Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

WP:UAA backlogged[edit]

Resolved: Not now it ain't. GbT/c 09:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The list has gotten a tad large. A few extra hands on deck would be neat-o. Thanks, caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Only a few left, all of which are being handled. GbT/c 09:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Danke Schoen. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats at 2009[edit]

Resolved: Alright, move along. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actors:

  1. Bjagsjkdg (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  2. Lolkikjujhyh (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Actions:

  1. 15:38
  2. 16:24

Response:

I don't think I've overreacted, but perhaps we should change the indef block from NLT to USER, but leave the IP autoblocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd call them vandalism-only accounts instead of labeling it legal threats, personally (I mean, what's credible about a threat from a guy who calls us "EPIK PHAILURES"?). It would still end up with the accounts indef'd anyways, though, so it's up to you whether or not you change the reason. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, and don't bother with the sockpuppet report - just indef block both as VOA. GbT/c 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20[edit]

Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.

Two points that should be kept in mind:

  • Several of the measures being considered may require some form of community ratification prior to being fully adopted. The target date for this is not explicitly listed, but can be assumed to occur after the final date for internal Committee deliberations.
  • The target dates are not set in stone; while we will make our best effort to meet them, there are any number of unforeseen circumstances which may cause them to change, and they are subject to revision as other issues arise.

The agenda is as follows:

  1. Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
    • Initiate RFC by January 21
    • Compile RFC results by February 21
    • Draft reform proposals by March 7
    • Finalize reform proposals by March 21
  2. Determine procedure for publishing proposals
    • Decision by January 31
  3. Appoint CU & OS operators
    • Finalize election setup by January 31
    • Finalize appointments by February 28
  4. Determine case acceptance criteria
    • Decision by January 31
  5. Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
    • Draft proposal by January 31
    • Decision by February 14
  6. Decide on designating an IRC liaison
    • Compile chanop comments by January 31
    • Decision by February 14
  7. Decide on appointing CU & OS auditors
    • Finalize proposal by February 7
    • Finalize appointments by February 28
  8. Determine recusal standards
    • Draft proposal by February 7
    • Decision by February 21
  9. Determine workshop page structure
    • Decision by February 14
  10. Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
  11. Decide on acceptance of private evidence
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
  12. Prepare updated guide to arbitration
    • Draft by February 21
    • Finalized by March 7
  13. Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
    • Draft proposal by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
  14. Decide on locations of arbitration pages
    • Draft structure by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
    • Implementation by March 14
  15. Move forward on handling civility
    • Detailed agenda by February 28
  16. Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
  17. Determine approach to considering off-wiki actions
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
  18. Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Decision by March 21
  19. Develop an arbitrator recall process
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Final proposal by March 21
  20. Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
    • Draft by March 7
    • Finalized by March 21
  21. Move forward on content dispute resolution
    • Detailed agenda by March 14
  22. Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
    • Draft proposal due March 14
    • Decision due March 21
  23. Prepare updated transition document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30
  24. Prepare updated induction document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30

For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection template on WP:MOSNUM[edit]

Resolved: Template embiggened. –xeno (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin please make the protection template visible on this guideline page? This is a major dispute and the page has been locked for two months now, and the large template should help move the process forward. This would make it more clear to casual readers what the dispute is and what parts of the guideline may not currently be locked in to the "right version." I asked the protecting admin for the change,[1] but his main concern here seems to be aesthetics,[2] which I don't think matters much outside of the main space. -- Kendrick7talk 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) would be a more appropriate place. Second, I really don't think that users who don't recognize the lock symbol are going to be editing that anyways (or would likely have their edits stay), so it seems irrelevant. If it's not clear on the talk page what the dispute is, you are going to get plenty of casual readers there asking anyways. There are already what looks like three or four different discussions ongoing, so why is one more valuable than the others? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What? Look, he point of the template is to make it clear to a casual editor that the content of the guideline is in dispute. Secondarily, it quickly informs editors not a party to the dispute when they can edit the guideline. The tiny icon doesn't accomplish either of those tasks. Editors shouldn't have to skim 167KB of talk page to try and piece together what is going on. I know I don't want to. -- Kendrick7talk 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
But it is not the whole WP:MOSNUM that is under dispute. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's a guideline under protection. Why are we making this a special exception to the general rule? -- Kendrick7talk 04:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Helllo? Jannitorrrrs? Is anybody hoooommmeee??? -- Kendrick7talk 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This might seem like a stupid question[edit]

...but I was wondering if an admin can delete their block log. If so, how is that viewed? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Right now, block logs are forever, barring developer intervention. Grandmasterka 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks.
An additional question: WP:AN differs from WP:ANI in that this board is for reporting issues specifically involving administrators? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think of it as a place for less urgent issues than ANI. In practice, there's virtually no difference. Grandmasterka 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Crap. I've not been considering the difference to be that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Grandmasterka on both points; in theory, ANI is for more urgent matters, and in practice, they have just become WP:ANI1 and WP:ANI2. --barneca (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Originally this was the "noticeboard" - things admins should know about. But then it started getting crowded with "incident reports" - things which required an admin's attention. Hence, the subpage, and after that various other spin-offs. I think 3RR came before Incidents actually now that I think about it, but heck, its all been a while ago. So this page is for things that are just Notices, Heads up, I did this, etc. - and Incidents is for, well, incidents. But I totoally agree with Grandmasterka that the difference is negligible and you can safely ignore it. Those who actually know the nuances will move if they deem it important enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no Stupid Questions.. there are only Stupid Admins. :D SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so grateful Stupid Admins didn't link to my user page. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Experiment: is this going to be a blue link, or a red link... Category:Stupid Admins --barneca (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
SirFozzie, this is the only time I'm going to warn you. Next time you violate WP:NSA, I'll have to block you. Such behavior will not be tolerated. EVula // talk // // 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Bah! (climbs the Reichstag dressed as Spider-man to prove he has the right to violate WP:NSA.) (Thanks for playing along EVula, I NEED the laughter today :D) SirFozzie (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, this puts into focus the meat of ThuranX' comment a week or so ago that I was forum-shopping; I had thought I had posted a complaint in the wrong area (here, as opposed to AN/I, where I quickly moved it to after realizing my 'mistake') before, It would appear that I had not.
ps - it would be up for deletion at AfD, as it would be OR; bad admins are different from the simply stupid. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I called your actions forum shopping because you posted to three areas, starting two of them, and in none of them actively pointing to the others to centralize discussion, but instead keep all three going separately. It's that desire to see how long the three go separately, in hopes of getting me sanctioned faster or more harshly at one over others, that made it forum shopping, not that you posted to AN or AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk that you are going to treat this like a dog with a bone, forum-shopping was not my intention. WQA had already proven on two prior occasions to be ineffective in addressing behavioral issues, and I felt your behavior was too uncivil. I posted here before realizing that I had intended to post to AN/I. The only method by which matters were continued here was addressing that topsy-turvsy user, Manhattan Samurai (who, you may recall, you accused me of creating as a sock). Matters of substance continued only on the AN/I complaint, using the very post that had been initiated here, without any of the responses from here. If you want to rehash about getting blocked, don't blame me; I didn't make you act poorly. If you are carrying a grudge, realize that you are the only one doing so. If your behavior improves, the block has done its job.
Barring further accusation, this is my last comment on the subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Korlzor[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor, which is pretty much an open and shut case of block evasion by a user with a past history of block evasion, I have extended the December 20 one month block to Indefinite. I think it is fair to say that with this much obsessive disruptive behaviour and block evasion, this user is no longer welcome. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG. With the amount of disruption created by this user on Tennis related articles, this was definitely in order. His disruption was to such an extent that eventually even the WT:TENNIS needed to be protected. Unfortunately with the amount of IP hopping undertaken by this user and the number of articles being disrupted, it is extremely difficult to protect them all. LeaveSleaves 19:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on applying a range block (or two) on the ip's? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Support indef block of Korlzor and rangeblocks when and where necessary to stop IP hopping. GlassCobra 04:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It's kinda fun that you call me a vandal when my only "vandalism" here has been turning sponsored tournaments names to location normal names (specially reverting tennisexperts Key Biscayne to Miami's). And well, I recommend you banning my ranges permanently. Have fun, I will. 62.57.239.245 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.70.104 (talk)
I just filed three requests at WP:RPP, all concerning this user and his numerous IPs. There are other tennis articles affected in same way but it is impractical to ask for all those articles to be protected. I would strongly request any possible rangeblock to applied in order to at least restrict this user's disruption. LeaveSleaves 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User page tirade[edit]

Following this discussion and Rividian's subsequent block, now we have this tirade. Should we remove it per WP:USER#NOT? Specifically #10, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." As having been involved with the discussion - and as one of the obvious targets of Rividian's anger - I don't want to do this myself. Tan | 39 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say let it go. They're upset. Let them vent a bit. Nobody is mentioned specifically. It's not that bad. --OnoremDil 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who was in no way involved in the discussion, I don't see that paragraph on his user page as attacking anyone in particular. No names are mentioned and no specific events are referred to. It actually seems fairly general and measured, with no bad language or anything offensive. I think to remove it might be a bit unfair and it might smack of censorship - it's not against the rules just to be hacked off with Wikipedia, which is basically all that says. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the perspectives. Tan | 39 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess some people just won't stop in their efforts to harass anyone who goes against the ruling clique... this is just pathetic. Perhaps you should checkuser me to figure out who I used to be, there's a lot of other ways you could try to upset me, you know. --Rividian (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You think I'm harassing - I think you're attacking. Perhaps you need a new hobby. Tan | 39 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the state of Wikipedia? Admins are tolerated even when they actively try to drive editors away? --Rividian (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Calm down. He came here to ask others for an opinion. That's not "actively try{ing) to drive editors away." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If Rividian wants to make himself look foolish and hyperbolic in this way then I don't see why we should stop him. Nobody is mentioned by name. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protecting that article for a month based on vandalism which quite obviously only stemmed from the teams begin announced is a crazy decision. Insisting that you can only request unprotection from the protecting admin on that basis is even more so. MickMacNee (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It doesn't seem so crazy once on reads the protection log and edit history of Super Bowl XLII. It's a shame that Tanthalas39 decided to be so petty in the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection discussion, only serving to inflame the discussion. A non-petty response would have explained that we're smart enough to learn from history. The article for last year was protected and unprotected back and forth, in response to vandalism (and other things) and effectively ended up with the 1 month long semi-protection that has been imposed on this year's article, starting from the same point when the teams were announced.

    To be fair, it has to be noted that one of the other things was The Placebo Effect wheel warring to enforce xyr own decision rather than imposing protection in response to vandalism, per policy. Most telling, perhaps, was this full protection that followed this unprotection where no actual article edits occurred in the intervening period, rather undermining the assertion that vandalism would be rampant were the article to be unprotected. It was unprotected, and no edits happened at all, let alone vandalism edits.

    Also rather undermining the argument even for semi-protection was the fact that when the article was not protected, editors without accounts were undoing vandalism by editors with accounts. Ironically, protection was actually preventing good-faith vandal-fighters from helping Wikipedia. Consider, in the period directly before the aforelinked protection by The Placebo Effect during which vandalism supposedly was unmanageable, this quiet and unobtrusive reversion by 64.123.236.89 (talk · contribs), of vandalism perpetrated here by Connorpoirier (talk · contribs). Also consider another quiet reversion of vandalism by 199.8.239.176 (talk · contribs). Not only was the vandalism manageable, but the people who were helping to manage it were the people who were myopically accused of perpetrating it. Once again, the dogma that all editors without accounts are vandals and editors with accounts are not vandals proved to be the inverse of reality.

    So we should also learn from history that the assertion that the vandalism was "IP vandalism" (as stated in at least one protection summary) and the assertion that there were a few good faith editors with accounts fighting overwhelming vandalism from the masses without accounts, are both untrue in reality. A fair amount of the vandalism was by editors with accounts, and the Great Unwashed who had never logged in to Wikipedia were helping to keep it at bay — when administrators actually allowed them to.

    I hope that this year's crop of administrators are smart enough to learn from that. The fact that the editors without accounts don't make a song and dance about reverting vandalism in their edit summaries doesn't mean that they aren't reverting vandalism nonetheless. Editors without accounts help Wikipedia. They wrote most of its content, after all. And they fight vandalism, too. When protecting, make sure that you are protecting against the right editors. Sometimes blocking the editors with the accounts is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please show where I "decided to be petty", Uncle G? Tan | 39 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I requested unprotection last night and seem to have hit the same beaurocratic wall. Protecting for a month simply based on what happened last year is not on in my eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Facebook files[edit]

I've today speedy delete marked many meansless files. That is not for any articles. Can someone please delete them? The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be working through the files presently, so it should be taken care of. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why schould they be keeped? They are totally useless. The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The image CSD which apply to them are timed, and they already have the timed templates on them. Having no strong reason not to, I'd prefer to let the process just run its course. lifebaka++ 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually it looks like these images [3] were all originally uploaded correctly with a PD release by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk · contribs) who is now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppet abuse (according to the tag on his page). Later an IP came by and blanked the image descriptions, and the images were subsequently tagged for having no license. So at face value, it would appear that all of the images could be saved by reverting to the original release. However, it also appears that these are personal images and none that I checked are used in any articles, so I'm not sure if they are actually useful for anything. Dragons flight (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That is what i was trying to say. The Rolling Camel (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I had been wondering about the lack of descriptions... In that case, the correct approach would appear to be reverting to the version with the PD tag and doing a mass IfD nom for all of them, using the rationale presented here for their deletion. For free files (that are actually free), there's almost always an alternative to deletion, so the CSD don't cover them. I've never filed an IfD, so I'd prefer if another editor more familiar with the process did it instead, but I'd be happy to file if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be careful when tagging these images - I10 only applies to files which are not images, audio, or video. These images are not speedyable - just let the process run its course. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move help[edit]

Resolved: Moved. Thanks! -- Banjeboi 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone revert this company page move? It seems PlanetOut Inc., here! and Regent Entertainment Media are/have merged to become Here Media Inc.("PlanetOut, Here Networks and Regent Entertainment Media Announce Merger to Create Here Media Inc.") However LPI Media was a notable company with a long history prior to being bought by PlanetOut Inc. so renaming the article doesn't seem needed as much as clarifying that it is a subsiduary of one of the parent companies. -- Banjeboi 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The leftover redirect has only a single edit, you should be able to move the page back yourself... –xeno (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it did work, don't know what I was doing wrong. Cheers! -- Banjeboi 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please support Haskell syntax highlighting[edit]

Resolved: The devs are on the case. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to use Haskell syntax highlighting with the "source" tag, but a message about not supporting Haskell was displayed. The page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi says that Haskell syntax highlighting exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alquantor (talkcontribs) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:VPT may be a more appropriate forum for this sort of suggestion; this has very little to do with administrators. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:VPT says: "This page is not for new feature requests." It looks to me that an administrator should install/enable new features Alquantor (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Administrators cannot install extensions; the most they can do is install gadgets. EVula // talk // // 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Than where do I ask for a new feature? Alquantor (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Bugzilla, which is where the developers are. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
OK I am going to nitpick here - this is not really a new feature, as the extension already exists (apparently), it just has not been enabled on en Wikipedia. Just thought I would throw that in.  – ukexpat (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I still think the prefeered way to request config changes, extentions added and such is to submit a enhancement request via the Wikipedia spesific bugzilla since that's where the devs use to manage their workflow. If the change is potentialy controversial you should probably have a RFC or something first and link to that in the request to show that there is a consensus to do the change first though. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I received an answer to my feature request: The Wikimedia servers are running an older version of GeSHi syntax highlighting [...] An update to the newest version is requested in bug 10967. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 10967 *** Alquantor (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok so they are already on it, if you add yourself to the CC list on bugzilla:10967 you'll get notified when it's updated by the way. --Sherool (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Talk Page content[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs)

I'd appreciate some administrator input on the Talk:Celtic F.C. page. IP editor has taken offence at a talk page discussion which, by my reckoning, is a valid and relevant and a good example of consensus policies. IP Editor keeps removing discussion, despite intervention of other editors who have explained to him\her what he is doing wrong. Insists he\she knows the malicious intent of the contributing editors' better than anyone. Has now departed with threats of canvassing others and vague, possibly legal, threats on my talk page. What to do? Is talk page content valid? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for continuing disruptive editing. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Global War on Terror captives' habeas corpus petitions[edit]

There are 115 articles in this category (many of which have not been properly sorted). Some, like Rasul v. Bush, are independently notable because they went to higher courts and created precedents and much independent commentary and coverage, but 100-110 of them are simply links to and lists of docket filings in recently filed cases in district court and violate WP:NOT#LINKS and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. How is it best to proceed to avoid WP:MULTI? I could be WP:BOLD and simply merge, as one editor did with Zaid v. Bush, but that's a lot of work to engage in without a clear consensus first. As it is, the vast majority of them will need to be renamed to "v. Obama" in about thirty minutes. THF (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of these seem to be sourced to primary documents and include arguments presumably raised in the filings. I think all of those articles (the de facto docket reports) ought to be deleted or redirected elsewhere. I assume that if you get the authors' consent, no one would have a problem merging all of them. Cool Hand Luke 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
And experience shows that agreement of the editors of articles surrounding Gitmo to any form of merger or redirection will be through right after the heat death of the universe - those who work hard to create articles within this walled garden are, in the main, incensed by the terrible injustice of it, and not wholly amenable to persuasion that any individual in Gitmo is undeserving of their lengthy article describing how their suffering differs from all the others by being exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In fairness, I don't think it's surprising or a bad thing, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism members tend to congregate around the articles they've spent hours researching, transcribing from court filings that even the New York Times doesn't bother sifting through, and trying to simplify everything to layman's terms for the casual reader. I think a worse thing is when "unrelated" editors happen across a particular article they find "offensive" ("Khalid bin Abdullah was accused of blowing up American military convoys over the course of three years? Who cares, having an article practically celebrates this man, we should delete it so that he is relegated to the dustbin of history!" seems to the prevailing attitude among some of the many people we see come storming through "our" articles.) It's also not very helpful to say "Here is a category of 150 articles, I think we should delete roughly 85% of them" without actually specifying which 85%. I think a lot of people in the List of NHL players: G article should be deleted...but it would be fairly shortsighted to just say "Can somebody please delete 85% of them?". Certain people work on certain corners of the project, and should largely be left to regulate and oversee themselves in all but the most serious cases. I'm not going to go yelling which The Simpsons characters biographies should be merged -- I'll leave that for the hardcore Simpsons' editors to decide amongst themselves. Likewise, I'd be loathe to go wade into the shitstorm of Azeri-conflict or Sri Lankan conflict articles and start demanding that "These Sri Lankan military commanders are not notable and should be deleted!", I assume that those who have spent the past five years devoting three hours a day to writing about Sri Lankan military commanders...can police themselves and decide amongst themselves what is and isn't the best use of project space. In short, I don't see how this is possibly an "administrator" issue -- if you truly have strong feelings on seeing the articles merged... please come join us at Wikiproject:Terrorism and start some discussion on the matter; you may find many of us agree with you...don't just cry for Mommy to come tell Bobby to do things your way. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There are 486 articles in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2007. Since these articles have no one interested in maintaining them enough to have taken the tag off in the past year and a half, wouldn't make sense to take the path of least resistance and deal with low notability articles that are not being maintained before moving on to the ones you are aware that people are working on in an organized fashion? Or is there something else you have a problem with in the titular category besides the low of notability of many of the articles?--BirgitteSB 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
and if you do that, you will find that at least half of those article probably do meet the notability guidelines, though almost all of them need improvements. What Wikipedia needs is people to make those improvements of neglected articles--that we abandon articles after the first editor loses interest is not the way to build an encyclopedia.
I was planning to give a detailed explanation of the inappropriateness of the attack on this group of articles, but Sheruji has done better than I could have. Perhaps ultimately these will be merged with articles on each of the individuals, but there is no great rush to do this--rapid mass actions are usually unfortunate. Let's first see what happens to the cases. we're NOT NEWS, and can move carefully and deliberately, with prior consensus at appropriate places. DGG (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, half of 485 is still greater that 115 ;) I hope no one seriously thinks that I was suggesting the backlog be approached without care because it lacks active maintainers. Because I expect people to have care with everything they do, but at the same time the backlogs need raw attention above of all else. Even if someone is just focusing on the least notable articles and ignore the one that need improvement. Or even if they went through and removed the tags from those that are obviously notable. There are many of things that could help short of systematically improving each article in the a category. Sometimes I just pick out the top articles from the middle rows of a backlog to work on for a day.--BirgitteSB 03:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I intended not to limit your remark, but rather to extend it and specify it a little further. You and I have the same ideas in how to deal with these articles. I was just afraid someone might interpret a little wrongly. DGG (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. I did specify which 110 articles I thought were problematic: the ones that are not about Supreme Court cases.
  2. I'd be very happy to have 90% of the hockey-player and garage-band articles gone. For whatever reason, Wikipedia has decided to exempt those articles from WP:N requirements, and it's pointless for me to beat that dead horse. I can't even get an AFD passed on the one-line biography of Beauty Turner, an article sure to be abandoned as an orphan as soon as the AFD closes.
  3. I saw these articles going through the 30-day backlog at New Page Patrol, so please don't complain that I'm working on the wrong backlog. And I don't see them being worked on in an organized fashion: they're sloppily written, inconsistently formatted, inconsistently titled (actually, as of noon today, they are all mistitled and need to be moved), filled with WP:SYN, legal errors and Wikipedia style errors, and essentially indiscriminate collections of mis-written docket entries like "On 13 November 2008 Schuyler Livingston filed a "CONSENT MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS" on behalf of Mohammed Nasser Yahia Khussrof (ISN 509) in Civil Action No. 05-cv-1429 (RMU)" which wouldn't even be encyclopedic if the underlying case were notable and the motion had been filed by the reanimated corpse of Clarence Darrow in a case involving Osama Bin Laden's poisoning of the Eastern Seaboard's water supply. Actually, worse than indiscriminate collections, because they violate WP:NPOV in that most do not acknowledge a single government brief or argument.
  4. The implicit suggestion that I shouldn't try to improve Wikipedia if someone might complain about it is pretty appalling, actually. That creates a very perverse incentive for editors to be as obnoxious as possible to get their way. Too, I note, that your argument works both ways: there are 567 stubs of SCOTUS cases. Why focus on habeas cases that are going to be mooted by an Obama executive order in the next couple of weeks when it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic?
  5. All I did was ask for advice on how best to raise a concern about 100 articles at once. I didn't ask for intervention. In response, I have a suggestion to go to the terrorism project, and perhaps I'll do that if I get a free moment this weekend, though I'll likely ignore it until February. THF (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the short answer there is no practical purpose in a raising a concern about 100 such articles. You either work on them yourself or you don't. The backlogs are huge with no noticeable progress being made. These are just a drop in the ocean.--BirgitteSB 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think many of the cases and the persons involved, by themselves, are not notable, but sometimes, notability comes from a gestalt of information. Thta's why I favor merger of some of the information, e.g. Zaid v. Bush. It will take a looooong time, per DGG and Sherurcij, to sort through these 155-485 stubs, and take them "one article at a time." I made some suggestions already about how to do this more efficiently ( at WP:AFD and WP:PM), but efficiency is relative; see time management. We may need to discuss this more to get a modicum of consensus, heat death or not. Perhaps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism is the best place to start on this. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


TFH, I don't think any serious contributor has a problem with you, or I, or anyone else, raising our concerns, so long as we do so in a fair way, that complies with policy, common sense and common courtesy. I don't think anyone is trying to get you to stop trying to improve the wikipedia.
You asserted that only the cases that reached the SCOTUS aren't "problematic". No offense, but I suspect you would not have written this if you were more fully informed about some of the other cases, like Parhat v. Gates? Hozaifa Parhat was the only captive whose DTA appeal ran all the way to conclusion. Or How about Sliti v. Bush -- Muhammad Hamid Al Qarani, who for the last several years was the youngest captive, was recently ordered to be freed due to his habeas petition. His judge ruled that the US had captured this 14 year old boy based on nothing. The allegations against him were amazingly flimsy -- like that he had been Abu Qatada's lieutenant, in London, in 1998, when he was an eleven year old schoolboy, who had never left Saudi Arabia. Senior DoD spokesmen, hinting at classified info, tried to defend this bizarre claim. Judge Leon found nothing to support it.
You ask: "Why focus on habeas cases that are going to be mooted by an Obama executive order in the next couple of weeks when it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic?" Would you argue that we shouldn't cover slavery, in the US South, because Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course you wouldn't. Slavery remains an important part of US history, even once it was outlawed. Exactly how far are you going with your suggestion we halt our efforts to provide meaningful, comprehensive coverage of Guantanamo related topics, because you think Obama is going to render them moot?
Let me remind you, their cases aren't moot yet. Realistically, if Obama were to sign an order closing the camp today all these cases would remain worth covering.
  1. Some of the captives are going to remain in US custody, even if the Guantanamo camp is closed.
  2. As the release of Bismullah this week shows, the Bush administration failed to determine which captives were innocent bystander, victims of mistaken identity or false denunciations; which were ordinary combatants who should have been accorded POW status; and which were combatants who seemed to have stripped themselves of POW status by committing a war crime. Obama may feel he has to order the US military to redo making this determination all over again, from start, this time complying with the USA's Geneva Convention obligations.
  3. Almost all of the captives who were set free remain saddled with the determination that the USA considers them "enemy combatants".
  4. These cases are the first step for former captives who want to sue the USA for kidnapping them.
These cases will remain important, no matter what Obama chooses to do. And why am I working on them, rather than some other topic that you, personally, think would be more valuable? Because the topic interests me. I think it is important. And I want to understand it more fully.
Forgive me for pointing this out, but I don't think what you have written is internally consistent. You would be totally correct to resent if other contributors tried to order where you made your contributions to the wikipedia. But when you question my working on this topic because "it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic" -- isn't your comment exactly the kind of order you thought you perceived, and you resented? I am an experienced contributor too. And I expect wikipedia contributors who have a concern over my contributions to engage in reasoned civil dialogue, without regard to whether they consider themselves more experienced than I am, or less experienced; and without regard to whether the community has entrusted them with administrator authority.
In your third point you expressed some vague criticism of these articles. I'll acknowledge these articles would have been a better if I had tried to create fewer in the time available to me, and spent more time on each one. But if the topics remain worthy of coverage, they remain worthy of coverage, even if the current instance of the articles need work. I do my best to followup on every serious, civil, specific concern I see expressed about my contributions. I followup on some of the vague or rude concerns too. If you are really serious, I would appreciate you being specific about your concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. If your best argument for preserving individual articles is the content-less article Parhat v. Gates, you prove my point quite nicely. It's poorly written, filled with WP:SYN redundant with a few dozen other articles, provides no context, and somehow fails to discuss what the D.C. Circuit ruled, the Supreme Court's rulings on the case, or the current status of his case. But it does have a prominent link to an entirely non-notable motion for a protective order. There is no link to (the equally incomplete and poorly written) Kiyemba v. Bush, which the case has been subsumed into. This article manages to simultaneously exalt trivia while ignoring what's most important about the case, omits the case citation, and neither you or the article does anything to explain the case's notability, or why it should be analyzed separately in its own article, rather than as part of Parhat's article or as part of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 article. THF (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As we discuss, life moves on, see Judge halts Gitmo trial. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just so. And we now have 100+ out-of-date articles, as opposed to one centralized article that, with the same amount of effort, could have been high-quality and easily updated. As it is, all those "Bush"s in the titles are outdated. THF (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I think those cases will retain "Bush" in the case name as that is the name under which they were filed. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not for a habeas case. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). THF (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • THF, I am doing my best to engage in civil, meaningful dialogue. And this would be easier for me if the other people here refrained from the use of inflammatory language. I am going to repeat my personal request to you that you make a greater effort to be collegial.
  • I am going to repeat one of the points you avoided acknowledging, clarifying, or refuting. You seemed to be expressing the view that other contributors were trying to order you around. I agree you would be totally justified resenting if other contributors here tried to order you to work on topics in which you had no interest, or to stop working on areas you were interested, with vague justifications. Yet you are suggesting I should stop working in this area because "...several experienced Wikipedia editors have a (vague) concern." I don't think any wikipedia contributor has any obligation to halt good-faith efforts they believe comply with policy merely because someone tells them their contributions are triggering unstated concerns for "several experienced Wikipedia editors".
  • You and I are both totally entitled to our views of how the topics of these articles should be covered. You have given some vague hints as to how you think it should be covered. No offense, but I find your hints of your views are too vaguely expressed to be useful starting places for a discussion. And, frankly, I find your language too inflammatory and adversarial to be a good starting point for a collegial discussion.
  • I wonder whether you would consider either (1) making the effort to lay out your view more specifically, in detail, backed up by an intent to listen to the views of other contributors, and a willingness to compromise -- or (2) put your concern on hold until you have the time and energy to give the topic the fair, civil, consensus-building attention it deserves?
  • My experience with discussions in WP:ANI is that the regular participants here are not likely to think this is the appropriate place for a detailed discussion of how these topics should be covered, and would appreciate that discussion taking place elsewhere. Sherurcij and Bearian suggested that the detailed discussion be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism. Is there some other place you think would be a better place for that detailed discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's true that we can't make volunteers work on topics they don't care for, but you surely see that many of these articles have no independent notability—certainly not from the prisoners themselves. Given Obama's presidencty, your rationale that these suits "might" blow up is not just a crystal ball, it's probably a broken crystal ball. At this point, doesn't it seem prudent to figure out how to incorporate non-repetative and useful information into other articles? THF has already agreed to the suggestion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism; he was only following another suggestion to bring the discussion here in the first place. Cool Hand Luke 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Has anyone thought of transwiki to Wikisource or some such? I don't think anyone wants to destroy a lot of work, it's just that this really does seem to be outwith the scope of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CoI violation blocking (above)[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue. Take it up at the policy talk page. –xeno (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite resolved. This raises the need for an exception to be written into the WP:ADMIN policy—specifically the WP:UNINVOLVED bit, which says, inter alia:

If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has sometimes endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.

However, it's very poorly worded, even if it almost certainly covers the situation complained of by the vandal above. "Sometimes" is a problem; the poor admin acting in such an example is beholden to a "sometimes"? And what is a "blantly, clearly obvious" matter? Vandalism is given as an example, but really, the scope of such matters is loosely cast and needs to be tightened up: what else, apart from vandalism? Such improvements to the policy wording are needed when people try to game the system here. The "sometimes" needs to be binned and admins need to think of what situations should be included. Vandalism is a no-brainer, but are there any others? I will link to this from the admin policy page; further comments there? Tony (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Death threats and other threats of violence. If an editor threatens to kill me or to harm me I block them immediately, "involved" or not, since it is never, ever, ever acceptable. I'd also add WP:NLT to the list, though I've rarely been threatened that way and people have always blocked before I got to them, rendering the point moot. ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO adding examples would not help, as there is always the example we didn't add - you cannot cover everything - leaving the poor admin in the same boat as before. I'd simply say blatant vandalism or even clear vandalism and leave it at that. I have blocked a lot of blatant vandals on Abortion, and it wasn't death threats nor threats of violence - it was stuff like replacing the article with ABORTION IS MURDER AND ALL YOU MURDERING BITCHES ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL kind of vandalism - IIRC, I usually gave one BV warning then blocked when they edit warred to keep it in, as they often do. I edit Abortion; I think its on my top 10 although that's due primarily to the afore-mentioned vandalism to the darn article. So am I violating COI? I never thought so before, and don't think so now. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Like Killer Chihuahua, my watchlist has a number of articles which are vandalism magnets, and for which I have blocked vandals, without thought to a CoI. This edit is an example, and it's ludicrous to think that blocking an editor after such an edit constitutes a CoI on my part. "Sometimes" should be removed outright from the policy, but something quantifiable may need to be added to provide cover for admins doing the right thing, without giving them carte blanche to run amok. (No, WP:IAR is not a good example; it's cited far too often as it is.) Horologium (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that "sometimes" implies "just this once if you're lucky" and a better term would be "generally". We have to make a reasonable distinction between blatant vandalism and a conflict of opinion in normal editing. The hard line about looking for a third party to deal with someone making this kind of edit looks particularly absurd when the current arbitration enforcement system seems to give the admins using that system the power to block editors they are having personal disputes with, and to ignore advice from other admins. . dave souza, talk 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I took the word completely out while we discuss it[4] link provided for editing convenience if others disagree or wish to tweak per dave souza. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Tony - I strongly believe that explicit wording (either an exception or denial of an exception) is needed. However, what is the difference if this was an IP vs this being a named user? Since there is most likely a difference, how can you explicitly make it clear? We do have noticeboards to report vandalism to. We also have noticeboards about protecting pages. Are admin allowed to protect their own pages? Semi or full? Are they allowed to delete pages they create? Are they allowed to block IP vandalism on pages that they created and spent a lot of time on? Are they allowed to block named vandalism? I think we should seriously come up with answers to these questions. Many admin run for RfA stating that they wish to use admin tools in areas that they work on, which could allow for a CoI problem. Sure, those like Graham deserve to use admin tools and the Medical articles need extra admin to watch them, but where would the line be drawn if he started using blocks or protecting Medical pages that he directly added? I use Graham as a recent example, but I respect Graham and I don't believe he will be problematic, so keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be glib, but this is pretty silly. The policy says (and the community supports) that administrators shouldn't use the tools in content disputes. maliciously reading WP:ADMIN to mean that administrators may not block users who vandalize, threaten or blatantly disrupt pages is tendentious. The position that I would have to send an editor (named or IP) who vandalizes my userpage to AIV is downright absurd. Also, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest refers to outside interests impacting decisions made on wikipedia, not personal interests clouding judgment. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just because one person didn't want to drop the issue until the thread was archived doesn't mean we have to change the policy to clarify something that almost everyone finds perfectly clear as is. Mr.Z-man 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Maliciously? And "blatant vandalism" is never really blatant except in a few cases. And what makes you more special than everyone else that has to go through AIV? We have processes for a reason. Why the fear of them? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
AIV is not a set-in-stone-required-for-vandal-blocking process, just as an RFPP request is not a requirement for protecting a page. They're pages for people to don't have the admin tools to request that someone who does have the tools can use them. Its not a "fear" of process, its just a desire to avoid going through process for process' sake, wasting other people's time, and possibly giving the vandal more time to vandalize as a result. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, maliciously. Your peculiar fixation on J. Delanoy's blocks of vandals offers an extreme example. You chose to read his reversion of vandalism on his user page as a "content dispute" of the highest order (on the strained logic that he is maximally invested in the "content" of his userpage)--and as a result came to the conclusion that his ability to issue blocks rested at a minimum there. That is a perfect example of a malicious reading of the texts available, WP:ADMIN, WP:BLOCK and WP:UP. As for AIV, it is a streamlined process designed to bring blatant vandalism to the attention of administrators who can then dispense with it very quickly. As a consequence of the process, AIV works under relatively rigid rules and deals with only certain kinds of vandalism. Less obvious vandalism (or, alternately, more dangerous pagemove vandalism) will not usually be reported to AIV, the former because AIV is not the proper venue (AN/I or the talk page of an active admin can be better used to discuss the vandalism and determine a response) the latter because notification is superfluous. Even further, not all disruptive editing is taken to AIV (or other noticeboards). If I see someone edit warring on an article and they appear to be aware of 3RR (either through received warnings or a past block), I won't send it to AN/3 (or whatever it is called now)--I'll block the account or protect the page myself. We are not a bureaucracy. The fact that these noticeboards and channels exist does not necessitate their use, especially where their use is redundant. This is not a fear of process but an understanding of it. Protonk (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to reread WP:AGF, especially seeing as how I am friends with j.delanoy and that you seem to not understand any of the facts of the case. The very fact that you seem unable to follow basic aspects of civility is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That's great that you are friends. I saw as much when I read the thread above. Nowhere did I imply that you don't like him or aren't friends with him. I only said that blocks like his (where he blocks a vandal without warning or without consulting another admin) were perfectly acceptable and that conflating "reversion of vandalism" with "content dispute" bordered on tendentiousness. I'm also not aware of what "basic aspects of civility" I am supposed to be "following" in this discussion, so you'll forgive me if I don't have some response to that. Protonk (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Your use of the term "malicious" suggests that I have an evil intent against j.delanoy. Seeing as how I brought it up here, not ANI, did not ask for him to be blocked, censured, etc, and am friends with him, all suggests that such characterization is blatantly incorrect. Furthermore, what is at issue is the vagueness around when admin are allowed to block on their own pages and pages they heavily deal with. There are contradictory statements about, and use of terms like "sometimes" and the rest give an assumption that cannot be deemed correct. I personally do not use blocks in regards to pages that I have ever worked on in any project, and the only time I do block is after discussing with other admin, having clear consensus towards it, and doing so when there is no other option. When you have to deal with people like I've had to deal with, you have to hold yourself to the utmost standard or they will just try to use it against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
My use of the term malicious referred to the first word in the phrase "Malicious compliance", which was wikilinked from malicious in my first post. The phrase refers not to evil intent but to the habit of following rules even when they fly in the face of common sense. I really, really, don't see how this is anything but open and shut. If an administrator is in a content dispute or a personal dispute with another user, they don't use any of the buttons. That should be clear to any admin out there. The ones who violate that rule are flouting accepted community standards. However, "Content dispute" is not the same thing as "editing a page ever". I could go so far to say that "content dispute" only applies to some cases where an editor is vested in page content--not all pages I edit are edited heavily enough to the point where I would consider myself "involved". The line where "involved" or "vested" begins is fuzzy and resists definition. We can't write a reasonable line into policy using any sort of metric--edits per months, percentage edits, etc. Each numerical metric runs afoul of the purpose of WP:UNINVOLVED, which is to ensure that administrators don't privilege their content changes or act out of an emotional response when using the tools. I am not "uninvolved" at 3 edits/week and involved at 4 edits/week. Words like "sometimes" and appeals to reason are going to abound in policy pages in those cases. Even acknowledging the imprecision of the policy, I can stand by the statement that vandalism and the like can be exempted in any case. I edit Adam Smith. If someone comes along and writes "Adam Smith is a fuckhead" multiple times, I don't feel the need to gut check my involvement on that page before blocking him. Any policy proscription forcing me to avoid responding or report the editor to AIV is insane and should be ignored.
As far as your personal standards are concerned, that's fine. Everyone is welcome to operate under stricter standards than expected by the community. Don't, however, confuse those standards you keep for community expectations or goals. Protonk (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • An admin blocking a run-of-the-mill vandal who vandalizes their page is not a conflict of interests. –xeno (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The canonical example of a problematic involved block is a block for violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIV when a user insults the admin directly. Blocking is problematic in that case because the admin, as the target of the remarks in question, is not the best judge of the seriousness of the attack. (I believe an ArbCom case last year found this to be an inappropriate use of the tools, although I cannot recall the specific case.)
However, blocking for vandalism is a different matter. Replacing a page's content with obscenity is always vandalism. There's no plausible good faith interpretation of the action. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So if Richard had blocked the vandal that made this edit you think that is a problem? Or do you mean the more non-vandalistic "You're an idiot admin because you blocked/protected/etc..." NPA/CIV violations? –xeno (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems like that fits "Replacing a page's content with obscenity is always vandalism" perfectly. My guess is that Sheffield wouldn't have a problem at all. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. –xeno (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Just my two cents here. I wouldn't have any problem with a block in that example, if there had been a history of other vandalism, preferably with a warning or two. If that's the first case, I'd rather not see the victim be the blocker because it could just be a one time (admittedly highly inappropriate) venting of frustration. Full confession -- I've only blocked someone who vandalized me once, when they vandalized my user page after a final warning from someone else. Another final warning seemed silly, and the vandal was clearly on a scorched earth spree.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we really having this whole conversation all over again? --barneca (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to add some value. For me, the guideline is good enough. I understand it to mean that the dividing line between good and bad admin actions is whether they're based on subjective or objective evaluations of the conduct in question. If other admins' opinions vary wildly, perhaps we should adjourn to WT:Administrators and discuss improvements further. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume that we've done the little dance[edit]

This is just to notify you that I've tried to get everyone to short-circuit an almost needless round-trip through Deletion Review. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Best of luck getting people's focus out of the bad-faith bin on that one. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Another AfD after only 4 days? I've speedily closed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it is time to look at curtailing non-admin closures somewhat? I'm not sure we should be snowballing AfDs in less than one day after four keep votes. It kinda stifles debate. Resolute 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Nothing to see here. Discussion can continue at DRV.-Andrew c [talk] 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If that is your rationale for yet again closing a no-consensus AFD discussion out of process, without letting it run for the full 5-day period, then that was an exceedingly thoughtless closure on your part. It wasn't as if I didn't explicitly spell out the fact that the prior AFD discussion was closed improperly and didn't run for anywhere near the full period. So now we have a second AFD discussion closed far too early and where there was no clear consensus (as was obvious from the first AFD discussion, which was explicitly closed as "no consensus"), without letting a proper discussion occur, but by an administrator this time. And as I said would otherwise happen, Deletion Review is in the process of overturning your early closure and sending the article back to AFD for a proper, full-period, discussion.

    I suggest thinking harder about such closures, or at the very least reading the discussions that you close. With your thoughtless action, you've caused the very round trip through Deletion Review, and back into (as is obvious from the DR discussion, and as was obvious even before the DR discussion began) a fourth AFD discussion, that I said was avoidable by keeping the third one open (as I kept it) and actually letting a discussion run for its full period, for once.

    See what thoughtless out of process closures, steamrollering a discussion shut (a second time, even!) without letting the policy points raised by several editors be even answered, repeating the action of an out-of-process non-administrator closure that was clearly disputed and that clearly would only result in the discussion being re-opened by the people whose concerns it ignored and suppressed (because it had, once, already), and undoing the actions of another administrator, have got you? A completely unnecessary waste of time for a large number of editors, and far more controversy than if you had just let an AFD discussion where no consensus clearly exists run to completion according to process.

    As I said, this little dance could have been completely avoided without incident, and would have been, too, had AFD discussion number three been left to run properly. But now, thanks to your actions Gwen Gale, we have the incident instead.

    Please think, in future. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Yes, how dare they point out that you completely did an end-run to get around DRV on this one. Especially when you pointed out on the Administrator's Noticeboard you were doing an end-run. Look, I'm not slave to process myself. But this was a pretty bad way to go about fixing the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your constructive input. Have you ever noticed which Wikipedian is the best at rescuing crap articles on good subjects? Draw up a short list of ten and if it doesn't include Uncle G then I will eat my hat. His commitment to good content is, in my view, beyond question. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, AfD 3 was wholly tainted because it was out of process and was loaded with "speedy keep" comments echoing this. Instead, straight off, I closed AfD3, watched the new discussion at DRV and then asked the editor who closed AfD 2 to relist it, which has been done. Discussion now abounds at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination), where it should have carried on to begin with and has again now for almost 2 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi,

Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place. But I am wondering if anyone could tell me what Wikipedia's policy is on including Spoilers in creative work? I strongly believe that articles should contain spoilers (Wikipedia Is Not Censored), but I see many articles don't contain these and if I add them they get removed as spoilers.

Sorry if this is the wrong place, if it is please could you advise me of where it'd be better to post?

Thanks. --144.82.242.53 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right Wikipedia is not censored - where are your additions being removed from? please provide the names of the articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER for Wikipedia's policy on this. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section)." Tan | 39 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's more of a guideline than a policy. Remember that at one time, spoiler notices were commonplace. Majorly talk 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't see a connection, the removal of spoiler notices was just that, the notices, not the content --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
And at one point there were even spoiler warnings on Titanic (film) and The Passion of the Christ...o_0 -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Without seeing diffs, it's kind of hard to say what's going on. It's true that Wikipedia is not censored and we don't remove stuff because it's a spoiler. On the other hand, we often do remove plot details simply because excessive plot descriptions are not appropriate for most (some would say any) encyclopedia articles. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
and in fact, its the other way round. if we do not cover the entire plot, we are not providing encyclopedic coverage. WP is not for the sort of plot summaries that go in tv program guides, and movie trailers. Many of the articles on the plot of fiction--especially the combined episode ones--i would say err in this direction-- encyclopedias by their nature provide detailed coverage of their subjects.

At present, the consensus is therefore firmly that the insertion of spoiler warnings in not appropriate and even, by labeling the content, a form of censorship. I recognize that can be an opposite view, but we need to accept things like this as settled, not reargue them indefinitely. DGG (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG, did you write what you meant to write? "...that the insertion of spoilers in not appropriate"? I suppose (hope) you mean that spoilers are perfectly acceptable and should not be removed, and that labelling them as spoilers is a form of censorship which is not tolerated? Fram (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
you are quite right, I did indeed mean that putting in spoiler warning is now considered inappropriate (though previously accepted before we realized how inappropriate it actually was) --and of course, removing material which tells how the story turned out is even more inappropriate-- and I think nobody thinks or ever did think thatthis a good thing to do ever.. Thanks for noticing my error, and I fixed the wording. DGG (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Plot warning.png
Obvious detail is obvious
There also the fact that spoiler warnings were extremely dumb. I mean, just look at the image to the right. People should inherently know and expect that "Plot" sections will discuss the plot, and "Character" sections will discuss characters, even ones whose appearance may be considered by some to be a "spoiler". But yes, removing content that someone considers a "spoiler" is not permitted simply because it's a direct violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, let alone WP:SPOILER. --.:Alex:. 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
But this does not answer the really important questions: (a) who is the fifth Cylon and (b) what the hell does the fifth Cylon mean anyway, since I've not watch the new Battlestar series at all. Inquiring minds need to know! Guy (Help!) 11:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(S)he is back...[edit]

User:78.145.166.159, who was banned this week, is back. (S)he just reverts and reverts, while discussing the changes on the page history - and that's not the way to do it. Can I please get some help here? Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3rr. Is there another account? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I strongly believe that User talk:78.150.10.38 is the same person as User:78.145.166.159. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that this anonymous user is actually a registered user who decided to push his point of view without logging in. I'm sure this is true because the anonymous user is aware of some Wikipedia rules, which proves his Wiki experience. Surtsicna (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. But there are some regular, experienced editors on Wikipedia who never create accounts. Kingturtle (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User war spawns random AFDs[edit]

Can one or more uninvolved admins take a look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in Benin. When trying to figure out why this was put up, I started looking at User:Aurush kazemini who nominated it. This appears to be part of some ongoing argument between whomever User:Aurush kazemini actually is, User:TastyCakes and User:SmashTheState and his friends. Frankly, I don't care if they get along, but they appear to have branched out to starting deletion debates just to score points off one another. I won't be following up on this, so no one need contact me on the outcome. Thank you. T L Miles (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as a snowball keep. I'm happy to expand on my thought process if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Need protected redirect created[edit]

Can someone please create a redirect from WP:GRAWP to the newly restored Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis? I tried, but there appears to be a block on page creation at this title (presumably due to blacklisting). *** Crotalus *** 17:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Grawp instead, feel free to retarget it if necessary. Ideally both the page and section can be consolidated, and the redirect point to there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have also fully protected it, with a title like that it is too juicy a target for him to ignore and it would end up protected sooner or later anyway--Jac16888Talk 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Hello, I would like improve two templates:

Can you unlock these templates?

I started a dialogue User_talk:Melancholie#Template:LSR.2Fsyntax_and_Template:LPR.2Fsyntax

Thanks in advance — Neustradamus () 03:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of Obama[edit]

Resolved: Problem was at commons, and the very capable admins there took care of it.

Hey, I have looked and I cannot find the source of the problem. Someome around 12:20 or so (UTC) today, on several of the Obama-related pages, his image was replaced by one of a gorilla. I did not witness this, but there were several complaints about this, all around that time. I have looked at a) each article b) the picture file here that is in question: File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg, c) the version of that picture hosted at commons d) the template the pic was hosted in and I CANNOT seem to find where any of these were edited to make it the gorilla. Could another admin look into this, and see if they can figure out how it happened? It appears to have been changed back, but I just want to know WHAT page to watchlist to see that this doesn't happen again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's at least one other place to check. --NE2 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably more template vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read Jayron's comments and go to my link again. --NE2 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you NE2. It looks like it was a determined commons user who was creating the problem. If I read it correctly, it looks like the pic at commons is currently indefinately protected, which should have solved the problem. Am I reading that right, NE2? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and the vandalism revisions were deleted, which is why you didn't see them. --NE2 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Internal mediawiki search - not for user talk?[edit]

Hi, can someone check out User talk:Tvoz? He She copied the code I just cribbed from the noticeboard headers here after I put it on Talk:Barack Obama to make everyone's life easier, but it won't work on his her user talk. It works fine on the Obama talk, and obviously here. Is it not set to pick up User talk somehow? I'm stumped. rootology (C)(T) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz is a she.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 06:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops! rootology (C)(T) 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fixed now. Apparently the prefix parameter can't handle spaces. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks. rootology (C)(T) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Zekistan AfD[edit]

A quick look at the Zekistan article history reveals that it went through AfD last year and was closed as a 'redirect to bigger article'. My dilemma is that an IP editor has come along recently and turned the redirect back into a stub, thus starting the cycle again. So what do I do? Undo the IPs edits? Let them stand? Foxy Loxy Pounce! 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the redirect, there was nothing in the recreation to suggest a full article was valid or to reassess the previous AFD decision which was clear that a full article was not merited here. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting siteban[edit]

I'm not really sure whether this will do any good, but I'd like to request a formal ban of AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs) and his never-ending succession of block-evading sockpuppets. An initial ANI thread about his problematic edits is viewable here; and since he was indef blocked, he's just been carrying on under a series of new guises, some of which have been dealt with in these SSP cases:

The problem is that he abandons an account as soon as it's identified and creates a new one, usually before the slowly grinding mills of SSP/SPI can take any action. Recently he's been editing as X.69 (talk · contribs) (already abandoned) and Dinamyte (talk · contribs). It's my understanding that socks of a banned user can be blocked on sight by any administrator and their edits can be rolled back without question; and if such a result could be obtained, it would certainly free up for more productive purposes the time that editors such as User:JohnInDC, User:Mayalld, and myself have been spending in trying to identify each new sock, deal with its screwy edits, and get it blocked. The editors on the French WP have had similar problems in dealing with this fellow, whose original account was apparently named Albion there; isn't there some way of making it so difficult for him to continue that he'll just give up? Deor (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Any user whom no administrator will unblock is banned by default, so... not a whole lot of point to this that I can tell. We might be able to look into an IP Rangeblock, which would make things extremely difficult for him, however that depends on what sort of connection he has, what IP addresses he's editing from, and the level of other activity on those IPs. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a checkuser run last October (which I can't seem to locate in the archive), which concluded that a block of the range of his dynamic IPs would cause too much collateral damage. Deor (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As Deor points out, the only real way we have to deal with the guy is to go through the sockpuppet process, but that takes several days at least, and can be as long as several weeks. I don't blame the admins who review the requests - they are obliged convince themselves that the account really is a puppet - but it's pretty inefficient given that those few of us familiar with the guy can spot him after, literally, about 8 or 10 edits. I would really prefer a way of blocking this fellow ahead of time (I am tired of policing him) but if that's impossible, is there a way to speed the process on the back end at least? JohnInDC (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help unblocking user[edit]

Resolved

I just blocked a user for edit warring, thought he had violated a 3rr/warning, but when he asked about it realized that i misread his edit history, and tried to unblock him. He says that he now can't edit, and I can't figure out what I need to do to get him unblocked. The user is User talk:DegenFarang. If somebody can take a look and let me know why I can't get him back on his feet that would be appreciated.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was the autoblock. I see that you've removed that and the problem should be solved. Oren0 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it out after I posted here, but he didn't respond to me before I had to go to bed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Handlrich[edit]

67.244.75.51 is User:Handllrich's IP. 67.244.75.35 -- this IP is making contribs very similar to the first IP mentioned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#weird edit history possible massive article disruption. Also, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#User:Handllrich. edMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ChaCha (search engine)[edit]

Just to let other administrators know, I've come across a rather nasty web of self-promotion surround the above article, and related articles such as Bostech Corporation. I've had to G11 some of them which were completely unsourced and seemed to be written by the head of marketing of the company. There's a lot of SPAs editing the ChaCha article, so if anyone think it deserves a CU, please let me know and I'll request one (or you can pitch in and help!) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing—bad images[edit]

Resolved: Indefblocked by seicer.

Slykide17 (talk · contribs) is uploading a ton of images with no information (most are obviously copyrighted) and is ignoring notices placed on his talk page. Can anyone suggest a course of action? I'm getting tired of tagging each image as it is uploaded. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Deleted them all, rolled back the pages, informed the user on his talk page. He's only 11 according to his userpage so we'll give him a chance. Black Kite 14:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wiped his user page as it contained information that... is generally not advisable to release for a minor. seicer | talk | contribs 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
He seems to have continued, with the upload of File:IrfanAjanovic.jpg and the creation of Irfan ajanovic. - auburnpilot talk 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible block-evading agenda account[edit]

Will Beback's pronouncement ("people aren't blocked here because they have an unpopular political belief or get into content disputes") might be plausible, were it not for the fact that he and Jayjg are famously partisan in the relevant disputes. Now, if they wanted to appear non-partisan, they could block two actual, well-known sockpuppets that happen to share their POV, those being Janeyryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)(see diff) and John Nevard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)(see diff), but is that going to happen? Nah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.47.228 (talkcontribs) 00:57, Sep 20, 2008

Wikipéire[edit]

Wikipéire has been a serial sockpuppeteer on Ireland-related articles ever since his indefblock in May 2008. He has implied that he will continue to do this here. Enough reason to give him the "banned" label, I'd say. SirFozzie already declared him community banned here and here. Unless someone objects, he will stay that way. Cheers, theFace 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's likely to unblock, and serial sockpuppetry is a de facto ban. Let's not get too hung up on semantics, the user has been shown the door and is no longer welcome here. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually ArbCom have been contacted about this so there's nothing definite about the ban yet. They shall be making a decision whether to confirm the ban or perhaps reinstate Wikipéire with conditions over the next couple days.78.16.107.182 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And of couse, here's Wikipeire. Just can't leave it alone. SirFozzie (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
And I have given him what he obviously wanted - a block on the IP address. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai[edit]

Unresolved: Gwen Gale unblocked and imposed basically the same restrictions that Raul had originally. She was very clear as to the scope and nature of the restrictions. Protonk (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Silk can mark this resolved when needed. Discussion continues below. Protonk (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Following this discussion Manhattan Samurai was blocked. Raul654 did a probationary unblock on the basis that Manhattan Samurai was doing good work on Is Google Making Us Stupid?, with the restriction that editing could only take place on Is Google Making Us Stupid?. Manhattan Samurai violated the restrictions twice within 24 hours. Raul654 gave a final warning. Manhattan Samurai has violated three more times since then: [5], [6], [7]. I have now restored the original block. SilkTork *YES! 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, those are pretty tame as disruptive edits go - a welcome message, a user talk message asking for feedback about Is Google Making Us Stupid?, and a reversion of a bad test edit (arguably vandalism). I'm torn between saying that SilkTork is overreacting with this block, and agreeing entirely with the block message's comments - essentially, that ManhattanSamurai is trying to game this restriction. This certainly looks like a recipe for high drama on AN (and perhaps WR too)... but whose recipe? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The probation was exceptionally clear on what he was and was not allowed to do. He violated it twice in less than a day, and was told that any further violations would result in a block. Since then, he's used his talk page to request others make edits for him (tolerable, but clearly a violation of the spirit of the probation). Given the recent edits, which were outright and indisputable violations of the probation, the only conclusion I can draw is that he is intentionally playing games to foment as much drama as possible. I concur with the re-block. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(EC)The edits are completely harmless, agreed. However, if you're unblocked on the condition that you don't do something again, you shouldn't do it. Doing it in small increments as a test case to see if anybody's watching certainly seems like gaming the system. Agree with the block, especially with his recent talk page comments. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That assumes the probation conditions were somehow valid. Who put Raul in charge of telling editors what pages they're allowed to edit? This probation was not helpful or rational in any way I can see. That said, this guy is an obvious troll who never should have been unblocked to begin with. So, I don't agree with the reasons for the re-block, but I can't really disagree with the outcome. Friday (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much my take after reviewing his history, I'm unhappy with the process but not greatly concerned with the outcome. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I know I'm 'involved', having had issues with MS before, but I noticed this thread in my watchlist, and did a bit of poking. User:Freakin incredible looks suspicious to me. He comes on four minutes before MS, makes one edit to the page, then about 10 minutes later gets welcomed by MS? any chance this is a setup for a sock? ThuranX (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Freakin incredible is almost certainly not a sockpuppet of MS, according to checkuser. Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, great. Thanks for checking Raul. I saw one edit, suspicious timing, and wondered, that's all. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • While I think the topic restriction itself was within the realm of the community to impose, I'll repeat my earlier request that it be lifted partially. It doesn't serve us to say "you may only edit pages XYZ" on an encyclopedia of 2 million (or so) articles. We would be much better served with some sort of civility restriction (derided as they are). MS should be able to edit any pages he feels necessary but should refrain from pointy disruption, aggravation of other editors and general misbehavior. To me, that makes more sense than just unblocking him for "is google making us stupid" or whatever that book title is. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm usually as grumpy as Friday about troublemakers, and often agree with him, but not in this case. I disagree with this reblock, and pretty much agree with Protonk. Manhattan Samurai's sarcasm and... extreme irreverence, let's call it... are sometimes indistinguishible from trolling (and his actual honest-to-God trolling on the ThuranX ANI thread, in the face of warnings, was clearly unacceptable), but IMHO it often leads to over-reaction as well. I understood Raul's reasons for the parole, think it was within admin discretion, and agreed with it at the time, but I've come over to Protonk's point of view. It doesn't make sense to reblock indefinitely for 3 good edits; he hasn't been disruptive since the unblock. The first diff was being kind to a new editor; the second diff above is directly related to his article and doesn't even count against him; the third diff is reversion of some rather extreme vandalism in an article he's edited and cares about. Also, if I'm reading his talk page right, Chrislk02 told him a few days ago that constructive edits on another article wouldn't violate his probation, so assumptions that this was intentional flaunting of the rules might be misguided. All in all, he's being blocked not for disruption, but for disobeying the rules. I'd prefer an unblock, a repeal of the old conditions, and new conditions along the lines of:
    If you want to edit here, don't be disruptive. Any more. Ever. Even if you're not doing it maliciously, it's disturbing numerous other editors. If you aren't sure if something is disruptive, err on the side of caution and don't do it; there are many people who want to see you indef blocked. Stay completely away from ThuranX. Stay completely away from WP:ANI and WP:AN. Otherwise, feel free to contribute constructively anywhere else.
Unblocking now would have the added benefit that Smith Jones (a friend of his) won't come along in a few minutes yelling about the injustice of it all. --barneca (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that we are blocking an account, not banning the person behind the account. The person behind the account is free to create another account, and in that one, having learned the lessons of this one, to usefully build the encyclopedia without "playful" disruption, personal remarks, and time-consuming and wearisome system-gaming. I think we need to be clear that good edits do not allow and excuse disruption. Disruption by otherwise decent editors is wearisome and drives people away from the project in frustration. This account has been and continues to be problematic and time-consuming. The account has been warned, and concealed the warnings, was blocked, and then unblocked with conditions which the account broke, was warned, and broke again. It is not helpful to anyone to keep issuing warnings and then saying, oh shucks, OK, one more time, and one more, and one more... Enough is enough. Let's get on and build the encyclopedia. SilkTork *YES! 08:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This was disruption to make a point. The restriction was unambiguous, and pushing the boundaries is immature and unacceptable. No, they are not free to create another account, that would be block evasion. If they really want to edit Wikipedia then they should not play silly buggers with us. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • There seems to be some off-wiki coordination between MS and other users, who according to checkuser aren't him, despite similarities in editing. This happened in the Alan Cabal AfD(s) as well. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • There is something fishy going on. I also thing MS was intentionally pushing the boundries just to make waves (WP:POINT). I support this block. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? We block the human, not the account. If we block someone for 24 hours, they are not free to come back during that 24 hour period (presumably because they would continue the disruption that we hoped to stop). Indefinitely blocked users are not free to come back under any account name. If they do come back and forgo old editing habits entirely, we might never know, but that usually doesn't happen. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Protonk on the nature of blocks. And, IF people go with Barneca, his proposal needs the added caveat, NO Alan Cabal related editing either. MS has a POV about the guy, and his editing is disruptive there too. That said, I've got inolvement with the guy. ThuranX (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd support an unblock along the lines of what barneca's wrote. Coincidentally, he's asked for an unblock on these conditions. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would support an unblock under those conditions as well (in case that isn't clear from the above). Protonk (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I would absolutely oppose an unblock at this point. This user has consistently shown that he is here only to stir up drama, with occasional good article edits. From his attempts to drum up an 'edit war army' to the behaviour which resulted in the topicban, and then the blatant gaming of the topicban, he's shown he's not here to contribute in any meaningful way. Barneca says that it "makes no sense to reblock indefinitely for 3 good edits," which is a bit peculiar since we reblock editors for violating editing restrictions all the time, whether or not the content of the edits was constructive or not. Further, the proposed condition by barneca (If you want to edit here, don't be disruptive. Any more. Ever.) has been made crystal clear to Manhattan Samurai on more than one occasion, and he continues to deliberately disrupt the project. I say we wave goodbye. If MS wants to vanish and come back with a new username and a new attitude, fine, there's basically nothing that can be done about that. But for him to be topicbanned, flout the topicban, and have the restrictions eased makes no sense whatsoever--it is walking down the very same "We mean it this time, honest!" path that frustrated so many people when it came to dealing with Betacommand. The bottom line is that MS was topicbanned within admin discretion, refused to abide by the topicban despite warnings to do so, and now we are discussing having fewer restrictions on his disruption??? Come on. //roux   19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A note on the resolution of this. While I don't think that per page restrictions make as much sense as "don't be a dick" restrictions, they have the added benefit of being much easier to enforce. I'm marking this as resolved. Protonk (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai not resolved[edit]

Not yet resolved. I'm asking Gwen Gale questions about the unblock. I'm a little unclear on her reasons for doing so when there wasn't consensus for an unblock. My feeling is that the issue should have been discussed here first, and now we are left with what appears to be an awkward fait accompli in which there would be more drama created by blocking Manhattan Samurai again, and the consensual community spirit in which Wikipedia operates has been slightly eroded. The point of the original block was that Manhattan Samurai is the sort of user who creates this sort of time-consuming and draining drama, and it would be better to stop the account to show clearly that we don't want such behaviour. The first unblock by Raul was unwise, and this one is even more unwise. This is exactly the sort of thing the original block was intended to avoid. Anyway - what I'd like now is some idea of what to do next. I suggested to Gwen Gale that as she did the unblock that she mentor Manhattan Samurai for a year to see that he doesn't get into trouble. But she has declined that. I don't wish to be the one who looks over his shoulder, especially as I've already dished out one block. Is there someone willing to keep tabs on the guy? SilkTork *YES! 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wholly support Silk's block. As the unblocking admin I'm keeping very close tabs (not the same thing as mentorship, which I don't have much faith in), no worries there. I think MS understands the restrictions now but, as I wrote in the unblock notice, even if he still misunderstands, an indefinite reblock will be swift if he strays from the bounds he's been given. Moreover, the restrictions don't automatically lift in a month, he must ask for this to happen. Given the worries brought up in this thread, I most strongly suggest that, if MS somehow makes it through the next month without getting re-blocked, the restrictions be lifted only by consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I welcome Gwen keeping tabs on Manhattan Samurai - though I would like confirmation that Gwen's scrutiny would extend for a significant period beyond one month. I suspect that Manhattan Samurai will cause trouble again when he feels that he is no longer being observed. His past behaviour has revealed him to be sneaky and manipulative - so I would welcome an overview of 12 months. SilkTork *YES! 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The terms of the unblock obviate the need for a mentor. If we unblocked him on the terms I suggested, we would want a mentor. As it stands, all we need is someone to make a mechanical determination about which pages he has edited. If you have an idea as to how MS is going to cause drama affecting the rest of the project by editing that short list of pages, I'm all ears. I don't like MS very much. I've tangled with him before and I agree with Thuran that the agitating during Thuran's AN/I was totally unacceptable. That said, we should be willing to turn the other cheek. Reblocks are cheap, users are scarce. Protonk (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It's when the restrictions are lifted in one month's time that I was thinking. Gwen has said on the unblock notice: "If you indeed "go straight," which is to say, stay within Wikipedia policy and heedfully abide by these restrictions, after maybe a month you can ask to have this restriction lifted and it will likely happen." While reblocks are cheap, the tracking down of disruption, especially by a user who has a history of manipulating others and of concealing his disruption, is not. But I suppose what will happen will happen. SilkTork *YES! 16:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Doppleganger accounts[edit]

Resolved: The doppleganger names are too similar to the user's name anyway, so it is impossible to create them without an admin-override... The userpages are unnecessary and were deleted by MZMcbride per U2 –xeno (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

After getting this message on my user talk, I think I need a bit of assistance squaring matters away. Can I get some assistance, please? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm..., yeah. It seems that none of those three accounts actually exist... are you sure you created them? Calvin 1998 (t·c) 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I can delete the userpages if you don't feel like actually registering the accounts. –xeno (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not just create them? Protonk (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Tried that, they're too similar to his username, which is the whole point. I'd do it for him but haven't got a toolserver account so I suggested he try going through WP:ACC--Jac16888Talk 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) No, I would register them, if for no other reason that to protect myself from impersonation. After MzMcBride deleted them, I cannot register them. It's odd, but the ones that were deleted, like (Arcayne) and (Arcayna) are showing as is use - as my Doppleganger accounts. The other two are coming up as too similar a name for set up - and that's fine, since that means that no one outside of an admin can set up the account either. Frnakly, I don't care either way; I don't need it, I just don't want anyone else to grab it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhh. I get it. Hmm. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess I must be either too tired or too much of a Luddite to get it: Doppleganger accounts are set up to prevent someone from impersonating a feller. I thought I had already set these accounts up the same way one does with a normal account. I think ACC is for requesting an account name. Is that what I should be doing? I am not trying to be thick here; I simply am having trouble understanding what I did wrong when I initially set them up, or how to fix the problem. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You never set them up in the first place. They are too similar to your username to be setup by a malicious user. Move on. –xeno (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged protection[edit]

More comments and thoughts regarding "Flagged protection" would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


For the third time...[edit]

User:78.145.166.159 is back for the third time. User:78.145.166.159 tried to replace Infobox Royalty with Infobox Person in Peter Philips article, but when that change got reverted by another user, User:78.145.166.159 reverted all my changes of other articles (such as Lady Gabriella Windsor, James Ogilvy, etc). This is getting really annoying. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a further week, and I shall rollback their WP:POINTy edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have further blocked the block evading ip User:78.145.252.183 for 31 hours after they appeared on my talkpage to note their presence. If the editor is going to jump ip's I didn't feel the need to enact an extended block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A minor historic value of Middle C[edit]

Resolved: I have copied this message to WP:WikiProject_Music/Noticeboard where knowledgeable editors will hopefully notice it. This does not seem to be a something that administrators should look into at this time. If he reverts too much report to WP:3RR. Thanks. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

At the Talk:Music theory#Middle C = 256 Hz page, there's a discussion of whether to give prominence to a minor historic footnote about one proposed value of middle C which didn't gain enough traction to become a worldwide standard in the 19th century when it was suggested, let alone the 20th century and now. The article about Pitch (music) describes many historic values of Concert A including the one concerning this difference of opinion: A 430.54 which yields a middle C of 256 Hz. The Music theory article is currently being used as a brief description of concepts and a directory to other articles that go into further detail—mention of one single alternate value of A or C isn't appropriate there. User:Another Stickler continues to place the information in the music theory article despite discussion and reversion by other editors. Please join the discussion at Talk:Music theory#Middle C = 256 Hz. Binksternet (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Central guide for outside en.wp tools?[edit]

Resolved

Not really an admin issue, but an easy/quick question. Is there a central page listing all the "en.wp tools" like Kate's tools, and this, this, and others? There's a certain one I'm thinking of whose name I can't remember, that was similar to kate's tool, but a bit more dynamic in it's generation (lots of expandable fields, more details, etc.) rootology (C)(T) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Does {{UsefulLinks}} help? Otherwise, searching [8] for "useful" may be useful. --NE2 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Darn, its not any of those. It was very slick in presentation, with a white background, pie charts... I'll have to keep looking. Thanks, though. rootology (C)(