comment, an argument could be made to add one more "daily page" in the queue and thus make the discussion last from 5 to 6 days instead. My point is that arguing about which hour in that day is the right one is pointless. — Coren (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think my argument boiled down to that. I will not complain if someone closes too late, or if it is closed five minuts early for some reason. The problem was with the systematical closures hours (and even more than a day regularly) before the policy-defined minimal time. Adding one day to the queue would help a bit (but isn't even needed: just wait for Mathbot to add the day, instead of doing it manually 16 hours earlier), and waiting for all normal closures until the page is listed at afd/old would help as well. It would make life even simpler: you (plural) don't have to add anything to afd/old, and you don't have to worry about the starting time of the AfD: if it is at /old, you may close it. Nothing more, nothing less. Fram (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"Then why have a policy at all?" - Good point, policy is supposed to be descriptive of actual practice, not proscriptive of what people should be forced to do. It should probably be updated. That said, 90% of AFD comments some in the first 48 hours of the discussion, the other 3 or so days are mainly just a courtesy to people who don't check Wikipedia every day. But the odds of a comment after 4.5 days changing the consensus of a discussion are quite small. The only cases where it would would be active AFDs which should be left open longer, and cases where the consensus is so weak that one comment can change it, which should probably be relisted. Mr.Z-man 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Can nobody see the problem here? 4 simultaneous corner 24 hour days and 4 Earth rotations occur within a single 24 hour rotation. Duh.
AfD discussions are meant to run for five days. Because AfDs are grouped into 24-hour "daily" pages, and because those pages are moved into the "Old" listing as a group, then there is inevitably a difference of up to 24 hours between the durations of AfDs. The solution, then, is, is to decide whether we want the error to be positive, negative, or split - in other words, whether we want discussions to run for 4-5 days, or 5-6 days, or 5 days +/- 12 hours, etc - and having decided this, to adjust MathBot as necessary.
Personally I see no harm in guaranteeing every AfD gets five days. Articles that survive the first few days of AfD without being speedied are unlikely to harm Wikipedia by sticking around for another 24 hours. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that harm could be done by cutting a discussion short. We're talking about getting rid of peoples' contributions here, and there should be no question in anyone's mind about whether or not we're giving their article a fair chance. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree and indicated my own math above. Moreover, process should help us, in this case to distinguish clearly those AfD that should be closed by putting them in an 'old' section below a line from those who can possibly be closed already directly above that line. Actually both for MFD (updated manually) and WP:DRV (updated by a bot) that have the same five day period, you'll see six days listed under 'current' and not five as right now for AFD.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Another point. Admins who wait for a discussion to run the full five days will find that other admins (who like to tidy things up earlier) will have closed discussions before they (the 5-day admins) get a chance. Thus this skews the demographic of "closing admins" from "all admins willing to do AfD closing" to "those who are willing to close a few hours early". This could, eventually, cause problems. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Or to put it less diplomatically, with the current practice AfDs are more likely to be closed by admins who are wikiholics with a slight disregard for policy than by admins who make sure that their actions comply strictly with written policy. (By the way, does the scheduled mathbot operation also introduce a geographical bias in admin activity?) --Hans Adler (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Selection bias and consensus[edit]

I have seen instances where admins have been conducting discussions on their own talk pages, or other user talk pages, to develop a consensus about important community issues such as whether to unban a user. Per common sense, such discussions should be occurring here on this board where everyone can see them. A user talk page is not a neutral location and will tend to attract users who have interacted with that user before. Such discussions should not be taken as representative of community opinion. Comments, kudos, and rotten tomatoes are welcome in response to my suggestion. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "none of the above"? You're correct in principle, but there are cases where bringing a matter here would simply greatly increase the drama, acrimony and all-out slugfest where handling the matter on the sidelines may lead to a faster resolution with less heat. — Coren (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A user talkpage is far more transparent than IRC, and there is a reviewable history too. I think any such discussion on a talkpage should be referred to an admin board before being enacted. In short, if a prior discussion on a talkpage allows a more detailed/considered proposal to be placed before the rest of the community then that is a good thing. Acting upon decisions made in a less trafficked place is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
most admin decisions don't have general implications, and anyone who thinks one does can bring one here. I think people tend to watchlist talk pages of some admins who tend to get involved in such discussions. that said, an admin who is deciding something that is controversial and general should know to list it somewhere. But think if all discussions were listed here--we'd have no time to actually review the ones that needed it. We have over a thousand active admins. DGG (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I think any discussion about whether to remove a community ban or sanction should be here, not on a user talk page. Can everyone agree with that? Jehochman Talk 12:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Final actionable discussion, yes. Preliminary discussion can be conducted anywhere appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


There seems to be many User: pages and redirects to user namespace in template namespace[7] Some might be legit, but others might benefit from being move to userspace or given the old heave-ho such as through R3 a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common. If you have any inclination to address this, please do so. Thanks. -- Suntag 19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to move any non-redirect either into the user namespace or to a name which doesn't begin with "Template:User:"; forward all links to these redirects (both those which are currently redirects, and those which we will be moviong and leaving redirects behind); and delete the redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that there are currently reasons why some of these pages are necessary - for example, User:Dinokid/Templates/Navboxes/Sapphire Park has a {{Navbox|name=User:Dinokid/Templates/Navboxes/Sapphire Park|...}} where the name is prefixed with a Template: prefix. Until {{Navbox}} is fixed, some of these may be necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Some neutral input please[edit]

Three weeks back I closed a WP:RM, and moved Flag of Ireland to Flag of the Republic of Ireland, largely based on what I thought were the better arguments of the pro-move side.

There is currently another RM to move the article back to Flag or Ireland, which has descended into a squabble about the original RM and various accusations of bias (apparently because I once used the term "Republic" to refer to the Republic of Ireland on someone's talk page, I have a "conflict of interest"). At the moment several of the contributors are people involved in the many Irish-related arguments, so it would be good to have some neutral input and feedback on the original decision. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring in people from the Chinese and Zimbabwean versions of Wikipedia to decide this using reliable sources, and require the two sides who are arguing this to accept whatever they decide. People who bring these outside fights into Wikipedia are incredibly disruptive. Remove them from the argument altogether and half our problems go away. For heaven's sake, people are screaming at each other about what to name a flag. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
And, see, it's reasons like this why I'm staying away from a backlogged request re: the (city, state) construct. (But, if someone else wants to take a crack at it....) JPG-GR (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you said it. You've moved the page and you are involved with that pages discussion. Unless it was an "in an out" opperation, such as an anonymous administrator moving the page upon request via the concent of the user on that page, I would tend to believe that you do have an interest. Furthermore, without going into details the prima facie evidence you stated doesn't help your case believe your are at arms lenght. b.t.w.: What ever happen to WP:NPOV and representing this conflict within the article!!! Unless for some reason (devils advocate here) the article is missing reliable sources. LOL. I laugh because I think the route of all evil on wikipedia is a lack of complacency to properly source and format references. Good luck! --CyclePat (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

archiving my user page?[edit]

Resolved: The consensus of the discussion is that Fyuck(click) can do as he wishes, may it be archiving the template or removing it altogether. -- lucasbfr talk 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All I want to do is archive my user page at User talk:Fyunck(click) but someone I have had problems with in the past has reverted it. This would be "Tennis expert." I want nothing to do with him (not wanting to stir up any more problems on a one-to-one basis) but could someone please make him leave my user page alone? I wasn't sure where to post this since it's not really vandalism or personal attacking. It's just mischief. Thank You. (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a confirmed sockpuppeteer, so you lost a couple of rights when you started socking. One of them was the ability to remove the category saying that you're a sockmaster.
Additionally, you'll need to log in before we'll do anything about a user page, in order to confirm your identity. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops... thought I was logged in, Sorry. I didn't want to remove anything even though it's all in the history. Just archiving all but current events. Surely that's ok? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the "offense" was back in June, that's OK with me. Just don't do it again ;) -- lucasbfr talk 12:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
However, Tennis Expert is correct; Fyunck(click) has conveniently omitted the section about sockpuppetry in the archive he created. It's not a complete archive as he has claimed. Horologium (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it only me or does one clearly see the f word in this username? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
One clearly sees it, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I see it also. Action? Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur, but like the optical illusion of Image:My Wife and My Mother-In-Law (Hill).svg I see the other side of the image... wiktionary:Funck and click... or how about F(for franck) and "Yunck" (a last name according to this search) + (click). Maybe it's a dyslexic mix of Franck Yun? I think there is a reasonable doubt that this may be a valid user name base on someone’s real name. Nevertheless, the more I look at it, the more I just want to ignore the fact that it may me "Fuck yu" or "Fuck it" which rhymes with Fyunck(click). It's pure bias, and this aforementioned fact should not be taken into consideration, even for the most or the least disruptive of users in our decision to block someone for disruption.... such a bias would put into disrepute the administration of fairness and brand Wikipedia's administration as insensible. I recommend, and I think WP:SOCK does as well, that it simply be ignored. --CyclePat (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline that allows a confirmed sockpuppeteer to archive the confirmed sockpuppetry notice after just four months? This user was highly disruptive and dishonest in June, (see, e.g., this) and as far as I know, he has never admitted that the checkuser conducted on him was correct. At the very least, he should admit everything and apologize before being allowed to archive the notice. Tennis expert (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy that requires users to archive everything that once was on their talk page (or there would be a lot of "F words" on my archives). We also don't ask people to undergo Self-criticism sessions here. -- lucasbfr talk 10:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And the cite for that is what? This user was outright dishonest and disruptive and has never admitted anything. Before allowing a user like this to obscure the consequences of his actions, the user should come clean about what he did. Tennis expert (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps I'm missing something? "F word" is a bit ambiguous, but the username doesn't contain "fuck" if that's what you mean. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the Scunthorpe problem? (Which is good for a laugh, if nothing else.)--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)First, re: to Horologium, the sockpuppetry thread isn't in the archive because Tennis Expert took it out, not Fyunck(click). Second, per MZMcBride, I think you have to work hard enough to see the f-word in the user name that no action should be taken on it (also, he's had the username for over 2 years). Third, per Lucasbfr, I'd say if this occured 4 months ago, and the user has been editing productvely since then, it's Ok to archive the sock notice. A cursory glance through a few recent contribs shows mostly good edits; does someone have diffs of recent bad ones? If so, let's see 'em. If not, let's leave him be, with Lucasbfr's "just don't do it again" caveat. --barneca (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for at least looking at what's going on. I included the whole archive, I guess Tennis Expert took out the part in question without my knowledge. The user name is from the book "The Mote in God's Eye" and is not supposed to be derogatory in any way at all, it's the alien's job description. Since I posted this query one person has now changed the archive header for the better (thanks), Tennis Expert has again reverted the user talk page, and now someone has added stuff to my user page which I kept blank before. So things are worse than when I asked for some help. sigh :-( I wish I knew what to do because it's very confusing. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would assume that the user name is a slight misspelling of "Fyunch(click)", which is a term from the novel The Mote in God's Eye. In fact, we mention the term in the article.-gadfium 17:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I misspelled it when joining and then said "oh what the heck" I like it this way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh snap, that's where I recognize this from. Thanks Gadfium! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so back to the topic at hand sorry, I didn't notice people had resumed talking about this again mid-thread. i must say, I now have no idea where to continue this, so I'll leave the post at the bottom of the thread. --barneca (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC): I think we should come to some sort of agreement that Fyuck(click) can now, after 4 months, put the sock notice in his talk page archive, and remove it from his user page and talk page. I don't think it was intended to be a scarlet letter he has to wear for the rest of his life. If anyone has evidence of questionable behavior/wrongdoing/etc that have happened in the 4 months since he pulled this, please bring them up, as it would affect my opinion. If not, I'd like to remove the notices. --barneca (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see why he has to put it in his archive. It doesn't appear that he was blocked for it, so it must not have been a big deal. I don't think there's any rule that requires talk page archives to be perfect records, or even a rule that requires having talk page archives. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What about WP:UP#CMT, which says, "Policy does not prohibit users ... from removing comments from their own talk pages.... Important exceptions may include ... confirmed sockpuppetry notices.... In these cases it may be legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to display important information about ... sockpuppetry." As for whether he was blocked, see this, which was connected with this whole sordid saga. Also, see this, which was the block of his disruptive sockpuppet. And, yes, it was a big deal. Tennis expert (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And what exactly do you think having this template on his talk will achieve? Especially 4 months after the event? This is getting more and more silly... -- lucasbfr talk 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the above, archiving this old thread is reasonable now and nothing in the username or recent actions of the user warrants admin attention. The userpage notice is uncalled-for and could be waived as well. Cenarium Talk 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keeping the confirmed sockpuppetry notice on the current version of this user's discussion page will further WP:UP#CMT. If you (lucasbfr) don't like that policy, maybe you should try to gain consensus to overturn it. But that is not the point of the discussion here. Through June of this year, this user (Fyunck(click)) had a proven history of dishonesty and disruption, which this user has never admitted much less apologized for. (See, e.g., this, where he claims that any confirmed sockpuppetry notice would be "very unfair".) In my opinion, that makes the user untrustworthy, which aside from anything else is why the confirmed sockpuppetry notice should remain. By the way, administrators occasionally impose conditions for unblocking, and I see no reason why conditions could not be iimposed on this user for removal of the confirmed sockpuppetry notice, including admission of previous sockpuppetry. Tennis expert (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
legitimate in order to keep a user from gaming the system. But the user is not gaming the system, so let him be. SpinningSpark 09:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You're misreading the policy, or rather reading something into the policy that does not exist. The policy does not say that a confirmed sockpuppetry notice must remain on a user's discussion page only if the notice is needed to prevent this particular user from gaming the system. Tennis expert (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Funny to see how Tennis expert, of all people, is opposed to granting another user the option to archive his/her talk page as they see fit. He regularly removes anything he deems critical of his editing, no matter if that criticism is valid or not. Funny. Very funny indeed. Everyme 10:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok enough of this nonsense. Tennis expert is the only dissonant voice here. Marking it as resolved, can we please go back at, you know, writing stuff in namespace 0? -- lucasbfr talk 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What do I do about this?[edit]

I nominated an article, Georges Lopez, for speedy deletion. The editor obviously took exception to it, and posted this in my talk. I know it's not Earth-shattering or even rude; it's just weird. I'm just curious whether there's some kind of stock response to this... or perhaps I should just ignore it. Seegoon (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Revert and ignore. I see no problem with the speedy (which is actually on Georges lopez—note the lower case l), because it's nonsense, lacks context, and is unreferenced. Horologium (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Weird, exactly; possibly not himself. Can't see what help an admin can give unless it gets heavy. Delete and forget. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb oversight[edit]

... granted per announcement of October 19.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

User right given. --Filip (§) 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin bot BRFA[edit]

This message is to bring greater community attention to the BRFA of DYKadminBot. All members of the community are welcome to comment on the proposal at the linked page. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber[edit]

Hiya, everybody. Yesterday I protected Joe the Plumber for 48 hours due to an edit war, and that protection is gonna' wear off early tomorrow morning. It doesn't seem that the content dispute that triggered the war is at all over, and I fear that it will resume as soon as the protection does expire. I wouldn't like to extend the protection, so that non-warrior editors can continue to work on it as normal, so if I could get some more eyes over on it now that'd be great. Cheers, and thanks. lifebaka++ 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about blocking the people that continue to edit war? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Depends on whether its the same people or random IP vandalism. If there are a small number of edit warriors and they don't get the message from page protection, then definitely block the edit warriors next time. Thatcher 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
With sufficient warning, that is in fact my plan. I just can't be on 24/7. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Editnotices have been shown to be incredibly effective for edit wars, if you're interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that looks like a useful idea. Any examples of effective ones in recent use, MZ? ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There's one on Sarah Palin, actually. Just read up on it. Thanks for the link, MZ, that will help. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, that one's good. Agree with lifebaka - a useful tool to consider in the future. Ta muchly, MZ. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to get a list of editnotices currently in use? Or a way to find out whether a page has an editnotice without actually clicking on "edit this page"? I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes and sort of. --Carnildo (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
PrefixIndex is a bit more of a 'canonical' way of getting the list. That is, it doesn't specify a start and end like AllPages does. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and a wikilink can be made so readers can see where it goes without clicking: Special:PrefixIndex/Mediawiki:Editnotice. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is restarting: [8], [9]. Basically no compromised can be reached because some editors strongly believe that facts published in mainstream media of all political leanings (from WaPo to Fox News), should still be excluded from Wikipedia based on BLP policy. Good luck sorting this one out. VG 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also fighting over "the most famous plumber in the nation" statement [10] [11]. Seriously WP:LAME. VG 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
One editor has made at least 4 reverts in a very short time period. QuackGuru 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Most famous plumber my ass. Have we all forgotten about Mario and Luigi?!?!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen it specified that Luigi was a plumber- for that matter, where's the actual evidence that Mario did any plumbing work either? In any case, that statement has to go- it's unverifiable and a blatant peacock. Humph, most famous plumber... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen I think it is fairly clear that they both were plumbers. The mere fact that they went up and down pipes shows that they have some sort of expertise on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but did Luigi have his own license, or did work under Mario's? (Score -1, Troll) VG 17:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


To be clear, as there's some confusion, I am not Science Apologist, though the name, Shoemaker's Holiday, is vaguely similar. There has been some confusion.

Now, then, I originally sent this to the arbcom, but they said that it should be dealt with by the community, so... here we are!

Martinphi (talk · contribs) is under an editing restriction because he " has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, threatening disruption of the project, and making deliberately provocative edits" (Finding of Fact #2, sans links). It is becoming increasingly clear that he has not yet learned proper Wikipedia behaviour. and, as the restriction is due to expire in November, I am asking that it be extended a further year.

For instance, in a thread which I've sampled here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, a part of NPOV policy that has been part of policy since 2001 in nearly the same form as today [12] does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology. He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through,[13] then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.[14]

Here is a recent Arbitration enforcement thread about his editing of policy.

I think that Martinphi's statements in the Paranormal Request for clarification are also relevant. In the face of every arbitrator clearly stating that the finding of fact does not set out an explicit content ruling, but was simply an effort to understand the party's points, he continues to insist that the arbcom, in fact, made a content ruling, and that he should be able to use it to push his point of view.

Martinphi has a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes him very frustrating to work with. The Arbcom restriction somewhat mediates that, but I don't think he has demonstrated any real improvement in the last year that would justify the restriction's removal, and would encourage a community restriction be placed on him.

I would also suggest that he be banned from editing policy. Besides the examples from above, back in April, he specifically admitted to editing WP:CIVIL in order to better use it to attack ScienceApologist. [15] [16]. (Background, abridged: he was adding words he had seen ScienceApologist and other people he disliked using to the Civility policy as "actionable" examples of incivility. [17] [18] [19]) Between this, today's editing of WP:NPOV/FAQ (described above), and the more recent WP:NPOV incident (courtesy duplicate link), I don't think he can be trusted to edit policy.

I would encourage anyone with doubts to review Martinphi's edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from about 29 August to 7 September. This will give clear evidence of a pattern of editing I can only hint at in this brief summary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, note that the "today's editing of NPOV/FAQ" refers to editing that took place about a month ago, not actually today (10/24). Avruch T 16:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No action was taken by the committee upon your identical complaint there, and apparently no action taken as a result of any threads on WP:AE. That suggests to me that no action is really necessary at this point. Avruch T 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (refactored for accuracy, my mistake) Avruch T 20:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I am under no restriction of any sort regarfding him. The only thing remotely similar came after he launched a major attack on me on WP:ANI, and I was advised to back off while others dealt with it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC) No longer relevant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
From my Rfarb comment pasted here. Nothing has changed since then, and I consider Shoemaker's part in this to be disruptive. I am greatly concerned about his motives.(olive (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Statement by olive[edit]

Concur with Coppertwig: Have I stepped into an alternate universe? I initially decided not to comment here because I couldn't believe that anyone who has been watching Martin's editing in the last few months could take seriously what is being said here. I've met Martinphi on a few of the policy pages where I have been working, and did a little work on Psychic. Here [20] he is obviously working in consort with editors who have multiple views on the topic of NOR. Martin has been clear, measured, intelligent in his comments, and obviously is collaborative in his editing. Yes, he's also strong and forthright, but needs to be given the editing environments on some of these articles. I would say on the policy pages there is very little friction among the editors, and whatever is there isn't coming from Martin. Here, he and OrangeMarlin although apparently in disagreement agree to compromise on Psychic. [21][22]. I understand as Ludwig mentioned that editors can disagree, and may have strong differences of opinion, but as with Martin and OrangeMarlin there are other, less disruptive ways of dealing with it than an Rfa.(olive (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Comment by MBisanz[edit]

Usually when Arbcom tells the community to handle something, it either means the behavior issue is not yet ripe enough for them to hear or it is a content issue they will not hear. If it is a content issue, the general progression is WP:3O->WP:RFC->WP:RFM. If it is a long-term behavioral issue, the usual progression is WP:EA->WP:RFC/U->WP:RFAR. From my brief glance at the issue, it appears to be a behavioral complaint about Martinphi's actions in editing articles. As there is near unanimous agreement that WP:AN is a poor forum for handling long term behavioral issues, could I suggest that a WP:RFC/U appears to be the best forum for resolving this matter? MBisanz talk 16:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I second this. List the request at WP:RFC/U. -- Suntag 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I see value in getting broader input from the Community and think a RFC/U will be a good method. If issues are noted that need to be addressed, then we can decide the best way forward, with new ArbCom restrictions, maybe. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be extremely frank here as I have never been before on Wikipedia. This complaint should never have been filed. Its not real, and I can't believe that it is even being discussed. This editor in the last months has been blameless, and I mean blameless . His progress and maturity have been a pleasure to see and watch. To have another editor who would seem to have ulterior motives trump this up and for the community to even consider the charges in any way, in any way at all, after the Rfarb in which only one editor responded against Martinphi and in which three editors with diffs showed the accusations to be false seems completely beyond understanding. I am incredibly reluctant to speak against SH here so I won't say more. Yes I'm upset, and outraged. How can this happen? This should stop here! (olive (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
There is one way of changing this and that is if the editors mature enough to deal with the material and the difficult situations they have to work in. One editor has done this. This issue is not about the old arguments on these fringe articles. This is about one editor creating a situation where none exists. OrangeMarlin and Martin are very clearly on opposite sides of the fence on these fringe articles and yet they have found ways to work congenially on Psychic. I would very much fear that bringing up this old issue as you have will only inadvertently create a red herring. This is not to blame just an observation. I want to reiterate this situation does not exist. Martin is not behaving in the way that SH says he is. There was no need to bring this here, or to Rfarb for that matter, and to continue this on when someone is blameless is of grave concern for me since it means really and truly someone can be railroaded into a situation and yet be innocent. In this instance this editor has taken to heart the restrictions placed on him, and has behaved in an exemplary way. This kind of untrue accusatory situation can't be condoned or at the least supported if Wikipedia is going to be successful. Editors have to feel safe here. I can't speak for Martin but if this were me I'd be walking away, not because its not fair, which it isn't, but because its not safe. I would urge that anyone who wants to condemn Martin look at every single diff on his contributions in the last couple of months.(olive (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
  • Point of note: the natural progression is, in fact, EA → RFCU/U → AN. Problem editors can be dealt with through community discussion on this noticeboard; that's a common practical aspect of today's community. RFAR is used only for those rare cases where every avenue to resolving a given matter has failed to the extent that the project is actively suffering. I find it harmful to build Arbitration—which in itself is intended to be a final port of call for the resolution of particularly poisonous disputes—into the standard user conduct DR process; we call upon the Committee to take the duty of resolving its internal conflicts out of its own hands only where it is absolutely necessary. AGK 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FloNight[edit]

Shoemaker's Holiday, my statement did not say that Martinphi should be "dealt with by the Community". I said that ArbCom was the proper venue. And I also said in my statement that I wanted input from a broader section of the Community. You have made your opinion known. If others see a problem with Martinphi, then they need to let ArbCom know so we can make or modify any editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • comment - I agree with Olive's first statement. Martinphi has been disruptive in the past, but his only disruption now is to Shoemaker's POV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone even read the diffs before they decided to attack me? Or are you just deciding that the counter-attack by Martinphi's friends? For the record, I am under no sanctions regard I am not Science Apologist - as I believe some have mistakenly assumed - and this was my first statement of my concerns to Arbcom. So why am I being told that Arbcom knows full well my opinion, and doesn't want to hear what I have to say? Probably because they can't tell the difference between people whose name begins with the same letter. Feh! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've refactored my original comment to refocus it on the fact that this problem has been dsicussed previously in other forums without conclusion. It doesn't seem like there has been any negative recent developments in Martinphi's conduct, so I'm not sure that this is the time or place to start a new discussion. MBisanz' suggestion for a user conduct RfC is a good one, not least because it takes the discussion out of the framework of a page that is intended to result in sanctions. Avruch T 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with those who have suggested other venues. I don't think any sort of agreement about a longstanding and controversial editor like Martinphi will be reached in an WP:AN thread, so perhaps WP:RFC/U would be a better venue. I will chip in my 2 cents: I have often found Martin difficult and frustrating in the past, but my sense is that he's made significant progress as an editor and has improved over time in terms of his approach to Wikipedia. But that's simply a gut feeling and I have not reviewed his recent contributions extensively, nor have our paths crossed recently in any meaningful way. MastCell Talk 20:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My intention is and was not to attack Shoemaker, but I do obviously question his motives. I had no desire to drag up diffs to prove my points to other editors. That would be an attack of sorts and that wasn't my purpose. I have been on some of the articles where both Martin and Shoemaker are editing , and I see that Shoemaker has a view of the situation that I cannot share, and which I at the very least find puzzling. A messenger has no involvement. Shoemaker you do. You are attempting to have restrictions renewed on another editor for a full year. If you are going to make the accusations you have, you will have to expect other editors to question why you would do this, and why would you continue when in the Rfarb there was so clearly so little support or interest. If other editors see my comments as an attack rather than the support, questions, and serious concerns that arise when another editor is attacked I will be happy to apologize. I can't withdraw my concerns on this issue nor will I support taking this any further. This as I have stated is not about adversaries on a fringe article, an old debate/concern that I think has seen great improvements. This is about a single editor and accusations that are unfounded and unproven.
If we really want the fringe article debate to improve further, when restrictions are applied and when an editor clearly improves in the ability to deal with those situations, then, it is of the utmost importance that discussion not be deflected back onto that old debate, and that the contributions of that editor are clearly studied and judged by impartial editors before that editor is dragged through the mud of yet another discussion. The unfairness of this, I'm afraid, I find quite mind boggling.(olive (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC))
Reply to Shoemaker. I absolutely do not conflate you with SA. I find SA to be a disruptive detriment to the project (even though I mostly agree with his pov). I read the statement you posted at Rfarb, and reviewed a few of the diffs that I did not find compelling. Hence, I do not support your recommendation/proposal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There are only 10 diffs. Why not check all of them? Above you said I was only doing this because of my POV. However, you have not actually reviewed the evidence I provided, so saying such things about me seems unwarranted - you have no way of knowing because you never checked my evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I checked enough of your evidence to find your statement on Martinphi uncompelling. Point out where he's really disruptive, 'cause I'm not seeing it. In asking for additional restrictions, it is your position to sell them to the observers (whether that's the Arbcom, a group of admins here, or any other venue). Make the sale! to this point you have not. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anther bold subheading[edit]

Why are we here? If you'd like an arbitration ruling enforced, there is a place for that. If you have concerns not covered by any arbitration case, as MastCell suggests, try requests for comment. This thread needs to be wrapped up Jehochman Talk 18:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for AfD closure[edit]

Could someone please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidents by handedness, with an eye to closing it? The nomination was based on an admittedly poor start, but since it was re-written the consensus to keep has been virtually unanimous. I'm asking for this because the article has been nominated for DYK, and will be ineligible as long as the AfD tag is on it. Lampman (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's closed now. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a quick response. Lampman (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a minute - the discussion had only been running two days (three days short of required five) and is not unanimous. I appreciate the predicament re: DYK but that closure was a bit iffy. Nancy talk 11:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. This AfD should have been allowed to run its course, and most certainly shouldn't have been subject to a Non-Admin closure. The fact that closure seems to have been instigated in order to get it into DYK looks like an abuse of process. Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah crap, I assumed that it had run for the full period of time. Reopening, of course. Sorry guys. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It's reverted, please don't eat me :-) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, you were perfectly in your right to close it under the snowball clause, which "is designed to prevent editors from using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster". But neither is it worth stooping to their level; I'm sure it will resolve itself somehow. Lampman (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Lampman, three of the most recent seven !votes have been "delete" so I would beg to differ with your assertion that WP:SNOW can be applied here. I agree that then most likely outcome will be a keep but that is by no means a certainty. Nancy talk 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No, maybe a probability of 0.00009. Lampman (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Silly vandalism of page[edit]

Resolved: Vandalism was reverted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The following page:

has silly vandalism (right at the start of the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RufusThorne (talkcontribs) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of restrictions between editors[edit]

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract, Collectonian and Sesshomaru[edit]

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to further amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

  • Matters between Abtract (talk · contribs) and AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
  • Abtract (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
  • Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
  • The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

+ + + + +

To whom it may concern, the above was discussed and agreed upon here by a majority of the involved administrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:The Enchantress Of Florence attacks on other editors[edit]

I was going to wait until this user got another warning but now I see that there are many in her talk page history, she's merely removed them (which is fine, I'm just saying that they are there.) In all the 200 edits of this user, I wonder how many are attacks on other editors. She seems to have a 'thing' about User:Crusio and because he said he looked at her contribs, is reverting him everywhere calling him a 'stalker'. I often comment at AfD and because I commented on two the same as her, said "Note to closing admin: posted by dishonest stalker who has posted uncivl displays of public animosity toward me for comments elsewhere"[23] Her tone she also keeps up about WP:BLP subjects [24] She calls someone else a 'stalker' [25]. She seems to have a very low opinion of the community as a whole [26]. This is just a selection out of the last 50 edits. If it were someone with more edits, I would make a WP:RFC. It is also not WP:WQA thing IMHO as it is very repeated. Some people also aren't sure about her prod removals, or about some recent AfDs she's started which they consider WP:POINT, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Bella_(3rd_nomination)- but I didn't mind the AfD's because I agreed with them- I didn't think she meant for anyone to think the AfD's were right though.:) Sticky Parkin 03:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to blank that individual's posts from my user talk, per BLP. DurovaCharge! 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually reviewed this account a couple of days ago when I noticed the rather interesting self-declared husband and wife team attempting to tag team their way through an arbitration request. Their behaviour is a perfect example of why we have sometimes discouraged husband and wife editors from participating in the same XfDs etc. Honestly, I'm feeling rather inclined to block this editor for a few days. It's clear the warnings haven't made any impression and if anything the behaviour towards other editors is becoming worse and increasingly contemptuous. It's one thing tolerating a bit of disruption from people who actually help build and contribute to the project, but I don't see why we need to tolerate it from people contributing little in the way of encyclopedia building, and who are violating BLP, attacking other editors, and now, apparently, returning simply to revert without even attempting discussion and resorting to using edit summaries to make personal attacks and accusations without presenting any evidence, that I've been able to find at least. Sarah 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement here - it really does feel like the user displays classic examples of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Whether it's taking a closing admin to RFAR for closing an AfD in a way she did not agree with, or raising multiple other AfDs based purely on the outcome of that initial one, it's a constant disruption. An action that would prevent the current disruption would be helpful, although the civility questions that Sticky Parkin raises would remain. Gazimoff 12:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a short block for disruption, with a joint RFC on the two of them if things continue. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked the editor 48 hours for disruption, too many worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable thing to do. Endorse block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This is hardly a reasonable or, in several cases, an honest discussion, and is dominated by unfounded allegations of bad faith masquerading as legitimate concerns. There is no evidence that my spouse, The Enchantress Of Florence made "pointy edits" or actually violated BLP policy, and no one has cited any. This nonsense grows out of a situation where she challenged Crusio's prodding of an article, and pointed out that Crusio's conduct apparently violated WP:BITE. Crusio responded by trailing her around Wikipedia, making inappropriate comments regarding her, escalating to one lengthy diatribe including a personal attack, falsely claiming that various mstters were sourced when they were not, and reversing her edits to other articles, including at least one example of outright vandalism. After much provocation, she described him, rather accurately, as a "stalker," leading to this lynching, in which she was not provided an opportunity to respond. The blocking administrator has not cited any examples for most of the supposed violations, particularly the claims of BLP violations. This is a gross abuse of administrator authority, and should be reversed without delay. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not just Crusio she's called a stalker though, she's called two other people at least a 'stalker', along with other comments in violation of WP:NPA. Sticky Parkin 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mr. Dautrieve is making a headlong rush to join his wife in a block; if they don't stop tag-teaming, I'd suggest indef-blocking both of them as disruptive meat puppets. Gwen has shown remarkable restraint in allowing her talk page to be used as a soapbox; I would have removed similar fulmination from my page. Horologium (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    I do not believe there is anything inappropriate in asking for a substantive response to a question about an action when no evidence, or other explanation, is provided in support of that action. I find it hard to view a response like this as anything but an attempt at intimidation. I would be interested in seeing ether policy or precedent in support of this suggestion, and I continue to await anyone's explanation of the BLP and "pointy" editing charges cited by Gen Gale without explanation. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Your wife was blocked for making personal attacks; repeatedly calling another user a "stalker" in edit summaries (she did so at least four times) is a personal attack. Due to previous incidents with real stalking on Wikipedia, such accusations are not taken lightly, and using the term to describe the actions of the editor in question is libelous. Additionally, her editing was disruptive; many of her edits were simply attempting to make a point, rather than serious policy-based discussions. (Please read that particular link; it's highly relevant.) This has been explained to you, and your attempts to ignore such warnings are tiresome. Horologium (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    At least with regard to the current incident, the user she applied that label to had announced his intentions rather clearly, and was systematically going through her contributions and reversing them, in at least one case resorting to outright vandalism, and had posted personal attacks on her. That is my initial complaint to Gwen Gale referred to asymmetry, a complaint to which I received no substantive response. If we are dealing with a "magic words" justification for blocking, then that should have been stated, and a specific advance warning given. I have read WP:POINT, and no one has yet cited an example of it; this matter has simply been judgment by accusation. Several of the accusations were outright falsehoods (e.g., an accusation of "mass" deletion proposals, when only two were made). As for your final point, I would note that no "explanation" has ever been given in substantive terms; the charge is simply restated, without any evidence. Lardner's "Shut up, explained," is an example of irony, yet it too often seems to be taken seriously here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    Additionally, I would note that a variation of the term "stalking" is officially sanctioned as a description of the behavior of the other editors involved. [27] Is the basis for the action against her that she simply used the wrong form of the applicable term? I have reviewed WP:NPA and notice that the term involved is not listed as one of the sorts of comments about other editors that is forbidden per se, and WP:HARASSMENT declares that the behavior she complains of is prohibited. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Minos P. Dautrieve blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. Reviewing this thread, Gwen Gale's talk page, and Mr. Dautrieve's stated intentions on his user page, this disruption has to stop. Wikipedia is not a court of law for your amusement; perhaps the social part of competence is necessary applies here - "Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door." Tan | 39 18:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Also potentially relevant, this past incident also involved EOF's unfortunate difficulties with civility. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Minos P. Dautrieve has requested an unblock on his talk page, with more of the wikilawyering he's exhibited here and elsewhere. I'm not inclined to unblock him, but because of my interaction with him above, I'll let another admin make the call. Horologium (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told I've begun thinking of blocking them both indef for ongoing, blatantly disruptive edits and wikilawyering which have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia or following its policies in a collaborative way. I'm not even sure anymore they're two people and if they are, it's over-the-top meatpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think they are two people, but both are being very disruptive in numerous ways. A block wouldn't be a bad idea here. I'd not be inclined to make it indef though, since they aren't exactly SPAs, just rather passionate with the wrong idea about how things work. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think they're two people, Minos has more edits and considers what he says more. But they are two people who are erm, not behaving very nicely. They claim to have knowledge of the French wikipedia, wonder what their standing is over there? Sticky Parkin 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have since looked at their contribs and do think their syntax and typos don't match. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Two people. It might be necessary to block Minos from access to his talk page if he carries on. Doug Weller (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I got a taste of this user Enchantress, a few months back when she randomly removed some of the PRODS because another editor with whom she had a run in seconded those. She was extremely rude and uncivil in her comments and edit summaries. Its clear that the user Minos is her spouse and they are tagging up to get their way. I would suggest both of them blocked for at least a month, so that they get the time cool themselves down. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad backlog[edit]

There is a backlog dating back to the start of July at Wikipedia talk:Image renaming, I set out my own stance on this here, over a week ago, to no avail. Another editor, who's been waiting a while, thinks that the page should be protected (presumably to prevent further backlog). Can this be sorted out? It's obviously not a day-in-day-out type task that admins carry out, but I don't think it would take too long. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I least have the courtesy of a response, yes or no? Enough people get granted rollback rights; could this be looked into? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Intelligence[edit]

I believe that this article warrants a "speedy deletion" because it is about one journal article presenting a fringe theory. I am not sure that this "theory" would meet our criteria for includion in another article, given that it is a fringe theory with one source. It definitely is not significant enough to merit an article. I smell POV forking.

I have been involved in content disputes concerning a related article, Race and intelligence, and do not think it ould be appropriate for me to make the decision to delete, or to delete it, as some may consider me biased. I'd appreciate others looking into it and seeing if it really does meet the criteria. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is a fork, it is one of some 30 months existence; I therefore do not think a speedy delete is an option. Given the circumstances, perhaps it should go to AFD? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Article was Nominated for deletion back in Feb 2007, the result then was "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
After such a time, since it is still relying on the one source and it appears that there are still no other references available, perhaps it is time again to nominate it for AFD - and as that is a discussion/consensus based procedure then there is no bar on Slrubenstein nominating it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if someone else (working on the page) agrees it merits a nomination for deletion we will go that route. Thanks for the feedback, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This issue was already discussed and went nowhere. The underlying feeling was that it merited an article because there exists adequate numbers of news articles and references to warrant it. Recent criticism, besides Slrubenstein's, was based on the mistaken belief that the article was on the intelligence of the Ashkenazis (and not on the fringe theory) and therefor needed to be expanded or re-named. That didn't constitute a dispute. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you are saying the article is on a "fringe theory?" And that is not a POV fork how? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
AFD is not dispute resolution, it is a discussion on whether the article satisfies WP's notability guidelines - and this discussion belongs there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, well, they demonstrably have intelligence. It has been measured and compared to that of other groups. There have been numerous reliable sources with substantial coverage of the subject. What is is the issue here? Edison (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threats[edit]

Not a direct legal threat as such, but this edit, made on User Talk:G2bambino by a user who has been broadly supportive of that user in a long running and acrimonious dispute with User:Roux appears to be fanning the flames towards a legal threat. Not sure what (if anything) should be done here. Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I could be missing something, but I hesitate to call that a clear legal threat. Iffy, sure, but I'd rather hesitate to block over that sort of vague statement, absent a pattern of some sort, or something else to suggest a problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless User:Gavin Scott is out chasing ambulances on wiki, I've no idea what that about. It does not seem in the least threatening.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Gavin Scott is clearly baiting G2bambino, whom has been blocked for legal threats before. A warning would be in order. Tiptoety talk 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Amended: Ooops, he has not been blocked for legal threats before, I was thinking of another user. Tiptoety talk 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Legal threat? I don't see it. It's just a joke, nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it is not a legal threat, but I am not sure it is constructive. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it's meant to bait G2bambino. Afterall, Gavin is supporting G2 and/or opposing Roux (which ever ya choose). GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A legal threat is where someone indicates that they have initiated, or intend to initiate, legal action, or where they clearly threaten another user with legal action. Most things that are ambiguous are not legal threats. Indeed we get very few realistic legal threats on wikipedia. Most times that we block someone for legal threats, we could equally have blocked them for trolling and disruption.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about what has transpired here and quite frankly, I am taking the fifth! If any action is to be taken I would like an admin to explain to me what I did wrong and advise me on what I should do. Gavin (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like heavy sarcasm. Annoying but not anything that needs official action unless there's more to the history than this. -Nard 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

C4v3m4n's Contest Page[edit]

Is this acceptable? Note that on Oct 22, C4v3m4n spammed invitations to this "contest page" to the talk pages of some 30 editors. I don't know if this violates any specific policy, but I do know that I don't like it. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Those don't bother me. I'm not keen on users setting up things like this privately, and I'm particularly not keen on any sort of spamming. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If we see dubious nominations at FAC, I suppose we will address it. However, it should be known that FAs are promoted because the articles (should) reflect the most comprehensive and authoritative sources available on the subject. Any articles on moustaches or facial hair, or anything really, are allowed, but what concerns me is the extra points for originality of content. That suggest WP:SYNTH. If an editor does proper research, the content should not be original in the sense that it has never been seen before, just brilliantly written. It would help if C4v3m4n became involved with reviewing FACs in preparation for this endeavor to better guide participants. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
And you probably don't like this contest by WikiProject Military history either. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with the contest. Not thrilled about spamming 30 people about it. Looie, besides the spamming, what is it about the contest that bothers you? Seems like a case of sticking our collective noses in where they aren't needed; am I missing something fundamental here? --barneca (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me as a bad idea for users to be setting up public functionality in their private space. It's bound to get out of control. Anything in user-space that creates a need to advertise is going to be a problem. Doing things like this in Wikipedia space or WikiProject space is a whole different story -- that's public functionality in a public place. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Does it really matter what title the page has ? If it's behaving like a project page, we'll treat it like a project page, if it "all gets out of hand", but at the moment, I see no problem with the page. Nick (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
All that Wikipedia public functionality started out as someone or other's private idea. Even something as fundamental to today's Wikipedia as the Manual of Style was originally one guy's little scheme (which some of us ignored until it was no longer possible). But that's the way it has always worked on Wikipedia. People try stuff out. If enough people think that the stuff is a good idea it endures and possibly gets shifted to the Wikipedia namespace -- otherwise it doesn't. And that's the way it should be. It'll be a sad day when we have to Seek Official Sanction before doing anything new. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting articles[edit]

Forgive me if this is a daft question, but is it possible to have an article's history split in to two? I want to do some cleanup at List of Presidents of North Korea, and have been digging through the history of the article: on 3 Feb this year the article went from this to this. What I'd like to do is have the earlier revision as List of heads of state of North Korea, and the newer version as President of North Korea, preferably keeping the relevant bits of history with each article. Is this possible or not? PC78 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

While merging two histories is easy (via WP:HISTMERGE), splitting an article's edit history is ... extremely challenging and not generally worth the effort. Given the short amount of content on the page, just go ahead and fix it up. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
For your information, splitting histories involves:
  1. Deleting the page
  2. Identifying and restoring all revisions related to page 2
  3. Moving these revisions away
  4. Restore all other relevant revisions (some times there may be revisions which have previously been deleted - don't restore those)
  5. Rollback the redirect caused by the move in step 3
Not worth the effort. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted content[edit]

User:Leonapedia has re-created Leona Lewis on The X Factor after it was deleted earlier this year, here in his namespace. Is this allowed? Dalejenkins | 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, userfying of deleted articles to give the author a chance to work on it and bring it to a point where it will overcome the reasons for deletion is a common practice. So as a general thing, this is not a bad thing. In the specifics of the specific case, though, the purpose of this userification does not appear to be to allow for improvement, but rather to get around the AFD. So in this particular case I would say this would be a good candidate for A4 G4 - Recreation speedy deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Given the last edit message implying the purpose of the page was to dodge the AFD result, and the lack of any improving edits in the months since, I've gone ahead and tagged it for G4 deletion. This'll let an additional admin be the final judge on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That the editor hasn't sought to improve the article in nearly five months doesn't give me any confidence that this is his intention, and it's toast. --Rodhullandemu 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be undeleted as a matter of courtesy to the user. Articles created in good faith but subsequently deleted through AfD are commonly preserved in userspace; I have several such pages in my userspace, and I haven't edited them for years. I also don't understand why this article was deleted and not simply redirected to Leona Lewis with the history intact. Everyking (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Check your facts first. I made the page in my userspace after it went up for deletion the first time, but was saved. I guessed they were going to come for it again, so I made a copy I could work on in my userspace. There seemed at the time a concerted effort to get rid of it by certain editors; despite saying in the second AFD that they would merge with the main article, no part of it got put into the main article and much valuable information was lost. So I was right to save a copy to my userspace. And thank-you, Everyking. Courtesy has been distinctly lacking in my case - facts have not been checked and no-one even visited my page to tell me they were deleting one of my user pages, which as Everyking says, can be left quite happily. No-one bothered to tell me of the two AFDs on my userpage either. As Everyking says, I made the article in good faith, and I spent a very long time on it. I feel like I have been right royally shafted here. Leonapedia (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok then. As I see it, you have two options. 1) persuade User:Rodhullandemu to reverse himself, and/or 2) WP:DRV protest the deletion. I've also removed the resolved tag for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion image backlog[edit]

Resolved: It's down to two images waiting for handling, at this point in time. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At CAT:CSD there is currently a backlog of images. It would be nice if someone can come and deal with them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It happens from time to time. There're fewer admins who work on the images than on the pages. It gets pretty intimidating when there's 83 of 'em sittin' there, too. The image CSD are pretty straightforward, so feel free to tackle a bit of it if there's a problem in the future. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone know what happened to User:Zero0000? He was an administrator I used to interact with fairly regularly. Although we never agreed I thought he was a very talented sysop. I recently found myself scrolling through his recent edits and realized that he edited everyday until a little more than a year ago. Particularly worrisome is his very last edit in which he indicated he was going overseas for a few days. Anyways I think at this point we have to assume he has passed away and that it is time to hand over his administrative powers over to someone else. I don't want to make any suggestions or anything but isn't it fair to assume that Zero would probably want one of his friends to have them? Again I'm not implying anything but I'm sure he would especially appreciate the person who actually noticed his absence.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately adminship is not a hereditary peerage, which would doubtless annoy my kids (a) were I to have any, and (b) if they turned out to be as geeky as me... GbT/c 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I was joking about the giving me his powers part, but I am actually really curious as to what may of happened to him. He was a cool guy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Email him using the "email this user" function from his user page, and consider adding his name to this page. GbT/c 08:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
...cough, admin primogeniture, cough... KnightLago (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I can just see somebody stalking and assassinating an admin in order to acquire his or her admin rights. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoa Whoa, if you look in the French police report they eventually concluded that it was a random attack. They discounted the other evidence as circumstantial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Marco Lazzara autobio[edit]

I just stumbled into the Marco Lazzara article. It has been on since October 2007 with User talk:Marcolazzara2 as a main contributor. In fact, the only edits this user ever made are to his own article. I just left him an autobio notice on his page, but don't know what else can/should be done. -- Alexf(talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as he stays out of editing it, I see no reason to delete, as there is decent referencing. However, since he's in all the images there, I question whether he is the actual copyright holder of them. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see why you felt a need to template the article, or what you expect anybody to do about it. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at the images. I highly doubt that the images of him performing were "self made" and I'm sure that a professional took the mugshot that appears in the infobox. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

All the photos say: "self made". Yeah, right. They are all professional or press. To answer above, I don't know what is gained by templating the article but it just feels wrong. And obviously lying on the photo copyrights to boot. -- Alexf(talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly removed the template. Feel free to put it back if you also explain concretely what the user needs to do in order to satisfy you. It's unacceptable to template an article without stating explicitly what is unsatisfactory. Mere suspicions are not enough, because there is no way to resolve them. Looie496 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U on G2bambino[edit]

I am requesting the outside comments of uninvolved admins at the RFCU on G2bambino. One user who was trying to help has removed himself from commenting; this needs to be addressed. Tiptoety has recommended that I seek outside comment, and one commenter has also requested that outside uninvolved admins comment on the issue. roux ] [x] 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha[edit]

Resolved: Block was good. — Coren (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to bring people's attention to this user who appears to want appeal a block resulting from my reporting a violation. I think that adding a section isn't enough to trigger the appeal.

Could people

  • either consider the appeal or do what is necessary to help set up the page User talk:Malcolm Schosha so that soemone can consider appeal.
  • consider the, to my mind, rather fantastical accusations of COI against the blocking admin in a couple of sections of the talk page. I'm thinking particularly of [28] and [29].--Peter cohen (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

URIs don't work in unblock templates, so I set up a template with his first sentence inside, the rest below it, so the page will now be seen by reviewing admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No time to review it myself, but FYI: if you put 1= in the unblock template ({{unblock|1=your reason}}), links will supposedly work. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been reviewed and declined. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: blocked by one month for edit warring

Can an admin please re-re-review the activities of this user. They have now been blocked twice for edit warring and reinstatement of FAN/POV material (see here), and have apparently tried to reinstate the material using an anonymous IP account here, and the first thing they do when the block expires is to reinstate the same sort of material in Rajesh Khanna ([30]) and Bewafai ([31]). Whilst I appreciate that they may be enthusiastic about this actor, I believe adding this sort of material is not in line with WP's policies on neutrality, POV, FAN etc. I don't know if this technically counts as vandalism, but I'd appreciate some feedback/intervention etc. by an admin. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I reblocked him for 1 month this time. The user is clearly edit warring. They are aware that their edits are in dispute, and yet they made them immediately after the last block expired. If the problem returns once the next block expires, please re-report them, and an administrator will take appropriate 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked indef as sock of Wallamoose, confirmed later by 2 CUs

A suspected sockpuppet of Wallamoose, JoeTimko is blocked indefinitely, but gives every appearance of wanting to improve articles. If he were unblocked, I'm