Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive183

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Anon probs[edit]

Previously left on discussion page in error. Please help me with [1] and [2], they are the same person who is disruptive, I found with 2 anon IP's (they admitted on my talk page) is all over user talk pages giving their personal "knowledge" of drug effects and "highs", and please read the bizarre exchange at the bottom of my talk page. I don't usually get involved in these things but there is a problem here. Thanks. :Esp the statement: "What else can I do to remove drug-forum-like information from the article and discourage this kind of drug-abuse?". Mjpresson (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From that Anon: Very simple, dosage information for medications does not belong into WP, per WP:MEDMOS. Dangerous "Recipes" how-to-misuse medications, e.g. how to boil nasal inhalers in vinegar to eat them, don't belong there either and create liability concerns. To advise authors of such additions to stop that and get a life and an education seems appropriate to me. Regards. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also prefer not to be slandered for removal of such recipes. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is multiple anon accounts and leaving "warnings" about drug use on multiple editors talk pages and name-calling and insults. If you read the notes inserted by that anon above, I think the person is unclear just what purpose WP editors serve.Mjpresson (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

May I correct that: I never have multiple anon accounts, but a variable IP address, which changes on every new start. I have not left warnings in multiple pages, but got angry with the editor of dangerous abuse "recipes" indeed. I have not called him names. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

3 Good 1 Comment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)[edit]

3 Good 1 Comment (talk · contribs). Anyone want to hazard a guess who's behind this and what they're up to? At the very least someone needs to keep an eye on this one. – iridescent 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just looks like a drama generator to me - nothing blockable yet, but this is way off. neuro(talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a policy regarding so-called "test" or "experimental" accounts? Seems like we're attracting more of them. Hermione1980 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Define "test account". I'm not sure what the boundaries are on that. neuro(talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Accounts that are created for the purpose of conducting some sort of experiment with Wikipedia. The most flagrant example would be Guido den Broeder — i.e., those accounts that "test" policy, the goodwill of Wikipedians, or some other such aspect of the community side of Wikipedia. (Not to say that all of them are unquestionably bad per se, but they certainly have the potential to be extremely disruptive.) Hermione1980 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you were going to mention Guido. In my opinion at least, such accounts should not be blockable straight out, but ones which clearly only exist to test the limits of Wikipedia and/or the temperament of its contributors should be swiftly blocked - although I doubt that AN is the appropriate place to discuss a guideline itself. neuro(talk) 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I was eyeing this one up myself and wondering who was behind it, but the edits thus far don't seem to point to anyone in particular. Worth watching, for sure; something smells odd. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If we are to go by the title of the username and the contents of their userpage, they will make another 3 good edits, then comment at this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
well, after appropriately correcting 3 trivialities, the comment is [3] & since JW replied & 2 others commented, its not exactly disruption-- yet. DGG (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check[edit]

My unanswered question above: "Anon problems". Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(the response below my question is some kind of note from the user I'm complaining about) Mjpresson (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Catullus 16[edit]

I say that including the text of this very short Public domain poem is necessary if we're going to do detailed textual analysis of it, which we do. Others claim that understanding can be, I don't know, pulled out of thin air, and no copy of the poem is necessary. Can someone analyse the policy in this case, and come to a sane decision?

Also, is it just me who can't believe he's managed to fall into an article about a filthy Latin pom, simply because he was linked to it from an off-site article, found the text o f the poem had been deleted, and thus the article was nonsense, restored it and watchlisted it, and now has people claiming grandly that there is no need to see a single line of a poem being extensively discussed? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Back with more in a bit, but try WP:PROFANITY for now. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok. Not really an admin issue, but here's my read. From an editorial standpoint, some version of the text should stay. It is short, it was probably written to shock originally, and it allows us to talk about the poem clearly. This isn't a poem that just happens to say "fuck", which could be the takeaway from a reader if we eschew posting the whole test and refer to it only through a ~ two paragraph anaylsis. I would suggest either changing the "rough translation" to latin or removing it (as it is superfluous to the table directly beneath it). Other than that I don't see a pressing need to remove it. Protonk (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been coming up with this poem for literally hundreds of years. The fact is there are many ways to translate it, and there's no particular reason to use the word "fuck." I wrote another translation a few years ago for Libel (poetry). Chick Bowen 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to use the word "fuck"? DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The "Notes and technical terms" section at Catullus 16 gives a pretty good understanding of what pedicabo and irrumabo mean. Obviously no translation is entirely precise, and the choice of one over another is a subjective one. Chick Bowen 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Basically, I found this article in a state where it was pretty useless - it discussed the text, referencing specific lines but contained only the Latin. I checked, found a translation had been deleted (!), so restored it, and watchlisted it. I just want an article with suffcient information that it doesn't require finding a translation... somewhere else in order to make any sense of the discussion contained therein. An imperfect translation is still infinitely better than no translation at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Problem with this is that "we" shouldn't be doing any translations at all; because that is original research, and the whole unsourced section on "rough translation" appears to breach that policy. Whereas a literatim translation may be a defensible starting point, it's unhelpful because of the issues of interpretation that constitute the major rationale for discussing the topic. To my mind, what would be more valuable in encyclopedic terms are (a) a discussion of the censorship issues (which is already there) and (b) a comparative exercise illustrating how translators have done so in the context of their cultural situations. --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if that were generally true, because of the censorship, there are no public domain translations. In order to discuss the censorship, we need to see what's being censored, and the solution is not to completely censor the poem for our article. Even if translation-as-original-research were a general rule - I'm not convinced it is, as we regularly accept foreign sources in articles - this would be as clear-cut an application of Ignore all Rules ordering us to supply a translation anyway, because it's impossible for anyone who doesn't speak Latin to understand the discussion and why it was censored without a translation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Whereas that may be so, I find it hard to believe that any translation of such a text cannot be public domain as a derived work; equally, such a translation could not not possibly (without unreasonably stretching the "sweat of the brow" doctrine) be regarded as a breach of copyright. The original text is presumably reliably sourced; all that remains should be its interpretation, and that, as far as we are concerned, is a matter of reliable secondary sources; that those sources may differ is surely up to us to point that out, or reliable tertiary sources (i.e. those that have comparatively and authoritatively analysed the secondary sources) should preferably do that for us. Meanwhile, the purported translation seems to be unsourced; a better starting point would seem that of a creditable Latin scholar, and that should be used as the basis for discussion. --Rodhullandemu 04:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You prudes. As long as the translation is not, word for word, a duplicate of something that is not in the public domain I see no reason why we should not include it. I myself, for reasons I don't want to discuss, went looking for dirty Latin phrases recently and was irritated that the article on Catullus 16 was bowdlerized. Applying WP:NOR to an accurate translation is really a stretch of policy. People translate non-english sources all the time here. Maybe we should eviscerate the "literal translation" of Frere Jacques to be consistent. Skinwalker (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to consider a translation as original research. Doing so would prevent us from quoting at all in articles dependent on non-English-language sources, of which we have a great many and which have always been acceptable. In direct response to Rodhullandemu: a translation is never unsourced; its source is the original. Though translation can be subject to interpretation, that doesn't make it the same thing as interpretation. Giving an acceptable rough translation does not require a scholar. Chick Bowen 04:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if we need to do OR to do an accurate article, I think we simply need to do it. We do what we need to have a clear article. We have two choices--to find some excuse for not calling it OR, or to admit that there is no sharp boundary between what is and is not Original Research. All summarizing, all selection, all choice, all description, is actually to some degree original research--even wikisource is, because the process of choosing what text to transcribe and how to transcribe it is research. Even plagiarism--you have to decide what to copy. DGG (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Just as a technical point, the fact that a work is itself in the public domain does not mean translations of it fall into the public domain. A translation is a new expression and therefore gains a copyright of its own. Looie496 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the central issue is here -- except that it really doesn't require Administrator attention. But SMH has a point: a plausible argument can be made to include a translation of the poem to help the reader to understand the discussion. Even if a translation somehow falls under original research, ignore all rules gives permission to create & add a translation to this article. BTW, as long as the translation doesn't present an unusual or novel interpretation of the original, how can it be considered original research? -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If the poem is really notable enough, you should be able to find some article that describes parts of the offensive language, without the entire thing (and I've found a few). The first and last lines in particular have been analyzed by a few serious scholars. It might deserve more detail. We had a similar problem at Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, about a Croatian song. There, the copyright concerns were a problem, but ultimately it still came down to which version or which translation to use (and it still doesn't like there is any real solution). Either way, dispute resolution is that way and not here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if a translation gains its own copyright, aren't the rights released thru the GFDL? Doing a tranlation of a short poem seems no more OR than researching, writing, and citing an article, IMO. I'm not sure what the big deal is. Are we objectng to the obscenity or the translating? Both seem rather frivolous.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If the issue is the profanity, I agree that's frivolous. If it's the translating, you are right that it's probably just technical sniping but let's just go to dispute resolution and probably have an RFC to get a better idea of consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion[edit]

Resolved: Backlog under control now.

Take up your magic wands, fellow admins, and help sorting through that 300+ pages backlog please :-) Regards SoWhy 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. WP:FORMER..... leaps to mind. Pedro :  Chat  09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there were some sad losses the last month(s), that's true. All the more reasons to recruit some new people to replace them... SoWhy 10:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a lot in December-January, very few before that... עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
December was indeed a record month of resignations, and January is no better. Non-admins can help in this area by removing obvious candidates that don't fit criteria for speedy deletion. Majorly talk 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(EC x2) Yeah, sad thing though. Btw, thanks for the help everyone :-) SoWhy 11:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a very public lack of trust expressed in my admin abilities and usage of the tools expressed a few weeks ago in my handling of the wrestling fiasco. I don't know about everyone else at WP:FORMER, but it's probably best for all of us that I no longer have the tools. There may be good reasons for some of the other admins on that list to no longer have the tools: not having to deal with arguments between editors, not being discussed at Wikipedia Review, lower stress, and so on. Besides, being on this list means I had time and motivation to finish this list. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was only the wonted backlog, had some time, pitched in. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And we're empty now. But there were an unusually high number of really bad A7 and G1 mistaggings, much higher than normal. Non-admins can help in cleaning the obvious cases like this one up; your help would be greatly appreciated from those of us with the bit! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC).
And for those of us with the "bit": If you notice a particular user doing several incorrect taggings, you should leave them a note about it (I use {{User:SoWhy/wcsd}} for that). Who knows, maybe they learn from it? Although I admit I also encounter those who seem resistant to learning...but it's worth a try ;-) SoWhy 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Just when I start thinking it's a waste of time, someone does learn from it. But yeah, it can feel like using a teaspoon to empty Lake Michigan. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a good tag SoWhy, I may start using that in the future =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC).
Comment: Because of a request by Dcotzee, I moved/remade it into {{uw-csd}}. Easier to remember too ;-) SoWhy 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It helps if admins focus on particular sub-categories rather than the entire category, for example, using a watchlist. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:58.175.1.253[edit]

User has vandalized my talk page with racist remarks [4]. User:Versus22 level 1 warned him, and I added a 4im. User then deleted the warnings [5], and added another remark to my userpage [6]. He was warned (level 3), and I added a level 4 warning. I suggest the IP will be blocked. User has already shown racism before. Guy0307 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You will always get a much more prompt response filing a report at WP:AIV. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Blocked. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR[edit]

Resolved: There is consensus that CSD G6 did not apply to these deletions as neither strictly 'housekeeping' nor uncontroversial, the latter being underlined by the ongoing RfD for KOKC-AM, and they can be restored. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

JPG-GR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is completely ignoring my request that he undo some deletions. Is the next step DRV, or is there a less drastic way to settle this? --NE2 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV is the appropriate venue. neuro(talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The least drastic way I can think of is to create a new redirect (or two), though I find it peculiar that an admin would refuse to talk about a deletion that was done on the basis that it was "uncontroversial". If the new redirect(s) were to be deleted, then you might need a more complex settlement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
JPG-GA has deleted a fair number of similar redirects, which seems fairly counterproductive to me. As for KOKC-AM, I've restored it. If an admin is not willing to discuss a speedy deletion (which is supposedly non-controversial), I see no problem with taking the issue to another admin for review. - auburnpilot talk 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering you have contested the deletions (and others have expressed concern), G6 was clearly inappropriate. neuro(talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that G6 is clearly inappropriate. Should all of these be restored or are there particular ones only? KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That's extensive. (I had looked at the talk page, but not the deletion log!) It seems to be connected to this discussion, where it seems that there was some thought that deleting these redirects would be helpful in "preventing people in the future from using the improper suffix". But they all seem to have been deleted out of process--I don't see an RfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't find an RfD either. This should have been batch RfD'ed if such is the case, not G6'ed. neuro(talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, it appears that there's consensus to undelete, so it doesn't need to go through DRV. I believe User:NE2/AM has them all - all 364 redirects. --NE2 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts a 'consensus to undelete', but G6 was clearly inappropriate, so perhaps so. Redirects are cheap, anyway. neuro(talk) 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe common practice is that obviously mistaken deletions can be undone by anyone. --NE2 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It would take much less effort to simply recreate them than it would for an admin to undelete them. Also, there doesn't appear to be any history worth saving on the few I spot checked (mostly just the article move and nothing more). - auburnpilot talk 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough about radio station naming to be sure that all the redirects would be of the form FOO-AM → FOO (AM). --NE2 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Having just checked one at random, it's not that simple. Batch undelete would be the best way to go. If such a thing exists (inquiring...) –xeno (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I can explain why these redirects are being deleted. According to the FCC there are no XXXX-AM call signs. To make everything correct on Wikipedia, JPG-GR has deleted the few redirects that use the -AM addition. The pages remain at their original space, there is no need for redirects and no need for them to be brought back if it will confuse people. You don't want to know how many articles get made with XXXX-AM as the title and have to be moved each year. That would be another reason for the move...to eliminate the confusion that -AM style call signs make. I have also renom'd KOKC-AM for deletion as it was not necessary to remake the redirect. Hope this explains things. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:09
    The fact that these redirects exist means that some person, at some time, probably tried to reach the article by searching for XXXX-AM. Thus, the redirects have intrinsic merit. Having to move an article once in a while does not supersede this utility, imo. –xeno (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    But they aren't necessary. Why have a redirect that no one looks at? I see no problem with this and I understand what JPG-GR is doing. Your arguement is, "it makes our job easier, so to hell with making things look good or make them less confusing for the reader...even if that means the page is incorrect". - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:16
    Category:Redirects from misspellings. --NE2 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    How do you know that someone isn't trying to get to the KOKC (AM) article by typing KOKC-AM (at least 29 users did in January)? That's the point of redirects, and that's why these redirects have merit. They should not have been deleted as G6 as there was opposition to the deletion. –xeno (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    That's actually a bad example, since it was moved at the end of January. Never mind - it was moved back and forth, which is why there's a spike at the end of the month. --NE2 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    Ah. In any case, a single user per month makes the redirect worthwhile. Only 5 for KSST-AM, but that's 5 users who got to the article they were looking for without much trouble. That's what redirects are for. –xeno (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "You don't want to know how many articles get made with XXXX-AM as the title and have to be moved each year" - that's a very good argument for having the redirects, not for deleting them. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You want as JPG-GR says "junk laying around on the floor", by all means. But first...why not put all these up to deletion review for a "vote" and see what everyone thinks the concensus should be. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:38
      • Redirects are cheap. Their purpose is to allow users to access the article, even if they didn't quite type in the title preferred on Wikipedia. It's not like the XXXX-AM redirs are derogatory towards the subject of the article they're redirecting to, so why the push to delete? Hermione1980 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Because people think there is an -AM callsign, there isn't. When you have to fix several pages that people have made (in good faith) with the incorrect callsign, having the "cheap" redirect isn't worth the hassle. In most if not all cases, people will find the page via the MANY disambig pages that exsist all over Wikipedia, so it is not like the XXXX-AM is the end all, be all page for finding what the reader is looking for. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:50
          • Redirects make mis-named duplicate articles less likely. Please read WP:R#Reasons for not deleting. --NE2 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
            • For someone who said above "I don't know enough about radio station naming" you sound like you know alot about radio station naming. You would be VERY surprised at how many unnecessary mis-named duplicate articles there are out there. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:01
              • I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't make any sense. Please try to clarify. --NE2 01:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
                • *sigh* You said above that "I don't know enough about radio station naming", but saying "Redirects make mis-named duplicate articles less likely" makes you sound like you do know about radio station naming. So, either know what we are talking about or you don't. If you don't....why are you here? Can you tell this whole conversation is making me a little testy? - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:13
                  • I'm assuming that the current naming convention of "FOO (AM)" is correct. If it's not, we have a bigger problem. --NE2 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
                    • Not in all cases. If there is no disambig page it is just "FOO" (see WAMM). But if there is a disambig page, then it is "FOO (AM)". - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:31
                      • See, that's what I meant. That means it's probably easier to undelete than recreate. --NE2 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) But under naming convensions it is not correct. Look, I have said my peace about 3 times, you have me on record being very against the redirects coming back....so I will leave it up to you. If you need further comment, you know where to find me. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 4, 2009 @ 02:09

  • Naming conventions don't apply to redirects... --NE2 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It had been my thought that before possibly restoring these, it would be good to let JPG-GA have a say. S/he has, and it doesn't look restoring these is controversial. Time-consuming, yes. :) But that's what being a janitor is all about. You want them back? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrator moves over protected titles[edit]

Both myself and other admins have moved a page over a protected title without noticing it. In fact, there is no warning or request to confirm and after wards the log of the target does not show explicitly that the page has been unprotected. I think this is incorrect and often unhelpful. Rather the administrator should be advised and asked to confirm unprotection with a relevant reason that may be different that the reason for the move, with a resulting entry in the log. The interface would look similar to the case where the target exists and deletion is required. Am I missing something here or should we simply ask for this to be implemented or enabled?--Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the place to start. If there are no objections, you can wander over here and ask for the new feature. — Jake Wartenberg 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Flagging Jimbo[edit]

Jimbo's asking for a basic reading list for where we are on flagged revisions. The request is on his talk page, but I thought some admin help might be useful. I've no time right now, but any encouragement for Jimbo to break the logjam would be good.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor mass-producing articles on minor bilateral national relationships[edit]

In the last few days Groubani (talk · contribs) has produced dozens of articles on obscure bilateral relationships between countries. These articles include: Argentina–Singapore relations, Argentina–Nigeria relations, Georgia–Thailand relations (which seem to be basically non-existent), Kenya–Romania relations, Morocco–Romania relations, Israel–Vietnam relations, Chile–Ukraine relations and many, many others - the editor's contribution history speaks for itself. I've checked a sample of these articles, and none of them have any third-party references which demonstrate that the relationship is significant or notable. Some of these articles have been nominated for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations, but this may require a much larger clean-up operation. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just been looking through the editor's talk page history, and they were asked to stop producing these articles last year by several other editors: [7], [8], [9] and were blocked for continuing to do so: [10]. I think that another block would be justified, and would impose this myself if I hadn't voted in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That would explain the mess of non-removable images that ImageRemovalBot has been telling me about. --Carnildo (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The AfD seems to be heading towards a snowball delete, which to my mind provides a precedent for mass deleting these articles under CSD A3 (none of them consist of more than a template and a bit of trivia about the countries, so they seem to fall within the scope of this criterion, especially as these articles always seem to be deleted when they're nominated). Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
While I support deletion, I think that A3 is a bit stretching it, and that we should wait a day or 2 before declaring it SNOW. However, I believe that this AfD should apply to all of them, including the votes which were cast before they were listed there, provided all the information in these other pages in comparable. Additionally, it should include all images and templates on these pages, provided that they aren't used anywhere else. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
What? we're going to start deleting when we only need another 9,680,322,[...]000,000,000, or thereabouts, to round out these categories? Misarxist 12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Hmm, epic fail on math, but I do win on exageration & unintented humor
<unindent> I do think that one of them, Egypt–Israel relations, is notable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Argentina–Egypt relations seems to contain worthwhile encyclopaedic information too (date of establishing official relations, presence of embassies). What's going on here? A block also seems way out of line - the user's sole fault seems to be a poor grasp of English and a bad understanding of the need to cite sources - but it's all verifiable. Something is seriously wrong with the way this user's being treated. WilyD 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a willingness to communicate is necessary for any user here, especially those making large-scale uploads. Groubani doesn't appear to have reacted to any attempts to communicate with him. I'm not sure anything other than a block can force him to communicate (and I'm not sure that a block can, either). Kusma (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an annoying and disruptive anonymous editor from Simple Wikipedia. It's possible for IPs to create pages there, and this person has done, creating biased, badly formatted non-notable articles. We tend to block the IP on sight there... likewise, they haven't bothered to respond to many, many messages left for them. Majorly talk 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This user is active on es, and is probably a native Spanish speaker. It's quite possible that if people investigated the situation, rather than simply looking for excuses to block the editor, they'd discover this. The articles being created are well formatted, unbiased and notable, they're merely spelt poorly and not explicitly referenced. WilyD 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
...Eh. I want to not be a luddite about this, but we are looking at something on the order of articles, without many references or connection to the importance of those bilateral links. Protonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2to the Nth power? More like (N * (N-1)) / 2. 200 Countries would give some 20,000 articles. Quite a lot, and many of them about subjects with very little info about them from thrid-party sources, but we should not exaggerate the number. Fram (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, "on the order of" should have been "rises as" and lined to Big O notation. Protonk (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Just , which is , but that's still quite a lot. Most countries have diplomatic relations with most other countries. Usually, it shouldn't be too hard to find some references (at least in the local languages) but while there's nothing interesting to say about a diplomatic relation, a standalone stub is perhaps not the best way to present this data. It would be nice if we could get Groubani to make hundreds of lists (or whatever is most appropriate) instead of thousands of articles. But that would require communication... Kusma (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are ~40K bilateral pairings, which're at the stub level. But the vast majority of these are going to be notable per WP:N, if one bothers to look for sources. I might buy that the bilateral relation between Vanatu and Saint Kitts and Nevis doesn't exist and isn't notable, but between any pair of countries that bother to have embassies and whatnot with each other there'll be plenty of sources if one bothers to look. I picked one such article at random this morning, between two non anglophone countries (which makes sourcing much more difficult for a monoglot such as myself) and yet still easily established notability without breaking a sweat. None of these articles are contraversial or problematic - no one is seriously disputing anything, it's just deletion for it's own sake. WilyD 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
List are probably not viable because of the dual association - e. g. Argentina-Egypt relations would need to be on both Foreign relations of Egypt and Foreign relations of Argentina. This seems to be a very straightforward case of WP:NOT#PAPER - it's unclear why, though. WilyD 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Funny, the problem I see here is creation for its own sake. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Strangely enough, some people are under the impression we're here to create an encyclopaedia, and creating that encyclopaedia and its articles for its own sake is enough. WilyD 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
We are here to create an encyclopedia. For this reason, we do not create independent articles on every tiny piece of knowledge, but try to present the knowledge in the most appropriate way. The user here added a little extra knowledge (dates that some countries resumed diplomatic relations) in a rather inefficient way that is hard to navigate and requires large templates containing all countries if completed. This leads to easy creation of many articles, but not to a creation of lots of encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This statement would be a lot easier to justify if you weren't arguing that the most appropriate way was not at all. Because Wikipedia is a work in progress, we have a lot of stubs. If stub was a deletion criterion, we'd rarely get any better articles, because they'd be deleted before much was written. The current format is the best format I can think of, and the best format going forward (since these're all expandable to much larger articles), and no one has even suggested a plausible alternative. WilyD 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable to create one of these stubs. Creating a few hundred is not acceptable at all. WP:POINT used to explain that at some point in the past (don't remember when). Kusma (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with creating large numbers of stubs. It is, historically, how we've done everything. This isn't nearly rambot territory. Creating large numbers of unproblematic, notable articles isn't a problem, it's part of the solution to our incomplete encyclopaedia. WilyD 17:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if it is rambot territory, I would guess that there is a general consensus today that Rambot was a good thing. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Echoes of User:rambot? I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I prefer that articles be created by humans and with sources. On the other hand, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. We may be able to just chillax about the whole thing and wait and see. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Also problems with re-creations of deleted articles. But re communication if Groubani is on es.wiki they should have some idea of what's expected of them, & obviously can understand at least some english to be able to put these stubs together. Misarxist 16:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted the AfD'd articles. dougweller (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a person at the reins here, there's just some communication problem. WilyD 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor who doesn't enter into conversation and ignores other editors' requests and blocks isn't much different from an unmonitored bot. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't allow anon article creation any more create such stubs is somewhat useful.Geni 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What I find most annoying about these is not the existence of the stubs themselves, but the fact that some people have gone through and moved the whole lot, including well-established articles with actual content, to an utterly ungrammatical naming scheme, calling them all according to the bizarre pattern France–Germany relations (as opposed to the natural English French-German relations or the more fancy Franco-German relations, the way most of the real articles were named when they were originally created.) No doubt these same people will now cite the existence of the thousands of stubs as an argument allegedly necessitating the imposition of this kind of pseudo-uniformity of article names. I've moved a few back to their natural titles that were moved without consensus (some of the multiple times). Fut.Perf. 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

whatever we use we are going to need a boatload of redirects. Franco-Germanic relations ? The UK is probably the worst offender although once you realise that Anglo-Abyssinian relations (in relation to the 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia amoung other things) is a potentialy legit redirect name trying for the most natural sounding is probably a lost cause.Geni 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there an established naming scheme? I threw up a few links to a few I felt were notable -- if you know something about Ethiopian history then you would agree that relations between Ethiopia & such countries as Japan, Sweden & Belgium are notable -- to suggest some useful topics. But beyond some vague examples, I had to guess what the article titles should be. -- llywrch (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The magic of redirects.... my guess is that nearly all of these are notable, so we might as well assume notability. But just because something can pass notability does not mean we should be in a rush to create an article. It can often do more harm than good to create a sub-stub. This reminds me of the debate over the bot creation of all those geo stubs. At a minimum people should agree on format, templates, naming, and some other basic stuff before someone goes out and does it, because it takes a lot more time to bring an article into shape than it does to create it, particularly if the creation was incomplete or badly formatted. Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well drifting back on topic, I feel that the conflict in this case is the same as in the geo stubs which Wikidemon mentions. In effect, someone (or a group of someones) is saying, "Stop making all of these stubs! Not only do we have too many stubs as it is, no one will ever turn them into real articles!" Of course, this argument brings an expected push-back because: (1) no one agrees exactly how many stubs is "too many"; (2) if you think there are too many stubs, then work on some & make them more complete articles; (3) blanket nominations are rarely a good idea; & (4) no one person can definitively identify a stub that will never grow into an article. I am always surprised when I have assumed that a given stub will never be improved on due to lack of easily-obtained information, then months (or a couple of years) later stumble across the exact source that will allow me to do exactly that. And even if an honest attempt to find material fails, one can always merge the information into another article & turn the original one into a redirect. -- llywrch (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions on Wheel warring and Admin hopping[edit]

Hi. As some of you know, I'm quite a newbie admin, so I miss some/many experiences in the community. I was pondering a series of questions regarding situations when two or more admins disagree and let this show through actions, so I'd like any input/links to pages about them:

  • Does wheel-warring apply only when admins use the tools (e.g. deleting, protecting) or always when they make a administrative decision (e.g. declining a speedy, declining a protection) and another admin reverses this use of the tools / decision (e.g. restores, unprotects, deletes despite the decline)?
  • Is there any written policy / guideline against admin-hopping / forum-shopping?

Thanks in advance for any input. Regards SoWhy 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping is covered under the canvassing guideline: WP:FORUMSHOPxeno (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I did not know that. I guess this also applies to re-tagging an article for speedy deletion after it was declined? SoWhy 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea, you should not re-add the same speedy tag once it's been removed (by an administrator or otherwise, exception being if it's the author that removed it). –xeno (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Or if the article turns into an attack page (after being reviewed) OR is discovered to be a copyvio OR... there are exceptions, but retagging it over and over again with the hope of getting a favorable outcome is not appropriate---nor is it appropriate for one admin to knowinly delete an article another has untagged. (Restoring a speedily deleted article is different, it indicates that the article might not have met the criteria or that the author expressed a desire to keep working on it.)---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Those hypotheticals should be covered by my allusion to "the same speedy tag" –xeno (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, if another admin had declined a speedy (to use one of your examples) then I'd not override that without a good chat first. (Usually.) Deciding not to use the buttons is an adminstrative decision. - brenneman
Also the other way 'round: if another admin had speedied an article, I would not restore without talking to him...but when I think about it, sometimes, regarding protection, I unprotect without contacting the other admin (unless he left a message with the protection). Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Note also that a number of admins have "any admin may undo any of my actions" or similar on their user pages. However, courtesy alone dictates that undoing (or as Brenneman rightly points out doing when another admin has decided not to do) an action should at the very least result in a talk page note even in this event. Pedro :  Chat  14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DELETE says that declining a speedy forces the issue to go to XfD for most cases, even if the person declining it isn't an admin. Just FYI. Protonk (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer to any of these questions will almost always boil down to 'it depends'. If another admin has protected an article for a week, but you see that the edit warring parties have come to an agreement on the talk page after six days, you could probably unprotect without any trouble. If another admin protects a page for a week and you come along and unprotect fifteen minutes later, you're probably on very thin ice.
First rule of thumb — if the situation were reversed and another admin whom you'd never heard of was reversing one of your calls, how would you feel? Depending on how easygoing you are, this test may not work well at telling you what you should do, but it certainly will work for telling you what you absolutely shouldn't do.
Remember that there is very little on Wikipedia that needs to be done urgently. Even if you feel justified that you could overturn another admin's decision (based on a reading of policy, or your understanding of the situation, or what have you) it's almost always better to ask first instead of explaining afterward. The original admin may be aware of information that you haven't seen. He may have made an error and like to be able to learn from his mistake.
If you do feel that a situation needs to be resolved quickly, try proposing your planned action on AN/I first. Get a quick read of the community's opinion before you jump in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
In appreciation of all you outstanding Administrators. Keep up the great work. Waterjuice (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Why thankyou :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ADM a Single-purpose account; Hate Speech.[edit]

Please take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AADM&diff=268189636&oldid=268072415. Note recent ANI of this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#User:ADM_a_Single-purpose_account.3F. --Elvey (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Odd behaviour, failure to acknowledge legitimate concerns, and weird choices of subject and content. I have blocked the user for now, let's see what they have to say for themselves. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policy addition at WP:ADMIN[edit]

I've proposed that the following sentence by added to the WP:ADMIN policy:

Any admin who uses block or other log messages containing defamatory, insulting, profane, or other such impolite language may be summarily desysopped.

Someone suggested in the ensuing discussion that this be advertised elsewhere to generate more input. The discussion is here. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Page history[edit]

Can someone fix the page history of Phil Hansen (American football), someone copied and pasted it from Philip Hansen and Albert Lewis and Albert Lewis (American football).--Yankees10 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Malfunctioning adminbot[edit]

AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just indefinitely blocked my old account IsleofPlan (talk · contribs) [11] for a minor formatting error [12]. Hope this isn't block evasion in posting here. IsleofPlan2 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Log back in to your now blocked account and request a unblock there on your talk page using {{unblock|your reason here}}. Tiptoety talk 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
He can't [13]. No warning, no block notice either. DuncanHill (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Unblocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The bot operator has been made aware of this - it seems this was a one-time thing that has now been resolved. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what the heck? Am I the only one who thinks that a bot blocking users with "account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page" is highly inappropriate? --Conti| 12:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Conti. Such blocks shouldn't be made by a bot which, as seen here, can malfunction. SoWhy 12:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
So then why didn't you raise your concerns on the brfa? It was spammed on an and links were placed in the block summaries. I really hate the way the community just ignores bots until something goes wrong. I'm going to bed now but I'll be happy to talk about it in the morning --Chris 12:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I would have, if I would've noticed the brfa in time. Maybe there needs to be a list of current admin brfa's somewhere that we could watchlist? That'd hopefully solve that problem, at least. --Conti| 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Adminbots --Chris 23:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't made explicit on the BRFA that it would use these settings (sure you could've sussed it out by looking at the sample blocks, but...) –xeno (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the onus is on the bot owner to ensure that the bot is operating smoothly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The bot blocks like this because it was designed to primarily deal with Grawp who usually abuses talk page editing privileges and e-mail. (Or at least that's my limited understanding.) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand why the bot blocks with these options on, and that's of course perfectly fine for Grawp socks. The problem is that no bot is perfect, as we can see here, and a mistake means that an innocent user is blocked and unable to do anything at all about the block. There absolutely needs to be some human oversight here. --Conti| 21:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (unindent) I for one agree with SoWhy and Conti very strongly. A bot should never be allowed to use the “cannot edit own talk page” block option — Chris, please change that as soon as possible. — Aitias // discussion 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, look what happens when grawp socks are blocked without talkpage editing disabled:

The same thing also happens when account creation isn't blocked, and when email isn't blocked. --Chris 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why a bot might block aggressively under certain circumstances, but I have trouble understanding why one would respond to IsleofPlan's edit with a block at all. Dragons flight (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that block should have never happened. It was a mistake on my behalf that has now been fixed. --Chris 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
block email, that's fine. What is the harm in not blocking talk pages? The person goes crazy on the talk page until what? until a human notices and locks the talk page? There isn't any great damage the project in that case.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
clearly you've never seen a grawp unblock request then. He uses tables with coloured cells to somehow recreate a massive version of the goatse image, among other things, its several 100,000kb and even covers the tabs at the top, so it takes ages to load and its in the unblock cat so its a common occurrence if you're active there--Jac16888Talk 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
is there no way to delete the page without actually loading it? Even still, if we're accidentally hamstringing legit users, he's already won.--Crossmr (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably, except that the only way to know if its been grawped is to see the page itself, or the history, there is no way to stop these as the minute, at least not until the abuse filter comes online, I seem to remember that this bot is only meant to be a stopgap till then, the filter should pretty much stop every single form of abuse they can come up with.--Jac16888Talk 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure there is. If he's making pages that large just return the history of the talk page. You'll see the page size. If the bot locks down someone for everything but talk page and an unblock post is requested just return the page history. If its several times larger than any reasonable unblock request delete and salt the earth.--Crossmr (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about this more and even if we can't delete a page without viewing it, we can rollback all the edits of a user without viewing each edit. So all you need to do is have the bot watch the page for the unblock request category. At that point have it return the page history and retrieve the page size. If it is above a threshold, rollback the users edit's and delete/lock the page. If its not, do nothing and let a human handle it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Might be a nice function. I think it doesn't come up nearly as often as it used to, in large part because we're now blocking pagemovers with these flags, but it's worth bearing in mind, especially if those flags change. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you use popups then when you put your cursor over the link it won't load the full page but will tell you the size of the page and give you a link to delete it without loading it. Hut 8.5 10:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I do agree this error was pretty bad -- fortunately, it's the only one of its kind I have yet seen, and it was reversed pretty quickly once it was brought up for admin attention. I do feel a need to say, though: if AntiAbuseBot can't block pagemove socks with the flags it currently uses, there is just about no point having it block at all, as every block it makes will need to be tweaked by hand. Given the low error rate and great amount of good this bot has done, I'd rather we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot like that without a pressing reason. Have we had any other unfortunate incidents like this one? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We could otherwise leave the bot as it is, and ask for an admin review of the blocks (for example if the bot adds {{unblock|Please review this automatic block}} to the user's talk page? That way we are 100% sure all blocks are legitimate, while preventing disruption. -- lucasbfr talk 11:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Any false positives with this setup are very bad. The extra work would be a minor hassle -- few accounts a day, maybe? -- but if the extra human review helps people feel more comfortable I wouldn't mind pitching in. Anyone else have an opinion on this one? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. In fact, it should be standard for admin-bot-that-block. It could put it in a seperate category, i.e. "bot generated unblock review requests" or something. –xeno (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Enabled. Change User:AntiAbuseBot/unblock.js to whatever you want the bot to post on the talkpage. If you want it to stop just blank that page and the bot won't post anything on blocked users talkpages. --Chris 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A better template for the bot to use[edit]

I have a sample template at User:Od Mishehu/unblock-bot, based on the current unblock templates. I would like comments about it. I have not yet written a version for {{unblock-bot reviewed}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: Rather than {{unblock-bot reviewed}}, you could simply use {{blocked_user}} as there's really no reason to tell the user troll why he's been blocked. —Travistalk 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
That's much better. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Changed. Anything else? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should article moves be prohibited during AfD?[edit]

I have twice recently encountered a situation where during an AfD the article was moved to a new title (for good-faith reasons like capitalisation) so that when the debate ended "delete" only the redirect left by the move was deleted, and the article under its new title lingered on, still displaying the AfD template. I suggest that the AfD template should be expanded to read "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked or moved to a new title... " JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea, but I believe that this isn't the place for such a discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I did think of Template_talk:Afd but it's not very active - last post 4 months ago. JohnCD (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I support this idea. Article improvement should always go on (except for incidents that necessitate article protection). Renaming the article can be an improvement, for the article's sake, and for the encyclopedia's sake. Sometimes an article survives because of improvements made during the AfD. If the community decides such an article should be deleted, that deletion should apply to the content that was moved, not just the original name of the article. Kingturtle (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This situation (where renaming the page could make the difference) could be dealt with by voting "rename" in stead of "keep". Other improvements can't reasonably be summarized in the AfD discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'm not sure I support either, for the same reasons as Kingturtle. Isn't this really just a problem when using the closing script? If we just get in the habit of bouncing over to the article after a close, or double-checking for a move prior to closing its no big deal right? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but will note:

  • I have been involved in some AfDs where this has happened, and it can cause confusion among participants, not just closing admins.
  • It has often been the case that participants have agreed on a more appropriate article name, should the article be kept. I've not seen a case where the change had to be made during the deletion process, nor can I think of circumstances that would be so pressing.

Anyway, that's it for me. IMHO this isn't a dreadfully inappropriate place for this discussion, but I think it would perhaps be better if moved to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy (which is pretty active), with an "advert" left here and at the template talk. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see many worries with re-naming articles in AfD. As with lots of stuff here, reading skills and heed may be called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec)I've done a few moves during AfD, e.g. for caps but tried to leave a note at the AfD. It can be both beneficial and confusing but I would be against such a rule. Nevertheless, I remember that there was a word of caution regarding moves but cna't find it now. I also think that the redirect only indicates that they might not have looked at what they delete. Otherwise they would simply be redirected two hat they're supposed to delete. In that sense the outcome of the discussion applies to an article and not to particular spelling.

      Actually I think an obviously wrong title should be corrected before AfD. If something is worth a five day community discussion, it surely is worth a correct title. Moreover, in case of articles that might be reposted having the discussion and deletion at a wrong title makes the identification of reposts more difficult. Most of this should be followed-up at WT:AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

      • I think we're all probably agreed that it'd be best if something obvious were fixed first! --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you move an article during AfD, you should also update the links and note that on the AfD itself. But an admin who closes an AFD as "delete" and only deletes the redirect isn't doing his job properly (you should always check the page history before deleting). Article improvement (like fixing the title, something that should be encouraged) should not be prohibited to make life easier for lazy admins. Kusma (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to prohibit moves during AfD. I have seen confusion caused by moved, but I have also seen articles kept because of moves. As for correcting them prior to the AfD, we often find that a subject matter expert comes by during AfD and suggests a better title. Agree generally w/ Gwen above. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moves used to be, some years ago, discouraged during AFD discussion. (It was not an absolute prohibition. It simply required that the person performing the move know what xe was doing and fix the links that such a move broke — which was not the case for many novice editors coming to AFD. I and others who knew what we were doing renamed articles during discussions in those days. We simply made all of the requisite manual fixes to not break the process when we did so, as well.) We have long since fixed the technical problem with the AFD notice that required that prohibition, and removed the prohibition both from the notice and from the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. If moves cause problems with some script that some closing administrators are using, then the problem is a technical problem with that script, and it's the script that requires fixing, not anything else.

Not only are editing and renaming the article whilst the discussion is ongoing, to fix problems with the article, allowed, they are encouraged. AFD is not an election. It doesn't force an article to be frozen whilst it is discussed. If any editor can improve an article that is listed at AFD, they are welcome and encouraged to do so. Making the encyclopaedia better remains the goal. The only concerns during an AFD discussion are merger (which has GFDL implications) and blanking (of which redirection is effectively a subset), both of which obscure the notice linking to the on-going discussion. Blanking is thus the one issue addressed on Template:afd1, for that very reason. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

there have been times where the article title was so inappropriate as to prejudice the discussion, and a better title made an immedaite difference. Those of us who use scripts etc. need to check what they do. DGG (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a case like this was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific), where I moved the article to resolve the major reason for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with doing almost anything that stands a realistic chance of fixing the problem, during any deletion debate. It might help if a clueful admin were to suspend the debate until the changes are done and then restart it, in some cases, but often it's a sign of Heyman standard improvement. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One does, however, run into cases in which article moves are made (usually, but not always, by the articles' creators) in an attempt to obfuscate the AfD process. A recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Merkin ASCII art, where the article was moved twice by its creator during the AfD discussion. This AfD was closed as "delete" more than two hours ago, and the actual "article" at its final destination, along with the intermediate redirect, were not deleted—only the redirect at the original title was. (As soon as I finish typing this, I'll tag them for speedy deletion.) Another example I was involved with, some time ago, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonnetology, and I've seen other similar cases as well. Their existence perhaps doesn't warrant a prohibition on article moves during AfDs, but I think such moves should be discouraged in most instances. No one is going to take seriously a recommendation that an article be deleted simply because its title contains an error in capitalization, and most such moves—along with other, more substantial ones—can wait for AfD closure. Deor (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No. That doesn't obfuscate the AFD discussion at all. The discussion hyperlinked to the article, with the double redirect already fixed by a 'bot. It was quite clear both during and at the close of the discussion what article was under discussion. Had the closing administrator followed that hyperlink xe would have been taken directly to the correct thing to delete.

    The problem there is that the closing administrator did not follow the hyperlink from the discussion to the article. The problem there is almost certainly the shortcut "delete" link in the discussion, which the closing administrator almost certainly used in place of just going directly to the article. That's a problem with Template:afd2 that should be fixed, just like the problem several years ago was a problem with Template:afd1 that can be, and was, fixed. It's not a reason to prohibit or discourage moves. It's a reason to fix a problem with the template. There is no good reason to defer moves until AFD closure, and there's no good reason to reinstate the non-trivial procedural burden on editors and AFD discussions that we used to have years ago. If a template or a script is causing administrators to delete the wrong things, then it's the template or the script that needs fixing. The editor community at large should not be arbitrarily restrained in fixing articles during AFD discussions, and have to "vote" for renames, because some purported labour-saving device for closing administrators doesn't work correctly.

    Your second example isn't even an example of this. The closing administrator actually deleted the renamed article, Sonnet studies, first, and then deleted the redirect at the original title Sonnetology. Your second example provides no grounds for your argument at all. In fact, it undermines it. The article was renamed during discussion; nobody was confused by this; and the closing administrator deleted both the article and the redirect left behind by the renaming, in an order that suggests that xe wasn't at all confused as to where the article under discussion actually was, either. You are addressing a non-problem. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the main point I was making, which was about moves intended to confuse or otherwise short-circuit deletion discussions. That these sometimes have the effect that closers don't delete everything that needs deleting is a side issue for me (though it was perhaps the main point made by the initiator of this thread). Deor (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

Another User:Everyme block evasion with 78.34.148.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Grsz11Review 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done anything disruptive; I don't see any reason to block the IP. – iridescent 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Usually I'd say block, but unless more contributions come from the IP I'd say leave it to avoid any collateral damage. neuro(talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I would say edit summaries like this is pretty unconstructive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never respected the block anyway. And in all modesty, I think I've done some good -albeit minor- stuff, like giving the intial suggestion to form WP:OBAMA and such. 78.34.148.222 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, diff given by A Nobody above hidden by deletion: completely unacceptable. Fram (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've never done rangeblocks and don't plan on starting now, but perhaps a rangeblock of 78.34.148.XXX is useful here? Fram (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He has used at least all of the following since his most recent main account was blocked in December 2008:
Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended[edit]

In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.

The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:

  • Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
  • Opposing: None
  • Abstaining: None
  • Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.

For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross posted by Tznkai (talk)on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by a fullurl for those on the normal server :) -- lucasbfr talk 13:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Open unblock request[edit]

Resolved: Request declined by VirtualSteve.  Sandstein  19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could another administrator take a look at User talk:Males? It seems like a relatively straightforward block and unblock request, but I don't know enough about all of the related messes to make a decision. I'm not bringing this here to "review" the conduct of the blocking admin, I'm totally neutral on that. Just trying to get an answer on the unblock request before the block duration elapses. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uses of the AbuseFilter[edit]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Uses of the AbuseFilter regarding possible uses of the AbuseFilter in the future and whether we want to consider possible implications of them (particularly as a mechanism to control specific editors). Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unitary executive theory[edit]

Could somebody look at this page and clarify whether tagging it for OR and claiming it is unreferenced is in good faith when there are scores of refs (nearly each sentence) to the article? That is: this version[14] since a slow edit war, removing legal experts as source, is brewing. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Am I misreading policy if I think this edit I corrected[15] seriously skirts policy prohibiting removal of sourced content? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a content dispute over a LaRouchian fringe theory being handled in detail on the talk page of the article and at WP:RSN. Per WP:MULTI, I won't respond here, too. THF (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No LaRouche involved, so this is a misleading statement, this editor says Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, Scott Horton (lawyer) all fail WP:RS. My question is: do they? But the real question here is: is tagging a sourced article as OR violating policy?'' Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nescio not only misrepresents his sources, but he misrepresents my arguments, which are spelled out in detail on the talk page and at RSN. He's being disruptive by arguing this in multiple places. THF (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

user:198.200.181.209[edit]

User:198.200.181.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was warned for vandalizing our articles on Newt Gingrich and Marilyn Monroe - the proverbial odd couple if there ever was - last april ([16]). They were then warned and blocked for vandalizing other articles last month ([17]). They proceded to vandalize the only page left that they could edit, viz. their own talk page, leading to it being semi-protected for inappropriate use by a blocked user (see [18]). Yesterday, they returned to vandalizing Newt Gingrich and Marilyn Monroe ([19]; [20]), whereafter they were blocked for one month ([21]; [22]); they again vandalized their talk page, whereafter their block was expanded to prevent editing of their talk page ([23]). Given that this appears to be an unrepentant vandal who has taken us through the same spin cycle twice in as many months, should we consider more permanent sanctions?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • WHOIS shows this to be a {{SharedIPEdu}}; which is now blocked for a month. Longer blocks should be permissible if this vandalism continues. --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Being WP:BOLD here and compressing non-relevant post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Be aware of this court case and how it applies to WP[edit]

Resolved: I'll remember to be nice to people, but no admin intervention needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/05/texas.exoneration/index.html

This is a case of a man wrongly convicted of rape. He was offered parole if he would admit to guilt. He refused to do so.

In Wikipedia, we must not try to coerce people the same way. Two years ago, I was indefinitely blocked by Ryulong falsely accused of being a sock. Two administrators (according to one of them) knew I was not a sock and unblocked me several months later. I was not forced to make a false confession.

In WP, we sometimes want confessions before unblock. We should try to work in the spirit of cooperation with everyone and not wield a stick to get a confession so that we feel good. I am appalled by the nastiness that some Wikipedians display. There are some nice Wikipedians but we are outnumbered. Let's work to get the encyclopedia better and work with each other. For those that missed Wikicup, you can still play as a pretend competitor. Chergles (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok we'll keep that in mind. Btw I thought we already had a discussion about this? User_talk:Patton123#see_my_comment--Pattont/c 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not Ryulong but forced confessions. I have seen a few cases of that. Just be nice to each other and follow the golden rule. Chergles (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure friend ;-)--Pattont/c 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I thought this was going to be the Flagged Revisions smoking gun. Maybe next week. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS election has started![edit]

Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Santi6666[edit]

Santi6666 have several times added pictures on Klaas-Jan Huntelaar in Real Madrid ‎to Wikipedia, claiming them as his own creations, however some of them appear on other internet sites, including Fifa. com [24] and on Realmadrid.com [25], some pictures dont appear on this pages but appears to be out of the same picture serie. Santi6666 have been told that he is posting unfree images as hes own, but keeps on creating new ones once the earlier have been deleted. Wonder if their is a way for Wikipedia admin to prevent this? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: unsure if this is the right place to post this, but did not find anything on list above that redirected me to another page.

(This seems to need archiving, so... Fram (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Is this ok?[edit]

Hi, I hope I'm in the right place, I have a sort of question so I didn't think ANI was appropriate. Basically I'm not happy with a comment one user made to another here, but I read CIVIL NPA & BLOCK and couldn't find anything specifically "outlawing" it. Is what Ryūlóng said ok?

Also I should just add that I don't know either of these 2 users and just stumbled upon the AFD in the sorting section, so I may not be away of any relevant history. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering User:Mythdon's last AFD was speedy deleted by Ryulong that does seem a little strange. M♠ssing Ace 12:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It does seem odd given the circumstances pointed out by User:Missing Ace above. Obviously, threatening to block someone or to have someone else block them just because you disagree with them in an AFD discussion is pretty out of line, so no, it's not okay. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
As a courtesy, I have advised both Ryulong and Mythdon of this thread. Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I read Ryoulong as warning the user against (further) disruption. Which would be acceptable if A)Phrased politely and B)Previous disruption had occured. Looking back, though, I'm not seeing landslide of similar nominations by this user. These two do have a history, per Mythdon's talk, but in the end R isn't saying that he will block him, just that he'll seek to have him blocked. So, all in all probably file under "irked but harmless." - brenneman 14:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I also see from there that this is not the first time Ryulong has threatened to try and get others blocked, he also threatened another user here.
What can I, a lone humble editor, do to get this sort of threat specifically barred, in either CIVIL, NPA or BLOCK? Do you have to request the policy change at ARBCOM? Or is it just as simple as requesting it on the relevant policy's talk page. I'd hate to think anyone takes these sorts of threats seriously and stops making legitimate edits. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing. I think there is no chance of getting this kind of "threat" barred in general, because it's so hard to define, and so hard to distinguish from a warning. I am very much puzzled by Ryūlóng's reasoning – I have never heard of this character, not even of this Power Ranger (whatever that is) universe that it seems to come from. On the other hand, Mythdon has a userbox identifying themselves as a Power Ranger fan. But generally speaking, if an admin considers asking for me to be blocked if I do something, I prefer to know about it before it happens. One of the advantages is that I can try to convince the admin it would be a mistake before I have something on my block log. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hang on, is Ryulong an admin or not? I was under the assumption he was an ordinary user who had made a non-admin closure of the earlier mentioned AFD. I have been speaking as though he was not an admin, I have no problem with admins threatening to block users and wouldn't want that to change. Although in regards to my first post (if Ryulong is an admin) I think he may have over-stepped the mark. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, I can now see that Ryulong is an admin, I retract all the stuff I said about policy changes. Although this does now bring up the issue that he threatened to block an editor over a content dispute. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No matter the issue here, I think the above diffs and links paint a pretty disturbing picture of an admin threatening to block users over content disputes where he himself is involved in. I'd really like his statement about that but if it is true, we cannot tolerate such behavior. I do hope it's all a big misunderstanding though... SoWhy 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I just read that comment and I'm really not comfortable with Ryulong being an administator. I just don't trust him. How was that AfD disruptive? He's the only one who said keep, the rest said delete and redirect to power ranges, so it's obviously not a disruptive nom. I would like to see him apologise to Mythodon.--Pattont/c 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
First off to answer the original question: No, this is not okay. Administrators should not be threatening blocks to users whom they are having a disagreement with. Second, unfortunately this type of questionable behavior has been going on for a little while now with multiple unsuccessful attempts to get Ryulong to stop, and I am afraid it never will. Not more than a few months ago, I left Ryulong a note about improper user of rollback, to which clearly had no effect 'cause when approached about a similar misuse, he replies with "bugger off", how becoming of a administrator. As for the blocking issues, here is another example of a block (that was later reduced) placed on a editor by Ryulong whom he was involved in a dispute with, and even after he was confronted about it he never admitted he was wrong. Finaly, I am still scratching my head as to why a IP deserves a one month block with talk page editing disabled for not signing their talk page posts, I am really hoping Ryulong can shed some light on that for us. Tiptoety talk 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ryulong is blocking editors for not signing their posts? Okay, instead of blocking the editor, he could have used the {{unsigned}} template to sign his posts for him. That's what I did on User talk:SSRanger and Ryulong told me that he doesn't have to sign his posts and here is the edit war concerning that