Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Request to impeach the Administrator User:Shizhao[edit]

Resolved: Not an en.wiki issue. Take it to commons.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He is blind to the flag that the copyrights of the pictures have expired and has deleted many expired pictures in the wiki common. He is unable to exert his power correctly and serves actually a destructor of wiki, so please revoke his administration power. Amphylite (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC) This request relocated from top of page to proper location Ronnotel (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he is doing his job exactly as it is supposed to. I think keeping him around for a while longer would be a good idea. If you don't want your pictures deleted, please obey our image use policy. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Article 1, Section 3, only the Senate has the right to try this. Take it to the President of the Senate, okay? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, I find your US-centric views disturbing. What we need, according to law, is a two-thirds vote in the Legislative Yuan together with an absolute majority in a referendum. FlyingToaster 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, Wikipedia falls within US Sovereign territory and is subject to the letter of the US Constitution. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not an issue for en.wiki. Shizhao is not an admin here, and (as the complainant states) he is deleting images from Commons, not en.wiki. Take it up at commons:, not here. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images[edit]

Heads up - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Untagged images. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Relations in Africa[edit]

My articles Angola · Benin · Botswana · Burkina Faso · Burundi · Cape Verde · Central African Republic · Chad · Democratic Republic of the Congo · Republic of the Congo · Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) · Djibouti · Equatorial Guinea · Eritrea · Gabon · The Gambia were deleted by Fram (talk · contribs) i understand why but i know my self it was not copy paste i had rewritten it from the internet article so it wouldn't be copyright. Basically what i am request is if someone can restore the pages to my sandbox so i can edit them to be accepted as not copy paste. My intent was never to violate and copyright issues and i'm hopeing i can be able to fix it with your help. Cheers and sorry if this is in the wrong place Kyle1278 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at a couple of the articles, they were almost word for word from the originals, with a few words changed - that doesn't make them different enough from the original to be considered kosher, far as I'm aware. I'd suggest restarting, using those Canadian government pages as one source, and find some others to work from, then rewrite them entirely in your own words in userspace. Other than that, you'd be better off going to deletion review. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User RFCs[edit]

Resolved: Will be closed within 48 hours. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of user RFCs that are a month or more old, and should be closed. As these have a tendency to become cesspools of nastiness when they go past their time limits (or usefulness), could someone please close them? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The most recent one should also be closed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Closing_and_archiving is certainly not satisfied; unless 2 or 3 are satisfied, I'm afraid the RfC filed against you cannot be closed or archived. If this has proceeded to another step in dispute resolution, can you please provide a link? Alternatively, a link to where the parties have agreed to close the RfC? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

NobelBot misbehaving[edit]

Resolved: Operator responded, will no longer work in template namespace. Bot unblocked. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

NobelBot (talk · contribs) seems to have issues with templates using {{Documentation}}. Instead of adding the interwiki links to the template's documentation, it adds them directly to the template itself, outside of the <noinclude> tags. These interwiki links then get passed on to articles that transclude the template. (Examples: [1][2][3]) --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also adding interwikis in User space, which I don't think is appropriate behavor. --Farix (Talk) 14:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked until the operator tells the bot to stop working on the template (and probably user) namespace. Any administrator feel free to lift this block when the operator has confirmed their bot is in compliance. –xeno (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Protracted edit war at User:Calton[edit]

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Incivility and personal attacks by Calton; as the protracted edit war at User:Calton (edit | [[Talk:User:Calton|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) continues... The question remains: Does this removed text represent a WP:BLP or WP:USERPAGE violation? If not, should the page be semi-protected? –xeno (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with rootology there. As long as no one is named, I don't think there is much of a problem. -- lucasbfr talk 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- lucasbfr talk 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think those users who find Calton's page OK should review the Arbcom rstatements in the Tobias Conradi case, which said that personally directed comments like these should not be preserved in userspace. They should also revie Jimbo Wales' comments on the matter. Those say that content like this is not suitable for Wikipedia. Calton is just wikilawyering that taking the names off the comments but making sure he posts enough information to identify his targets is OK. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

More backlogging[edit]

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is approaching 300 pages. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Need a closing admin[edit]

Can some nice uninvolved admin stop by Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)/Opinions#RfC:_Should_Wikipedia:Notability_.28criminal_acts.29_be_adopted_as_a_guideline.3F to close the straw poll discussion on Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts) as either adopted or not adopted? Thanks. MBisanz talk 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it the purpose of administrators to decide on the results of a straw poll? I think regular editors can judge consensus. Chillum 00:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(criminal_acts)#What_happened.3F what consensus on the page is, and the usual way to resolve such things is to have an admin close. MBisanz talk 00:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Having read through the entire page, poll and everything else, I don't see any problem with this being a guideline. It fits in with all our existing notability policies and guidelines. Anc after all, it's a guideline not a policy. If anyone has any major issues with it they can WP:BOLDly edit it (though if they're reverted, WP:BRD of course). Therefore, marked as a guideline. Black Kite 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Much obliged for the review. MBisanz talk 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published. A summary may be found at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 - Sovereign Grace Ministries[edit]

Jbolden1517 has warned an editor after 1 edit in a highly contentious article. Jbolden1517 has repeatedly added a series of Blogs, discussion sites, and hybrid sites to the article, arguing that they must be included as there are no wp:RS to balance the positive information about the subject, both as ELs and as RS, arguing that all other wp:RS are "random" and the blogs and chat sites are together reliable. I am too close to this to take any further action. I think Jbolden1517 needs:

  • a caution not to use warnings for 1st removal of content added without consenesus in a highly contentious article - this is incivil and abusive of editing privilege
  • a warning not to use sources that explicitly fail wp:EL without clear consensus that they add enough value to the article to merit an exception to wp:EL
  • a warning not to perform editing tests in "live" articles, but to use or create a wp:sandbox

A short full protection on the article to let interested editors seek actual wp:RS, and possibly (though I am dubious) discuss future expansions of the article.sinneed (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has nothing to do with the external links it was the removal of sourced material warning diff that provoked the warning to FenderPriest (talk · contribs). The actual change involved removing an entire section [4]
The EL discussion is a separate issue, and had nothing to do with the vandalism warning. It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church. This has been going on for 2 months, well before I ever edited the article. [5] I suspect, the recent ANI complaint is the result of the fact that I'm starting to put this all together in terms of reliable sources. You can look back on the article for almost a year of blocks and intimidation of other editors that have tried to mention this topic. I have suggested that the issue of these links be handled by an RFC which is fully in keeping with policy. jbolden1517Talk 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church." - this is incivil, in and of itself, and should be redacted. "I have no dog in this fight." having followed a vandal to it, found it to be more an advertisement than an article, and cut away at what I saw as self-serving content steadily. Please remove your focus from me.sinneed (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It needs a clear consensus of editors to include mention of the survivor sites in the blog, and WP:Dispute resolution needs to be followed if people can't achieve that. In January 2009 an admin at BLPN explained how an RFC could be done on this issue, but nobody has followed his suggestion. Even an opponent of the links could open an RFC. People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution, could eventually be reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring. Jbolden's comments about vandalism are certainly incorrect. Those who support the inclusion of the blogs would be expected to explain the case for them, in the absence of any WP:RS which comment on their importance and significance. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Ed I 100% agree that an RFC is called for regarding these links. I 100% agree with other dispute resolution being used for those links. The vandalism warning had nothing do with those links (see the diff above). This is sineed (deliberately?) conflating two issues to strengthen his complaint. I want an RFC, since I think this is a more general problem. As I indicated on the talk pages.
The material that was deleted had references to all the principle parties and meets WP:RS. It had absolutely nothing to do with those links. What it was however was reliable sourced information about SGM that shows misconduct as verified by an independent 3rd party (Christian Research Institute) and a knowledge 3rd party (Growing Families Internation). A policy that (sinneed and?) FenderPriest would rather not have discussed. In other words this is not a debate about WP:EL at all, there are no external links in the material deleted, with the exception of the personal blog of the woman who is being discussed at length (a first party EL). That link, to the best of my knowledge, has not had any discussion prior to me bring it up.
In fact when those links have been deleted I have not made a vandalism claim. jbolden1517Talk 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • At least 4 issues, actually. The 4th would be "claiming consensus for undiscussed changes", but that is part of the warning to Fenderpriest.
  • As I stated to Fenderpriest, I cannot support Fenderpriest's removal of the content at this time, as it is clearly a work in progress. Perhaps at a later date, if it isn't improved, after discussion and flagging. I also see the warning to the editor to be wp:edit warring.sinneed (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • EdJohnston: "People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution" Perhaps you missed the mediator being called in, outside editors asked to comment, article locked after reports at AIV and BLP. The BLP report provided the feedback that while the blogs/discussion sites pose no BLP problems, they were correctly deleted per wp:EL. This had been discussed endlessly (literally for years before I followed an edit war to it), and there are usable wp:RS, but using them is challenging, and no one has cared enough to add the content they would support. I certainly have neither the knowledge of the subject nor the interest in that kind of contentious expansion. Thus, I focused on removing the pro-church PoV.sinneed (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to make the article balanced. However, the admin who responded to the BLPN filing in January proposed an RFC on whether the links should be included, and nobody has opened such an RFC. Those who revert in either direction now (either adding or removing the links) are not following WP:DR, and they could possibly face sanctions. The fact that an (apparently unsuccessful) mediation occurred sometime in the past does not let either party off the hook. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, that makes sense. I had not read such an interpretation before, so this is news to me. I would not say I was trying for balance, so much as to avoid misuse of WP as an advertisement medium. I have never pushed edit warriors toward RFC firmly: now I have a "new arrow in my quiver". Thanks.sinneed (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • WOOPS! I had taken this as guidance in response to the BLP proposal, and a look at that editor history shows that to have been a mistake.sinneed (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A reader has pointed out that that sounds like an excuse. It is not: I am personally responsible for even my most bone-headed edits.sinneed (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User hitlists[edit]

Resolved

Hi, I'm wondering if there a rule aganist users creating a type of "hitlists" on their sandbox page? Sorry if this is an inappropriate place to ask this question. Thank you.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Details? //roux   01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, depends on the details. In the short term, there's nothing wrong with it. Longterm, it's seen as a sign of bad faith. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
See here. Now this isn't suppose to be offensive but the user is friends with some admins that are of his ethnicity who seem to support him. He repeatedly accuses me of using personal attacks but I haven't. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Non-Admin opinion: I have been told before (when I first started) and seen others told that lists like those in question aren't cool and shouldn't be in userspace or on Wikipedia at all. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 02:25
After seeing the page, it looks like a bad idea. There's a difference in using a sandbox page to prepare a report on someone, and keeping a hitlist of editors you don't like without explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Clarification, NH: pages like that are acceptable in userspace if (and only if) they are being used as a sandbox for drafting an RFC/U, RFAR, etc. And even under those limited circumstances, the actual RFX needs to be posted within a reasonable amount of time. This use of userspace meets none of those conditions. Also, I have notified the user of this thread. There is also an odd accusation of sockpuppetry on the user's talkpage, which might be worth looking into given the apparent subject area interest. //roux   02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware and will remove it immediately. Cheers--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 - Sovereign Grace Ministries[edit]

Jbolden1517 has warned an editor after 1 edit in a highly contentious article. Jbolden1517 has repeatedly added a series of Blogs, discussion sites, and hybrid sites to the article, arguing that they must be included as there are no wp:RS to balance the positive information about the subject, both as ELs and as RS, arguing that all other wp:RS are "random" and the blogs and chat sites are together reliable. I am too close to this to take any further action. I think Jbolden1517 needs:

  • a caution not to use warnings for 1st removal of content added without consenesus in a highly contentious article - this is incivil and abusive of editing privilege
  • a warning not to use sources that explicitly fail wp:EL without clear consensus that they add enough value to the article to merit an exception to wp:EL
  • a warning not to perform editing tests in "live" articles, but to use or create a wp:sandbox

A short full protection on the article to let interested editors seek actual wp:RS, and possibly (though I am dubious) discuss future expansions of the article.sinneed (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has nothing to do with the external links it was the removal of sourced material warning diff that provoked the warning to FenderPriest (talk · contribs). The actual change involved removing an entire section [6]
The EL discussion is a separate issue, and had nothing to do with the vandalism warning. It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church. This has been going on for 2 months, well before I ever edited the article. [7] I suspect, the recent ANI complaint is the result of the fact that I'm starting to put this all together in terms of reliable sources. You can look back on the article for almost a year of blocks and intimidation of other editors that have tried to mention this topic. I have suggested that the issue of these links be handled by an RFC which is fully in keeping with policy. jbolden1517Talk 16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "It is a policy of sineed and FenderPriest trying to prevent any mention of pastoral abuse involving their church." - this is incivil, in and of itself, and should be redacted. "I have no dog in this fight." having followed a vandal to it, found it to be more an advertisement than an article, and cut away at what I saw as self-serving content steadily. Please remove your focus from me.sinneed (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It needs a clear consensus of editors to include mention of the survivor sites in the blog, and WP:Dispute resolution needs to be followed if people can't achieve that. In January 2009 an admin at BLPN explained how an RFC could be done on this issue, but nobody has followed his suggestion. Even an opponent of the links could open an RFC. People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution, could eventually be reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring. Jbolden's comments about vandalism are certainly incorrect. Those who support the inclusion of the blogs would be expected to explain the case for them, in the absence of any WP:RS which comment on their importance and significance. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Ed I 100% agree that an RFC is called for regarding these links. I 100% agree with other dispute resolution being used for those links. The vandalism warning had nothing do with those links (see the diff above). This is sineed (deliberately?) conflating two issues to strengthen his complaint. I want an RFC, since I think this is a more general problem. As I indicated on the talk pages.
The material that was deleted had references to all the principle parties and meets WP:RS. It had absolutely nothing to do with those links. What it was however was reliable sourced information about SGM that shows misconduct as verified by an independent 3rd party (Christian Research Institute) and a knowledge 3rd party (Growing Families Internation). A policy that (sinneed and?) FenderPriest would rather not have discussed. In other words this is not a debate about WP:EL at all, there are no external links in the material deleted, with the exception of the personal blog of the woman who is being discussed at length (a first party EL). That link, to the best of my knowledge, has not had any discussion prior to me bring it up.
In fact when those links have been deleted I have not made a vandalism claim. jbolden1517Talk 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • At least 4 issues, actually. The 4th would be "claiming consensus for undiscussed changes", but that is part of the warning to Fenderpriest.
  • As I stated to Fenderpriest, I cannot support Fenderpriest's removal of the content at this time, as it is clearly a work in progress. Perhaps at a later date, if it isn't improved, after discussion and flagging. I also see the warning to the editor to be wp:edit warring.sinneed (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • EdJohnston: "People who revert endlessly, without trying any proper WP:Dispute resolution" Perhaps you missed the mediator being called in, outside editors asked to comment, article locked after reports at AIV and BLP. The BLP report provided the feedback that while the blogs/discussion sites pose no BLP problems, they were correctly deleted per wp:EL. This had been discussed endlessly (literally for years before I followed an edit war to it), and there are usable wp:RS, but using them is challenging, and no one has cared enough to add the content they would support. I certainly have neither the knowledge of the subject nor the interest in that kind of contentious expansion. Thus, I focused on removing the pro-church PoV.sinneed (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to make the article balanced. However, the admin who responded to the BLPN filing in January proposed an RFC on whether the links should be included, and nobody has opened such an RFC. Those who revert in either direction now (either adding or removing the links) are not following WP:DR, and they could possibly face sanctions. The fact that an (apparently unsuccessful) mediation occurred sometime in the past does not let either party off the hook. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, that makes sense. I had not read such an interpretation before, so this is news to me. I would not say I was trying for balance, so much as to avoid misuse of WP as an advertisement medium. I have never pushed edit warriors toward RFC firmly: now I have a "new arrow in my quiver". Thanks.sinneed (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • WOOPS! I had taken this as guidance in response to the BLP proposal, and a look at that editor history shows that to have been a mistake.sinneed (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A reader has pointed out that that sounds like an excuse. It is not: I am personally responsible for even my most bone-headed edits.sinneed (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User hitlists[edit]

Resolved

Hi, I'm wondering if there a rule aganist users creating a type of "hitlists" on their sandbox page? Sorry if this is an inappropriate place to ask this question. Thank you.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances. Details? //roux   01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, depends on the details. In the short term, there's nothing wrong with it. Longterm, it's seen as a sign of bad faith. Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
See here. Now this isn't suppose to be offensive but the user is friends with some admins that are of his ethnicity who seem to support him. He repeatedly accuses me of using personal attacks but I haven't. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Non-Admin opinion: I have been told before (when I first started) and seen others told that lists like those in question aren't cool and shouldn't be in userspace or on Wikipedia at all. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 16, 2009 @ 02:25
After seeing the page, it looks like a bad idea. There's a difference in using a sandbox page to prepare a report on someone, and keeping a hitlist of editors you don't like without explanation. Dayewalker (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Clarification, NH: pages like that are acceptable in userspace if (and only if) they are being used as a sandbox for drafting an RFC/U, RFAR, etc. And even under those limited circumstances, the actual RFX needs to be posted within a reasonable amount of time. This use of userspace meets none of those conditions. Also, I have notified the user of this thread. There is also an odd accusation of sockpuppetry on the user's talkpage, which might be worth looking into given the apparent subject area interest. //roux   02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware and will remove it immediately. Cheers--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Flarkins[edit]

Can someone else have a look at Flarkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his history and see if you think the indefblock is too harsh (I give explicit consent to overturn and won't consider it wheel-warring); also, can someone double check his image-taggings. I think I've reverted all the bogus ones, but there may be some I've missed. – iridescent 01:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm… ABF is right more often than it's wrong. – iridescent 03:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The user is now claiming that he will sock in order to evade his block. This user is obviously racist, and doesn't want to change to meet our rules, I would suggest his contributions be watched, unless of course a CU feels like doing a check on his account to see if he has already created a new one, or at least, Iri, maybe you can give him a rangeblock?— dαlus Contribs 08:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On a technical level, I don't think being a racist is necessarily enough for a block. He's just an uncivil jerk, which is a perfectly fine reason for an indefinite block. Nonracist uncivil jerks deserve to be treated the same way. Look into it but frankly, he's not exactly subtle and we'll catch him when he starts again. At some point, he'll give up and be bored of this game. It's the subtle vandals that are the biggest headache. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Ricky; thoughtcrime is not a blockable offence – civil, neutral, amicable racists (should any be found) ought to be as welcome as their humanist, feminist, and liberal brethren. Everyone has a POV, and those that happen to be untrendy among Wikipedia's dominant sunstarved suburban white teenaged male demographic are not ipso facto any less conducive to the flourishing of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 10:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he was racist, but he was uncivilly racist, in that when Iri confronted him about the taggings, he blanked the message with an edit summery of jew.— dαlus Contribs 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, I think everyone is an agreement. He was uncivil totally. Edit summaries with the word "jew" for whatever reason are not appropriate and he should be blocked indefinitely for that. Just your other point is a concern. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Foxgirl.jpg[edit]

File:Foxgirl.jpg - Can someone figure out what's happening with this image? It has been deleted several times for valid reasons, and the same people keep bringing it back... I tried to follow talk pages but now my head just hurts. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the copyright description links to the Chinese version, which has GNU-disputed tags. Is that the best they can come up with? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
We say the source is ZH, they say their source is EN. Which is why it was deleted at least once, it had an IfD as well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a picture of a 3d work, thus it is a derivative work of whoever designed the toy. The image will need a fair use rational if it is to stay. Chillum 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh Jeez.... You could have asked me or looked at our respective talk pages. I restored the first time because I felt that G4ing a file 2,5 years after the first deletion was not a good idea (there was no rush). The copyright status remained unclear so I sent it to PUI. The image was G4ed again by Jimfbleak. I complained and he restored and sent it again to PUI. Seriously, can't you guys wait 10 days to see clear up the status, or give it a FUR? What's the rush?! -- lucasbfr talk 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_6#Template:WPRedir[edit]

Resolved: Just wanted a second opinion, thanks Amalthea. — Aitias // discussion 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I have just closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_6#Template:WPRedir as delete. I am asking myself whether I should remove the translusions or substitute the template? I think substituting is better, isn't it? — Aitias // discussion 12:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The TfD found the tagging itself useless, and by extension the template. Based on this I say remove it. --Amalthea 12:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. :) — Aitias // discussion 12:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Does anyone else see value in simply deleting the talk pages that contain this template where: 1) there is only one edit to the page and 2) the template is the only content? Having these pages blue-linked but blank with no useful history seems unnecessary. –xeno (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to keep such pages. Horologium (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      I don't see a reason either, but how would such a deletion be in accordance with policy? — Aitias // discussion 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      WP:CSD#G6... –xeno (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      Well, I for one am not sure whether this would be covered by G6. — Aitias // discussion 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      Do you see any controversy occuring from their deletion? If not, then it meets G6, no? –xeno (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      I do not, but I can imagine a lot of people complaining about the deletion of a talk page. — Aitias // discussion 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      That's why we're only deleting the ones that meet the two criteria above. If we build a consensus here, then G6 applies. –xeno (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      Okay then, as there seems to be consensus, I am going to delete them. — Aitias // discussion 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • They should obviously be deleted. What is the point of an empty blue link talk page with no meaningfull history? Garion96 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems fine to me. In addition, if the page has a longer history but only contains the transcluded WPRedir template, it can be redirected to the talk page of the article's redirect target. --Amalthea 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so we seem to have consensus, second question, anyone know how to generate a list based on those two criteria? –xeno (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not just redirect them to the talk pages of the redirect target? So if Foo redirects to Bar, then redirect Talk:Foo to Talk:Bar. I believe we've established several times before that mass-deleting talk pages that meet arbitrary criterion X is usually a Bad Idea... Happymelon 20:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If we do this, it'll become just another page that our bot army has to tend to fixing double redirects and the like when their targets are moved. These talk pages (at least those that meet the criteria above), while created in good faith, are simply useless and serve better as a redlink. MZMcBride generated a database query and of that I extracted a list of pages that should meet those two criteria. They are found here if anyone wants to help. –xeno (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is now  Done. I also left a message for the (seemingly inactive) WikiProject noting that if they are going to create a new project banner that it should really only be added to redirect-describing templates and the like, not redirect talk pages. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ilovebucketheadz[edit]

Please can someone take a look at the activities of this user - Ilovebucketheadz (talk · contribs). Some of his edits seem OK and he is a member of a wikiproject. However other edits would appear to be straightforward vandalism (example1, example2). I also suspect this user has a much longer history of editing Wikipedia than his <100 edits would suggest - his first edit was to create a project subpage: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force/Armed With Sodas. Is this something to be concerned about? Astronaut (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually, the project subpage was originally created in article space, and only later moved to a project subpage, so that's probably not an indication of a returning user. Black Kite 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really see how the two edits you have quoted constitute "straightforward" vandalism. They look pretty bold and may not have been helpful in the long run, but I think WP:AGF applies here. Nothing else seems to be out of order. C.U.T.K.D T | C 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Really?! One was the complete replacement of a notable Dave Atkins with a different Dave Atkins (leaving various football related articles with links to a musician) when a disambig page is the best way forwards. The other was effective move of a notable album to an incorrect title and the setting up of an implausible redirect. I disagree that these two edits were made in good faith. I addition the same user has created several articles about bands which have been speedily deleted (or moved to user subpages or project subpages). This user seems to be well versed in how Wikipedia works (despite his <100 edits) and should know better. Astronaut (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Right then, I investigated the problem with Dave Atkins and found that since it was "usurped" by the musician, it has been edited a dozen or so times and linked to around 20 other pages. It was easier to create Dave Atkins (NFL coach) and fixup the smaller number of links (and fixed a couple that should have pointed to Dave Atkins (actor)). Astronaut (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed regarding blocks and socks[edit]

Currently we are conducting a coordinator election at WikiProject Films. Amongst the candidates is one Shamwow86 (talk · contribs), whom I asked several questions of when his stated editing history did not seem to match his contributions. His user page reminded me greatly of Creamy3's, a blocked user and self-proclaimed leader of the "Creamy Army" some time ago, who also ran for a film coordinator position about a year ago. Shamwow responded that he was not Creamy3, but rather Titchbits74 (talk · contribs), who was also blocked indefinitely (possibly as part of the Creamy Army - it is not yet clear to me), and appears to have nonetheless created two currently active user accounts, inclusive of Shamwow. While I have asked the blocking admin Ioeth (talk · contribs) for further information, since there appear to be no talk page records, Ioeth's activity lately has been sporadic, and I believe this requires some speed, since it involves an ongoing election. Has there been improper behavior, and if so, what should be done? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See the block log here instead of guessing. Tichbits74 was blocked for an inappropriate username (which I think should be clear). His last two comments [8][9] under that account should clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out - I did miss that when looking at the block log. Clears some of my questions up (although not all). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And now we have this, which surely is bad-faith electioneering, along with blatant canvassing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias's Right to Vanish[edit]

Aitias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is currently the subject of a Request for arbitration after a RFC failed to modify poor behavior. At 10:22 today, Aitias decided to retire from the project, but did not give up his sysop bit and has refused to engage in communications on his talk page and has not replied to numerous e-mail requests. He also indefinitely fully-protected his userpage, to which I reverted because there was no justification or rationale. Just a few minutes ago, Aitias sought right-to-vanish by deleting his talk page, however, it is not encouraged and can be overturned by community consensus -- which I am seeking.

As Aitias is the subject of a RFAR, and a former RFC, and has not yet given up the bit, his talk pages should be undeleted for the community to review. His comments on his talk page are linked to the RFAR, and should remain open to everyone. seicer | talk | contribs 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


He moved his talk page to User talk:Aitias/archive 6 which he also set [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite), and then deleted User talk:Aitias, for full log transparency. Oddly, he did not delete his user page, which raised my eyebrows as well. My question to him on his user talk if he will resign his bit is what triggered the archival. I will notify him of this. rootology (C)(T) 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only deleted version of my talk page is a redirect to User talk:Aitias/archive 6 (cf. [10]). — Aitias // discussion 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I noted it here so people could follow the trail of your logs and history without having to dust off specialprefixindexthingy or any hacks to do it. As your status is very up in the air right now, that is the major concern--transparency. Will you be giving up the sysop bit on meta when your RTV cleaning is done? If you do, I have no problem if you nuke everything you made in userspace except your talk history. If you keep the bit, with a pending RFAR open, I reject your RTV (till the RFAR closes or you resign in process etc). Your pages are all evidence. rootology (C)(T) 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope everything is okay now. — Aitias // discussion 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Almost, and thanks. Are you resigning +sysop with your RTV? rootology (C)(T) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My comment was made in the midst of the RTV-process, and the page move to the Archive had not yet occurred. No worries. seicer | talk | contribs 13:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the one deleted edit for transparency, if people are looking for the latest talk page history, it gives a trail. –xeno (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, you may wish to note that "and has not replied to numerous e-mail requests" is untrue. There is one e-mail and I did not even read it, but will do so later on (and reply then). — Aitias // discussion 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be saddened if the outcome of the current disputes is that Aitias decides to retire from Wikipedia, but that is his decision. I don't see any urgency to addressing issues about protection of his talkpage, etc., right this minute. Please allow some space. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Rootology insistently asking about the state of Aitias's sysop bit? Since the case seems certain to be accepted, that can be considered by arbcom. Since the issues raised in the RFAR do not concern ongoing use of the tools, I see no reason for urgency. Many people have exercised their RTV before and retained their bit without controversy--Gator1, for example. If the issue here is whether the behavior lends itself to removal of the bit, that's what arbcom is before. Chick Bowen 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Setting aside the Arbcom dimension to this, the Right to Vanish only applies when the user intends to vanish, that is not return to editing with the account in question or with another account in secrecy. As such, there is no reason for the retention of the sysop flag. If someone has a change of heart on an RTV, their history and rights are restored, pending Bureaucrat approval. That is how the system is supposed to work. Speaking hypothetically, an administrator ought not to be allowed duck out while under a cloud and come back when the fuss has died down and resume editing as usual. Skomorokh 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Skomorokh has summed up my views eloquently for me. rootology (C)(T) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That may be what both of you think ought to happen, but Skomorokh's account of "how the system is supposed to work" is not, in fact, how it has ever worked. There is simply no policy under which one is compelled to ask for removal of the sysop bit. If it needs to be removed, it is done so by arbcom's decision, without necessarily consulting the admin. If such a decision doesn't exist, it is the admin's choice. Chick Bowen 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. No one is saying he "has to" request its removal. They are saying its pointless for him to retain it if he is truly exercising his right to vanish and "asking" him if he will be doing so. Synergy 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like hes gone to me... RTV has yet to apply here.Synergy 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Stating the obvious, obviously.

If anyone wants to vanish they need to give up their admin bit(in the case "under a cloud"). They also need to stop editing. If they are editing(or are an admin) then their talk page history and such should be available. Chillum 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh of course. His bit should be removed if he is citing RTV, and gone in his edit summaries. This is definitely leaving under a cloud. Synergy 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As an update; it is apparent that he is not actually retired/vanished as he has continued to edit since his "announcement"; while simultaneously (and against policy) protected several user talk pages. I've undone the protections, but this needs to stop and Aitias needs to make up his mind whether he is vanishing or not. SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the consternation as to what Aitias's plans are, as it's certainly caused some perplexity on the requests for arbitration page. That being said, please be open to the possibility that he hasn't made up his mind himself. The chance that a user who had intended to retire might change his mind is not so terrible that it should be keeping people awake at nights, and page protections or deletions can always be done if the person decides to come back or stick around. I certainly would prefer that Aitias not use any administrator tools while his status here is in a little bit of limbo. But my advice above, that some space be given to a colleague who is obviously going through a stressful time right now (whether or not some portion of the stress results from his own actions) remains in place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention- BACKLOGGED[edit]

Resolved: Backlog cleared. — neuro(talk) 02:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you folks know, the page is as full as I've ever seen it.... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because User:Calton likes to report defunct usernames en masse. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of removing about a dozen of them. Seriously, is it really necessary to report "spam" usernames that haven't edited in months? Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
We should only block usernames that are actually causing a problem. ⚗ Dr. StrangeBong ⚗ (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Fattdoggy[edit]

Resolved: Sock blocked. — neuro(talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone please keep tracking Fattdoggy2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) not sure if he is banned User:Fattdoggy. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Someone block please. I'm going to report them to WP:AIV now anyway. C.U.T.K.D T | C 14:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Daniel Case was on the case! Blocked as a sockpuppet. C.U.T.K.D T | C 14:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV...[edit]

Resolved: Once again, case is on the Daniel. — neuro(talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

...is currently backlogged. First admin there gets a reward, block and be merry! :) C.U.T.K.D T | C 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Daniel Case seems to have cleared them out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Travis the chimp.png[edit]

File:Travis the chimp.png is for the article, Travis (chimpanzee). It would be good if somebody would keep it in the article. I can't because I don't want to waste my reverts on an editorial dispute. As far as I know, "fair use" pictures are supposed to be used until someone actually donates a picture.--Chuck (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very odd that an IP has such a particular interest in deleting a fair use image - It needs to be added that the subject of the image and article is dead. Otherwise I am sure that like myself the first impression will be no fairuse while a picture could be taken..... Agathoclea (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add that. Also, concerning Revision as of 04:22, March 15, 2009, that "a free image of Travis could reasonably be used" is not true, since Wikimedia doesn't have one. --Chuck (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Not having one is not an argument - not being able to get one would be (That is very being dead comes in handy). Agathoclea (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving images[edit]

FYI - brion today enabled the ability to move images, this was implemented across all projects and is limited to administrators only.[11] An example move log from commons is here. Nanonic (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is pretty great! Pat on the back to Brion. :) — neuro(talk) 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird pair of upload requests[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm just being paranoid or what, but this struck me as odd and I'd really like some more eyes on this, as it may involve pedophilia. Please go to Wikipedia:Images for upload and look at the last two requests, title "Pretty girl" and "Little girl". One was requested by Littlegirlimage (talk · contribs) and the other requested by Beach-woman (talk · contribs), and both of these users only edits have been to make the accompanying requests. I know there is nothing overtly improper here. But I am suspicious. The first one seems like it might just be a throw away account created just to request that one image, or maybe these are both the same individual (SSP?). It isn't clear to me why either article needs more images, and why this user(s) is focusing on images of "pretty little girls". At the very least, I feel that we should not encourage these requests, but I wanted to see if I should just be AGF instead, or on the other hand if we should be contacting the authorities. -Andrew c [talk] 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like generic trollery to me. Paedophiles would be much more careful than this. — neuro(talk) 02:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This is weird, someone actually accepted the request of the user and uploaded an image of a "little girl" 1. Can we delete this image or a least delete the user talk page? --J.Mundo (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Creepy.... I call white slave trade. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I call paranoia. --Carnildo (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo of the adorable child with a puppy from a website hosting public domain images is a good one. It isn't any more concerning than the photos already in the girl article. The girl on a beach I am not as comfortable about. Jonathunder (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the swimsuit photo is the only one uploaded by that particular flickr user, which is unusual. That whole request does feel odd. I'd say be bold and decline that one. Jonathunder (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Both users have been blocked (I found this out when I went to username block the first account). I've closed the 2nd image request. If someone wants to delete the image that was already uploaded on the commons.... otherwise, I guess this is resolved. I'll still keep an eye out for any more requests of this nature on IFU.-Andrew c [talk] 04:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD Backlog[edit]

Resolved

Currently Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a slight backlog. If an admin or two could take care of it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 4, 2009 @ 22:28 :Archive long resolved comment with unrecognisable (for bots) timestamp. Fram (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More eyes please on BLP policy regarding the use of childrens' names[edit]

A straw poll/discussion is in process to see if there is community consensus regarding the use of childrens' names at the BLP notice board. More input to gauge consensus is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 07:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with a convoluted move[edit]

Resolved: unconvoluted

Perhaps someone can help me: in my efforts to help a new user, I've unwittingly prompted him to move his userpage and talkpage (I was trying to get him to move a draft article out of his userpage onto a subpage). He's moved User:CBrowns to User:CBrownsDraft_of_Steve_Waldman_Article, and his talkpage along with it. Could an admin reverse the move? It requires the deletion of the redirect pages created at his original userpage and talkpage. Apologies for creating work *cringe*

Apologies too if this isn't the proper forum: the user and I appear to be in very different timezones, and it'll likely be hours before he comes online, discovers what happened, and learns enough about deletion process to place db-author and a rationale on the original userpages. If that would be better procedure, though, I'm happy to wait and will retract this post. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
That's great - thanks for the deconvolution, zzuuzz. I resolve hereafter not to ruin WP before breakfast. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More Problems with the WWE Alumni Page[edit]

Look as much as I am for improving the articles, this guy did not improve the articles nor did he act on consensus. Some of us are having problems because he put them in alphabetical order rather than keep them on one list, which made it easier to track them because a lot of them we do not know their names for. Not only that, but the guy is also making provoking comments that would entice a user to respond with flames. Here's the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment_alumniCena Jr (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As before, there is no admin action required at this point. If you can't work it out on the article talk page, then the issues need to go through the dispute resolution process. If you decide on formal mediation, you need to give logical and compelling arguments. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how you're comments are trying are productive on the talk page. You come there solely to put down the article and that is all you have done, all week. You are not making suggestions on how to improve the article, your badgering me. The issue at the talk page is dead, yet you keep reviving threads and keep getting shot down, not only by myself, but every other member of the related WikiProject. The format of the article follows the format of other featured lists and the old format has been removed from the article since January. You have been nothing but disruptive on this project and that talk page, revert warring and being blocked for acting like a previously banned editor (with your only saving grace being someone unblocking you after technical evidence supported you being unrelated to the banned editor). Let me make this very clear, you are not going to get consensus to change it back to the previous format where there is 300 less references, original research and violations of BLP. — Moe ε 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential Edit War at Konjac[edit]

A user at 114.164.204.239 has continually removed information from the article on Konjac (specifically removing "devil's tongue" and "snake palm" as alternate names for the plant) citing that these terms are offensive in his/her language. We have been talking about it briefly on User talk:114.164.204.239 and User talk:jhanCRUSH and I have tried to explain that the information is factual, sourced, and not at all offensive in English, and as such should remain in the article. Any help or mediation anyone could provide would be much appreciated. --jhanCRUSH 08:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If its somethings name that has been used for a long number of years then there is nothing that the IP can do. If he continues give him warns and then he might stop.  rdunnPLIB  10:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Although you say that the information is sourced, I did not see any inline citations for this. Maybe it's in some source used somewhere else, or maybe it has changed with all the reverting, but adding one or two inline citations would help. Then we can explain that the information is factually accurate and ask him to provide evidence if he thinks it is incorrect. If the removal of this information is based solely on the fact that he doesn't like it and thinks that it is offensive, then we need to explain to him about WP:NOTCENSORED. There is already a link on his talk page about it, but we'll need a bit of a detailed explanation if we want to make him see sense. I don't think just giving warnings without first properly explaining what he's doing wrong is going to help btw. Chamal talk 13:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

move page[edit]

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am pretty new and require some assistance. Here we have 2 pages the same but with different names. The Rhydfelen one [[12]] needs to re-direct to the Gartholwg one. [[13]] Thanks for your help. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i have added this to the talk page. [[14]] Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, taking a look at both pages, Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen and Ysgol Gyfun Gartholwg, there seems to be a dispute in their histories as to what to call it. They are obviousl the same thing so, yes, one does have to go. However it is not clear to me which is the current name. Rhydfelen says the name is Gartholwg from 2006-2009. DOes the 2009 imply that the name has been changed back to Rhydfelen? Gartholwg states that the former name is Rhydfelen. I noticed on the talk page it mentioned that there is a vote on March 25 and the user stated that the name is currently Rhydfelen until then. Though we would probably have a definitive answer. Meanwhile I think the article that should stay is the Rhydfelen one because it is much older. I or any other admin can always move it later and change the redirect, but for now get what you need off Gartholwg to inject into Rhydfelen. Valley2city 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
All thats different is that Rhydfelen is in some places where Gartholwg is not (and vice versa) so you should just redirect for now.  rdunnPLIB  15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
A brief history for you. The school was called Rhydfelen but when it went into dis-repair a new school was built and in 2006 the old school closed and pupils and teachers moved to the new school. The name of the new school is Gartholwg as it is 2 miles from Rhydfelen village and in the village of Gartholwg. Staff and pupils have been challenging the name change ever since and on the 25th the council may re-consider. The school website, school signage (see photos) and headed paper is Gartholwg. However the school uniform still has the Rhydfelen badge as it has not been updated yet. However both pages are identical and one of them needs to go. I don't mind which for now as the name can be sorted at a later date. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
redirect Rhydfelen to Gartholwg then for now and if it changes later just swap the text (with aproproate alterations)  rdunnPLIB  15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
done it for you.  rdunnPLIB  16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your time and help. I know this is a big ask but could you put the page on your watch list as it has potential for an edit war. I am just happy to have one article. Personally I would love to keep the old name but its impossible to walk past the school every day and not notice the big school sign giving its name as "Gartholwg". Anyway one way or another hopefully it will get resolved on the 25th. Thanks Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Faggots (novel) → Faggots[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue, WP:RM or talk page.

There is AFAIK nothing called "Faggots" other than the novel. Normally we would locate the article at its proper name and include a hat note. Can someone please effect this or in the alternative explain why not? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems like it may be a controversial move, so you should probably go through the proper requested move channels and start a discussion and see where consensus leads. See WP:RM.-Andrew c [talk] 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why it would be controversial. I don't see any to-do over the title on the article's talk page. I've moved the page. — Dan | talk 02:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
A look through Faggot, which Faggots redirects to, would seem to indicate that there are several articles a person may be looking for when searching by that term. A few I would think are more known than the novel. Is there a reason you don't think the others are valid? and why is this on AN? --OnoremDil 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It was on AN because the people at the blacklist sent me here. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Tagging as {{resolved}}, this is the wrong venue. — neuro(talk) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to let anyone reading here know, I've opened a discussion about the proper state of these pages at Talk:Faggots#Requested move. Anyone with an interest in the matter is encouraged to comment there. Gavia immer (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Block check please[edit]

Hi everyone,

I blocked Jeffrey Huntley (talk · contribs) earlier today for 24 hours for disruptive editing, and he has suggested that I am not acting impartially. I will summarise the case here, and invite other admins to review whether I was correct in issuing the block and to modify the block if required.

Examples of user conduct
Full disclosure by User:Papa November

My first contact with this user was through his edits to Thom Yorke. Although I have not made any significant contributions to the article, I have been a long time contributor to other articles about Radiohead (Yorke is the lead singer of the band). I reverted his edits to the article on three occasions[27][28][29]. I also issued a few warnings to the user about his conduct on the article.[30][31][32] I appreciate that this places me quite close to the line with regard to being uninvolved, and I hope I have not been excessively harsh. However, I don't think I deserved this personal attack.

Warnings from other users

Thanks in advance for your comments, Papa November (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

worth the block for the "suggestion" alone.  GARDEN  21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Good block to my eyes, especially for the rather blatant PAs in his post-block comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day Mayhem 2009[edit]

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

Resolved

Hi folks, just a reminder of the upcoming usual chaos and fun. Please let's get all hands on board for this expected repeat of vandalism and hoaxes. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... This is not an invitation to the admin corp to indulge in such things... is it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Geez how beansy. If you hadn't said anything I bet no one would've remembered. –xeno (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • God, it comes around fast. Seems to be the only holiday Wikipedia actually observes... J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? It's the one day all kinds of vandals come out of the wood works for a bit of holiday fun and the same day administrators are temporarily blinded by silliness. :p Nobody's forgetting about April 1.. Although, I don't see much a reason to start a thread with impending silliness being 2 weeks away from now. — Moe ε 22:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reminding me! I always thought of it too late. but I shan't be late this year... MWUHUHAHA! EdokterTalk 23:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder! OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You forgot to mention when it is? =-O — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Pedro thy master[edit]

Resolved: Seems to be in good faith. — neuro(talk)(review) 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedro thy master (talk · contribs) seems to be an impersonation of Wikipedia administrator User:Pedro given that "Pedro" exists in the users name. Could somebody please take a look?. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many things on this earth named Pedro, and while not disagreeing with the principle that our Pedro deserves a legion of adoring meatpuppets, the fact that this user's contributions have been entirely constructive, and entirely limited to Two and a half men, mean that they are likely unrelated. Skomorokh 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The user's talkpage reveals he is responsible for the creation of an A7-failing article on Pedro Negrin, who would seem a more likely candidate to pin the equivalence relation to (admins can confirm). Skomorokh 22:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It was in Spanish – someone more fluent than me can work out what it said:
 – iridescent 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the beginning of a bio--Pedro was born in 1954 in Venezuela...the next section discusses his youth and his siblings, and the last section says that he joined the navy. (This is loosely translated, of course; my Spanish is not very good, but I can recognize a few of the words from my Spanish 1121 class last semester.) I doubt that anything priceless was lost when it was speedied. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The Venezuelan Naval Attache to the US, according to the State Department website. – iridescent 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, he *is* a rear-admiral, and holds a diplomatic post; it's possible that there is some notability, although there's nothing in the deleted article to indicate it. In any case, there is no indication that there is any problem with the user name, and we do have users with similar usernames (User:Hibernian and User:Hiberniantears; User:Mastcell and User:MastCell). How about slapping a nice big {{resolved}} template on this and calling it a night? Horologium (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Mythdon kindly notified me of this thread, but I concur with Skomorokh that there are many things called Pedro ,so this is not an impersonation but indeed article related. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that I have looked at some of the contributions, it does seem like a good faith editor. I guess I was wrong. Maybe you can't just judge by the username, but their edits as well. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

question about how to get a spurious article deleted[edit]

Apologies if this is a stupid question -- the newly created article Inmont is a word-for-word copy of the article Lundbeck, and there is no rationale whatsoever for relating it to the name "Inmont". Surely there must be a way to speedy something like that, but it doesn't seem to fit any of the categories. Any suggestions? (There isn't anything sensible to redirect it to, as far as I can tell.) The creator has not responded to a query. Looie496 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it as a copyright infringement of Wikipedia, I could have deleted it under test page or just general housekeeping. I could see no reason to keep the page as is. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to unprotect User talk:Jennavecia[edit]

Last month I noticed that after her departure, she fully protected her talk page. While I understood it at the time, I feel it needs to be removed. Not just because she continues to edit, but because there is no reason to leave it fully protected. I considered a standard request, but decided it would not give this issue the attention it deserves (a conversation as opposed to a single admin). Synergy 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If one keeps editing, one surely needs an open talk page... Majorly talk 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) This request probably should have been done via email as I know Jennavecia is a reasonable person. That said, I do agree that the talk page needs to be unprotected. Just the other day I needed to post to her talk page regarding a edit she had made and found it to be locked (yes, I could have edited through it, but I didn't). Synergy, maybe you can send her a email? Tiptoety talk 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt she wants to hear from me, but I can try. Synergy 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have sent the e-mail, so we can only wait to hear her opinion. Although, since she is no longer an admin, she possibly won't be the one to unprotect (just a reminder). Synergy 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree here, full protection of the page is not appropriate. Users may be looking for information about her admin actions long after her retirement, and I'm sure there's helpful folks watching who can respond. –xeno (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Retirement and page protection don't go together, we just pretend they do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to agree with Synergy. I'm not a fan of protecting retired users' talk pages in general, but an active editor should be easily-contactable. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done PeterSymonds (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For reference, Jennavecia was occasionally a little too keen on fully protecting her pages. I concur with the reasons given above to unprotect. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, boo hoo, you couldn't edit my subpage. Tragic. Maybe my next edit, whenever I decide to make it, can be to one of your subpages, because it's so necessary.
Anyway, for the record, one edit in several weeks is not "continued editing", it's an edit. So go ahead and follow the policy to the letter, but any edits to my talk page will go straight from ignored to archived. If you have a question about a past admin action of mine, use your imagination or email me. I don't want my talk page cluttered up with crap. The only message that needs to be there is the one that's there now. لennavecia 04:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Its not a subpage, its a talk page... And as for your edits: Any editing after retirement is continued editing. I wont hold a semantic debate on how many edits constitute as "continued editing" since you should either stay retired, or come back and help out again. Synergy 12:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh please, Jennavecia... If you are editing, any user may wish to discuss things with you. They might not wish to give you their email address, or don't have one. You are free to remove their messages, but good faith editors should be able to contact each other whenever possible (eg. when the page is not currently being abused). -- lucasbfr talk 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"I don't want my talk page cluttered up with crap"? That's a stunning statement coming from anyone, much less a long-time editor and former admin. I would love if my talk page didn't collect comments from the people who go into AfD with the idea that I'm a censor attempting to force the deletion of their book on the way that Alien Xray Satellites Are Controlling Our Brains, and the vandals who hate me reverting them, but I don't have the admin tools to force them to leave me alone - nor do I want them. In any case, anyone who is editing needs to be contactable via his or her talk page, period. Not wanting to see comments from people on your talk page isn't a good reason to protect it. Anyway, if we're going to be protecting anything, it should be BLPs. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After she !voted in Bugs' RfA, I also noticed the fully protected talk page and intended to email her about it, but got pulled out of town until now due to a death in the family. When she was an active admin, I very much enjoyed Jennavecia's startlingly clear ability to speak the truth, however "one edit in several weeks" is rather misleading as her contributions history shows 30-odd edits since her final admin action of indefinitely fully protecting her talk page. Kudos to all involved for resolving the issue with a minimum of drama! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jez, admit it, even if the user talk page is unprotected, anyone is free to ignore comments posted to their talk page, which in reality is the same thing as fully protected. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

the wider issue of fully protected user talk pages[edit]

Does anyone want to search for User talk pages that have {{retired}} (or a variant) and are fully protected? Skomorokh 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
eh, a project for a bored admin to poke thru: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AProtectedPages&namespace=3&type=edit&level=sysop&indefonly=1&sizetype=min&size=&limit=5000 some of these are indef blocked users so they pages can be deleted per CAT:TEMP. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
AWB limits the list it downloads of protected user talk pages to 25000. But for grins I'll look at the intersection of those 25K with retired, semiretired, and unretired.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Bah, AWB is picking up all users, not just ones with protected talk pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't think of any policy or common sense reason that many of these pages are protected - perhaps I'm missing something?--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I don't really get it either. –xeno (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, until a few months ago when the block option was added, there was no way to prevent a blocked registered user from editing their talk page except protecting it. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, but wouldn't that normally be set with an expiry? And if not, because the user is indef'd, shouldn't their page be in CAT:TEMP and thus eventually deleted? Inconsistent admin work, this! Someone isn't doing their job. Cancel the Christmas Winter holiday bonuses! –xeno (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Reedy has come to my rescue, and AWB is working like a champ now. {{retired}} has just 32 matches. I've posted that list here. I'll look at variants in a moment -- real life may slow that down a bit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of those are only semi'd and in the case of certain users, warranted. Can you drill down to just full-prot? –xeno (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Reedy offered to set that up for me, and I thought with just 32 we could look at each of them without putting him to that trouble. On the other hand, I'm wondering if we should be thinking about reviewing all of the user talk pages that are fully edit protected (no idea how many there are -- there are 7286 with some form of protection (semi/full, edit/move)). If we think that's worthwhile, I'll drop a note to Reedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Xeno, Reedy is already on it. I told him no emergency here, but he thinks it's very doable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Finding/deleting those pages is rather pointless work, it's not like we need room or anything. John Reaves 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
For me the bigger concern are the talk pages that are indefinitely fully edit protected without an urgent need to be protected. Especially if the editor involved still edits (or could, if they so chose) once in a while.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point John. @Fabric, perhaps a query to find if any of the full protected talk pages have active editors. –xeno (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest update. Once again, Reedy has come through. (Xeno was hoping candy would be involved, but that's a different story). The bad news, besides the lack of candy, is that there are 5480 fully protected user talk pages. Picking one at random to check that the list was generated correctly led me to Category:Wikipedia protected talk pages of blocked users. If we aren't worried about reviewing these pages, we could eliminate 1200 from the list, bringing it down to 4280. I'm currently looking at weeding out anyone in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets, and will report back when I get that number. Also, any thoughts on subcategories of Category:Wikipedia blocking that could be excluded?
I've run the list excluding most of the categories at Category:Wikipedia blocking (and am truly stunned that we have 63,284 suspected sockpuppets). The list is down to 2934, but I see that a number of items on the list are archives. I'll see what I can do to efficiently remove those pages from the list. As to Xeno's suggestion of looking only at active editors, I haven't found a way to get that info efficiently yet. I was hoping that Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive would be inspiring, but it looks like the edit dates are picked up by a bot.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The list is down to 1621 now that the protected subpages are gone. Several users I checked at random are blocked users who aren't in Category:Wikipedia protected talk pages of blocked users. I'm not sure how to eliminate which ones are blocked users who aren't listed at Category:Wikipedia protected talk pages of blocked users -- that might be a job for a bot. Also, I'm not feeling like we have a consensus on which non-blocked talk pages should be unblocked. Wikipedia:Protection policy isn't as clear as I'd like, but my gut interpretation is that unless there's been a problem with vandalism, the page should be unprotected. However, it might be wise to watch list any pages we unprotect, especially if the editor only edits sporadically.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If no one is interested in discussing the issue further, I'll deleted the list from my sandbox. I can always regenerate it if some consensus on what to do happens.--Fabrictramp |