Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive175

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

Noticeboard archives


User Abtract requesting RTV, posting here for wider discussion[edit]

On his userpage, Abtract posted this: [1] which seems a clear indication that he wishes to exercise his right to vanish. It should be noted that, in WP:RTV it states that "Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy: for example, if the user is not actually leaving, or if the user is not in good standing." So I am posting this here to see if the community wishes to extend this right to Abtract. He certainly seems to genuinely wish to leave, the question remains if the community wishes to extend to him that right. I remain 100% neutral on the issue, and am only posting this here to see what the community decides. 19:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem in letting him go *poof*! Should he return in some form we can deal with that later. JodyB talk 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind deleting his pages, with the explicit note that if we ever catch him under a new identity, he forfeits any future right to vanish. MBisanz talk 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC)Since he's not in good standing at this point and is serving out a block for gaming the system, I think the best thing to do would be to wait until he's finished the block and come back to the wiki. That'll make sure he actually wants to vanish, and not just that he's upset about being caught and blocked. If he still wants the RTV after that, I'd give it to him, although I would certainly inform Collectonian about him vanishing in case this issue comes up under a different identity. I find it interesting that him taking on a new identity was one of the first things that three different editors thought about. Dayewalker (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dayewalker on waiting for the block to expire. Blanking Abtract's Talk would be OK, but deleting it would not, in my view. Regular editors would no longer be able to view part of the evidence about past disputes, including at least one arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Let the block expire and then let him vanish. JodyB talk 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not know if its relevant, but if he does decide to leave after his block, it might be prudent to also kill his secondary (though currently unused) account User:Abstract. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Definitely leave the block to expire, then confirm and allow the vanishing. I suspect we'll see this editor back, however (considering this comment the ArbCom case didn't have much of an effect on the editor's viewpoints), and suggest that a note be made on the ArbCom page that while the editor may not be active, if he/she appears in future, the restrictions there should be applied. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Despite the ArbCom and block history Abtract has done some good editing, usually on dab pages, and per AGF I think we cannot say he is in bad standing. I see no harm in permitting him RTV since, if he does not truly disappear, he will quickly make himself known and we can indef block and undelete and template his account pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I know we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, but if he uses his right to vanish and returns to harass the other user under a different name, he should forfeit any good faith he's accrued. If he vanishes and removes himself from wikipedia, the Arbcom case should no longer be applicable. I support his right to vanish (after his block), but returning to skirt a previous ruling should result in a quick block. Dayewalker (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If he vanishes then the ArbCom is in abeyance, not inapplicable. If he returns then the ArbCom is simply reactivated in conjunction with any other sanctions or other actions considered necessary. Per his own commentary, he has suggested he may return in some future where he will link any new account to this one; at that time the ArbCom again reactivates... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with LHvU, if he returns publicly, the ArbCom would still be in effect. However, if he were to return without admitting his previous identity and continue the pattern of behavior that has led to his multiple blocks, wouldn't he forfeit the protection of the ArbCom ruling? Dayewalker (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It depends - if the harassment is basically no different to what the Committee found, and concerning the same users, then we can approach the Committee to amend the case to include another account. Alternatively, we as the community can impose sanctions that are enforcible by individual admins. We can take whatever steps necessary to deal with the problem at the time. If that's clarified, I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes it's true that WP:RTV does say that sometimes the community will not allow a user to vanish due to certain circumstances, but I personally believe that if an editor wants to leave the project, then I say why stop them? It's clear Abtract has been taking a good amount of stress lately with the ArbCom case and all, and it appears he's really frustrated of Wikipedia. If he returns under a new name in circumvention of this courtesy and by extention the ArbCom ruling, then we can deal with it easily. For now, though, I endorse letting him go peacefully. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Article on Homophobia rendering strangely[edit]


The article on Homophobia has a section that is rendering strangely in Google chrome and Firefox. I am unable to figure out if this is an issue with content or with how the HTML is being generated. There are four "edit section" links all in one place on the page. Near the heading "Fear of being identified as gay (social homophobia)."

I am unable to upload a screenshot that I took of this rendering because I have not made enough edits. Hopefully my description is enough to go on.

Does anyone have an idea of what is causing this?

--Pushups (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A not-uncommon quirk of our CSS: the [edit] links are being "pushed down" to the next available space by the infobox and the pictures along the right. IIRC, this annoyed the French Wikipedia enough for them to move the [edit]s to a different place - something that has been tried here but always reverted. You may find that changing the size of your browser window helps (bigger or smaller). ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you Redvers, and John Nevard for the timely answers. It's too bad nothing can be done about this yet. Someone can feel free to stick a resolved checkmark on this :).
--Pushups (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is caused by images (often, but not always, why there is pushing) try using something like {{imagestack}} or similar... that often can fix it. This probably is not an admin issue, you might want to ask on the Village Pump next time, since this is a "how to edit/layout/fix technical problem" sort of issue. Best wishes, hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links and I would probably put this on the help desk next times, usually they are the most knowledgable on content matters. Regards. Woody (talk)

Requesting commment on a new template[edit]

Because of planned licensing changes across Foundation projects,I have created Template:Incompatible_GFDL_Version with which to warn uploaders about images that are currently under a GFDL version which does not permit later versions.

It would be appreciated if any interested admins, would leave feedback, and amend the template in line with current/planned policy of which I may be unaware.

It is also appreciated, that an equivilant template to use on the relevant image page would also be appreciated.

I am also requesting Dual-licence to CC-BY-SA on images/media, in respect of some of the 1.2 only images, whilst recommending the uploader's update to 1.3.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)



Something odd has happened to the page WP:WHOIS which only this morning was a useful explanation of "Whois" with links to services like Arin. Now it is a redirect to WP:Vandalism, and its page history shows no edit after June 2006. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know what happened, but I (think) I fixed it by adding the section (Tracing IP addresses) to the link in the redirect. —Travistalk 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an improvement, but (unless I'm dreaming) the vanished page had an explanation of how WHOIS worked and examples of the output you could expect and what it meant. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn’t even know about the whois shortcut until reading your post, so I don’t think I’ve ever seen the page. Since there doesn’t seem to be anything useful in the page history, unless someone else has a better explanation, this the best I can do. —Travistalk 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I just thought of this: Are you sure you’re not confusing this with WHOIS? —Travistalk 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was. Thanks. (Hangs head in shame.) Sorry for the trouble. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, no trouble - that redirect needed fixing, anyway. —Travistalk 17:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Block needed? or just...something else?[edit]

A few weeks ago I first encountered the edits of Simulation12. If you take a peek at the user contributions, you'll see little of value, but I was trying desperately to AGF--in part because the user claimed to be "twelve years old" and "in elementary school". So I tried, patience decreasing hourly, to steer little "Riley Lizzie", as she claimed her name to be, in the right direction. However, her bad edits caught up with her and she was blocked by an uninvolved admin. Well, today, another user who'd been working with Simulation12 dropped some good advice onto her talk page [2]. Still AGFing, I added my own bit of advice as well. Here's the reply I got:[3] Note the sudden change in age--is she six? is she twelve? Am I the Queen of Schenectady? But wait--there's more! ElButler also noticed that "Riley"s YouTube page claims that she's NINETEEN. It goes without saying that my own PERSONAL good faith with this user has now dipped below the x-axis, but that's neither here nor there. We have a user whose edits are much less-than-optimal despite patient explanations, warnings, and a block--who ALSO now turns out to have less-than-perfect regard for little things like FACTS. Do we let this user continue to annoy the REAL editors, or do we take a slightly BOLDer step? I can do nothing, since I'm "involved", but I'd rather nip this in the bud. I will say this: Simulation12 is NOT a net benefit to the project, and while I'm a firm believer in miracles, I don't see it happening--not now, not soon, not ever. Any qualms about BITEing a newbie are, in this case, misplaced.Gladys J Cortez 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been looking at this editor's contributions before I saw this, and I'll leave a final warning on their talk page. By the way, a look at User talk:Elbutler and User talk:Simulation12 shows an incredible amount of effort on the parts of Gladys and Elbutler. By the way, Gladys, you had email. --barneca (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've banned Simulation12 from the talk pages of Gladys and Elbutler. I've also given her a final warning for any disruptive editing. If disruption continues, I'll block indef. If this user is really 6, I'll eat my hat, but I can't prove it so won't block for trolling quite yet. If this user really is 6, well this is an encyclopedia, not a playground, and a swift block will probably be the best for all involved. --barneca (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Amen.— Ѕandahl 00:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Verily I say unto thee: w00t. Thanks, Barneca!!! Gladys J Cortez 01:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone lied on the internet? That's something new! I don't know why editors hold people to such different standards based on age. We have some teenage editors who are admins and higher ups and some of our idiotic vandals are more than old enough to know better. It's just a matter of "are you willing to listen to others, are you interested in paying attention, do you care to follow the suggestions/rules?" Note that if someone does block, we should consider whether or not to delete the user subpages (just copies of articles listed for AFD in an attempt to "save" them). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:km to mi[edit]


Template:km to mi is protected against editing, but does not have a separate, editable documentation page, like most protected templates. I request that such a separate page be established, as it is for Template:mi to km (which is not protected, you might want to protect it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgrosser (talkcontribs) 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the suggested changes. —EncMstr (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Crichton[edit]

CNN reports that the author Michael Crichton has died. The WP article on him is getting a little out of hand. Edit conflicts, people editing mention of his death into places it doesn't belong.... Can somebody PLEASE do something? — NRen2k5(TALK), 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a few days; the level of traffic combined with the rate of IP vandalism is a problem, and it will calm down in a few days, I think. In the meantime, we can direct IP editors and others to the talk page... MastCell Talk 19:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Depressing that the community's first post-mortem thought is "well, now we can add a fair use image". — CharlotteWebb 13:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:DJ Max Series[edit]

Please delete. It meets the requirements and has been tagged for over 7 days. I also don't think Category:Templates for speedy deletion is being populated correctly because it is always empty. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be redirected to Template:DJ Max series? --NE2 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No reason to be. It was just created, and nothing links to it. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No reason not to be. Given the lack of a standard for capitalizing template names, the names could easily be confused. --NE2 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
But since it was just created, and nothing links to it currently, wouldn't it be assumed that noone would use this version since they did not even know it existed? And it would be getting rid of another unneeded template. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone might know the name but forgot what's capitalized. Redirecting gets rid of an "unneeded template". --NE2 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't be silly. {{Infobox book}} redirects to {{Infobox Book}} and {{Infobox Character}} redirects to {{Infobox character}}. I am not aware of any widely enforced naming convention for templates (other than stubs). If only the namespace was case-insensitive half of the confusion would be solved. Failing that, use redirects. — CharlotteWebb 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD help please[edit]

Resolved: AfD closed, nomination withdrawn. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 13:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't look to closing an AfD early but would appreciate if someone would consider doing so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango. It's a rescue that has been completely rewritten and I'm hoping to get the DYK in but the clock is ticking and I think they frown on DYK's being at AFD.

The nom has withdrawn but despite addressing concerns raised - and asking all who have weighed in to revisit - there isn't clear keep consensus nor, from my experience is there by any means a delete or merge consensus. If agreed then maybe this could close so the DYK could go forward. All consideration and time appreciated. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning: it is a bit longish but not terribly so. -- Banjeboi 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Closed. The default for articles on Wikipedia is that they exist unless it can be shown that they shouldn't. (AfD minus withdrawl of nomination) plus (no consensus in debate minus rewrite of article) equals closure of AfD as keep. Ordinary editing allows people to solve the merge and redirect points as they see fit. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 13:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 - Request for Questions to the Candidates[edit]

Nominations for the December 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections will be accepted from 10 November to 24 November, and voting is scheduled to run from 1 December to 15 December. In an effort to give all candidates the chance to answer general questions about themselves and their candidacy, we are currently soliciting input from the community. Any editor who wishes to submit questions for all the candidates should do so by visiting Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/General and following the instructions. On 17 November, the list of questions will be posted to each candidate's questions page, where they will provide answers (Subsequent nominees will have their question pages created with the same list). Questions to specific candidates may be posted at that time, as well. Please discuss at the election talk page if you have any questions about the question process. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring when an administrator reverses another administrator's AWB decision?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Everyone intensely loves each other. MBisanz talk 19:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved}}no remaining conflict among involved admins Slrubenstein | Talk 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC) - while it's true, I' like to discuss Tennis expert's actions. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC) WP:WHEEL defines "wheel war" as follows: "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions...." Max asserts that WP:WHEEL does not apply when an administrator reverses another administrator's decision to remove an editor's WP:AWB access. Is this assertion correct? The factual background is that Mart removed Lightmouse's WP:AWB access on October 22, 2008 and again on October 25, 2008. Max reversed that decision on November 2, 2008. When asked whether his reversal was a "wheel war", Max said, "Nonsense. Read WP:WHEEL to find out why. I'll just add that AWB usage is not covered by WP policies and there's nothing that can prevent me from making a special version that will ignore all checkpages in the world." Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for Max to have reverted me if he sees that line of action as sensible :) Martinp23 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Reversing an action once is not a wheelwar. It needs a third change in order for it to become one. If Martin had reverted MaxSem's change, it would have been the start of an edit war. Wheel war more refers to logged actions, such as deleting/undeleting. But I suppose it could also apply to "admin-only" areas, like the AWB access page. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. But WP:WHEEL does not say that a wheel war exists only when the second revert happens. In fact, the "needs two reverts" requirement was deleted from the policy 19 months ago. Tennis expert (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It does: Repeatedly implies that the action needs to be done more than once. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)What they are trying to say, I believe, is that it says "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it". MaxSem's revert was not repeating anything, and thus not a violation of the current wording of WHEEL. --barneca (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Martin said he doesn't care though, so the question now is purely academic. If the person being reverted is fine with the revert, there's nothing actionable. Mr.Z-man 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. But this important policy needs to be clear. Is it permissible for administrator #3 (Max) to revert administrator #1 (Mart) in the same way that administrator #2 (Jj137) reverted administrator #1? That's what happened here. Mart removed Lightmouse's WP:AWB access. Jj137 reverted him. Mart reverted Jj137. Max then reverted Mart. Sounds like a wheel war to me. Tennis expert (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be clear, but - with respect - it seems that it is clear to everyone except Tennis Expert. Repeat does mean "twice." If "twice" was removed before it could only have been for style, to avoid redundancy. You know, repetition. Saying the same thing twice. "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." This can only mean one of two things: Admin x does something. Admin y reverts it. Admin x does it again - this is the repetition. I think this is the crux, and Tennis expert, if you feel the Wheel War policy would be clearer if we added this well, I would be behind you 100%: Administrators can disagree with one another. And, as with most editorial disagreements (like the BRD cycle) the first way we express disagreement is by reverting. Some editors seem to have gotten really nervous about reverts as if this hurts someone's feelings. But we are all acting in good faith, we are working on a wikipedia where no one owns anything so we all take it for granted that virtually anything we do will be changed or undone by someone else. That is like at Wikipedia and there is no point in taking any of it personally. Let me put it another way: admins have certain powers which means there is always a risk a power may be abused - and not always through malice, it could be carelessness or just a decision made too hastily. Another editor reverting is the simplest check on that power. In this case the system worked perfectly - Mart has no problem with what happened - so I see no reason to belabor the case. If anything let's put a link to this case in the Wheel War article as one example of things working out well. Mart had three options: agree with Max, disagree with Max and begin a discussion with him, or disagree with Max and revert him. Only the third constitutes a wheel war. Tennis expert, if you do not think this is clear in the policy, what do you propose we add? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) If reverting once is not a wheel war, then why was the "needs two reverts" language deleted from WP:WHEEL 19 months ago? (2) As for the exact situation I'm talking about, Mart clearly stated his disagreement with the reversion of his removal of Lightmouse's WP:AWB access. How is it possible to interpret Mart's reversion of Jj137's reversion of Mart in any other way? Despite this explicit statement of disagreement, Max then reverted Mart, i.e., reinstated Jj137's reversion of Mart. That seems like a wheel war to me, regardless of anything else. And wheel warring is disruptive even if the administrator being reverted says after-the-fact that he doesn't disagree with it. In the situation we're talking about, Mart explicitly disagreed with reversion #1 (see this thread) but now says that reversion #3 was OK, presumably now saying that his own reversion #2 was in error. Tennis expert (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is any wheel-warring, it was Mart's reversion of Jj137's reversion. But Jj137 does not seem to be taking it too rough, so I still do not see a problem. As I said, repetitively, but I guess I need to repeat again, I believe that "needs two reverts" was deleted because it is bad style. If you are proposing to restore it, for what it is worth, I would back you. Frankly, I have no problem revising the Wheel War policy so that it follows our 3RR policy for editors, with the crucial difference of imposing a 1RR for administrators in administrative actions. If we had a 1RR, technically none of the admins here would have violated it. I think the policy has two purposes: to allow admins to balance out one another's mistakes without leading to an escalation of conflict. I think admins should have a 1RR rather than a 3RR because there should be fewer disagreements about administrative actions than writing great encyclopedia articles. I think 1RR does it. I think the current language is adequate but if you think it needs clarification please pursue it at the policy talk page. None of the admins involved here are in conflict. What is your purpose: to stir up conflict, or to improve the policy? If the former, well, please don't. If the latter, I respectfully (and encouragingly) suggest that your purpose would be better served on the policy talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My purpose is to find out what the policy is. It's as simple as that, and I'd recommend that you assume my good faith. We have one administrator saying that WP:WHEEL does not apply at all to WP:AWB. Then, we have a chain of administrators reverting each other. We also have the reverted administrator vehemently disagreeing with the first reversion but agreeing with the third reversion, which in effect says that his initial disagreement was erroneous. Finally, we have WP:WHEEL, which some say applies only beginning with the second reversion but which no longer has the language that explicitly supports this interpretation. So, we have a mess in several respects that I would like resolved. Tennis expert (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But the situation with the AWB is currently stable, right? That is what I inferred from what you wrote, if I misunderstood you I apologize. If the situation is stable I see no need to discussion at the AN. If you think the policy is unclear I can only repeat - and yes, I am assuming good faith and I wish you would too because this is good constructive advice - take it to the policy talk page. That is the place to discuss ambiguities in the policy. Right now there seems to be no conflicts among the administrators you mentioned. I think that is nice. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll just try to quickly explain my reversion: it was a mistake. I saw the two names at the Check page and added them to the approval page (they had 500 mainspace edits) without noticing that Lightmouse had been removed a few days before. I admit, I made a silly mistake, and I was definitely not trying to start a wheel war. Sorry for the confusion.   jj137 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my own view is that Wikipedia asks everyone to be bold and it is inevitable that people will do things they regret and sometimes clash with others. What is most important is not any of our policies (all of which are superceded by "be bold") but rather our ability to correct our own mistakes or the mistakes of others in a quick and collegial fashion. I see WHEEL as a safeguard for those incidents, which should be rare, when admins are tempted into a silly escalation against one another. In this case, it seems like none of the admins involved did that; none acted in bad faith, no one was mlicious, doesn't look like anyone holds a grudge ... I really think this is how Wikipedia should work at its best. There was a problem, others caught it, some confusion which is natural, and it is all water under the bridge. If it always worked this way we wouldn't even need policies! I really admire the thoughtfulness and good faith displayed by the various admins here. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cough, cough, so I'm finally awake. And now let's take a look at the situation:

  1. Due to concerns of some users, including Tennis expert, that delinking dates alone violates AWB's policy "Avoid making insignificant minor edits", Lightmouse's approval was revoked by Martin.
  2. Tennis expert actually objected against delinking at all, and had revert-warred against users enforcing MOS:DATE across articles in his area of interest, whether such edits were automaticor not.
  3. Lightmouse later applied again through usual means (WT:AWB/CP), was approved by someone, then removed again by Martin when he noticed this. Nothing terrible here, reapproving admin was obviously unaware of situation.
  4. A discussion started on WT:AWB about whether delinking dates is inconsequential. After much debate, a straw poll took place, and it ended with 2/3 support for allowance for such edits (though, obviously, users performing them should enable AWB's general fixes and typo fixes to have a chance to fix more things in one edit).
  5. After discussion faded, Lightmouse asked for reinstatement.
  6. I, uninvolved in this conflict and not having a strong opinion about both date linking and the inconsequentiality of date delinking using AWB, reviewed the discussion and declared that will approve him next day, if there will be no compelling objections.
  7. The only user who objected was Tennis expert, whose objections were against date delinking in genera.
  8. I approved Lightmouse and left a remark about Tennis expert's wikilawyering (so slap me).
  9. Tennis expert started this thread, at the same time he took a 100% measure to win the match - adjust WP:WHEEL to suit his needs (can someone revert him plz if they feel he is climbing the Reichstag?) At the same time, TE does not forget to revert-war by returning date links in direct violation of MOS:DATE#Linking of dates such as [4].

Now ask yourselves: whether undoing someone's actions after discussing the matter and achieving consensus is wheel-waring, or it's TE who's wikilawyering and disrupting the project to get things done his preferred way? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst we are in debriefing mode, let me state how things looked to me. I do janitorial edits on many articles and therefore I encounter lots of people with a variety of views relating to dates, units of measurement, the MOS etc. Some editors decide that they don't want date delinking to take place and simply revert such edits. I don't like it but I try not to take it too seriously. I had not heard of Martin before so his action appeared out of the blue. I didn't take his action too seriously because I assumed that he was genuinely unaware that delinking is acceptable. Metaphorically, I shrugged my shoulders, access had been turned off so I simply asked for it to be turned on again. In a failure of wp:agf, I was accused of being 'cunning' by requesting access on the request access page. I didn't take that accusation too seriously either because it is false and I am comfortable with my own actions. I frequently ignore mistaken beliefs and don't defend myself as often as I should, but since the matter is now been raised to this important page, I decided to say something. As far as I can see, this episode is just the way of the wiki and I am content with how it turned out. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not assuming good faith then. I expect that waters were slightly clouded by the rather diverse (by the multiple locations that it took place in) discussion. That a discussion was had and a consensus formed is good enough for me :) Martinp23 19:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Many of our policies are written in ways that encourage wikilawyering, and Tennis has gotten stuck on some wording in the WHEEL policy that s/he sees as leverage for continued discussion. TO ANY OF YOU who oppose wikilawyering and encourage administrators to sort these things out themselves, I suggest you go to the WHEEL policy and propose changes to promote administrator flexibility and discourage wikilawyering. You guys can knowck Tennis all you want but be honest, it is not like you can build and ArbCom case against him. I am suggesting that instead of harping on the past we focus on the future: how would we wish this kind of stuff to be handled in the future, and how might some policies be reworded or revised to make this future more likely? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom case? What? Who said anything about that? Who's harping on the past? This all took place very recently and is still actionable. We can only look at the recent past. We can't issue sanctions in real-time or predict the future, so the past is all we have to go on. Wikilawyering is bad, unilaterally changing policy to help win an argument is a serious problem. (what the purpose of that argument is has yet to be explained, I'm starting to think its beyond simple clarification of the policy) How should it be handled in the future? Exactly like it was before this thread was started. No harm was done, so no action needs to be taken. Mr.Z-man 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no intent on my part to make any of my WP:WHEEL clarifications and improvements retroactive, and it's ridiculous to assert otherwise. This thread was resolved. I accepted that resolution and also accepted the suggestion of Slrubenstein to attempt to clarify and improve the wheel policy. See WP:BOLD. My attempt to do so was promptly reverted, without explanation. That's where the wheel policy stands now. Tennis expert (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

New users and the assumption of good faith[edit]

Rather than a sock of an existing editor, or a returning banned editor ripe for a checkuser request, it may sometimes be that a new user who "somehow" has a good knowledge of Wikipedia processes is simply... not an idiot, and is able to read the instruction manual before using the tool. Discuss. Steve TC 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but it's far from the most-common explanation. Those guidelines/policies/essays/doodads trip up even long-term, experienced editors--and the old tried-and-true BBS ethos of "lurk and learn" went out of style with flannel shirts and distortion pedals. It's Web 2.0, mah peeps! Jump in! Make all the mistakes you want--manuals are for girlymen! (pauses, reins in bias slightly).
Having spewed that, however: it really matters more what the user's doing. If it's a new, strangely-clueful user who's adding content and minimizing drama, then yeah, I'd AGF. But nobody starts their WP career with a perfectly-formatted, policy-quoting, reasonably-cogent noticeboard post full of alphabet soup. Nobody. To me, that's like a duck-test all its very own. YMMV, of course.Gladys J Cortez 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This guy's first edit was pretty damn suspicious, I'd say. He found his way to a contentious subject and jumped right in. Remembered to sign his post, too. Then there's this guy who near-as-admits to being a sockpuppet, and surely this is a prime example of POV-pushing from a new editor. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd keep a serious eye on that SheffieldSteel. Anyone who shows such skill with piping and signing from the off must be some kind of returning supersockfarm master. Steve TC 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand that, I'm just disappointed by how many times I see a reply that includes a phrase to the effect of "Odd, he's somehow familiar with our processes, despite having only been here a week. Break out the checkuser!" Often it's in a thread concerning that user's wrongdoing, and sometimes it's not. But either way, it's an immediate suspicion dropped into the thread, one with the potential to unfairly prejudice other participants against the editor. I won't begin to assume what's in the minds of those doing it, but it is a little patronising to assume that even a complete novice can't work out in a matter of minutes how to properly cite something, or find a relevant guideline. This may not be the best example, but while my first ever edit was considered vandalism, it followed the prevailing citation format of the article perfectly. Two minutes beforehand I didn't have the foggiest idea what to do. And within four days of joining I was throwing What Wikipedia is not and other guidelines at people like an experienced editor. Not because I'm some kind of genius, but because it isn't rocket science. I would have been seriously pissed off if someone had implied I was a returning banned user because of it. Until proven otherwise, good faith extends even to those you believe don't deserve it. Steve TC 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That last line should probably be permanently engraved somewhere in the MediaWiki interface, if you ask me. (However, and nearly as important, "until proven otherwise" shouldn't mean "AGF until the user becomes a 'crat and deletes the entire intarwebz.")Gladys J Cortez 23:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
If someone just randomly starts a discussion about a new user simply because they seem familiar with policies and procedures, that's a problem. But when its in a discussion about actually disruptive actions, especially those in areas of the project that tend to attract sockpuppets, its a perfectly valid thing to mention, because probably 99 times out of 100, someone who jumps in to controversial areas and starts disrupting and arguing like someone who's been here for months, really isn't a new user. Its like ignoring the guy with a vest made of explosives because "maybe he's just a little chilly." Mr.Z-man 05:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There are distinct differences in editing patterns between users who have merely R'd the FM well before editing, and those who are clearly sockpuppets. Generally, if the first post is a well crafted edit to an article, with proper Wikimarkup, I'd take that as the former. If the first post is to ANI stating "Hey, I am new here, but it looks like when you blocked this obscure troll for violating this policy while editing this backwater page that no-one but him edits, and here are 27 policy pages and 35 diffs that show that you have abused your admin powers!" Then it is just a sock of the user we just blocked. 20:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Troubling user page[edit]

Resolved: Deleted. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Sahra8. There appears to be a conversation about off-wiki matters (specifically, studying for algebra) taking place here, which is sketchy as per WP:UP, but I would not be inclined to take action.

However, all the edits in the conversation are made by the account... which suggests to me that this account has multiple users, who are sharing it for the purposes of some sort of inconvenient chat form.

Thoughts? Just look the other way? I have not yet contacted the user, because if nobody thinks this is anything to worry about, I'd rather not bother him/her/them. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be using their user space to run a tutoring service! --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Already taken to MfD. The user was indef blocked for childish vandalism on Obama a few minutes back anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The account is part of the ring that was around Work club (talk · contribs) and subject to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Work club, so I've deleted the page under that decision. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger Request[edit]

Could someone merge The Fallout Trust with The Corrections (band) - they are the same entity under different names. Primary article should be at The Corrections (band). Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please post a request over at WP:PM, or follow the steps here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban me now[edit]

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

Net negative to the project. Can't you all see that the drama plays into the hands of this person? You honestly think they can cite this as an example of how bad Wikipedia is when their own attitude to the project shows them to be [*]? I think not. We're here to write an encyclopedia and that aim is achieved by working in a collegial atmoshphere with good intentions - this editor, obviously, is incapable of doing that on a scale involving positive interaction between contributors. If they were they would not ask to be banned. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved: No. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite my recent remark on Jimbo's page which clearly identifies me as a ban-evading sockpuppet, I have not been banned yet. I demand action Americanlinguist (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to fill out the "Request for ban" form in triplicate and mail it to the Arbitration Committee, after which they'll get back to you following a three-month-long secret discussion and two meetings in the admin IRC channel. —Slowking Man (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a do-it-yourself site. Please use WikiBreak Enforcer to block yourself for an appropriate period.-gadfium 08:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't hesitate. But in this case, I can't be bothered to do anything. Feel free to just leave, though: personally, I wouldn't hang about in a place where I wasn't wanted; but if you get your kicks from doing so, then that's fine too. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This user (I know who it is from personal communication, and CU results correlate it, other CUs can contact me for the saved data) wants this sock to be blocked in order to make a WP:POINT. But since this particular sock is making good contributions, and this is in no way analogous to situations where we have "remarkably unwelcome" users making edits purely to further a stalking/harassment agenda. I see no reason to accomodate them. If they veer into out and out disruption, then sure. But of course, at that point they will have wrecked their "See, you ban good contributing users just because they happen to be socks of (putatively unjustly) banned users" claim they are trying to develop, by no longer being a good, contributing user. In which case the ban is justified on merits. So I think maybe we've turned the double bind they were trying for around on them. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, we get a (very fleeting and) cheap thrill out of seeing you thwarted once again. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicken! All right we'll call it a draw --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute—while I fully support letting him edit, because his work is fantastic, he was banned by Jimbo, and if he is not banned now that means the community is overriding Jimbo's ban. Am I correct in interpreting the situation this way? Everyking (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a good interpretation is that the disruptive persona is still banned, and should be blocked on sight if that persona reappears. alanyst /talk/ 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
That looks like an accurate statement of events. --NE2 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I endorse this product or service. (i.e. that's my read too... it's the persona that's banned, defacto) ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Will we be updating policy to note that we only ban personas, not people? Furthermore, I am not clear how exactly this is a different persona. It seems clear that the community is not willing to uphold Jimbo's ban of an excellent contributor, which was imposed solely for comments on another website (for which the user in question quickly apologized). Let's acknowledge that directly. Everyking (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you want to argue this here, or on WR? I seem to be getting grief in both places, it seems. Any admin that WANTS to block this userid... can. Policy allows, but does not require, that any particular userid get blocked.
HOWVEVER: Any admin with a smidgeon of sense, now that they know WHY this userid was created, ought to not do that block or it plays right into Peter Damian's hands.
That doesn't mean a change in policy, or an overriding of Jimbo or anything of the sort. It has always defacto been the case that if you edit in a way that doesn't cause problems you may well get away with socking. Our policies are pragmatic. So far, leaving this userid unblocked has meant less disruption, and more positive contributions, than blocking (although the balance is starting to shift a bit).
Now, if you want to propose that the person behind this particular userid and others is no longer banned, go ahead and do that. Be explicit. At that point, I'll speak out against lifting the ban. But what you're doing now smacks of wikilawyering. Don't do that. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the proposal of explicitely contradicting Jimbo is rejected because only one WP:POINT is allowed per ANI thread. {{humour bottom|obligatory humour tag, because you only need one humor-impaired editor to ruin your joke}} --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It only takes one admin to block for block evasion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct. However as I say, it is my belief that doing so in this case causes more disruption (by an ever slimming margin, it seems, given how this thread is growing) than not. Hence, I decline to do so, and I recommend others do as well. You had it right the first time. ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that; this appears to be an attempt to cause zOMGDRAMAZ!!! more than anything else. (Of course, it may be an attempt at reverse psychology instead...) It might be worth pointing out to Jimbo who this is and have him do the deed... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Lar, yes, I was only saying, if his behaviour spins into the untowards again, it will take but one admin to block the account for block evasion. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
He came to my talk page, thinking I was a patsy. I ain't. Bright he may be as regards academic stuff, a poker-player he is not, and no savvy Admin should dream of blocking him. Whereas he may be clued to Aristotle, he is in Macchiavellian terms, an amateur; and I won't say why, but it should be obvious to anyone in possession of a fully-functioning brain. --Rodhullandemu 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that our above discussions have been rendered somewhat moot, because User:Ryan Postlethwaite has now blocked the Americanlinguist account. For at least the next week, we won't have to worry about that account contributing any more high quality encyclopedic work. Everyking (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of weird, after a discussion here reaches the conclusion not to block him, Ryan takes it upon himself to do so anyway and doesn't even post a notice. That's not collaborative decision making we can believe in. Haukur (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is no virtue in consistency... Poltair (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have blocked him (owing to the kind of thoughts talked about above) but block evasion isn't allowed and I don't think consensus is needed to block for it. If a blocked editor comes back quietly, makes only helpful edits and nobody who sees what's going on wants to say anything, that's more than ok. However, to taunt and game over having done this is in itself a clumsy disruption and I'm not startled someone blocked him over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, it feels like some people are giving him a tad too much credit. It wasn't exactly an elegant plan. Sneak back into Wikipedia, do some good edits, and then complain about how the horrible admins blocked his account when he ran around saying "Block me! Block me!". :) Seriously, if someone revealed that at a conference, I suspect I'd just laugh. I can't see him doing any real damage with that approach. On the other hand, the idea that WP won't block the socks of banned editors if they threaten to complain publicly doesn't seem particularly appealing - although I doubt that would do any real harm, it is somewhat less attractive than the good laugh provided by the alternative. It may also be worth keeping in mind that Ryan's block wasn't an indef, but a short block for trolling - he can come back in a week and return to good, constructive editing. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ryan tweaked the block. It's now a 1-week block for "trolling". I suspect that this is all academic and that the account has now been abandoned. It's kind of weird to think that somewhere out there, a disgruntled but industrious editor may be beavering away with a new account, quietly working to destroy Wikipedia from within by, uh... adding accurate and well-sourced material. How do we convince other banned users that this is the perfect way to get their revenge? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The guy's banned. He's here to disrupt now. He added a few sources then started to troll to get his account blocked. I merely blocked him to stop that. If there's a real concern with the block, I suggest you appeal to Jimbo to take away his ban. The only reason why he wasn't blocked sooner was because that would be playing right into his hands and feeding his trolling further. No need to start suggesting that he wasn't blocked because no admin thought he should be and they were going against the ban - they simply didn't want him to get the upper hand. If this was uncovered by CU and his account hadn't trolled, he's a been blocked right away. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He didn't just "add a few sources", he wrote the article scalar implicature (for a laugh, look at this revision—someone tagged it as nonsense because they didn't understand the concept). Does it bother you that this editor might not create more content like that due to his ban? Everyking (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
On the balance, and over a long period of time, any topic worth writing about well and notable enough to include in Wikipedia will eventually be written about by someone else. At Wikipedia, we value our contributors, but nothing anyone does is indespensable. If you are going to create content and be disruptive; well someone else will come along some day and create the content anyways and not be disruptive. I will take my chances with the good person who has no intent of making a point or who has no alterior motive beyond merely adding good content over guys like this. Endorse the block. 20:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
But we both know he is going to, because he's going to create more accounts and do this again! If he could do the content side without the trolling, attacks and general poor behaviour, then nobody would have a clue who he was, so he could simply continue without any suspicion. If he decides the only way to go is to do a bit of content and then troll his heart out then I've got to say no thanks - he can gladly stay blocked on all accounts. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
But just above you stated: "If this was uncovered by CU and his account hadn't trolled, he's a been blocked right away." Isn't that a contradiction? Everyking (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's the deal: If he edits from this moment forward under a new account, ONLY makes positive contributions, avoids his old stomping grounds, never does vandalism from this or any other account, and never makes statements like the above where he begs to be blocked, there will never be a reason to CU him, and so no CU will ever catch him. Any blocked or banned user could do this easily, and we would never be the wiser, so long as, as a person they never again caused another problem. Hey, perhaps some have, and that's cool too. The difference is, as soon as you do anything to draw attention to the fact that you are a blocked user, whether its engaging in the same problems that got you blocked, or droping a note at ANI saying "I am so-and-so, you can block me now", well, that's when the CU will be run and we will catch all socks... The moral is, if you as a person never again does anything wrong under any more accounts, then nothing will cause anyone to check up, and you will never be blocked... 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of that. Just by editing philosophical articles and displaying a certain style and personality he could be detected without ever doing anything harmful. There have been cases like this in the past where banned users were detected and banned again even though all their work on their new account was constructive. Everyking (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I thought WP:ELEPHANT might address "the elephant in the room"; however, what seems to be of overriding importance is the well-being of the encyclopedia. So far, we've got at least one usable article out of this, except have somewhat stymied AmericanLinguist's unsubtly advertised attempts at causing great damage to it. I tend to take the course of least damage here, which in this case is to prevent AL turning the situation to his advantage, however unlikely that advantage is to accrue. That, to me, implies not blocking (except for the trolling, about which I am ambivalent) in breach of the ban. Some discretion is given, and in cases like this, may be advisable. If Jimbo wants to block him, he can, and if genuine, this recent post would seem to indicate that may not happen. --Rodhullandemu 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To Lar If what you say is true, then perhaps we should revisit the blocking of users that were done solely on the basis of suspicion of them being socks of banned users. A specific example would be User:Miss Ann Thropie, banned by User:Jayjg who performed his own checkuser to make his determination that the user was User:Malber with no prior discussion. User:Miss Ann Thropie had all useful edits prior to the ban. The only edit that appears to have precipitated the ban was the user's vote for support on the Wikipedia Review deletion review [5] which Jayjg eventually reverted [6]. Chuthya (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to Pedro's archiving of the section. This is an ongoing discussion involving a matter that has some broader ramifications. Everyking (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially in the light of recent developments on Jimbo's talk page, and in respect of which I am waiting for him to get back to me, or there. --Rodhullandemu 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD and revert it then. I'm not fussed. I've read the WR stuff and this is pure and simple disruption by a [*] who thinks academia equates to inteligence. Feel free to open it back up if you want more pointless discussion. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, I think the personal epithets are uncalled for. Refactor please? alanyst /talk/ 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No. This user/editor whatever is a [*]. They may be an academic. But they are still a [*]. I've read the WR comments and this person may be intelligent, able, and academic, yet even WR editors have tried to disuade him from this reckless method. His stated intention is to bring about the end of Wikipedia by ensuring donors will not contribute funds. His rationale is vindictive and contrary to everything Wikipedia is based on - honesty and good faith. I will not retract or refactor my comments in light of the expressed opinions on another website. And if you think other websites have no bearing on Wikipedia speak to User:Bedford frankly. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
As our antagonist points out, we have rules & guidelines which sometimes stand in direct conflict with the larger goal of the project. He has decided to game our rules for his amusement, this sort of scenario is exactly why we have WP:IAR. Zero_tolerance enforcement is just as stupid in cyberspace as it is in the real world. The only way to win is not to play. (and until further developments actually happen, this section should stay archived - we've wasted enough time here. ) --Versageek 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RPA, I've replaced the epithets with [*]. The blocked/banned user (nor any other user) should not be subjected to name-calling, though civil discussion of the user's behavior is perfectly fine. alanyst /talk/ 22:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Per common sense I've asked Alanyst to remove his refactoring of my comments - the word now replaced by an asterix was "fool". Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What a foolish thing for Alanyst to do. Badger Drink (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, we're refactoring the word "fool" now? Alanyst, you've got a Sisyphean task ahead of you if you plan to refactor someone's comments every time you see something as harmless as "fool". Seems like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to me. Anyway, I'll assume Pedro is wise enough to realize that the correct response to silly behavior that has no actual import is to walk away and ignore it. An edit of mine was called "stupid" today; I ignored it and survived.--barneca (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not on a crusade to singlehandedly stop all name-calling on WP or anything. It's just that insulting banned users on a very public page like this seemed to me counterproductive. I'm stepping away from this now, since my action here appears to have failed to improve the situation. alanyst /talk/ 22:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all move on from this. If anyone wishes to reopen the thread do so. I can't see it will help, but that's just my opinion. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Q regarding welcoming new users[edit]

Hi all. I thought I'd ask here because I don't know where else to ask, but is there something wrong with This? \ / () 08:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No crime, but it floods Recent Changes and imposes an unnecessary server load, so I've asked them to stop. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think new accounts should be welcomed until they've tried to make a meaningful edit. Welcomes like this, while meant to be helpful, are wasteful in more ways than one. Moreover, most new accounts never get used and edits by users with redlinked talk pages are more likely to be vandalism, which is a handy way to look for them. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe if they have a really cool user-name they can be welcomed (or just usurped at a later date). Overall I agree with the link color argument. If there's nothing particularly relevant to say, it is unproductive and in fact detrimental to make it appear that something particularly relevant has been said. This also applies to the {{talkheader}} family of tags. — CharlotteWebb 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have never been a fan of welcoming newly registered users without edits or with out checking the username policy example.— Ѕandahl 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason why the idea of a welcome bot has been defeated so many times. It just isn't useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A minor technicality - but if you're going use welcome templates, please subst: them. eg: {{subst:welcomeg}}. --Versageek 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is useful to welcome newly registered users even if they have not edited. If many do not edit, and were not welcomed, perhaps it is all a bit overwhelming to them, and a welcome which directs them to policies and tools might be what is needed to get them editing productively. As for the color displayed, it is easy for a vandal to put in any random text on his talk page and user page to "unred" them. We do not wait until a would-be driver has gotten out on the highway attempting to drive a car before we provide driver training. I think a welcome bot would be highly useful and appropriate. Edison (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't welcome new editors. I got a random email in Ukranian just because I had visited that Wikipedia and it automatically created the global login account, and someone decided to welcome me with an email. --NE2 04:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops - that should read "new users who haven't edited". --NE2 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I was going to pose a scenario similar to NE2's. I could imagine it actually scaring some users away if, five minutes after they register, they get a "You have new messages" bar... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see too many new high school age editors creating an "article" about themselves, probably completely in good faith, and it getting promptly (and quite appropriately) deleted minutes later as a CSD A7. A Welcome message which encouraged them to create a user page, and which pointed them toward the usual information about what makes for an appropriate article, would head off their creating an article and getting slapped down thus. Any organization I have ever joined had an informative packet or in modern times an informative email. A Welcome message serves that function. The register a user name, and we leave them in the dark as to what to do next. Their first communication is likely to be a warning or a deletion notice. Edison (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Iranian football clubs in Asian tournaments[edit]

Can someone have a look at why this was nominated to be deleted in September but still contains the deletion debate sticker like it was vote to be deleted but never deleted? —Borgardetalk 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to have been deleted, but there were several page moves that resulted in a split history... The original article(as a redirect) was deleted, but the resulting final end of all of the last-minute moves was missed. I went ahead and deleted it, as it was clear from the AFD that it was supposed to have been deleted... 03:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Will the ugly banner go away?[edit]

Will the ugly banner go away if I donate? If so, how much? Jehochman Talk 05:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the goal is $6 million, and it currently says they have about $1.9 million, so about $4.1 million ought to do it. (Or you can turn it off using the "Suppress display of the the fundraiser site notice" gadget in Preferences). Mr.Z-man 06:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm considering adding the following text to the watchlist notice: would there be any objections to this (particularly from the foundation)?

Registered users may permanently remove the annual Foundation fundraiser notice by enabling "Suppress display of the the fundraiser site notice." in the Gadgets tab of their Preferences.

Please post below. I will not post this if a Foundation rep objects. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Although I normally oppose watchlist notices which are simply informational, I think this one is necessary - the original notice is possibly the most full-on and intrusive site notice I've ever seen and many people will want to know how to get rid of it. Orderinchaos 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Z-man! I think we should probably not post disabling instructions to the watchlist notices unless we get explicit approval from the Foundation. They provide us these fantastic resources so we should be sensitive to their needs for funding. Jehochman Talk 06:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and we provide them our fantastic resources. It's like going to the blood bank and being asked constantly for money while you donate blood. --NE2 13:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
We must not go to the same blood banks... happens to me all the time. :) ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Hersfold (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • FYI - I tried to "Suppress display of the fundraiser site notice" and found that I had apparently tried to change my password... Is OFFICE vandalising the preferences/gadgets page, and if so how long should I block them? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Tell me what you changed your password to, and I'll answer that question for you. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, its just a stupid quirk in Firefox that automatically fills in the "old password" field, so when you submit the form, it thinks you want to change your password to an empty string. Clear the "old password" field before saving preferences. Mr.Z-man 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... I don't remember the add being this annoying in the past... whoever designed it should be shot.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The ad for the first 24 hours or so last year was much worse. That got improved with user complaints. Maybe this one will too. Dragons flight (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I was about to note what Dragons flight did. The previous year's banner was just horrific for the first day or so. Hurt the eyes it was so bad, srsly. This one is just unnecessarily HUGE. Normally, I would not recommend or support such a watchlist notice as proposed here, but this banner is just ridiculous. And I also agree with other comments being made. It should be good enough that we work here for free... we shouldn't have to pay to work here. لennavecia 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Generally I don't like ditto remarks, but I agree with Jennavecia. It looks awful, the ad should be posted on articles, since most of the donations should come from the users who read, we shouldn't be paying to work here. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Badger Drink (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a watchlist notice about a notice would be silliness in the extreme. You can collapse the banner or you can hide it completely in your preferences. That's enough. Though perhaps a discussion at Meta is needed about showing the banner to logged in users at all.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've been assured that those in charge of running the fundraiser are paying attention to the discussion happening at Meta. If you have comments / concerns / etc. about the fundraiser, please bring them up at meta:Talk:Fundraising 2008/design drafts. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: We should have a watchlist notice about how to remove it. Plenty of users and admins are complaining about it - enough so that they should not have to find out how to remove it by taking the time to look here or at WP:VP - there should be an easily accessible unified place with instructions on how to remove it - preferably directly beneath the notice itself. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus on this either way, so I've gone ahead an added the notice. If someone feels really strongly about it, they're welcome to remove the notice from MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Any registered user will see the banner anyway when logged out, so it's not removing too much of an audience from the fundraiser. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Hersfold (talk · contribs) for this action. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have posted some selected comments here. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I've proposed an alternative on this page. Take a look and add your support if you would prefer it. PretzelsTalk! 18:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that User:Cacycle reverted the addition of the gadget and has requested a discussion at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals for consensus before adding it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project. Donate Now >>"[edit]

Is there a way to have an option to make it so that this big notice does not show up on all of the screens? Cirt (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been set up this time so that even clicking hide only makes it a smaller banner. Doesn't hide mean hide? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I just found out, it can be turned off in Special:Preferences - Gadgets - there should really be a notice about that somewhere. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Cbrown1023 for this ([7]). Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) More thanks. Meanwhile I guess this means I'll never see another fundraising banner? I kind of like seeing them when they launch. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You should still see it before logging in.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but other than here at this page, where are users informed about instructions that this is how they can disable this notice, if they so desire? Cirt (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.22Support_Wikipedia:_a_non-profit_project.22_omnipresent_banner.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but for those that don't know about WP:AN or WP:VP, there should be instructions on how to remove it in a more prominent place - perhaps in small font directly below the notice itself? That would be the best way. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there should be an easy-to-see way to shut it off. Moreover, hide means hide (sorry for saying that again though). Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
See #Will the ugly banner go away?. -- lucasbfr talk 10:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, true, 'nuf said then. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
<script type="text/javascript" src=""></script>

Just block scripts (and anything other than images, hello?) from "". If your browser can be set to reject certain js, this is more efficient than running it and then hiding the result. It is also more reliable than assuming the WMF doesn't need money desperately enough to adjust, randomize, or remove the CSS so that your "gadgets" no longer hide it. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice theory, but the gadget was created with their blessing. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've been assured that those in charge of running the fundraiser are paying attention to the discussion happening at Meta. If you have comments / concerns / etc. about the fundraiser, please bring them up at meta:Talk:Fundraising 2008/design drafts. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: For logged-in users, you can always add div#siteNotice { display: none; } to Special:Mypage/monobook.css (or whatever your skin is). I personally see no harm in hiding it for logged-in users if they so desire. The very reason I hid it was because it takes up space for something I already know about. ^demon[omg plz] 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Who's disabled the gadget? Why? Gwinva (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ignore me: seems to be back. Don't know why that went weird. Gwinva (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Answer: [8] Gwinva (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Several violations of restrictions by G2bambino[edit]

There are several violations of restrictions that G2bambino (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) agreed to [here] and [here]. They occur on the Canada page, which definitely qualifies as a "Commonwealth monarchy". In addition to the clear violations, there continues a pattern of low-level incivility and evasive flouting of wikipedia conventions previously documented here and here.

1 RR Violations[edit]

See [page history] for summary


  1. 1RR: 02:39, 6 November 2008,04:00, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino;
  2. revert 1 07:24, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner;; initiated Talk:Canada#Etymology_restored_to_consensus_version talk
  3. 2RR 13:46, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino;
  4. revert 2 22:00, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner; 22:08, 6 November 2008 by DoubleBlue
  5. 3RR 22:18, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino

Includes two removals of Jacques Cartier picture and two additions of tag that questions the validity of Canada being legal name. Edit wars like this can be averted by discussing edits on Talk page before making substantial changes to the article.


  1. 1RR Added subsections 04:40, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino
  2. revert: removed subsections 07:36, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner; initiated Talk:Canada#Subsections_in_History_Section by Soulscanner;
  3. 2RR Series of edits ending 19:28, 6 November 2008 by G2bambino
  4. revert 22:16, 6 November 2008 by Soulscanner ;
  5. revert 00:48, 7 November 2008 by Soulscanner;

G2 tags his edit summaries as "copy edits" in history section when they are in fact often accompanied by changes in the meaning of sentences, the removal of information, the addition of tags, or the removal and replacement of posted images. Restoring these one by one is tedious. Examples are illustrated in reverts 4 and 5 above (see also Talk:Canada#Subsections_in_History_Section for discussion); changing names of "First Nations" to "Aboriginal peoples", for example, is problematic (revert 4). Removing whole referenced passages on the Royal Proclamation and Quebec Act is also problematic (revert 5). These should be discussed on talk page first. Best to restrict classification of "copy edit" to obvious typos and check on talk page first for other changes. Strict civility guidelines call for discussing such changes first. The 1 RR restrictions were applied precisely to avoid this kind of "bulldozer" approach to editing.

PS: I'll point out that revert pertains how the British Monarch treated French Canadians in 1763; it relates directly to the topic of Monarchy in Canada. --soulscanner (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page violations[edit]

I caution you to be careful with lauching baseless accusations, lest you find yourself in trouble because of them.
  • Discussion of non-content items:
If you objected, all you had to do was remove the link, instead of undoing all my work. Please don't edit like that again.

These threats and digressions only escalate disputes. They also go against the strict civility restrictions G2 agreed to. The problem here is making substantial edits on a stable page without seeking consensus first, not with other editors documenting these instances.

Positive contributions acknowledged[edit]

G2 has initiated a positive dialog Talk:Canada#Version_1 on editing that led to improving the Canada#Government_and_politics section after initially being blocked for a similar violation as here. It shows that he is capable of working constructively with other editors such as myself if he understands that the place to initiate substantial edits in articles is the talk page, and understands clearly the precise behaviour that antagonizes other editors. Everyone here should understand that the intention here is not to "get" anyone, but to help editors contribute productively to wikipedia.

Requested actions[edit]

  1. 1 block for all violations, in line with escalating block provisions described [here]
  2. recommendation that editor show good faith and voluntarily take 1 month brake, in line with good faith shown by User:Roux
  3. adding following behaviors to restricted list for Canada and related Commonwealth/monarchy pages:
  1. Low level incivility and evasive editing described above; specifically, , restrictions on a) making substantial content edits without first discussion them, b) disguising them with edit summary claims of "copyediting"; c) burying such changes with a flood of legitimate edits. I think these are clear enough to enforce.
  2. All edits on Canada page be subject to 1RR restriction (I think that's more of a clarification as opposed to a new restriction).
  3. G2 be required to explicitly acknowledge the consensus with regards to (a) subsections on Canada#History and (b) Canada#Etymology with regards to Canada's official name by gaining consensus on the discussion page before making any edits in these sections. G2 is an experienced editor at the Canada page and knows that these are standard approaches on FA-Class articles that all the other good-faith editors follow.

--soulscanner (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


  • The 1RR restriction is: "1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed." I took this to mean all edits concerning the monarchy but I can see that one might interpret "Commonwealth monarchies" as being countries in the Commonwealth. I think that the reason for the specific area of restriction was because of G2bambino's POV slant edits in regards to the monarchy's role. It would be appreciated if those who developed and supported the restriction clarified the intention there. At the same time, however, I think that 1RR (WP:BRD, in other words) is a good policy to follow at almost all times and discussion of major edits to a feature article is a good thing.
I would suggest that more specific descriptions and explanations be in the edit summaries and should it be too lengthy, a explanation on the talk page and summary that mentions "see talk" is advisable. Often even better to seek approval beforehand.
Discussing editors instead of content on article talk page is not helpful but I would've found it difficult myself to restrain from responding to accusations of "Low-grade vandalism and incivility". Still, G2bambino is aware that he has "Strict civility restrictions" and is to stick solely to content on article talk pages. He should have sought assistance on this matter rather than respond himself.
I am very pleased with the improvement on the Canada article in the last week and am proud of the work of the editors and those who participated in the talk leading up to it. G2bambino and soulscanner have been vital in its improvement. I do not seek, at this time, G2bambino's break from editing Canada.
I have no recommendation on a block. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Specifically listed are Etymology and History sections of the Canada page. The key edits in the etymology section pertain to Dominion of Canada being (or not being) Canada's real name, which is a monarchist/non monarchist debate that has long vexed the discussion page. The history section contains a number of edits that could be interpreted as introducing language more favorable to monarchist POV. For example, item 5 shows that G2 deleted the fact that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 denied the Canadiens from holding public office. Another edit inserted that Cartier sailed not for France, but for the King of France. There is no doubt that these pertain directly to the British monarchy and monarchy in general; there is no reasonabable way to say that they do not. There are probably many other such edits, but no editor is going to have time to check all the "copyedits".
That is why changes like this need to be justified, and not passed off as "copyediting". Edits like this are very difficult for uninvolved administrators to intervene in because they are partially related to content. In my view, the restrictions were placed here precisely so that this sort of POV on monarchy related topics does not filter into G2's edits. The intention, in my view, is to encourage G2 to consider the possible POV's he may be introducing before making such edits. They are broadly interpreted because of G2's propensity for evasiveness in his edits, and because one cannot always anticipate where this bias may manifest.
Also, the edits have not improved the page: his participation in the discussion has improved the page, which we all acknoledge. I think that he has shown that he will only adhere to such editing practices and civil discourse if restrictions are enforced (witness his civil attitude when he returned after the block). Failure to enforce a block when restrictions have clearly been violated will be seen as a sign that he can continue with these practices. --soulscanner (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Good points. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hardly good points; they're all inaccurate. Soulscanner needs to check the present text as well as the edit histories again. It would probably do everyone a world of good if he didn't claim 1RR and "low grade incivility" with every single edit I make. As I said at Talk:Canada, if he has a problem with something I've done, he should raise it specifically, rather than revert and then comment on me, as he has been doing. --G2bambino (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking a last-chance approach here, just so everyone knows. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Frankly having looked at Soulscanner's edits, they are worse than G2bambino's. G2bambino's edits were largely the result of Being Bold, and Soulscanner should not have attempted to initiate an edit war by fully reverting good faith edits. Instead s/he should have carefully edited out the specific changes s/he disagreed with, leaving the uncontested edits in place. The contested edits could then have been discussed on the talk page. Based on Soulscanner's edits, to me this looks like it was a calculated attempt to bait G2bambino into violating the terms of his/her probation.
I'll also note, in case anyone is interested, that I have no personal stake in this. This isn't even my home wiki, and I rarely bother editing here (mostly because of all the juvenile behaviour). Gopher65talk 03:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia promoting adsense ad-laden tools?[edit]

While the tool for "Revision history statistics" provides a lot of info, it brings us to a page with very prominent Google adsense ads. Why is Wikipedia promoting such an adsense-supported tool? Has there been any discussion on using this tool? Any consensus on allowing Adsense supported tools? --Ragib (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I am referring to this tool, which one can find at the top of Recent changes article history page. --Ragib (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the open-source nature of Wikipedia, derivates of Wikipedia may be used for any purpose, including comercial ones. Wikimedia does not control the "downstream" use of its products. Basically, Wikipedia itself is non-comercial, but it is also liscenced in such a way that, as long as it is properly attributed, people could use its information in a commercial manner. This is a private tool created by a private person unaffiliated with Wikimedia; as such Wikimedia probably doesn't have any control over how they host their tool... 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I think his objection was the link to the tool at the top of the page history. BJTalk 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. We can't control or dictate whether the site should or shouldn't have ads, but when someone takes advantage of the free traffic from RC page to their site by dumping a lot of adsense ads, linking to that tool becomes questionable. --Ragib (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The ad banner is very new on the site... probably the fairly prominent linking on en-wp generates quite a bit traffic. One could approach the owner of the site, de:Benutzer:Aka, and suggest moving it to toolserver. – Sadalmelik 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
See MediaWiki talk:Histlegend, which is where this discussion should continue, really. fish&karate 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Need semi-protection of User talk: for duration of block[edit]

Resolved: Risker took care of it Enigma message 05:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe lengthening of block would be warranted based on the vile edits this user is making (changing warnings to vulgar messages). Also, WP:RfPP could use some attention. Thank you, Enigma message 04:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the block be changed to a hard block, please? See the history of that talk. Enigma message 05:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:XavierFox42 User's block should probably be indefinite and the page should be protected. Enigma message 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV backlogged[edit]

Resolved: Blocked a few, declined a few

And those reported are continuing to vandalize. Admin assistance required. Thanks --Flewis(talk) 11:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Pedro :  Chat  12:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page[edit]

soulscanner (talk · contribs) has been making what appear to be minor, but repeated, personal attacks against myself at Talk:Canada, most notably with these specific discussions: Talk:Canada#Request for Comment on G2bambino (talk) and Talk:Canada#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino; as well as various other accusations and invalid claims. He has then been taking the same to other users' talkpages (User talk:Roux#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino, User talk:DoubleBlue#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino, User talk:DJ Clayworth#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino, User talk:GoodDay#1 RR and civility violations G2bambino), and here to push for a block against me. Could an administrator please have a word with soulscanner about this behaviour and perhaps remove the personalised commentary from the talk page? --G2bambino (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[Perhaps relevant to this matter is a 3RR report made against soulscanner here.] --G2bambino (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You've been bickering with Soulscanner for a very long time G2bambino and moreover, you've filed 3rr complaints over edits which weren't 3rr before. From what I could see of Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:soulscanner, I can't quite make out 3rr there either. Lastly, I find your block log and ongoing edit warring/bickering worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
They may not have been 3RR but they're still edit-warring. New 3RR here. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Soulscanner has already decided to stop editing there until this blows over. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Soulscanner's been bickering with a number of people for a very long time; I'm certainly no anomoly in that matter. And my 3RR/edit warring is a past event; not really pertinent here. I have been editing Canada in order to improve the article and address concerns raised by soulscanner; in return, he reverts even the most innocuous copyedits and then searches for some kind of ill motive in every edit I've made. That is not only edit warring, but also creates a poisonous environment; I get the feeling that there's an overall attempt to deny me of my ability to edit. I would prefer it if he would make himself clear in discussions and focus on the content, rather than on me. --G2bambino (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. One editor's "improvement" can be another's chavel. Slow down, use the article talk page more. Always cite reliable sources. Be open about your edit summaries, don't mark an edit as minor and call it "copyediting" when it's a meaningful content change. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, indeed it does. But, by improvements I meant punctuation corrections, wording flow improvement, citation cleanup, etc., which is exactly what your example above was; I certainly don't see any changes to the content, and others didn't either. Soulscanner undoing such work and then making accusations of bad faith behind it is definitely not productive editing. --G2bambino (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Then again, instead of trying to help you understand how to make things go more smoothly, I could block you both for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I don't particularly appreciate that kind of approach; I have tried to be most accomodating to soulscanner, keeping his expressed concerns in mind when editing and very rarely reverteing him at the article. Of course I will henceforth try to be more detailed in my edit summaries, and will continue with the discussions already initated at talk. May I, or someone else, remove the offending sections from there now? --G2bambino (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think you should change anything in that core article until other editors have had time to lend their input. Moreover, you might want to think on not talking so much about another editor's behavious but rather, sticking steadfastly to comments about edit content and the citations supporting it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd rather not invest my time in these personal matters, but what is the alternative when one is being slandered in various locations by the same user? Also, perhaps I wasn't clear about which sections I was talking about: not those in the article itself, rather those at the talk page where I have been singled out and personal accusations have been made against me. --G2bambino (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Blow it off. Chill. Have a cup of tea. Sing Kumbayah (or maybe Anarchy in the UK). Burrow into some warm and cozy reliable souces. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Mmmm... I would automatically agree with you up to a point; a couple of comments here and there could be brushed off. But a widespread campaign seems something different; certainly not in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I will, however, try to expand my patience. Thanks for your help. --G2bambino (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, knock it off. These posts are completely un-called for. You have been warned time and time again about personal attacks yourself, and simply because a user is attempting to resolve issues that you are creating does not mean they are "attacking" you. I recently commented at the AN3 report, and feel that administrative action needs to be taken. You are continually edit warring, stalking users whom you disagree with, and pushing a very clear agenda. You are currently under some pretty strict editing restrictions and I still have yet to see your behavior change. After dealing with this issue for well over a month, I am beginning to see you as the problem here. Please, give it a rest. Tiptoety talk 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that take on these matters; there has been neither stalking, edit warring, nor agenda pushing, unless you have some evidence to the contrary that I'm unaware of. It also doesn't seem to be too much to ask that a user stop turning every edit I make into a personal critique on my motive and character. I certainly hope it will come to a rest from here on, so that we can get on with the actual issue of content. --G2bambino (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If there are comments you dislike on your talk page, remove them with a civil edit summary saying "Sorry, I am not interested at this time" or some such. You, personally, stand very little chance of persuading the admin community of your status as a victim, given your substantial past history of problematic behaviour. The process of rescuing yoru reputaiton will not be quick, but that is the kind of thing that will likely work in a way that running to Mommy will not. Harsh reality, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what bearing my past actions have as an excuse for another user's present behaviour. --G2bambino (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It has a bearing on how mcuh sympathy you're going to get here, after your long-running disputes and numerous complaints about other users. So try doing as I suggest - politely remove stuff you don't want to talk about, and see how that goes. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's fine, then, as I wasn't searching for sympathy. All I desired was to have the same civility rules that apply to me apply to everyone else. I was under the impression that there was a sacrosanct rule against removing others' comments from article talk pages; hence I asked if it was okay to do so in this case. But, I have already done as you suggest, and removed the offending material anyway. Thanks for the guidance, though. --G2bambino (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please add Pp-dispute to WP:MOSNUM?[edit]

Resolved: Done. GbT/c 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin add the {{Pp-dispute}} template to WP:MOSNUM? I made the request of the protecting admin but got no response. This would help move the consensus building process in regards to whether we entirely stop linking years forward. -- Kendrick7talk 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. What's with the red colour in the editing box? GbT/c 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
See MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Red tinting of edit box on fully protected pages for the red tinting. It's to make sure admins don't overlook the fact they are editing fully protected pages. - auburnpilot talk 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Aaah. Marvellous. GbT/c 20:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A reminder[edit]

Special:UnwatchedPages is still very large. Hard to count, since offset above 1000 does not seem to work. A while back we had a problem with date pages which seems to have been fixed by people watching their birthday, can we each please pick a few tens of pages form this list? Most of them are low traffic, it's unlikely to add much to our overhead, but it might help as a backstop to RC patrollers. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful if those of us who aren't admins could find out what pages need watching. I realize that opening Special:UnwatchedPages to all would just give vandals a handy list of targets, but there's no reason why the whole onus of easy stuff like this should be on sysops. Deor (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Special Unwatched pages would be high on my list of tools that could be devolved to users like rollback. I don't understand why people keep trying to push "view deleted", "block" or "delete" to non-admins while smaller, sometimes more useful tools, don't get spun out first. Protonk (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Because those tools aren't as prominent in peoples minds? I agree that allowing non-admins to use this would be a good thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't even know this existed. I'd like access... I don't suppose there's a second tier of button-giving possible? That is, users in good standing who were not admins could be given the button on request, but no other buttons. Technically feasible? Desireable? IronDuke 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Any established users are welcome to drop me a note asking for 10, 20 or however many unwatched pages they have and I'll give them a list of pages to watch. In fact, maybe someone could create a category similar to the deleted pages category. John Reaves 04:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It would require community consensus and filing a bug report and all that. In the meantime, wasn't your last run for admin about a year ago? Why not run again? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What would be the chances of actually getting the full list to show, rather than only the first 1000 items? We're not even up to "A" yet! (I grabbed a couple of items, but that's one heck of a backlog!)Gladys J Cortez 07:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Could access to this page not be packaged with rollback permission? They seem to be similar in terms of broad function and level of trust required. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 07:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I automatically watch every page I edit, I was going to go through and slap a WP:music template on every album, and other appropirate templates but it is after midnight here. I hadn't known about the page before...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can always watch pages without editing them. That would be more helpful than further polluting a namespace which is surely already over 90% banners and less than 10% "talk". We should seriously consider asking for a third "banner-space" in which the territorial pissings of each individual wikiproject can be monitored, leaving talk pages to serve their intended purpose. — CharlotteWebb 14:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I find "polluting" and "territorial pissings" offensive. I regularly use the associated categories of WikiProject categories to use Related Changes to watch article changes. They also serve to show editors which project may be consulted for assistance. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh really? As far as I can tell, the "recentchanges" (for a category containing only talk pages) only shows edits to the talk pages, making it impossible to track article edits with this feature! [9]CharlotteWebb 05:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what I meant was I have the recentchanges to project cats bookmarked and I add to my watchlist the articles that show up. I can see that I didn't say that as clearly as possible and am not sure I've done much better now. It would be nice if one could view the article changes at the same time as the talk changes actually. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more useful to use these as hidden categories within the actual article (and delete talk pages which contain no discussion). Or like I said... a third namespace for annexation/assessment notices, etc. Or maybe an software extension to store meta-data associated with each page in a separate table, I don't know, but the current system isn't exactly sliced bread. — CharlotteWebb 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Opening it up has been discussed in the past. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The list is useless. For those who are so eager to view its current state,