Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177

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

Noticeboard archives


Special:Contributions/Tennis expert[edit]

(Sorry if this is the wrong noticeboard, but I always get the impression that the edit warring nb covers 3RR only. Please move this to somewhere more appropriate or direct to me somewhere it's been raised before, as it quite likely has.)

Every few days, User:Tennis expert goes around a whole load of tennis article mass reverting changes based on his personal interpretation of our style guidelines (or rather his belief that they don't apply to him, or to tennis articles, or at all - I'm not quite sure). Attempts to engage him in dialogue, as I made at Talk:Urszula Radwańska, seem to fail; comments placed on his talk page are quite often removed without reply (e.g. [1]). Is this going to be allowed to continue as a piece of harmless fun, or is some action appropriate?--Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (Notified the user of this thread; also notified User:2008Olympian and User:Ohconfucius who made many of the reverted edits.)

Tennis expert has severe problems complying with WP:OWN, something I've seen in action at Maria Sharapova in particular. His usual method is to claim "consensus" backs whatever changes he is making and to revert attempts at interaction at his talk page. I know User:The Rambling Man has also had problems of this nature with him. I would describe TE as a problem editor who tenaciously patrols his watchlist to control articles he regards as his own. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This is simply inexcusable. Edit warring is never appropriate, and although 3RR may not have been breached at every article, and the amount of reverts and unexplained edits, has led to a 24 hour block. I'll review the edits and see if any needs to be re-reverted. If this pattern of editing continues post-block... seicer | talk | contribs 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Bad block. The issue of date linking/formatting is currently disputed at WP:MOSNUM. The editors performing mass automated edits while a dispute is in progress are violating previous ArbCom decisions relating to mass editing during disputes. Further, the editors performing these automated edits rarely, if ever, discuss their edits other than to claim they have the backing of the MoS (which they do not). —Locke Coletc 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, those editors are: (1) the single-purpose account Datedelinker; (2) Lightmouse, who has made thousands of controversial date delinking edits using AWB despite the policy that prohibits AWB from being used to do anything "controversial"; (3) Tony1, who has accused me on various discussion pages of having a mental illness and being a pig; (4) Skywalker, who often engages in blind reverts of everything I do, regardless of the nature of my edits; (5) The Rambling Man on tour (here is an example of his edit warring about date linking, which has continued after Seicer's warning about edit warring - wonder if Seicer will follow through and block a bureaucrat?); (6) Closedmouth, who has done thousands of script-based and AWB edits on date-delinking despite being asked to stop; (7) 2008Olympian, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue; (8) Dabomb87, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue, ignored requests to stop doing so, and edit warred to enforce his date-delinking agenda (e.g., five reverts in three days, five reverts in three days); and, (9) Colonies Chris, who has done thousands of AWB-based edits on this issue. There may be others. Tennis expert (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Dweller, I have never explicitly or implicitly claimed ownership of the Maria Sharapova article or any other article. Your allegation, unsupported by the facts, is ridiculous, incivil, and unbecoming of an administrator. Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to leave for a bit, but can anyone take over the MOS reverts that I started from here? Much thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done some more of them. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Seicer said below, "Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out." Yet, Seicer has literally invited two editors to engage in the very edit warring that Seicer has promised will result in a block. See this post by Seicer on Ohconfuscius's talk page and this post by Seicer on 2008Olympian's talk page. Seicer's general invitation, above, to engage in the type of edit warring that he has promised will result in a block also is strange. I wonder if it is permissible for an administrator to block an editor, such as himself or Tim Vickers, for behavior that the administrator is actively soliciting. Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Seicer has reverted roughly 45 articles that I edited concerning the date delinking issue. Nine of those articles were the victims of his blind reverts, where clearly beneficial and uncontroversial edits were reverted. Seicer has refused to fix these problems; so, I am asking that someone else do it. The articles in question are Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I am aware that TE, along with User:Locke Cole have been aggressively fighting application of WP:MOSNUM notably in relation to deprecation of date-autoformatting. I believe that edits of mine which rendered dates in a consistent dmy or mdy format have also been reverted, in blatant contempt of the guideline. I have yet to find occasion to warn him of WP:3RR. This self-proclaimed authority in tennis is edit warring whilst respecting the letter of the policy. Somebody needs to have words with him. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a guideline. It's disputed, as you well know given the warning I left on your talk page. —Locke Coletc 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Ohconfucius's post is completely false. I had been very careful to preserve the correct formats and have corrected them wherever I have found errors. And I had merely been trying to preserve the existing consensus until there is a new consensus to delete existing date links. It is clear that the new consensus does not yet exist. See, for example, denial to use Cleanbot to remove existing date links, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Tennis expert (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Block was 3 hours after he stopped editing. Is this block intended to get his attention, i.e. be lifted when he decided to respond? John Reaves 16:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here 24/7, so this was the first chance I could get to respond (since no one else bothered to do anything about this, either). The user was mass reverting dozens of pages, and the cleanup work has yet to begin (I've tackled 50 pages so far), and for that, a short block was in order. If he continues post-block, then this gives ample rationale to give a lengthy block or an indef. seicer | talk | contribs 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No cleanup work is necessary, his reverts were entirely appropriate given the disputed nature of date unlinking (which is now (and has been) being discussed at WT:MOSNUM). —Locke Coletc 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While I obviously disagree with Tennis expert's methodology, he does appear to be enforcing the most recent consensus decision; whenever I've interacted with him on tennis articles, it's been against other editors who appear to be set on making widespread changes of their own volition without consensus. So yes, edit warring is not the answer, but against people like this, reason isn't terribly effective for the most part. Considering that Tennis expert does in fact seem to be both passionate and knowledgeable about this topic, and against serial, single-purpose edit warriors like User:Korlzor, then I'd say that Tennis expert seems to be doing exceedingly well keeping his cool reverting the angry complaints on his talk page and staying within 3RR guidelines. It's a shame that the contributors of this thread have been demonizing him. A block also seems highly inappropriate, especially because he was never notified, and has not been given any chance to respond to the accusations against him. I'd strongly encourage whoever blocked him to undo it post-haste. GlassCobra 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I really can't begin to care about something as trivial as date formatting, edit warring is disruptive. Edit warring can be three reverts on a single page, or as in this case, hundreds of reverts on hundreds of pages. He was warned about this several times on his talkpage section. This was a good block in my opinion, indeed I was thinking about doing it myself yesterday. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
As much as I have observed and sometimes protested against TE's tactics on editing tennis articles and his refusal to discuss these issues on tennis wikiproject in recent times, I believe that the block was entirely unjust and done in haste. And I guess this is particularly bad due to what this block resulted in. And despite his hostility in engaging in discussions in the past, I believe he should have been given at least some period of time to respond here before action being taken against him. LeaveSleaves talk 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert has for a long time blocked any progress on tennis articles, by vetoing any change he didn't like by throwing in the "this is against established consensus" argument. Even in discussions where 20 editors had agreed on a change, he would say that one whould wait for a new consensus to form, but that he could not tell when it would form. That was inevitable interpreted by most as his way of saying "things stay as I want until I declare a new consensus" (i.e. ownership). It was in my opinion a very counterproductive behavior. As to the delinking of dates this was just a manifestation of the same thing. I interpreted his actions as a demonstration of how he helt that even a change in the MOS could not overturn his view on "established consensus" in existing articles. Even on a matter where he in September stated that he did not favor naked links of years. Yet he would not delink years—on the contrary. It really strikes me as somewhere between admirable and very odd. In any case, I don't think his approach is the way to proceed, and even though the particular issue of delinking dates are currently debated, the current MOS does read: "Linking: Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." I never heard a reason for putting in naked links to dates in tennis bios from anybody; including Tennis Expert. So, in my opinion, insisting on putting them in again and again with no reason is just disruptive behavior in order to ride a misguided principle. (And to GlassCobra: He has had every chance to discuss, defend himself etc., but he refuses to discuss; he just deletes and proceeds.) --HJensen, talk 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Tennis Expert, from what I can infer from his contributions, has engaged in mass reverts over dozens of pages hundreds of times over. Edit warring is quite defined in this case, and fits the bill here. It doesn't matter who is "right" or who is "wrong" -- because I've kept myself out of the loop on the whole MOS linking bit until now, but if any sides refuse to discuss their controversial edits and edit war over a span of dozens of articles -- and simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here, then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite, and if he refuses to discuss his edits, then he will aptly be blocked.
Given Tennis Expert's latest soapboxing, this comment from a fellow administrator is quite approperiate. Currently, the only ones who are disputing his block are other editors who have engaged in this sort of petty behavior, such as engaging in MFD's on policy pages (a grossly inappropriate method to resolving issues) and edit warring on multiple pages. I shall note that Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out. Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten; don't nominate it for deletion; don't edit war over dozens of pages; and don't soapbox. seicer | talk | contribs 00:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, you need to unblock and back away until you've actually read the volumes of debate on this issue. The simple fact is this: those insisting on removing date links are not participating in discussions at WT:MOSNUM and attempt to derail such discussions claiming they already have consensus (they do NOT). Tennis Expert has my full support in reverting what amounts to a campaign by a handful of MOSNUM regulars to eradicate date links/formatting against obvious disputes/challenges. Further, how you can block him but not block those who are constantly performing these edits (when it's clear they're disputed) is beyond me. So please, either unblock Tennis Expert or block everyone who is involved, because this uneven handling is damaging your credibility in this matter (especially your "repair work", which goes against everything we've discussed at WT:MOSNUM). —Locke Coletc 01:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No thanks, and pandering comments such as yours don't give further credence towards your stance. Furthermore, all of the administrators who have chimed in this thread and on his talk page have agreed that the block is justified -- not necessarily for the MOSNUM-bit, but for the excessive edit warring over dozens of pages that compounded to hundreds of edits. If you can't see it for that, then I can't give you further assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I know this is going to sound odd seeing as it was me who reported the matter, but I think the block may have been a well-intentioned mistake (just as the blocks imposed on myself and User:Tony1 two days ago were mistakes). I was expecting an admin just to have a word with the user, to try to make him see reason and engage in dialogue, not to jump straight in with a block. I know others have tried this, but at least we could have seen whether an attempt from an admin, with the implication of a possible block, might not have been successful. After all, we feed vandalizing trolls with warnings and attempts to engage; we ought at last to try the same with established users who do make positive contributions on other occasions. (Not that I'm complaining too much; certainly it was better that some action be taken than none, as has been the case up to now.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Pandering? Pandering? Is this your response to a well reasoned request for equality in treatment? Unless WP:BLOCK has changed recently, it suggests you should treat all parties in a dispute equally, and you definitely shouldn't be picking sides and reverting edits which are disputed. Also, it's troubling that you only give credence to the opinions of "other administrators". Maybe you missed it, but this is a wiki ran by (with few exceptions) a community of editors. It's definitely not being ran by you. (← this is pandering, BTW). Did you even bother reading WP:BRD as I suggested on your talk page Seicer? —Locke Coletc 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Seicer, the last time I looked, GlassCobra and Arthur Rubin were administrators. Both have said that your block of myself was "wrong" or "highly inappropriate". So, the score is two administrators in favor of your block and two opposed. Correct me if I've miscounted. Tennis expert (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ditto for RMOT (check the home account), Guy, and on and on. I don't dwell on the number... seicer | talk | contribs 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's true. "All" (your word) is not a number. Tennis expert (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Seicer said above, "Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten." Obviously, he doesn't understand the issue, which is that there is no policy to eliminate existing date links. Despite there not being a policy to eliminate existing date links, the editors I listed above have employed automated and semi-automated means to implement their misguided conception of the MOS. Seicer also said above, "if any sides refuse to discuss their controversial edits and edit war over a span of dozens of articles -- and simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here, then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite, and if he refuses to discuss his edits, then he will aptly be blocked." This is the problem that inevitably results when an administrator hastily and rashly blocks without bothering to determine the facts. I have discussed the date delinking issues over-and-over-and-over-and-over, both on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:TENNIS. I also have said why I had no intention of engaging in yet another dialogue about the exact same issues with editors such as The Rambling Man on tour (RMOT), who are routinely hostile and incivil to me. See this. RMOT was aware of my intentions but continued to pointlessly harrass me on my discussion page, which is why his posts were deleted there. See WP:HUSH and WP:UP#CMT. Of course, Seicer wouldn't know about that because he didn't bother to ask. Drive-by, "I can't be bothered by the facts" blocking was his solution. Tennis expert (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you have engaged yorself into an active retirement. The diff that should compromise Rambling Man on Tour, actually reflects some of my entries on another page you cannot delete on. So you may want to edit that if you should come out of retirement once again. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
HJensen's original post here is probably worse than anything else that has been posted here about myself. It is inaccurate. It is incivil. It is demonizing. It is inflammatory. It creates ill will. It creates an "us versus them" mentality. And it epitomizes the most egregious type of behavior on Wikipedia. I did not block progress on tennis articles. In fact, I did more than anyone else on English-language Wikipedia to improve tennis biographies. My watch list consisted of 450 of those articles. I worked very hard on all of them. Maria Sharapova is used by certain editors as an example of everything I did wrong. But that article is very close to GA status only because of the work I did on it and the vandals I fought. Have a look at Billie Jean King, which I am very proud of. I have spent hundreds of hours on that article. And what exactly as HJensen done? My disagreement with him was about the core principle of consensus. He believed that a handful of people on an obscure discussion page that almost no one looked at could overturn the consensus of thousands of tennis article editors, most of them anonymous IP accounts. He refused to understand or accept that consensus can be created through editing, not just through discussion. He also refused to understand the fact that a more specific consensus concerning a particular subject matter (tennis) can override a more general consensus (MOS). Wikipedia precedent, which I cited to him and others, is clear about this. Instead of discussing these issues productively, he became incivil, gossiped about me, misrepresented my opinions, and said he had "given up" on me. As I have said many times in many places, this is not about whether date linking is a good thing. Rather, the issue is whether there is a true consensus to eliminate existing date links and prohibit the creation of new date links. While date linking is a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things, how consensus is formed and changed is extremely important for the future of Wikipedia. In fact, I doubt there is any issue of more importance. If you look at all the discussions of date linking and all the disputes that have arisen about the behavior of various editors, the fundamental issue is consensus: what is it now? what was it in the past? has it changed recently? may it be changed back? should editors refrain from using automated and semiautomated means to enforce their view of consensus when there is an ongoing controversy? These are tough issues, but that doesn't justify posts like HJensen's. Tennis expert (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Which post? Seriously? If it is my assesment above starting with "Tennis Expert has for a long time ", then that is just my input and opinions. Stop throwing the "incivility" claim whenever someone disagrees with you and sees things different than you. I honestly believe you have blocked progress. That is my opinion. Is that incivil to state such an opinion? And yes, I have "given up" on you, because I have failed to understand what you really want. How can that be incivil? I think you are strongly devaluing the term now. Consider for a moment, and this is meant seriously and not sarcastic, that since so many fail to appreciate your stand, then perhaps you are, as a minimum not being sufficiently clear when expressing your views. It is not like we are all being stupid on purpose here. --HJensen, talk 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Not all opinions need to be aired in public, and certain opinions indeed are incivil when they are aired in public. I have stated my views simply in all kinds of ways, in several different places, and if you still fail to understand them, then, well, draw your own conclusions. Tennis expert (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, ýou do not decide which opinions other editors need to air in public (except on your talk page, where you can spend your time in retirement to delete things that you don't like). And having failed to understand your views, make me share your opinion (which I don't find incivil) that I should indeed draw my own conclusions. It is, incidentally, what I do all the time.--HJensen, talk 19:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom 1RR restriction[edit]

Considering that Locke Cole has been blocked many times for edit warring after coming off an ArbCom 1RR restriction last year, I find his argument that we're the ones with damaged credibility deeply ironic. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

...which makes 7 reverts in 3 days all the more interesting. 3 reverts in 2 days; 3 reverts in 3 days; 3 reverts 2 days. This should be logged with ArbCom as gross violation over multiple pages. Even if 1RR was not technically violated on one singular article, the spirit of edit warring and reverting over multiple days can result in an extended block. I haven't even begun to dig through his recent contributions, but I'm sure I'd find much more. seicer | talk | contribs 04:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I may not have been clear. That restriction lapsed last year, but he's be blocked for 3RR several times since it lapsed. See [[2]]. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You'd have a good case for edit warring and gaming the system at USS Monitor, where there are seven reverts over three days, timed so that they are not technical violations of 3RR (although 3RR makes it clear that 3RR is not an entitlement and that users can be subject to blocks for non-3RR violations): 22:45, 16 November 2008; 20:01, 16 November 2008; 19:39, 16 November 2008; 17:48, 15 November 2008; 04:37, 14 November 2008; 00:08, 14 November 2008; 11:04, 13 November 2008. The fact that this pattern has emerged over a multitude of pages in a similar fashion to Tennis Expert deserves further consideration for action. While a block at this point may be punitive rather than preventative, a stern warning and a notice that future gaming will result in a block may be in order. seicer | talk | contribs 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely say he's gaming the system: stalks, bullies, intimidates and then stops when warned, moves to another playground and starts all over again. I did warn him 3 days ago about the Monitor, and he stopped. Then, there was the intervening 1 week block (which was unjustifiably shortened to a few hours). He's back now. And judging from recent postings, he's utterly unrepentant. When he eventually does gets benched, he won't be able to say he didn't have it coming. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's truly bizarre to see people acting exactly as I act pretending their actions are above reproach. Folks, Ohconfuscius and Seicer are performing the same mass reverts they'd have me blocked for. When can this insanity stop? —Locke Coletc 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that their edits are in line with the manual of style guidelines; those of TE (and perhaps yours, though I don't remember seeing any of yours) are in blatant contradiction to it. If you want to change the guidelines then make a reasoned proposal or contribute (as you have been doing, in fact) to the ongoing discussion. The fact that a few people want to change a policy or guideline (particularly when the proposed change is not defined in any coherent way) doesn't make the current version invalid, and provides no excuse for acting against that policy or guideline. --Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you that he is doing exactly the same, the two are vice chairmen of the concert party, co-conspirators, aiding and abetting each other. Only difference is that TE has had the good sense to retire. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:CIVIL, Ohconfucius. Your disinformation campaign is tiresome.Kotniski, edit warring is edit warring according to my good friend Seicer, regardless of whether the edits are in accordance with the MOS guidelines. The one exception, of course, covers any edit warring that Seicer himself has solicited, a type of "immunity to prosecution". Tennis expert (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom case with me is how old? And you'll note there were many vocal opponents to the decision the ArbCom reached regarding me. —Locke Coletc 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do tell. Your block log tells another story. seicer | talk | contribs 12:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
What story does it tell? Besides that involved admins in a dispute appeared to have no qualms using their admin tools to win a debate? Your problem is that you look at the block log and think you have the entire picture when if you did even the tiniest amount of investigation you would see that most of the blocking admins supported the opposing position I took. —Locke Coletc 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Our good friend Seicer was once blocked for edit warring. Pot calling the kettle black? Tennis expert (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased your retirement was so short, Tennis expert. In the future, to avoid further blocks, please refrain from edit warring, either on single articles, or by following people's contributions and edit-warring over multiple articles. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As you may or may not be aware it takes two to engage in "battle". As I mentioned from the outset, the inequality of the blocks (which is to say, "block", as only one party to the edit war was actually blocked with the other side actually helped by the admin in performing their mass reversions) is a real problem. Should this issue arise again I hope the admin handling it will actually treat editors equally instead of choosing a side. —Locke Coletc 21:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Enforcement of current policy is not a blockable offence. Edit warring over dozens of pages hundreds of times is a blockable offence. I noted that some in opposition to the current policy have tried backhanded attempts to circumvent consensus by starting a MFD on the policy page itself (which was speedy kept). Sorry, doesn't work that way. seicer | talk | contribs 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that you obviously have no idea what current policy is. And aside from that, the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. Edit warring to enforce current policy, whatever that is, is not a blockable offence, huh? What a strange concept. Where can I find this not-blockable-offense policy? It's not here, which specifically says, "edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" from WP:3RR. Your current interpretation is very convenient for you, I might add, because it gets you off the hook about blocking the edit warriors with a date delinking agenda. Flip-flopping interpretations are not useful. Here's what you said earlier, "Edit warring is quite defined in this case, and fits the bill here. It doesn't matter who is 'right' or who is 'wrong' ... but if any sides ... edit war over a span of dozens of articles ... then there is only so much that the community will tolerate. Our patience is not indefinite...." Tennis expert (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are a few situations in which repeated edits are not considered edit warring: edits to remove WP:BLP violations and copyright violations come to mind. However, editing to enforce most other policies is not exempt. (Sorry, TE, you're almost correct.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
1) It's not a policy, it's a guideline (and not even a very well backed guideline as it's the MoS which most editors couldn't possibly keep up with thanks to all the changes that occur across the varying pages it inhabits). 2) With few exceptions (BLP and others as Arthur correctly points out) it is a blockable offense to edit war (whether or not you have the backing of policy or even a guideline). As an administrator you should be aware of these exceptions and rules. Tell me, are you an administrator open to recall? I note your userpage history appears to have been deleted so I can't check to see if you were at any point open to recall. —Locke Coletc 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Upon being approved as an administrator, my good friend Seicer said, "I will do everything in my vested power to ensure that I uphold the role of an administrator to the highest standard". This makes his recent actions and statements even more disappointing. And it really is unseemly for an administrator to have this at the top of his user page: "Giant dicks are blocked henceforth." Wikipedia deserves better. Tennis expert (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
A visit to Seicer's user page can see that "Giant dicks are blocked henceforth" links to WP:GIANTDICK. He's just sore, and anybody reading the rant which is supposed to be his farewell message should be beyond doubt that the poor kid's absolutely lost it, his sense of humour was the first casualty. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
TE's statement about HJensen that "[HJensen] also refused to understand the fact that a more specific consensus concerning a particular subject matter (tennis) can override a more general consensus (MOS)." is a perfect example of how TE's views holds up progress on tennis articles. I just got through two rounds of critiques on the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft list, trying to get it to FL status. I was eventually successful (joy!), but one thing that I had to learn is that the larger editing community does not care about Project-specific editing consensus if it conflicts with the MOS. Over at WP:NFL, we had a draft template that included links within the initial bold text of the article name when it first appears in the article text (in clear conflict with the MoS). As in: "The 2002 NFL Draft was the procedure by which..." That format for draft pages was clear, debated Project consensus. I started with that template, yet if I had stuck to it with the tenacity that Tennis Expert is holding on to bare date links in the tennis articles, the article wouldn't have passed the review process. We changed the template to conform with the MoS, which is how it should be done, instead of clinging to the specific-overrules-general rationale, which wouldn't have worked.
Not that there is any consensus within the Project to retain the date links, it is pretty clear that all but one or two editors agree with removing them. Tennis Expert claims that there is consensus because the bare date links are already there. Of course bare date links already exist, that's why we have policies that specifically address them: WP:OVERLINK#Dates, MOS:UNLINKDATES. But if the date links are not to be used from now on (deprecated), then there should be no problem in removing the ones that are already there. But TE keeps saying no consensus to remove existing date links. It just doesn't make sense. Deprecation means that a feature will be phased out. It is a computing term that is intended to keep programmers from having to take the time to go back and remove the feature from all past work; it just won't be used from now on. It doesn't mean, however, that the feature couldn't be removed retroactively, if some programmers wanted to spend the time to do so, it is just that they don't have to do so.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to unlink dates, nor is there even consensus that linking dates or formatting dates is bad. What currently exists at WP:MOSNUM is disputed and was put in to place with the blessing of twelve editors. MANY more than that have come since the change and registered their dislike of the change and this is generally ignored ("we have consensus", "it was decided last month", etc). As if consensus is something that never changes. Please read WP:CON. —Locke Coletc 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You and TE keep saying that, but saying it doesn't make it true. The change was made on August 24, 2008, on the basis of this archived discussion. Please take the time to read it and then follow it.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As I've already indicated at WT:MOSNUM that straw poll involving a dozen editors is pretty much invalidated since at least as many editors have complained about the change since it was "enacted". I again invite you to read WP:CON, specifically the portion noting that consensus can change (and in this case, it has). —Locke Coletc 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
And you have a link to that new consensus where?--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 03:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Go look through the archives, the number of people who pop up to complain about this at WT:MOSNUM at least equals the number who supported this at the straw poll. I'm sorry it wasn't wrapped in a box and given a little bow on top. Also note from WP:CON (you really should read this page), "In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages.", I'd hardly call a dozen editors on an obscure subpage of the MoS a "higher standard of participation". The time for forcing your point of view on the rest of us is past, it's time to participate in the RFC and other discussion at WT:MOSNUM. —Locke Coletc 04:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
And, once again, where is this link to said consensus? seicer | talk | contribs 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Go through the archives if you don't believe me. But something tells me if I provided twelve links to editors who came since the "poll" (which was itself invalid) you'd just find another reason why you think I'm wrong. In other words, my good faith with you is long since exhausted, you're simply baiting me at this point. Speaking of that: are you ever going to answer my question about whether you're open to recall? —Locke Coletc 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I've never stated that I am open for recall; in fact, I've voiced critical commentary against the recall process. If I was open to recall, I would have posted my signature here. Thanks for jumping the topic. seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
"Go look through the archives," you say twice above, but it is up to you to support your own arguments, as I have done above. But to save you the trouble of doing so, let me agree with you that "if I provided twelve links to editors who came since the [consensus discussion]'d just find another reason why you think I'm wrong."
I will grant you that there probably are some editors that have voiced a different opinion since that consensus was reached. And there are others, like yours truly, who have voiced support for the consensus who also did not participate in the original consensus discussion. Neither one of those facts are of any consequence until a new consensus discussion is held. You need to adhere to the consensus as it is until it changes. To quote WP:CON (which you cite so often):

Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

Just wait until the new RfC goes up and voice your opinion there and then, quit trying to change existing consensus by edit warring with those who are just following the above consensus. From what I have read, perhaps with the exception of birth and death years, there is overwhelming support for not linking dates (even from Tennis Expert), and that the reasons behind that are persuasive. I don't even read you as supporting the linking of date years, just that there isn't a consensus to unlink. I don't know why the long discussion I linked to above doesn't work for you or why you denigrate it as a straw poll, it is lengthy and well-discussed. This started as a discussion about Tennis Expert, but as you are one of his most ardent collaborators, you should heed this suggestion as well.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pearling crew 1926.JPG[edit]

I had earlier uploaded this image. However, I personally requested its deletion when an administrator kept tagging it repeatedly as if insisting upon its deletion. However, I feel quite convinced that it is perfectly right for this image to be included in Madras Presidency#Trade, Industry and Commerce. Pearl fishing is clearly mentioned in the paragraph on fishing industry in the Presidency. See here:

"The Madras Presidency also had a thriving fishing industry. Shark's fins[122], fish maws[122] and fish curing-operations[123] comprised the main sources of income for fishermen. The southern port of Tuticorin was a centre of conch-fishing[124] but Madras, along with Ceylon, was mainly known for its pearl fisheries.[125] Pearl fisheries were harvested by the Paravas and was a lucrative profession."

The photograph appeared in a National Geographic Magazine issue dated February 1926. The photo is not in public domain as per Template:PD-US but is in public domain in many other countries of the world. I am not sure, however, whether its copyright has been renewed. But I don't feel any harm in including that photograph with a fair-use rationale.

The pearl-fishing photograph is a rare image from British India. The southern part of India was internationally famous for pearl-fishing. In fact, pearl-fishing activities in this part of the world have been portrayed in the fiction Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne. Yeah, I can add a recent image of pearl-fishing but I feel that the methods and implements would have changed a great deal in these eight decades. And if I were to find a replacement for this particular image I would have to add another from the same article which would, obviously, not be in public domain, either. Practically speaking, I don't find anything wrong in adding that image as it is highly unlikely that the February 1926 issue of the National Geographic Magazine is in mass circulation now and the inclusion of the image would not harm the business interests of the National Geographic Society. I've clearly stated these points in the fair-use rationale for the image.

I request administrators to intervene in this regard and help me with the fair-use rationale and the reinstatement of the image. I feel quite convinced that it belongs to the article and that there is no harm in having it there. If you wish to verify the source, then I'm here to provide all the info you need.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a clear understanding of fair use, which the photo by your description would fall under without any doubt. However the non-free image policy is much more restrictive. BJTalk 07:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I've undeleted it. The discussion is still ongoing at IfD. I'd suggest you need to add the following information to the images for deletion page so we can decide whether the image is free or not, and if not free, whether it's fair use. (1) What exactly does the caption in the magazine say? Is there any indication of authorship or claim of copyright? (2) Is there a photograph credit given in the contents section of the magazine or in the article? (3) Is there a claim of copyright stated on the magazine itself? While there are a great many ways in which a picture published in a 1926 edition of National Geographic could be free, I can think of just the two (?) ways for it to be non-free. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

I have received a request via email stating that this user would like to be unblocked. After discussing this with them, I came to the conclusion that a unblock of any kind would require community consensus. So, they have asked me to post this unblock request for them here to allow the community to discuss. Please note that I would not endorse a unblock at this time. Tiptoety talk 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to be unblocked.

I have been accused of harassment, vandalism, and trolling. I am guilty of all but the last, which was something that my behavior was either misinterpreted as because of the wording and overall tone that I used when writing, or deliberately named as such because someone did not disagree with my views. The former is understandable, as my edits on WP-related "meta" subjects were quite "trolliish", but not actually "trolling". "Troll" can also be used as a disparaging term for those the accuser disagrees with, or challenges a system which the accuser is loyal to (or which the accuser is a member of). This is a misuse of the term and is often used on Wikipedia.

Moving on from the various definitions and usages of the term "trolling", I apologize for phrasing my criticism of Wikipedia's system and Ryulong in particular in such a mean and personally-attacking way. I had never interacted with Ryulong before, but I posted on an RFC that I heard about at a thread on the forum Wikipedia Review, and the information I based my comment on was in the RFC. I still frown upon Ryulong's actions and behavior (past and present), but the way in which I did it previously exhibited the same behavior that I criticized Ryulong for, and is therefore hypocritical. It was not done in a constructive manner. Whether Ryulong has chosen to accept this apology (and indeed he has not) is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is that I am truly apologetic.

The various activities that I have perpetrated with socks, activities that I do not want to go in to the details of, did not help the encyclopedia. One account, ThomasEWilliams (fake name, fake birthdate, any similarities are coincidental), created the "Nikita Molotov" article. This was a hoax article about a nonexistent wrestler, to test the inclusion standards for wrestler articles as compared to other articles. Another article I created under that account was a stub on a fake scientist, which was something to compare with. The results came out that Wikipedia puts less scrutiny on professional wrestlers' biographies, despite the high number of members of the Professional Wrestling Wikiproject. This was something I did to challenge the system, and I would like to keep private the reason I used the fake name. I even spent time looking for lists of common Serbian names. The article is still there today. But the experiment was not right, still. There are other things, and I'm sure many editors know of them, but again I say I don't want to go into that.

I can contribute constructively, and I can improve articles. I am eager to start articles and help build an encyclopedia, while also sharing my thoughts and analyses of aspects and issues relating to the encyclopedia itself. I can't have an opportunity to do so without being first unblocked. I have done some work for the Simple English Wikipedia, just after returning from a ~ year-long ban (see, but that includes the extra task of simplification. There are many articles needing improvement, and I can, and I want to, contribute to it. I will try to refrain from bad behavior, being defined in this sense as the behavior that got me blocked. There is almost no chance that I will engage in the behavior again, and I believe has been long enough. Though there is no way to know that I will never engage in any of the actions that got me blocked, I hope that you would take my word for it that I have stopped and won't do it again.

Yours, Jonas Rand User:Ionas68224

Having as long a block log on your "good" account on Simple as you do here, and after reading over this request in detail, I cannot support an unblock. Sorry. MBisanz talk 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would have supported just based on the amount of effort that went into writing the request, but looking at the history on Simple, it's clear that Jonas continues to have negative interactions on a regular basis. Two or three months of trouble-free editing on Simple would make a difference here, since Wikipedia blocks are not intended to be punitive. looie496 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You would have supported based on length and detail of request? That is extremely dangerous, as I can tell from experience that overly long unblock requests tend to be more suspect. —kurykh 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. No. Never. Do not unblock. Jonas has a severe issue with working with others and following the rules of both the English and Simple English Wikipedias. He, for some reason, decided to attack me simply because he read about me on Wikipedia Review while there was an RFC about my blocks. He then proceeded to edit on behalf of banned users and sockpuppet. He does not belong on Wikipedia at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Some of you might know that I am often skeptical of blocks, and prefer to err on the side of charity. But not in this case. For one thing, a comment on Ryulong's talk page, "I will stop the personal attacks and bury the hatchet if you bury yours" is not in my mind a hopeful sign for successful resolution of conflict. I also find the use of sockpuppets (including using one sock to comment at an RfC) really, really, problematic. And the explanations now given for some of the socks are so wholely inadequate that they are inappropriate. I scanned through this users edits and saw some good housekeeping edits, also some perhaps well-intentioned style edits that really were not very helpful and eventually undone, and of course a whole lot of talk. I have not seen much sign of serious research on substantive encyclopedia articles. Whatever this user has added to the project is crushed into tiny pieces and washed away by the almost infinitely vaster pattern of problem editing. So this user likes to play with computers? I recommend playing computer-games. But don'tplay with Wikipedia. No, no unblock. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • 20 confirmed socks, evaded his block as recently as August 2008.[3] No thanks. DurovaCharge! 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    A further comment for the record. Not sure whether to go as far as Ryulong's opinion, but there are other troubling factors here that might merit a longer than usual wait. To name one, Jonas Rand describes a hoax with a professional wrestling biography. What he doesn't mention is that he created the account the day before Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar closed.[4] Alkivar was desysopped for various problems, among them proxying for and abusing the tools on behalf of JB196--one of the site's most destructive banned vandals. JB196's principal activity for nearly two years was to damage Wikipedia's database at the biographies of professional wrestlers. For a glimpse at the scope of the problem, note the 378 entries at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196 and 155 more socks at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196. Developments in the Alkivar case also precipitated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, which arbitrators began voting to accept two hours before Jonas created his sock account. In the Eyrian case a second administrator was not only desysopped but also sitebanned for disruptive socking. Eyrian used to do fine work for the textile arts project and I wish he hadn't gone down that other path. In light of those circumstances Jonas's description of a quasi-harmless breaching experiment looks very much less than candid. Either he does not realize that this gives the appearance of having encouraged and excused the mistakes of two longstanding contributors as they squandered their hard-earned reputations, or Jonas is bold enough to suppose he can boast of the accomplishment a year later and none of us will be clever enough to notice. Either way, it leaves a very bad impression. DurovaCharge! 00:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Very no thanks, per above comments. Too much disruption from this user, too immature. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per above. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Using socks to evade blocks and bans means a very long timeout. Six months of squeaky-clean behaviour on Simple, and I'd reconsider, but not until then. //roux   09:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No, no, and no. Like anyone else, he can edit without his ego intruding if he wants to. But "Jonas Rand", Ionas, or whatever he calls himself has demonstrated quite clearly that he is not able to work within the societal norms of Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I initially declined an unblock request he made in September and told him he needed to come back in a year. After reviewing this guy's history (including how what started as a one-week block escalated to a month, six months and later indef) I see no reason to change my mind. Blueboy96 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Community ban review for user:Bus stop[edit]

Resolved: Unblocked contingent upon mentoring by User:Durova, a topic ban, 6 months of probation, and a full apology to the community.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bus stop (talk · contribs) was community sitebanned in 2007. He wrote to me a month ago apologizing for his past conduct and promising to edit appropriately from this point forward. I accepted his apology and wrote to ArbCom October 20, supporting his unblock appeal. Newyorkbrad wrote back the same day asking for details and I sent a follow-up. The Committe hasn't replied again or acted, so since this is the community's ban the simplest way to get this resolved is to raise matters here.

Following is the text of my letter:

He exhibited disruptive and tendentious behavior with regard to Jewish conversions to Christianity, particularly Bob Dylan. Some of the noticeboard threads are a bit hard to find, so the links below are a sampling.
Basically he was also making productive contributions to the visual arts, so we tried to construct a topic ban and mentorship arrangement. Two separate community discussions agreed on a full siteban; I brought him back twice in an effort to construct something less severe. Fred Bauder mentored him for a while, but none of it worked out. And as sometimes happens in these instances, Bus stop developed a very strong dislike toward me--probably because I remained engaged and attempted to work something out, instead of just blocking him and moving on. For several months afterward he was emailing other admins with accusations against me, none of which went anywhere.
Anyhow, it's been a year and I'd be willing to give him another shot. Bear in mind that his pattern before was that when a topic ban was in force, he gamed the margins of the topic ban until its scope had to be expanded.

Some kind of structured return to editing might be preferable to a simple unblock. So if one of our code monkeys would set up the transclusion template for his user talk (code can be nicked from the WP:CSN archives), let's work something out. People can change; I'd give him another chance. DurovaCharge! 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at his talk page, his unblock defenses are classic "Woe on me, the minority opinion." and similar greatest hits we are all familiar with. Was there something in his apology that accepted that he was fairly singled out for his behavior rather than his POV?--Tznkai (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, his recent emails have been appropriate. Those are old threads on his user talk. My standard offer is to support a return after six months if the editor hasn't been socking, promises not to repeat the behavior, and doesn't generate any extraordinary objections. I don't ask for an apology, but he offered a very polite one unprompted. DurovaCharge! 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Would he allow you to post the email so the community can see his thinking? I am inclined to agree with the unblock per your recommendations but would like to see exactly what he has said. 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The usual convention is that editors may post their own outgoing e-mails, but not incoming ones from other users. You have my assurance that his communication for this month has been all I would want or expect, and it's been much longer than a six month interval since I've heard any complaint about him. DurovaCharge! 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
From what I've seen, I'm not particularly comfortable with him working on anything dealing with religious or cultural identity of anyone living which is a massive topic. We've got enough hostile editing environment concerns without adding WP:BLP concerns into the mix as well, but maybe I'm being paranoid.--Tznkai (talk)
(e/c) The clincher, for me, would be whether he was willing to actively steer clear of the boundaries of any topic ban, rather than game the system (as reported above). I don't know if that's asking too much. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So would a reinstatement of his old topic ban be what you want, with advisement to him to proceed conservatively? DurovaCharge! 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember Bus stop as an editor who received many, many last chances. Let's see the equivalent of an unblock discussion with him, in which all can participate, so we can judge his sincerity. There is no longer any protection on his User talk; he should be able to converse there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried about this given his prior behavior. However, he hasn't socked or anything else in the time that he has been banned(correct me if I'm wrong). If he is willing to accept a sweeping ban on any topic related to cultural or religious identity of individuals then maybe we should give him another try. Note that the topic ban I am suggesting is larger than that mentioned by Tznkai, I don't want Bus Stop for now dealing with any such issues whether or not the subject is living. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, no he hasn't socked. Can't supply firm assurance of that though. DurovaCharge! 22:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I received an email from Bus stop asking about an unblock on 1 July at the end of April. I said he would have to seek wider authority, and that I would not intervene, but would give him feedback on his attempt. I have lost track of the countless emails he has sent and the gaps between, waiting for a response, being encouraged, and then finally getting no reply whatsoever, so having to move on to someone else. He has been restrained and polite throughout, and displayed the patience of a saint. The process made me feel frustrated and angry, just watching it. This has involved an arb clerk, two three arbs (and I forget who else). I'm sure they're busy people, but if that's the case and, as a result they leave someone in complete limbo, then there's something very wrong with the system. He has been going through this process for five nearly seven months, when it should have been settled in one at the outside. He's played by the rules, sat it out, not socked (I feel pretty sure of that), and, to be quite honest, I'm surprised he can still have any esteem left for the project, but he does and obviously believes in its value. That was his mistake in the first place - excessive and misplaced zeal ...and being on the losing side of the argument. I found some of his points were valid. However, that is not the issue. He has made strong statements in his emails about voluntary boundaries and a desire not to get embroiled in the same problems or the same subject areas. I strongly support his reinstatement of editing privileges. There is no guarantee what the outcome will be, but that is up to him. Ty 22:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm comfortable deferring to Durova's and Tyrenius' gut feeling here. Per JoshuaZ, I'd unblock on the condition that they avoid any topic related to cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. And, more generally, any of the topics that caused so much grief last time.
I'm curious whether we're sure ArbCom has ignored this or sat on it, rather than come up with a definitive yes/no that we just don't know about. But in the end, it doesn't matter too much; community bans can be community overturned. --barneca (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock; 1) The blocking admin requests it (even though she's not an admin any more). I'd defer to her judgment in this case. 2) I never liked the Community sanction noticeboard 3) It's easy to re-block if needed. --Duk 23:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Duk. Bear in mind that there was a subsequent ban discussion at one of the regular admin boards, but the search tool failed to find it. DurovaCharge! 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock; a long time has passed and the user's recent attitude indicates that there is a good chance that the previous problems will not be repeated. Everyking (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I also support unblock, with the proviso that at the slightest sign of the user returning to his old habits, or breaking the rules surrounding his unblock, he's immediately indef banned again and left there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC).
  • I was fairly active in trying to get Bus Stop unblocked a good while back, before becoming disillusioned. (see his talk). I hope the intervening period has done him some good. I'd be willing to support an unblock on parole. Bus stop would need to know in no uncertain terms that he's out of last chances though. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain until I see a recent on-wiki statement from Bus stop.--Tznkai (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sticking with my previous comment (conduct a proper unblock discussion on his Talk in which he is willing to answer questions publicly, not just in email), but since I found the link to the community ban discussion on AN mentioned by Durova, here is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive98#Community ban on Bus stop. It's good that he didn't sock, but this is an editor who consumed many thousands of words on the admin noticeboards during his career. Is Bus stop willing to be mentored, and has anyone come forward who is willing to be a mentor? I'm doubtful of arguments like "out of last chances." Where is the evidence of reform that is visible on-wiki? Also, if there is a new restriction, it needs to be fully negotiated, and he should be seen to agree to the restriction on-wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In August 2007, I offered to mentor Bus Stop on his return. My current ill-health is preventing me from editing regularly or doing much that I'd like to be doing, so I don't feel I could mentor him right now. I'm unsure when I'll be fit enough. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Speaking as someone with, er, experience with this sort of thing, and from what I've seen of the background, almost all of Bus Stop's trouble was with Durova specifically, and they've apparently washed all the sheets and cleaned out all the pipes, so they're fine now. If the blocking admin at the time (Durova) is fine with it, then I'd be inclined to let it ride. It's not like he can cause any more damage without being quickly blocked, and was a pretty good content guy all the other stuff aside--and it's been a long damn time. We're not here to chuck people in a penal colony, and if he wants to come back to do content stuff, there are some examples of people where this hopefully worked out well. ;) Just stick him on a 3-6 month topic ban on the stuff that got him in trouble, unblock, and if things go well, we're done. Unblock. rootology (C)(T) 00:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Almost all of Bus Stop's trouble was with Durova specifically. I don't know where you are getting that from. Bus stop had significant issues with many editors over a period of one year. Durova didn't even get involved until the last half of that time frame, prior to which Bus stop had already been blocked in four separate instances. Discussion during that period failed, multiple blocks failed, and mentorship failed. Unblocking is not a second chance, it is one of a dozen that hasn't worked. But, go ahead and unblock. I'm curious to see what will happen and how long it will take for the block to be reinstated. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the title of this thread, so the link I had originally sent to Bus stop no longer worked. I resent him a new link today. Given the glacial pace of his previous appeals, perhaps he hardly expects movement now. Provisionally, I offer my services as his mentor and propose his unblock with a topic ban regarding religious identities at biography articles, broadly defined. Also please note: Tyrenius's narrative has me very concerned. I have written a follow-up letter to the Arbitration Committe asking how things came to this pass. Since I had been the blocking admin it would have been natural for any serious unblock consideration to touch bases with me. If any Committee member or clerk tried to do so I certainly don't remember it. The first I heard of this was last month when Bus stop approached me himself. It's very worrisome to see a reasonable query left in limbo for five months; I wonder how many others fall through the cracks so long. Sent my concerns via e-mail to the Committee last night and am drafting a community-based solution. Since these are the community's blocks, we don't need their consent to take this back to the community level. Thank you to all who posted. DurovaCharge! 03:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell no. Bus Stop was a classic POV pusher, arrogant and disrespectful in all terms on all occasions. Letting this fox back in the chicken coop will have predictable results. He's got serious issues and an unwavering confidence that he's right. COoperation, consensus, neither matters to him, because he's got 'the truth(tm)' on his side. Oppose any more chances fro someone who can't make good use of them. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ThuranX in spirit. Although I won't specifically oppose an unblock, I believe it's a waste of time. Hopefully, I'm wrong. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
For the last seven months he has displayed none of those negative qualities that were previously dominant. This has surprised me, as he has had to put up with a lot of frustration in his appeal attempts. His behaviour has been exemplary. Ty 12:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed this months ago - right when Poetlister happened and took me away for the summer. Based on rough memory, I found myself favorably inclined to a second chance. As with all users being re-integrated after a lengthy ban, I would wish them a warm welcome, and happy editing, however also look for clear and well-defined conditions (and restrictions or mentorship if necessary) of what is expected to ensure it goes well, related to any likely past or future "difficult issues", if any. Well worth including so all know where they stand. Sufficiently careful conditions will take care of the above concerns, but sometimes they really do need to be carefully thought out, measured -- and often over a long term. Will comment on those tomorrow. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I support an unblock per Durova..If she mentors Bus Stop and he agrees to that; then there has been tremendous progress just on the face of that...Hopefully if he is reinstated; others will give him a little space to reorient his bearings here.....Modernist (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here, I have gone ahead and unblocked User:Bus stop. I have left the conditions of his unblocking on his talk page at User talk:Bus stop#Unblocked. Here are the main points:

  • You are on general probation for six months. This applies to all articles and pages on Wikipedia. Any problematic behavior will result in a new block, no exceptions.
  • You may not edit any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. This should be construed broadly. Should you try to WP:GAME the edges of this ban, you will be blocked again.
  • You are to be mentored by User:Durova. If you follow her directions, I foresee no reason why you should not become a stand-up member of the community. Any sign of you not following her directions during your mentorship will result in a block.
  • One of your very first edits should be a section on this page, or your user page, consisting of a genuine apology for your previous actions. This will go a long way towards convincing the community of your good faith.

I hope this meets with most people's approval.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully request you strike the last. Ty sent a revised chronology last night and Bus stop has actually been making polite appeals for seven months. Our goal is to move forward productively, not to steal any remnant of his dignity. He acknowledges his mistakes and pledges not to repeat him. He has also given one apology voluntarily, which appears to be heartfelt. A demand for additional mandatory apologies invites formulaic replies. Let's be real. DurovaCharge! 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this. I understand the sentiment behind the request, but the reality of it won't be very edifying for anyone, and actions speak louder than words. Ty 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaucho theory[edit]

Resolved: User:Protonk closed the Afd as snowball delete.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this AfD? I think it is quite ripe for a "delete" early closure, under WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. There is an active off-wiki canvassing attempt to influence this AfD at[5] (the origin of the "theory" in question) and there has been a veritable SPA flood there. When the SPAs are discounted, there is a pretty strong WP:SNOW "delete" case and in any event this looks like the situation where WP:IAR would call for an early close. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Eyh, no harm in letting this run for at least another couple of days. I agree that it's unlikely to be closed as anything other than Delete, but a snow delete at this stage might be a little premature. You never know, an actual editor might find something on this meme in a reliable source. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC).
    • Well, for a "theory" that was born two days ago, according to the article itself, it is highly unlikely that a reliable source would materialize. In any event WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:MADEUP would still apply. When you read the discussion at the at the above link, you will see that this "theory" is essentially a hoax or a joke, something that was made up in a day and that belongs on encyclopedia drammatica, but not here. No need for the spectacle that this AfD has become. I say this is a case that calls for WP:IAR. Nsk92 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Let it run and get enough of an overwhelming consensus – that way we can G4 it next time instead of going through the AfD saga every week until Reddit gets bored. – iridescent 01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Spot on what I was thinking. Let the AfD close after 5 days with a strong consensus to delete and it can be G4ed on sight until the time comes (if it ever comes) when this joke becomes widely noted as a joke. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
        • There is certainly something to that, but I think that based on the !votes so far there already is a pretty overwhelming consensus to delete, once the SPA IP !votes are taken out. With an external canvassing effort, this is the sort of situation that can easily lead to sockpuppetry, people losing their tempers etc. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have trust that the closing admin can recognize sock/meat accounts. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and I had already looked at, and indeed participated in, that discussion before you made your request here. There is no reason to close this early, and there are good reasons to leave such discussions to run their normal course (not the least of which is that people coming to Wikipedia from the web site out of simple curiosity, knowing nothing about Wikipedia, might learn how our policies and guidelines apply and be pleasantly surprised). Individual people losing their tempers or being otherwise disruptive can be quietly dealt with without need for closing down the entire discussion. Indeed, in that particular discussion that has already happened. This AFD discussion is hardly a spectacle. In fact, it has been fairly civilized. This has been helped, I suspect, by the WWW discussion forum members who have contributed to the forum's own "help save this Wikipedia article" discussion by noting that the content was inappropriate for Wikipedia, to the apparent annoyance of some who thought that they would be soliciting only opinions to keep from the forum's participants. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD might benefit from an early close[edit]

Please would an uninvolved, calm, and experienced admin with no particular interest in GLBT issues and no pro or anti bias look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed because they were transgender which has become rather messier than one might expect.

The article in question is radically different form the article I proposed initially for deletion, I believe substantially for the better, and its name has changed several times during the AfD.

I have suggested at the (current) foot of the discussion that a procedural early close and the consideration of relisting either immediately or in a couple of days in order to reach a consensus based upon the current state of the article might be a valuable way forward. This might mean ignoring a rule or two, but I think the discussion would benefit from that.

If this route is taken it will require a substantive rationale to explain the "no consensus" decision, however, hence the request for an experienced and calm admin to look at the thing as it stands today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would offer my services here, but I think more admins should review this and there should be a broad admin consensus on how to handle this particular AfD. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I would expect no different. The one positive thing is that the discussion does not appear to have become hugely heated. It is simply complex to resolve. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
When the title can not even be agreed upon, an afd will inevitably be hard to reach consensus on because the focus of the article is so nebulous as a result of an often-changed title. I have no problem closing this as no consensus with a very strong recommendation to those interested in it to agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus if no one objects. I'll post this on the afd too. RlevseTalk 14:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking along the same lines. The arguments mentioned here are quite correct, !votes from 20 November have no real connection to the state of the article today and with the article constantly changing in huge ways, I do not see any possibility consensus can be reached at the moment. If noone minds, I would offer to write a rationale and close it accordingly. But I'll wait for more comments first. Regards SoWhy 14:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
*hopefully* the article is now stable in regards to it's purpose (which ironically is pretty much it's original purpose before the fun and games started). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless you feel that further time should elapse, might I suggest that this be carried 'nem con' and closed for now as "no consensus"? If someone truly wishes for the article to be deleted they may always renominate it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be fine to go ahead and close now, but avoid teh Latin. لennavecia 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and closed it, providing a lengthy rationale for doing so. Let's wait for the DRV ;-) SoWhy 17:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think the basic "should this exist" issue was really touched upon in the AfD, I would have to say an early close seemed to be in order. As you so noted, anyone who disagrees with the article could nominate it again rather quickly, so it's really not a big issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems at this point that all of the involved users have agreed that the article should remain in one form or another. Consensus is working out the title and scope of the article on the talk page. Things seem unlikely to require another AFD if all goes well. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent close SoWhy - I like your well thought out rationale too for why you elected to close it that way. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC).
Thank you very much :-) SoWhy 15:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Improper CSD I8 deletions[edit]

The CSD I8 deletions are becoming more sloppy again. Several times this past week I have had to turn to admin's userpages and point this out to them. I understand that the admins are trying to clear out backlogs and stuff and that with the automated tools etc, most transfers are indeed "proper", but please continue to CHECK that the copyright, source and file history are actually properly copied to the commons page before deleting the image. It leads to frustration among people who suddenly see their image deleted from Commons, while their uploads on en. were proper. It leads to more reactions like: User:Redvers/Say no to Commons. And I can't blame those people because en. admins too often simply don't check the I8 criteria. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a set of rules on CAT:NCT that people here are very very bad at following. The most misunderstood or ignored one is #4, The file was properly uploaded (preserving GFDL required history of revisions) if moved to Commons instead of being uploaded independently. When a certain user went through every single one of my uploads, copying them to Commons with incorrect attribution and without noting the GFDL history, three of my fellow admins happily deleted the images without even the most basic of checks. I had to spend ages undeleting (and the Commons uploads are still there and still in breach of the GFDL, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone). So, yes, my essay is partially in response to such sloppy and unethical practice, so please be more careful, folks. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 15:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
TheDJ, the only admin you contacted was me. And that was about a deletion over a year ago.--Maxim(talk) 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) and url blacklisting[edit] and both have been blacklisted as per suggestion by User:Collectonian stating that they break wikipedia copyright policy. See: [6] Neither site offers any illegal downloads. Supers (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Anidb does claim that "any registered user can find useful hashes, video/audio related information, and other types of information on files entered by other users". I don't see anything equivalent on animenfo, so I'm not sure it should be blocked. — PyTom (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC) AnimeNfo was designed as a database for anime. This database is designed to hold all anime related information such as the anime itself, the characters, the seiyuu and the people behind the anime. . Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)'
I'm not sure a poorly worded mission statement is reason to block the site. Looking at a few recent anime at random, I don't see any links to fansubs or anything untoward. They might be a little more relaxed than Wikipedia when it comes to fair use of character images, but that doesn't seem like a reason to block, either. I'd say blocking should be based on what a site is doing, rather than what it might be interpreted to claim to do. — PyTom (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Animenfo does - or at least did - link to fansubs (if the anime was subbed and unlicensed it would list something like "available on fansub" under American distribution). This search shows pages for different fansubbing groups but they seem to deadlink now so maybe their policy has changed. To be honest irrelevant of copyright violations I don't really see when linking to the site would be appropriate under WP:EL. Guest9999 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

article Jason Yeldell[edit]

A little editorial or other help might be warranted for 2-editor new article Jason Yeldell. --Túrelio (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I stuck a "notable" tag on the article, but an AfD may be in order. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism on Yttrium[edit]


The Main page article for Yttrium seems to have been hit with some hard to find template vandalism. Jkasd 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Seems to be gone now. Jkasd 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting unblock with a very tall story[edit]

Resolved: Unblock was declined, naturally. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Hakkari. --Deskana (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for some imagination, rather than "can you prove those are my fingerprints on the keyboard in question?" I think this can be put to bed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

a hyperlink error report[edit]

Resolved: Errors in Word documents are not something Wikipedia admins are empowered to help with, despite our normally god-like powers. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) This web address above has been hyperlinked to my word document, but when i use it page comes up with in the address bar, is this spam, if it is i am reporting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to be with a link to Wikipedia on an external site, you'd need to speak to them. We have no control over who links to us. – iridescent 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a problem with a Microsoft Word document on the editor's own hard drive. We can help even less with that. It seems from the information given that the URL was copied incorrectly and Word now is rendering the text "http://" as "" for some reason. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Whilst this is hardly the place to help the clueless with their internal IT problems, the solution is to right-click the link and select "Remove hyperlink". This returns the link to plain text. Then go back to the link and recreate it. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 08:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for Sceptre[edit]

I've received a request to unblock Sceptre, who is due to be unblocked automatically on Dec 9. Based on previous discussion, there was enough support for a shorter block that I find this request reasonable. I have Accepted the request on the following condition:

If Sceptre does not follow these restrictions, I will block him until the New Year.--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Tznkai's action. AGK 18:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Same here: seems reasonable to me. Acalamari 18:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm appalled this has happened without discussion. No opinion on the unblock as I'm not privy to the discussions that Tznaki has had but Sceptre's lack of understanding for the reasoning behind the block was troublesome and I would have liked to see some evidence of understanding before an early unblock. Perhaps Tznaki has seen this and can enlighten us. Spartaz Humbug! 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
While I think the unblock is okay, I see Spartaz' point. The block duration was based on consensus here so any change to it should also require some discussion and consensus. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
As per my thoughts on previous unblocks, let him have every opportunity to prove himself; if he screws up, leash him or lock him up again. Whatever works with the least drama. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Although tentatively this proposal looks viable, it is rather worrisome to see the decision presented as a fait accompli. DurovaCharge! 19:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity Tznaki, did you discuss the unblock with the blocking admin? Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta siding with Spartaz here. Seems like excessive boldness to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse decision, with noted concerns about discussion first. However, saying things like "I'm appalled" is exactly the sort of drama that causes non-action, overly long discussions, fear of being bold, and all that jazz. It's not a big deal, the conditions are acceptable, no problem. Tan | 39 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Be as bold as you want, but take responsibility for the consequences. Further disruption from Sceptre should be treated as though Tznkai did it himself, since he's responsible. Enjoy the babysitting duty you've taken upon yourself. Friday (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that should be a guideline. Admins should be held responsible for unblocking without discussion. As it stands now, every admin knows its easier to boldly unblock without the courtesy of informing the blocker than it is to talk to the blocking admin and risk objection beforehand. They know that any reverting admin will get it worse with an accusation of wheel-warring, so their unblocking will remain, despite the minor grumbling the action may elicit. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Per the block log, isn't Tznaki the blocking admin? Another admin shortened Tznaki's block from indef to 3 months. If I'm correct here, this whole discussion is pretty screwed up with people assuming a situation that doesn't exist. Tan | 39 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, even if, he acted on a community consensus, just doing what the discussion wanted him to do, not on his own decision. SoWhy 20:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose early unblock - So Sceptre honestly just couldn't bring himself to waiting out his block just as he'd expect of any other user who he deems a "troll" and filed two separate unblock requests asking for special treatment despite continuing in the same disruptive behavior on his talk page during his block that got him blocked in the first place? (See my post in the threadabout his first unblock request.) It's very predictable of him actually and in my opinion shows that the block hasn't helped him to mature or even admit that what he did was wrong (I still remember how he tried to excuse his harassment of another user by editing another user's page as an anon to call them him gay, by saying "it was vandalism, but not harrassment"). So like Friday said, enjoy your new responsibility, Tznkai but please don't blame anyone else when Sceptre starts being a dick again and gets promptly reblocked. And could you please offer us an explanation as to why he should be unblocked early other than that he just wants to?--ParisianBlade (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no objections to the unblock. Sceptre has been given some rope, so let's see what he does with it. Moving forward, it'll be very easy to see if he uses it wisely or hangs himself for all to see. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What? There's a difference between understanding you shouldn't have done something and being sorry for doing it. There are many things in life that I will never do again, but that doesn't mean I'll apologize for doing them in the first place. He's said his part, now let's get on with it. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's wait a bit, I mean the next block will be for six months and all. MBisanz talk 20:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
My issue is that no real reason has been given for the unblock so it seems like he's just being unblocked as a result of asking for it over and over again and not having the patience to wait it out. If he doesn't cause any trouble that's good, but I don't think just that he'll probably behave himself for a while is a good enough reason to treat him differently than most users. What has he done for example to show that it's likely he even will behave, since his first post since his unblock was just flaming the user whom he attacked that got him blocked in the first place? It seems like we're setting a bad precedent with this decision, and based on this are we going to unblock any other users in the future who simply ask for it repeatedly without giving a real reason for it other than that they're just not willing to wait the block out?--ParisianBlade (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Umm...wasn't the consensus for the block to be between 2 and 3 months? How many months since the block was imposed? 2 and a half? So how is that a bad precedent? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To respond briefly: I was the original blocking admin in this incident, and another administrator shortened my block as a result to my own discussion after I had declared my intent to. That same discussion as linked, had an only slightly stronger consensus for a three month block over a two month block, so split the difference and here we are. I didn't expect this unblock to be particularly controversial, and y'all can always attain consensus to override my decision. Finally, to repeat what a half dozen other people have said: its not like Sceptre can't be reblocked if there is a problem, we're certainly not short on admins willing to do so.--Tznkai (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional thought: If someone could explain why the next 15 days is so important that it will significantly prevent harm, that'd be nice, cause I don't see the practical difference between two and a half and three months other than one being on the drop down menu.--Tznkai (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fifteen days isn't important, until... wait you found it important enough to unblock early. So it's both entirely important and entirely unimportant to you. Fascinating. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thus defaulting to a shorter length, not a longer one.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the point he was making was that it doesn't make sense to shorten the block by 1/2 a month and then protest people who want the block to remain it's full length (for a difference of 1/2 a month). Protonk (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not explain adequately my position. There is nothing gained in that half month of blocking. So, even if there is no net gain for the project by unblocking Sceptre, I believe that two positions equal but for time should default to the shorter length. In otherwords, if there is no difference between blocking for two weeks or three weeks, two weeks. The same applies when considering an unblock, if there is no gain from letting the block run out on its own, why let it?--22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have an opinion about this unblock, but for transparency's sake, [7] is an AN discussion between the ~10 Sep discussion and now. Basic consensus (as I read it) shows no consensus to unblock, but no consensus to retain the 3 month block as it stands. Seems like an unblock 1 month after that discussion is pretty reasonable. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really, no. Since there has been extensive discussion with consensus to leave the block in place, it would have been prudent to discuss it before unblocking, especially considering the very obvious and widespread agreement that Sceptre needed a break long enough to get the Wikipedia habit out of his blood. The fact that he's asked yet again so soon after the last discussion indicates that this has not happened. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh. We aren't a therapy service. If the intention of the block was to "get the habit out of him", then that intention was flawed from the start. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What's done is done; Sceptre is unblocked (and already getting stuck into editing, which says to me he's been thinking about editing, not participating in drama). Let him do his own thing and if there's bad behaviour, reblock. However, what we shouldn't forget is that there are, let's say "others" off-wiki (some from the wiki, some not) who just keep on their campaign of making him try to quit. We don't want our editors to quit, especially not valuable, multiple FA writers, though let me make it clear that it also doesn't mean we have to keep taking crap. I know mentors were discussed and the idea was rejected, but if I notice Sceptre getting stressed, I'll be sure to drop him an email. I'm sure Sceptre has learnt for himself the joy of taking a break from wiki anyway. Seraphim 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse unblock. I've discussed this off-wiki with Sceptre who pondered on whether to edit in community-based discussions like this one. I noted quite sternly that strictly adhering to his conditions is his one and only priority; he's been unblocked in good faith for the sole purpose of making content contributions, and failing to restrain himself from editing for other purposes is unlikely to go unnoticed - a reblock may be applied by any of the admins very quickly. He accepted this, and his self-restraint from posting here demonstrates that he has a sufficient understanding of these conditions - as AuburnPilot noted quite succincitly above (at 20:16), it's all up to him now and how he chooses to use his chance to improve Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nova Design Europe[edit]

Resolved: Deleted, earth beneath our feet salted. ➨ ЯEDVERS a sweet and tender hooligan 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please review the above article. I've speedied it, the author has removed the speedy tag despite requests to stop. I'm on the verge of a 3RR so would appreciate an independent assessment. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer[edit]

The arbitrations have rendered a decision on a request to amend the case named above and resolved that Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

— Coren (talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is removing images[edit]

Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is removing non-free images from articles about television stations, claiming that they aren't needed. See Special:Contributions/Betacommand. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on ANI marked "WGN-TV". - NeutralHomerTalk • November 23, 2008 @ 07:23
Per his restrictions he's not supposed to undertake any pattern of edits to more than 25 pages without prior community apporoval and I do believe he has exceed that. (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are you hiding behind your IP address? Care to log in? - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are you hiding behind a user name? Care to tell me your real name and ip address? (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking for your personal information. However, my IP address is readily available if you look for it. Given that you are commenting on what has come to be a slightly-controversial subject, it would be more appropriate of you to you use your actual account to do so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
And why exactly can't an IP register a complaint about Beta? Are we ABF here?MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Because it lends suspicions. And AGF does not mean suspending brain usage. —kurykh 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
So, in light of your suspicions, is the observation the IP made reasonable or frivelous? Did it need to be made by an IP or a registered user? Did it require counter accusations, or not? MickMacNee (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. I was merely commenting on your automatic assumption that people are assuming bad faith by calling into question that an IP is delving so deeply into such matters. —kurykh 23:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Does user Rjd0060 know more about this ip than he is letting on? If so, he/she should say so rather than making accusations. --Tom 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC) ip made only one edit to comment here, so I will strike my comment. --Tom 15:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Obin 3391/Obin 3392 Messy[edit]

User talk:Obin 3391 redirects to User talk:Obin 3392. User account "Obin 3392" is not registered, but contains a history of posts meant for Obin 3391. Both talk pages have talk history meant for Obin 3391. The page content and history of User talk:Obin 3392 should be merged into User talk:Obin 3391 and then User talk:Obin 3392 deleted. Also, switching the order, User:Obin 3392 redirects to User:Obin 3391. Likely User:Obin 3392 probably can just be deleted. I initially thought to list Obin 3392 for U2 speedy deletion, but realized this messy talk page issue. Please review. Thanks. -- Suntag 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, what vandalism/edit warning tags would be appropiate for this case?[edit]

User: did an edit of a time on the Top Gear Test Track lapboard and moved it elsewhere, and User: replied to my discussion about said fact and signed as (talk) 6:21pm, 18/11/2008 (GMT). WHOIS indicates that both IP's could be the same person give the edit and fact in question. Question is, what tags in the Vandal/Edit Warning list should I put for both? It's obviously not too disruptive of an edit, yet I can't deny the fact that the discussion page response kinda raises the flag abit. (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would probably choose NOT to use a template in this case. I'm thinking an individualized "It's fairly obvious that you and the other IP are the same editor, so please dial back on the attitude/be more civil/stop being an asshat" (take your pick, though I'm thinking that third one might get you a civility warning yourself) would be best. Templates are great, but we don't have one for every possible occasion; WP:DRETIPHTCMAILMMOOT--"Don't Revert My Edits, Then IP Hop To Challenge Me, And Incidentally Leave My Mom Out Of This" doesn't seem like it would be a template that would get much use. It'd be kinda like if Hallmark made a card for "Happy Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day, Great-Grandma"--it might get used, but more likely not.

Second Opinion wanted due to non-signed response. I don't know if this is kosher or just a joke posting. (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It was posted by an admin, Gladys j cortez, if that helps?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, how did that happen? SineBot follows EVERYBODY around, myself included--sorry I forgot to sign, but shouldn't the bot have caught it and covered for me? I don't THINK i have it disabled...GJC 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Uw-test1}} or {{uw-vandalism1}} would also suffice. You know you can add text to such templates: {{subst:uw-test1|Article name|Additional text}}. Kingturtle (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experience SineBot only follows vandals around, signing their posts so I can't rollback them. dougweller (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Secret/Attract More Editors[edit]

I would welcome contributions and comments for this new proposal to attract editors. Thanks Secret account 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Copyvios from User:Rockyobody[edit]


Rockyobody (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyvio images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7) and text. This pattern of behavior already got him indefinitely blocked at Commons. He has been warned, and I even offered to help him figure out copyright materials. Unfortunately, the practice continues.

Now this user is inserting copyvio text into articles. Two full paragraphs at Wendell Craig Williams were lifted right out of from Fox News. The entire page at Shannon Royer was lifted from Shannon This user's talk page is full of warnings, everything from removing AFD notices from Shannon Royer to about a half-dozen copyvio notices from about a half-dozen editors, including a "final warning" from an administrator.--HoboJones 05:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for a week. Anyone is free to unblock if they feel that he will make a good faith effort to comply with the image use policies. From his past history that doesn't look to be the case, but you never know. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: User Rockyobody has already been indef blocked on Commons (after multiple warnings and previous short blocks) for repeated copyright violations and false authorship claims. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • User has been unblocked after claiming to be willing to respect our copyright policies. If he returns to his old ways just make another post here and the block will likely be longer in duration (possibly indefinite). Protonk (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Franz Liszt[edit]

User:Antandrus deleted all the sources about Slovak origin of this composer, including one relevant book of historian Miroslav Demko, Franz liszt, compositeur slovaque (2003). It this OK? This information should be in the article. It is famous, that Liszt did not speak Hungarian at all, he rather spoke Slovak, German and French, so ho was rather German or Slovak, but he was not Hungarian. Demko says that Liszt was born in Burgenland (present Austria) in a part that was originally Slovak, his parents and grandparents were Slovaks, too. --Wizzard (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

edit: maybe he was a Hungarian in the sense "from the Kingdom of Hungary", but the word "Hungarian" wrongly suggests that he was ethnic Hungarian. --Wizzard (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Editors may wish to read the current discussion at Talk:Franz Liszt#Verifiability of Sources before commenting here. For me the largest single reference work on Western music (as well as other leading English known sources) stating he is Hungarian is reliable enough for Wikipedia --Alf melmac 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, User:Wizzard's propagating his edit war. Past and present overwheling consensus is that Liszt is Hungarian. Antandrus' edit was completely valid and, if this edit warring continues, Wizzard has already been warned by User:Kingturtle and should be blocked. aNubiSIII (T / C) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Anubis3, you know that you are not telling the true, as Kingturtle said, so please do not lie again. --Wizzard (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Wizzard has not continued the edit war after my 3RR warning. Instead, Wizzard has taken the discussion to the Talk page. So he's playing by the rules, and there's no current need for a block. Kingturtle (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanity Check requested[edit]

Resolved: WP:RBI, and as for my sanity, I got a crisis loan to tide me over for now. --Rodhullandemu 23:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I bring this here for independent review, given the current brou-ha-ha surrounding the BNP and its leaked membership list. Jakereilly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was an account created today whose one and only edit was to add to Nick Griffin: "his mobile number is <redacted>. Give him a call if you want to terrorise him" (paraphrased). This is so obvious and gross that I think WP:IAR must apply and I have blocked the account indefinitely as a VOA and deleted the offending edit. Not sure oversight is required as My take is that it's a kid and WP:RBI should apply, but I have requested oversight. Input welcome. --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the block/oversight: good call. Regarding your sanity:  Inconclusive. :) MastCell Talk 19:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll take that as a compliment; as Edmund Blackadder would say, "Wibble". --Rodhullandemu 21:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions about use/creation of Hidden Categories[edit]

I posted this at the help desk last night, but no one could answer my question, so I will ask again here.

I noticed earlier that Category:Articles contradicting other articles has not been made a hidden category. Most, but not all, of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories are hidden categories, but I didn't want to make any changes to these categories because these are all administrative categories, and I am but a lowly Rollbacker.

So my questions are:

  1. What specific criteria, if any, determines whether a category is (or should be) hidden? I know that most categories which are not self-references should not be hidden, but what beyond that? Is there any specific policy on this, beyond what little is mentioned at Wikipedia:Categorization#Maintenance_categories?
  2. Should Category:Articles contradicting other articles be made a hidden category?

I eagerly await your guidance, because I am quite confused about this. --Eastlaw (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any special knowledge, but Category:Hidden categories says "In accordance with Wikipedia:Categorization, the categories which should appear here are the maintenance categories, that is, categories reflecting the present status of the encyclopedia article, rather than classifying the article subject."