Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive200

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

Noticeboard archives


Wikia on spam blacklist?[edit]

Thekohser (talk · contribs) has proposed that Wikia be added to the spam blacklist, because of malicious advertising software on the site. I would like everyone's opinion on this matter. While I agree that Wikia is unlikely to pass WP:ELNO and WP:RS as most Wikia wikis are not managed by a substantial user base and that Wikia is a commercial site and Wikipedia is not, I think that adding it may cause too much disruption. Any thoughts? Triplestop x3 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • If the site is putting up malicious ads like the link says, then maybe it should go on the blacklist. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think it can go on the blacklist in a meaningful way while on the m:Interwiki map unless we change the interwiki links to external links in places like template:Wikia and prohibit the use of non-templated internal links to Wikia. Kusma (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • What malicious advertising software are we talking about? Could we have an example or a link or some such? I don't see anything at, and an editor there say the WikipediaReview report is overblown.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Look at the first entry in this link. - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Let's conduct Wikipedia business on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
            • You wanted what advertising software I was talking about, I linked you to it. - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the software on Wikia that is being discussed. It doesn't matter what harmful software is on Wikipedia Review.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Maybe I am not making myself clear either, the proposal link (from above) links to the discussion on Wikipedia Review where they talk about the ad software on Wikia. I am not going on Wikia and let my computer get blasted by whatever ad software they have. Go to Wikipedia Review (first posting) and you will see the ad software being discussed. - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • If the only evidence of a problem exists on Wikipedia Review then this probably isn't a serious complaint.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • For what it's worth, I just spent a fair amount of time over on Wikia trying to reproduce any sort of malicious advertising like that mentioned in the WR discussion. While it has certainly reminded me why I normally use umpteen kinds of ad-blocking and tracker-blocking stuff, I didn't encounter anything that evil, even using Internet Explorer. While we shouldn't hold Wikia above all possible suspicion, I don't see any actual evidence that we should regard them as serving malware. It is worth noting that Greg Kohs' well-known business ventures place him in direct competition with Wikia; I don't say that to accuse him of anything, only to note that everyone has a certain partiality where their own self-interest is concerned, and that can affect one's judgement. Gavia immer (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

These attacks on the veracity of what was exposed by User:Krimpet (her track record, if you care) are way out of line. She's owed an apology. -- Thekohser 12:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I have to say, I agree with this. This is Krimpet - she has the technical know how, and isn't exactly a thicky. The forum maybe questionable for some but the person behind the posts deserves some respect. ViridaeTalk 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Has anyone been able to reproduce this? I don't doubt Krimpet, but this might have been an isolated case, or it might have been taken care of already. And, while we're at it, has anyone done the real world equivalent of asking the user on his talk page first? That is, has anyone asked people at Wikia about this? I would guess they won't be very happy about such ads on their site, either. --Conti| 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I gave up trying to work "with" Wikia after I informed them that I was (and others were) offended by a Wikia wiki advocating depraved physical abuse of children ("spanking art"), and the response from its co-founder whined to me that I may not have "made a complaint through the proper channels". -- Thekohser 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have not seen anything posted in this thread which would warrant an apology to Krimpet, actually. I do notice that the person starting this thread and demanding now the apology is also responsible for off-wiki canvassing for support for his position: "Krimpet, there is a formal way to suggest that a domain has become too aggressive with adware, in which it becomes suitable for discussion regarding placement on the spam blacklist. I hope others will weigh in, in favor of a blacklist inclusion. Let's end this hypocritical nightmare that Jimbo has imposed on us." Wouldn't it be more logical to focus on the lack of a recurring problem, indicating that blacklisting may be an overreaction? Or does your last line suggest another agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with malware requiring blacklisting? Fram (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Greg, you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and that is why you were welcomed back. The ArbCom decision overturning your community ban specifically addressed you engaging in battles in any form. One user reported you took a battle with him off Meta and on to here, and the defense was that user (who you had only just met) didn't act so great and look at all the good work you do. Will Beback reports this, but your history with him is the defense. Here, you are taking your anti-Wikia fight, that you continually hash out over on Meta with Angela Beesley and bring it to enwiki. We thought ArbCom's decision meant we'd get the Good Greg, which we all see in your edits, and lose the Endless Battles Greg. That's how the suspension was written. Whatever the merits of Krimpet's report, you are Wikia's greatest antagonist, particularly on Meta [1], and you shouldn't be bringing your anti-Wikia battle to enwiki. Your off-site canvassing certainly could have produced someone who is not under the directive to which you agreed. I'm sure many of your supporters on this site wonder why you make it so difficult for them. -->David Shankbone 13:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed, an apology to Krimpet seems unwarranted. "This is Krimpet." doesn't excuse it from being a pretty poor report (not even a mention of which Wikia wiki this was) that is, as it stands, easily falsifiable. "Make the mistake of clicking a link to Wikia" says the report. I've just followed the link to Wikia wikia:Yellowikis:Special:Randompage ten times, in each of three different WWW browsers, both logged in and logged out (in case there was a difference), and seen nothing of what was described. The challenges to the veracity seem not only justified, but quite reasonable, given experimental results (I'm the second editor to have reported being unable to reproduce this.) entirely to the contrary. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I randomly swing through a bunch of wikis and didn't see anything of this nature (IE7). I don't think there's anything here unless some more documentation is offered. I don't think a couple generic screen caps are enough to blacklist something RxS (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't reproduce the issue dispite pulling up a fair number of pages useing IE6 (incerdently IE6 can't even render the site very well). I did however see a lot of low end ads (penny stocks religions) and it's a known issue that the networks that serve them don't always catch the problematical ones before they go live. As a result it could have been limited to being a temporary problem.©Geni 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think that it's highly likely that the 3rd party serving the ads are at fault, not Wikia (whether it would be better to tell Wikia to make sure the 3rd party gets their house in order, or sever their relationship, is above my paygrade, but you can probably guess where I stand on this). I do have to say that an apology to Krimpet IS required here, they came in with a good faith concern that Wikia could be used to infect other people's computers, and instead of an honest look at the situation, the first inclination is to say "IT MUST NOT BE TRUE BECAUSE IT'S ON WR, O NOES". I really thought we had moved beyond that idiocy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Why? This little flareup seems to confirm that inclination. Also, there is a world of difference between the position "I think WR is bad and you use WR so I think you are bad" and "I think WR is bad so I'm gonna take whatever they say with a grain of salt...or two". Protonk (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Except for the fact, you know, that the report (while it didn't quite have enough information to fully act on), was you know, true. Krimpet's a former administrator here, and while they are no longer editing here (pretty much chased off the project), they deservew at least a mininum of respect. Something that you seem to lack here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh....[citation needed], as the kids say. The report was true if we say "I went to page XYZ and it had malware", not if we take it to mean "wikia has malware" or even "wikia's ad servers have malware on a wide scale". "Not having enough information to act on" is a phrase which avoids the truth--gathering of more information falsified the report. Again, no one here has disparaged Krimpet personally. I'm sure s/he is a nice person and was a good admin. All we have done (or me, specifically) is say that WR is not a good font of information about all things Wales-related. I'm sorry that you decided this was a good 'teaching moment' to give me a little lesson about respect. It's not. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In your haste to get in your bon mot, I think you missed seresin's post right below yours. that a good enough citation for you? SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
If taken in isolation and ignoring the comments made here (by betacommand, uncle g, geni, etc.) and at the blacklist talk page, maybe. Given that the preponderance of comments and my own searching (admittedly not on IE) point toward minimal or no problems, no, it isn't. And You miss the point. I didn't say that the claim "I encountered malware" was false. I said the secondary claims "wikia has malware" or "there is a broad malware problem" were false and the vector (WR) conflated the three claims. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I've had the same ad at least twice while browsing wikia. ÷seresin 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This appears to be another situation of a webhost being infected with MS Antivirus (malware) Ive seen this about 200 times in the last year and a half working in the tech field. one of the advertising servers probably got hacked and lead to this breach. its not wikia's fault. βcommand 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Wikia should be blacklisted until they fix the problem, then they can be taken off. By the way, this isn't the first time that Wikipedia Review has helped identify a threat to Wikipedia's well-being. Thanks to WR-participant Krimpet for bringing this to someone's attention. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So you're just ignoring the fact that four people so far have been unable to independently confirm this claim? Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Except they have. Did you read the thread? ViridaeTalk 11:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
        • You're currently asserting this in response to one of those four people. I know what my experimental results actually were, thanks, and so do the three others who have stated similar findings to mine. You don't get to re-state them for us. Please wipe the egg off your face, now. Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Two people spin the roulette wheel a few times, and eventually they hit 00. You spin it a few times, it never lands on 00, and you conclude that therefore the other two people must be mistaken when they assert that 00 is on the roulette wheel? Badger Drink (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Don't construct questions based upon arguments of your own invention. Read what is actually written, above, instead. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
              • "You're currently asserting this in response to one two of those four people [the ones who got 00]. I know what my experimental results actually were [I did not get 00]. [Somehow this is supposed to 'counter' the fact that two people did get 00]". No, sorry, still seems like we've got a case of Uncle Gomer racing to act like a smug asshole despite xyr faulty understanding of how either probability or rotating banner ads work (choose one or both). If that's not showing up at the grown-ups' table with yellow stuff smeared all over your face and hair while babbling about what messy eaters they are, I don't know what is. You may wish to consider adopting a more nuanced approach when chiming in on issues you don't quite understand. Badger Drink (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
            • I repeat: Don't construct questions and arguments based upon straw men of your own invention. Read what is actually written, above, instead. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on exactly what, Betacommand? Your supposition? I must say I find it difficult to believe that webservers are having their administrators install malware on their servers in such large volumes. And if wikia is the vector, frankly, it doesn't really matter whether it is wikia, or an ad server. If an XSS vulnerability existed that allowed WP to be exploited, would you be arguing that it wasn't anything to worry about on WP, since the XSS vulnerability itself was tied to another site? Achromatic (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • based on the fact that I have seen this exact same behavior many times [2] [3] and many other examples that I have accumulated over the years working with computers and virus/malware outbreaks. MySpace, AOL and many others have been subject to similar breaches. the servers have been compromised by outside hackers who installed the malware. before commenting on complex topics its always best to do a little research first. ♠ βcommand 08:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would guess you don't really understand how such malware gets installed. No sysadmin of a legitimate company (which both Wikia and the company that hosts its ads are) is likely to deliberately install malware that generates such ads. Stuff like this gets added by people exploiting vulnerabilties in the security of their network. Wikia doesn't seem to host their own ads - or not all of them, at least - and since the problem is apparently coming from bad ads, I'd agree with Betacommand's assessment, and be more inclined to question whether, as one example, has done enough to ensure the safety of its network. As noted on the forum link posted below, Wikia is trying to identify where the bad ad is coming from so they can put a stop to it. If they can't though, they probably should begin disabling all ads until the hosts get their own house in order. Also, as an aside, reading that report on WR, I would hardly agree that Krimpet deserves an apology. That read like a person with a major league chip on their shoulder and a serious hate-on for Wikipedia/Wikia jumping to massive conclusions. Frankly, the fact that they simply assumed that such an ad - which can only possibly damage Wikia's business - was deliberately placed by Wikia rendered the report completely worthless in my view. Thekosher's endorsement of Krimpet hardly helps. Resolute 00:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Report on one of the forums indicate that the "bad ad" is being served on multiple Wikia wikis. [4]. So it's not on every ad being served, but the most recent report is yesterday (edit: No, if you look down, it's being served today, the 28th), so it IS still being served. SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
OK admins, please get Wikia on the blacklist now, before someone's computer gets hurt. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not sure it can go on the blacklist - we can blacklist external links, but not interwikis, surely? Shimgray | talk | 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
At the very least we should be contacting the Foundation and/or Jimbo, and telling them to either pull the ads on the Wikia side, or get the ad providers arse in gear to remove the virus-ads? SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Fozz, why would we contact "the Foundation" about a problem festering on Wikia, Inc. servers? I was told that the two entities are "completely separate". (Other than that nagging fact that Wikia is the Wikimedia Foundation's landlord for additional office space.) -- Thekohser 02:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Human decency.--Tznkai (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Contacting Wikimedia would be useless; we can't do anything about it. Contact Wikia; reporting link for bad ads is here. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you ban the site until it gets its house in order? Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If anybody from Wikia is watching, you might want to read An Open Letter to Online Ad Networks This problem is big, and getting worse. I agree that Wikipedia should not link to any page distributing malware. Google automatically delists such pages. We should too. Jehochman Talk 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we delist such pages? Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of links to Wikia wikis. It would take weeks to find and remove all those links, by which time Wikia will have fixed the problem. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate at Template:Wikia to add "NOFOLLOW" to outbound links to wikia. The consensus so far is that we should add NOFOLLOW to those links, but {{Wikia}} isn't the right place to do it. We would appreciate some technical know-how there as to the best solution. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I have a working NOFOLLOW version for the links made via {{Wikia}} at {{Wikia/sandbox}}. If nobody finds any bugs, I plan to implement this at the Wikia template and other related templates (like {{Memoryalpha}}) over the next days. Kusma (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A few things[edit]

  1. We can talk about 'human decency' and what-not all day, but the practical facts are: we here in this thread have no real influence over the WMF. The WMF has no real influence over wikia. If you want to talk to the members of the WMF board or Jimbo who run Wikia about this, be my guest.
  2. Adding wikia to the spam blacklist doesn't block outgoing links to wikia. It just stops people from adding new links. We would be closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has left.

Am I in the right about these two points? If so, is this discussion a reasonable course of action for us? Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The first hits the nail on the head, Protonk. Wikia & Mediawiki are two separate organizations -- although they share personnel, & in the past one has helped the other. The Foundation can make all sorts of threats at Wikia, but if the people over there don't want to do something, what is said or how it said won't matter. As for the second, IIRC from the last time I've had to handle pre-existing blacklisted URLs (that was a couple of years ago) what happens is when you try to edit a page with one of those, you can't save the change until the blacklisted external link is disabled. And if the URL is only a bad link for a short while -- which I assume would be the case with Wikia -- it would be more of a headache to blacklist them than a solution. But I don't know what else we could do to nudge a site to fixing a problem. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Editing a page with existing blacklisted links was fixed in r34769, dated May 13 2008. See also bug 1505. Anomie 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not sure I should apologize for not being interested in reading the bug database, or explain that I'm not in the habit of editting pages with existing blacklisted links. But belated thanks for the update. -- llywrch (talk)
The bad ad has been detected and removed. Wikia's response can be found in this forum post. Angela. 07:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: bit of a head scratcher; RFUP took care of it Xavexgoem (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an admin unprotect Brandon Hall so I can create an article about the Brandon Hall building listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Adams County, Mississippi. Thanks. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFUP. Tan | 39 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Or you could just do it instead of wasting the keystrokes to tell me where else to go... I brought it here for what I thought was an obvious reason, that being that apparently a non-existent article was protected for some reason and more admin eyes may shed light on why this may not be a good idea. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a terrible idea to point you out to the very specific, very obvious forum for situations exactly like this one. My mistake. Tan | 39 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 21:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Er, no. Unless there's a reason you're special enough to skip normal processes? --Calton | Talk 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever; unprotected. It only /looks/ like a wheelwar. If it is, please trout me. Next time: RFUP Xavexgoem (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops...reprotected. Saw the request filed at RFUP. That was confusing ^^;; Xavexgoem (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion there. I went on and filed the request at RFUP but they took so long to do it, I had already created the article at Brandon Hall (Washington, Mississippi). Once RFUP unprotected Brandon Hall, I just redirected it. Someone else came along and re-protected it. - ALLSTRecho wuz here 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Sambokim COI, repeated copyvios, yet again. Suggesting topic ban and block[edit]

Sambokim (talk · contribs) I brought this up before. He was reminded yet again not to cut and paste from websites onto wikipedia, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_etc. But he is once again copy and pasting from websites into articles. [5] and here is the original [6]. His job for the team is promotion and he cannot seem to grasp that wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Half of his edits seem to be cutting and pasting various press releases into articles. In my initial clean-up of anyang halla I had to revert his copyvios numerous times as he was continually inserting them over and over. He's been warned numerous times and last time another editor warned him as well. He doesn't respond and just continues to promote it. So I'm recommending a ban from the following articles:

This has gone on for a very long time and he's shown no interest in following the policies.--Crossmr (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And he is once again trying to insert the same promotional links as sources that he's been told numerous times don't belong there [7].--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Question and comment Do you have any evidence that he has COI with the listed team and people? And if it is a matter of COI, you need to try COI board first. If you can prove that he is truly hired by the team, the next step would be WP:OTRS You can persuade him to get an official permission from the team instead of the premature ban proposal. Since topic ban by the community should be almost a last resort, I don't think the person in question reach the last straw yet. So I'm basically opposing the ban proposal.--Caspian blue 01:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    Even with permission from the team, we don't copy and paste press releases into articles. That isn't good writing. As far as the COI, the user name and the fact that he only edits Anyang halla related articles to promote Anyang halla is sufficient given that one of Samual H Kim's jobs is english language promotion for the team per WP:DUCK. The COI though is really immaterial to the problem, even if he didn't work for the team I'd still recommend a ban because he has a long term problem of inserting copyvios into numerous articles and refuses to communicate with other users or discontinue the behaviour after numerous warnings and plenty of time has passed.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    In addition, as I mentioned before I've exchanged e-mails with him through the anyang halla website. He responds with an email which uses the username "sambokim". There is little reasonable doubt that the user and team promoter are the same person. Any administrator that would want a forward of that email which shows the username connection is free to let me know and I'll send it to them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Just for your information, there has some similar precedents but well that could be only useful tip for the user in question if he wants to get out of the copyvio accusation. For example, Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company [8]. As for the bad writing part, well that would be a content issue if he indeed obtains the permission from the team and writer.--Caspian blue 01:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And read the talk. There is an admin there saying it needs to be cleaned up. Just because there can be permission to copy and paste content from websites doesn't mean that the content should actually be used in the article as such. It is clearly promotional as pointed out. But that is immaterial as we don't have any permission here. What we have is a user who continually violates policy on a narrow set of topics which he is related to and fails to communicate with other wikipedia users after numerous warnings.--Crossmr (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sambokim has been blocked 24 hours for creating copyright violations, since he continued to add the offending material after being warned, and did not respond to the complaints at either AN or ANI. This user has never left an edit summary or commented on a Talk page. I have no opinion on a topic ban. If he never participates on talk, it may be hard to explain to him what a topic ban is. If somebody has been emailing him, perhaps they could find out whether he understands our policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've only exchanged a single set of emails with him and there was a serious communication problem. I asked him about getting the Halla archives restored as prior to 2008 there is a lot of 404, but I never received any further replies from him. I don't know if a 24 hour block will phase him. He doesn't edit daily so he might not even notice.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK policy at odds with adminbots and allowing abuse filters to block users[edit]

{{resolved|MZMcBride's analysis of the situation is accurate. AntiAbuseBot and ProcseeBot enjoy community consensus,1, 2 the relevant policy pages should be updated to reflect the same. AF discussion is being held at another venue. –xenotalk 17:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)}}

A proposal has been made to allow abuse filters to block users. Aside from the obvious concerns about false positives in abuse filters causing issues, as they have in the past and undoubtedly will do in the future, this is contrary to the existing WP:BLOCK policy which begins by stating "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia". Although it may be argued that bots or filters with administrator rights are administrators, I do not believe that this was the intention when the policy was written.

It has come to my attention that there are at least two approved adminbots, AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and ProcseeBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which are currently blocking users. Again, this would be contrary to my interpretation of existing policy. Both bots were "approved" after the fact as they were already running and blocking users prior to submission for approval. There may be other, unapproved adminbots also running. In the bot approval discussion for AntiAbuseBot, the approval was temporary and conditional until the abuse filters were activated. Several commentors seemed uncomfortable with the idea of bots being allowed to block users. ProcseeBot was approved with very little discussion. The rationale for the bot was the anontalk spammers and similar, issues which are now somewhat mitigated by the abuse filters.

WP:BLOCK details considerations that should be made when blocking users, such as collateral damage, and duration of blocks as related to severity and history. Simple string-matching regex filters and bots are not obviously or inherently capable of these types of considerations. In the case of ProcseeBot, since open proxies are routinely hardblocked, this is less of an issue. I haven't checked ProcseeBot, but AntiAbuseBot fails to follow the WP:BLOCK requirement that "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked". A recent example is this block (although a later blocking admin also failed to leave a notification when they blocked the IP for "repeatedly and deliberately triggering the abuse filter").

I believe that the cart has been put ahead of the horse by approving adminbots with little public discussion and that the cart is now dragging that horse at high speed with the proposal to allow the abuse filter to block users. I suggest that AntiAbuseBot needs to have its admin bot removed immediately (per the approval provisos) and that ProcseeBot should be stopped until either a full community discussion of unsupervised automatic blocks has been concluded, or until WP:BLOCK has been revised to include bots and ProcseeBot is confirmed to follow all parts of that policy. Any discussion of allowing the abuse filters to block users is premature until the blocking policy has been settled. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Have there been any controversial blocks made by these adminbots, other than the one you liked to above? Pardon me if I'm missing an obvious, previous discussion. Tan | 39 15:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I would point out that that was not a bad or controversial block. The IP was quite clearly vandalizing. Mr.Z-man 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The policy is written and continually updated to serve the project. If it states "by administrators" and a discussion elsewhere considers that administrators using abusefilter is also apppropriate at some times, then it would be blocking policy that may need to change to reflect that view. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I suggested revising WP:BLOCK as one of the options. I'm interested in seeing a discussion of the issue (blocking by unsupervised automated processes) prior to any update. The policy should reflect the desire of the community, rather than current practice by a limited number of admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Tan, I don't think the diff I linked is an example of a controversial block, simply of one that does not follow policy. I assume it is typical. My reason for bringing up this issue is not to criticize the actions of these adminbots, simply to point out that there is a discrepancy between policy and practice which may be further extended by allowing abuse filters to block users. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any general community agreement to extend administrator privileges to non-humans. My feeling is that only humans should be able to block users, but I am not fixed in that belief, and I do not wish to presume the outcome of a community discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

At least up to a point (AI?), bots run by admins can be considered mere tools for the job. The real question I think is do we trust the tools to work, and is it worth the cost (false positives, plus design/maintenance). Even planes crash (very rarely), and people still fly - and blocks can be undone. Rd232 talk 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think this needs to be a fairly wide discussion by all users, not just admins. Can we agree on the basics - that WP:BLOCK and current practice are divergent, that a community-wide discussion about blocking by automated processes is needed, and that adminbots need to be stopped until the discussion has taken place? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-hand, it would appear this thread is purely about semantics. That is, it's about the specific wording used in a particular policy page. If so, I'd urge all involved to remember that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. And that the pages have an edit tab for a reason. If the inclusion of adminbots doesn't seem to fall within the current wording used, the policy talk page is the appropriate forum. I don't see any particularly pressing issues to address, though. Am I missing anything? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't policy be descriptive of the desire of the community, rather than the very small group of admins who participated in the bot approval discussions (to "approve" bots which were already running and blocking users)? At the very least, before this thread gets closed, AntiAbuseBot should have its admin bit removed as per the bot approval. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? Those two bots have been running for six months; ProcseeBot has around 52,000 blocks in that time. What is the pressing issue to disable them? Kuru talk 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
AntiAbuseBot was approved conditionally and temporarily. Since the abuse filters have been implemented, the bot is presumably no longer required. Read the approval discussion - I don't think it would have been approved if the abuse filters implementation was not imminent. With any piece of running software, there is a chance of malfunction. Why leave a bot with admin rights running if it is no longer needed, regardless of its history? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be mistaken about the abuse filter. It was not designed as the be-all, end-all, solution to vandalism. In fact, filters that can be easily managed by a bot are encouraged to be disabled to reduce the overall load of the AF. –xenotalk 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh. This is an anti-adminbots rant? Gotcha. I'll pass. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. If the community wants adminbots they will have adminbots, but I don't think anyone asked the community what they wanted. Would you not agree that if there are adminbots they should follow the blocking policy? I've provided a diff to show where a bot failed to notify a user that they were blocked. I'm not sure why you feel that the conditions set forth in AntiAbuseBot's approval should be ignored, regardless of how you assume I feel about admin bots. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Was the block incorrect? Administrators do not always notify users that they are blocked. Sometimes, I'll go completely rogue and block a user, no talk page or email privileges. I won't leave a block notice. Was I wrong? Of course not, the user had just moved five pages abusively. They knew what they were doing, and don't need notification that they can't anymore.
I am have my reservations about adminbots; in fact if memory serves me right, I was the one who suggested AAB automatically place unblock templates for human review. Show me something the bot did wrong. –xenotalk 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
See the diff already provided. No block notice or unblock template were left for the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to see something the bot did wrong. That seems like a perfectly appropriate block. –xenotalk 19:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Operators of adminbots are required to widely distribute word of their BRFA. Community objections are invited. Next time you unresolve your own thread, please use "{{tlx}}", "nowiki" or some other manner of keeping the closing administrators' comments on the page. As you already stated yourself, adminbots are technically administrators (c.f. [9], [10]), so the policy remains accurate. –xenotalk 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I would have no problem with a discussion to make more clear the extent that automation is allowed for blocking, but proposing a bot that provides an important service with no actual problems, besides it not being consistent with one interpretation of the specific wording of a policy, be shut down until that's done is just policy wonkery. The somewhat non-descriptive block summaries of AntiAbuseBot are arguably an issue, but suggesting it be desysopped and shut down without even asking the operator to change the summary (which would likely be a trivial change) is not helpful. Mr.Z-man 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLOCK calles for notifications to be left on the user's talk page, not in the edit summary (See this section) but that's not why I'm calling for the desysopping. Here, in full, is the approval statement for AntiAbuseBot: "Approved. until such time as the AbuseFilter extension or a substantially indentical technical feature is turned on by the sysadmins at the English Wikipedia. At such a time, a report should be made to the bot owners' noticeboard requesting that Chris G either to turn off the bot or seek re-approval in a Wikipedia:BRFA". I'm not picking on AntiABuseBot, but I don't see the need for it anymore, given that abuse filters now exist. My fundamental point here is that there needs to be a wider discussion of automated blocking. Please understand that I don't think the existing practice represents the wishes of the community, although I may be completely wrong about that. Simply rewording WP:BLOCK won't change that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Until blocking abuse filters are implemented, AntiAbuseBot is needed. And even afterwards, the code that Chris G can write with his bot is far superior to what features and functions are available with the abuse filter. If you think that adminbots are a bad thing, try cleaning up after vandals like Grawp without them. When you do that for a few weeks, then start complaining. J.delanoygabsadds 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if my suggestion that more community input is required comes across as a complaint. I have not at any point said that I think adminbots are a bad thing. Taking a look through AntiAbuseBot's blocking log for today, it looks like simply semi-protecting NawlinWiki's archives would have prevented the need for any action by the bot. And even failing that, ClueBot would have handled it. I'm not trying to argue with you about the utility of the bot, it is simply an observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
What I am saying is, I remember there being a very long and detailed community discussion about adminbots. There is no need to have "further community input"; the community has already given their opinion on the matter. The consensus was that adminbots would be allowed. If you have a problem with adminbots, start an RFC outlining why they should not be allowed. J.delanoygabsadds 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFC/ZOMGADMINBOTS. Quite a few people from The Community™ commented there, for what it's worth. I think a broader discussion about the impact of new users being illegitimately stopped by the AbuseFilter is more important than another discussion about adminbots, but, hey, I'm just a random guy from the Internet. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. There seems to be quite a range of opinions. Note that I am solely raising concerns to do with automated blocking, not with other routine activities carried out by adminbots or filters. I agree with your comment about more discussion for filter actions, however. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm having trouble understanding the hostile reaction to a proposal which in essence says "let's ask regular editors if they want automated processes to block users". I should not have included the information about specific adminbots, since it seems to have drawn all of the focus. If future commenters could place any adminbot-related comments above this section it may help to maintain focus on the basic question in this new section. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We already did all this, very calmly, and slowly, when we finally (as a community) allowed adminbots to come out into the open. Before, they were run as open secrets (many still are). If you want to initiate an RFC, by all means, but we're not going to turn the switches off because one user didn't notice the process. AntiAbuseBot's approval had much community input. If you want AntiAbuseBot to undergo a re-certification BRFA because the abuse filter hasn't solved all our problems yet, drop a note on his operators' talk page. –xenotalk 19:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Which I've done)
Because that's not your entire proposal. The other half of your proposal is to shut down 2 bots providing valuable services despite them having no significant issues (one of them having no issues at all). Mr.Z-man 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems to be such a distraction, I have struck out those comments. Any thoughts on the rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Carbuncle, I appreciate (and in some cases, share) your apprehension for adminbots. However, these two adminbots are doing an admirable job. I simply don't see that the "community" is objecting to their operation. Comments as to their operation was invited before they were approved. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181#Current adminbot BRFAs, for example. –xenotalk 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have any problem with adminbots. What I like about (even semi-secret) adminbots is that typically, they have one operator who is responsible for the bot. I can go to the bot owner and complain, or go and block the bot if it seems to be malfunctioning. If the block ability is encoded deeper in the software, it becomes a bit harder for Joe Non-Coding Admin (like me) to deal with problems that show up (and problems will (rarely) show up). So I am not too happy about a blocking function in the abuse filters. I would prefer external bots that check the filters and block, and that can be stopped without extra technical knowledge. Kusma (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    Actions by edit filters are stilled "owned" in some sense by those that create/maintain them. Even admins who have chosen not to grant themselves the EFM flag can view private filters. It's not difficult to look at the history of the filter to see who wrote it. Perhaps the block log should contain a note about who wrote the filter or who set it to block, so there is a way for even those without access to private filters to know who to trout-slap in case of an error. Nevertheless, we really ought be discussing this at the VPR thread, I'm not sure why D.B. felt the need to launch a side discussion. –xenotalk 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    The discussion on VPR assumes that the community is generally ok with automatic processes blocking users. I don't see any evidence of that except for the RFC which shows a wide range of opinions and does not specifically focus on the blocking. I can see that there is support for automated blocking coming from the admins who are participants in bots and abuse filters, but this should not be assumed to represent the desire of the community at large. I think that asking the community what they want is an obvious and sensible course of action before enabling abuse filters to block users. I had hoped that some admins could take this forward in an appropriate manner, but my suggestion has been met with hostility, defensiveness, misperception, and nit-picking of the workings of specific adminbots. It would be nice if this thread remained open for another day in case some of the more far-seeing admins might happen upon it, but I won't object to it being closed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    Prodego's thread ends with the question "What are people's thoughts on enabling the ability to create blocking abuse filters?". If the 'community at large' is against this, why haven't they shown up (here, or there)? Perhaps you should draft an RFC if you feel the community hasn't been appropriately involved in this process (even though they have been). –xenotalk 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    The people who hang out here (mostly admins) and at VPR (often admins) are not representative of most editors on Wikipedia. I don't think most editors have any inkling that they might get blocked by a poorly-coded regex string or ill thought-out assumption that the phrase "anontalk" could never legitiamtely appear in an article. I don't know if they have an opinion on the matter, but it seems important enough, to me, to ask them. The first RFC does not seem to have any clear consensus to allow automated blocks, but I see little point in starting another one given the feedback here. If someone else wants to do so, I'm happy to assist and participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    The thread on VPR is a proposal to the community, not an announcement. If Prodego was working under the assumption that people already supported it, he wouldn't have made it a proposal. I don't see where it assumes that people support anything. People don't need to broadly support automated blocking to support one specific implementation, and vice versa. And I would hardly call disagreeing with the proposal to shut down 2 active bots despite no real problems with them "nit-picking" (if anything, proposing they be shut down due to a technicality with one interpretation of the blocking policy is nit-picking). Mr.Z-man 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't agree, I'd rather not argue about this. I struck my comments about adminbots based on earlier comments - why are you still beating that horse? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    Because you continued to deride the people who disagreed with you on that matter. Just because people strongly disagree with you does not make them hostile. Mr.Z-man 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    I didn't mean to deride anyone and I don't think I did. I didn't call anyone names, use insulting language, question their intelligence, suggest that I knew better, etc. I simply pointed out the conditions of approval which appeared to be no longer in effect (although J Delanoy's response makes that unclear), and where the actions of the bot did not follow the blocking policy (i.e., notifying the user of blocks). You are welcome to argue with me on my own talk page, but I don't think it's adding anything useful here. The comments have already been struck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, discussion prior to activating Anti-Abuse Bot was extensive, public participation was invited, and the bot has been running for quite some time with no serious errors or complaints that I'm aware of. AAB leaves an unblock request on the talk page of every editor it blocks; having reviewed a large number of those blocks, I don't recall ever having seen a false positive. ProcseeBot was a more recent development, but is even less prone to error, as my understanding is that it directly confirms the ability to edit Wikipedia through any open proxy before blocking it. This is probably a silly question -- this noticeboard being what it is -- but what actual problem exists, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that bots do not have the authority to block users and if they are given this authority right now, it should be removed for the reasons cited above. For such a long time, the bot owners have formed a very disturbing mob of authority on Wikipedia, in which a small group of users are given undue authority, without oversight or transparency, merely because they are skilled bot programmers. It is unreasonable for one editor to have more authority simply because he is a bot programmer and these bots cause enough trouble and garbage as it is. Giving bots blocking authority is like handing a shotgun to a monkey.   Zenwhat (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You are sorely mistaken on the first point: a small number of blocking bots have been approved after extensive discussion on the matter -- see, among others, WP:ADMINBOT, the rather immense RfC linked above, a plethora of past noticeboard discussions, and bot approval discussions for any relevant bot. I'm frankly confused by your saying bot operations are done "without oversight or transparency", given the rather extreme lengths such users go to in order to maintain both transparency and oversight. This isn't a matter of "giving" bots the ability to block; they've already had it for some time. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to continue this discussion about the specifics of individual adminbots, but perhaps it will help to plant the seed in someone's mind that adminbots should follow the blocking policy about leaving notifications and that should be part of the approval process. Here is a diff showing AntiAbuseBot blocking a user without leaving a notification or unblock template. Here is another. Procseebot does not appear to have ever left a notification. Yes, the bots could be fixed. Yes, WP:BLOCK could be rewritten. Yes, the policy could continue to be ignored. No, no one is likely to die from any of this. Can we get off the adminbot track now please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point, but I've left a note with Chris about those two examples you named -- that's news to me, I'm afraid. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Filter Log[edit]

(If this is the wrong place, please move to the correct place)
Just noticed the Filter Log for IP's - I think this is a rather silly idea, as it assumes bad faith of users. Notice that all of these edits in mine were legitamate, showing that your filters are not restricted to bad edits and pick up ones where people are just trying to be helpful. I'd like to see this removed because it assumes that the person breaking the filter is doing a bad thing. (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive."xenotalk 15:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Even that is still much too strong and unfriendly. DGG (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
How about "Entries in this list may be constructive or made in good faith and are not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing on behalf of the user." ? Tweak as desired: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-summary. –xenotalk 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The filter log is not "for IPs" -- you can search by any username. Removing the filters and their respective logs will do far more harm than good; rephrasing system messages and so on is more likely to be productive. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Request block for some IPs and semi protection for Java (programming language) article[edit]

An unregistered user often signing done on many of his contributions (he is often using Special:Contributions/ or Special:Contributions/ IPs) is spreading FUD on Java performance, and repeatedly revert other people edits in order to give his own personal view. He is obviously convinced that Java is very slow compared to C, and has started to modify this article according to his own views. He has recently edited (and already reverted) the Performance optimizations paragraph with the sentence: "however there are cases where Java is more than 30 times slower than C"[1]. The problem is that the benchmark he quote compares GNU GCC with Java with the -Xint flag, so with purely interpreted Java. When I reverted this with this explanation, he replied on the Talk page:You obviously didn't read the reference. There is also a server mode. This article reports best case scenario, there are also worst case scenarios (which he did not provide of course). As I did not want to engage in an edit war, I asked other editors assistance in the talk page. However, He began to show a very uncivil attitude. His last move was repeatedly WP:OUTING on 2 users. I won't quote his real life identities speculations here of course (it is in this discussion thread) but as I asked him to revert his speculation about these users real life identity, he refused to do so, and WP:OUTING on another user. As this very uncivil user do not use an account, I request the two regular IPs he uses to be blocked, and the article to be semi-protected. Hervegirod (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:Wikiquette alerts might have been a better, less heated way to handle this.. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I consider WP:OUTING a serious offense. The outing attempt is the only reason I put it here. I talked about his general behavior to provide context for what he did. Sorry if it appeared like I asked the block for his previous POV behavior. Hervegirod (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, he's continuing to be (*insult not written*) and unconstructive. I withdraw my previous statement and endorse the proposed actions. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Although he has not attempted outing anymore, he continues to put his own views without sources or with unrelated sources on the same article. Hervegirod (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All hands to the pump at CAT:CSD![edit]

Resolved: Sorta resolved; further comments should go to WP:ANI#Tyciol's redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. There's currently a major backlog of around 400 pages which have been marked for speedy deletion. It's gonna take some shifting, so the more hands we can get on board here, the better. Cheers, Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A high proportion (if not almost all) of those deletion nominations appear to have been made by Ryulong (talk · contribs) and are for redirects. I don't think that there's necessarily anything wrong with that (I just deleted a few of them per their nomination and kept a few others where the redirect seemed reasonable), but nominating so many articles in such a short time is a bit unusual. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Tyciol's redirects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'd suggest that you stop leaving rude message's on this editor's talk page like this though. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Although crude, it is a fair enough question in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not what one would associate with the word 'backlog'. Usually that's when something backs up over time from negligence, whereas this is more like stemming a flood. I have illustrated my arguments on ANI and with my conversations with Ryu. It certainly is unusual, as Nick says, and I would argue: unfounded. I am glad someone else sees the problem with the bullying. This only demonstrates that this is an attitude issue and that understanding and working out the issue does not seem to be the intent (this is the vibe I get when messages I leave are simply deleted and ignored. Basically, I need to follow this issue where it is dragged to voice my side of it: these are being mistagged. So I request: please cease the pump! The use of redirects may not be glaringly obvious until people search in some cases, I only want a chance to point out why I think it is useful. As for the fairness of the question: I did answer it, and you simply disregarded the answer (and it did not need to be asked with cursing). I still give the examples of your work: Lubdan, Takeshi Asakura, examples of likely dozens more perfectly good redirects batted out of left field. Tyciol (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:PUF - over two weeks of uncommented nominations[edit]

Everything I needed to say can be found in the section title. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 14:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

non-admin requesting permission to edit the AbuseFilter[edit]

WT:EF#Request for "edit filter managers" permission Posted here to get some discussion. Note that there are currently 2 non-admins with the ability to create and edit filters, Cobi who was discussed at WT:EF and Charitwo who was not discussed, but added by wernda, who developed the filter. Prodego talk 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who often has to deal with Scibaby socks, having permission to edit the filter would be very useful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The place to request it is WT:EF, by all means, please do so :) -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This MfD[edit]

Could someone explain to me exactly what happened here? This was deleted, then userfied per discussion at DRV, then nominated two days later at MfD, here. After a few !votes, Penright informs us via an enormous wall of text that he's in the Witness Protection Program in Australia and that he's doing some kind of investigation. In this wall of text, he also apparently wants the !vote of Moondyne to be stricken, because of a message on some apparent tabloid newssite. Incredi-confused. GrooveDog (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure looks like a major BLP violation against several people, to me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know the gist of it all, but through User talk:Penright#Comments and formatting, I think I have gotten this user to recognize how to to interact with others in a properly formatted manner. So perhaps the TL;DR will become a bit less so as it unfolds. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not dealing with the article (it makes my brain hurt), but I've left Penright a note about assuming good faith and not making personal attacks. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone should look at the images on the nominated page, either the licensing is incorrect and they should probably be deleted or there's a conflict of interest. Guest9999 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the WP:3RR rule[edit]

Since his previous nonconstructive behavior (nonconstructive editing, WP:POV and WP:OUTING), a user using the IPs Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ has violated the WP:3RR rules on the Java (programming language)‎ article, even after numerous warning from various other editors (see User_talk: Hervegirod (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reports of WP:3RR violations belong at WP:AN/3. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate closers needed, adminship not required[edit]

There are currently 18 candidates due for closure at featured picture candidates. Consensus determiners are welcome. Durova288 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

8 noms closed. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS move to close re: WP:LQ[edit]

Resolved: Discussion has been closed and archived. Sswonk (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Move to close. Thank you, Sswonk (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Aitias administrator permissions[edit]

Per motions of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, the administrative permissions of Aitias (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) are removed for disruptive and inappropriate conduct including conduct involving his administrative duties. (Please note that Aitias resigned his tools under a cloud after these motions were passed but prior to their enactment, however this motion and the subsequent note were explicitly requested by the Committee to still be enacted and published.)

Aitias may seek to regain adminship via WP:RFA or by application to the Arbitration Committee. Further, Aitias is restricted to one account and is required to comply with the applicable renaming procedures for restricted users, viewable here, should he rename.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motion amending Ryulong Arbitration case regarding Mythdon[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has amended Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong to include the following terms:

Pursuant to the latest developments related to the recent Arbitration case involving Mythdon and Ryulong and discussions on the Arbitration Committee mailing list, the Arbitration Committee has noted that there has been no changes in the behavior of Mythdon since the closure of the Arbitration case:

a) the user has made no effort whatsoever to find a mentor;
b) the user has made no effort whatsoever to engage himself in serious discussions to produce a guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject as directed by this remedy;
c) the user has targetted another Wikipedia area to impose his stance on verifiability disregarding the ArbCom's view concerning his stance on the matter;
d) He recently threatened to mass AfD articles which do not satisfy his standards in terms of reliable sources and verifiability;

Therefore, the Committee has decided to extend the restrictions imposed in order to facilitate more collaboration in the field of conflict and to ensure the smooth running of the project in general and protect other areas in particular. The terms are as follows:

a) Mythdon is prohibited from partcipating at any Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion which involves verifiability and reliable sources. That includes —and is not limited to— the WikiProject Tokusatsu. The restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon —as well as everyone else— should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;
b) Mythdon is reminded of the importance of participating in a good faith effort to help produce a genuine guideline for the cited WikiProject, including but not limited to verifiability. He is again urged to start working on this guideline;
b) Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;
d) all other restrictions imposed during the arbitration case involving him remain in place;
e) in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject, the ArbCom notes that any similar behavior which had led to this situation would be dealt with similarly. Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;
e) should Mythdon violate the above restrictions, any administrator may block him for a period up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Any discussion about possible violations should be held at requests for arbitration enforcement;
f) any further request on this matter should go through requests for arbitration enforcement beforehand. Administrators there are able to help answer any question.

These terms have been appended to the Ryulong case page at "New remedies and enforcement added by motion".

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to revoke sanction[edit]

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Nja247 19:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that belonged here per my previous comments on this. –xenotalk 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR article restriction at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia[edit]

As a result of this complaint at WP:AN3, I have placed a 1RR restriction at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. This applies to anyone who wants to edit the article, and they must not revert more than once per day. (A dispute over the same article is also mentioned in an open request at Wikipedia:AE#Poeticbent, submitted as a complaint against Poeticbent which I have no opinion on one way or the other). Whichever admin closes that Arbitration Enforcement request can lift or modify this article restriction as they think best. The article restriction on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia can be lifted by any uninvolved admin without consulting me if the admin is supported by consensus at a noticeboard. The point of this restriction is to try to force more negotiation, since rapid reverters will no longer have an advantage. I'm offering my action for review here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ed's solution (1RR on Volhynia) is a good one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
When my time permits, I'm planning to place a 1RR on Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well, per a user suggestion. That article also seems to involve Ukrainian-Polish conflicts in Volhynia during the mid-1940s. Please let me know if anyone objects. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the best solution and I support it. Tymek (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Against it. Why? There are twice as many Polish editors as Ukrainian working on the page.--Львівське (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: I've placed an HTML comment on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia:
You are allowed to make only ONE (1) revert every 24 hours. Violators of this rule may be blocked. 
Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Poeticbent reported by user:Faustian (Result: 1RR on the article)]] 
for more information.
King of ♠ 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this even enforceable? In spite of KoH's thoughtful addition of the warning to the HTML, it is still not visible to people editing by section and would be easily missed even by someone editing the article as a whole. Shereth 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this spammy enough? I am sitting on the fence on whether to speedily delete Silicon Storage Technology.[edit]

Please see Silicon Storage Technology. This company looks notable enough for an article, but this article's tone makes me want to speedily delete it. Could someone give a second opinion? I am sitting on the fence and need help making this decision. Please kill it on sight if you think it is spammy enough to overcome the need for an article on this company due to its notability.Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if you can't decide on whether or not an article meets speedy criteria, it is usually safer to say that it does not and refer it to AfD. The tone is fairly spammy, but I also notice that it has been around for a couple of years and some attempts have been made to improve it in the interim. The old saying at AfD is "When in doubt, don't delete", and the same really should apply to CSD. Shereth 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD started here. Tan | 39 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Premature AfD closers[edit]

In regards to this AfD. It was first closed prematurely a few days ago. Now it was closed 14 hours before it was supposed to, a 14 hour period added because the previous early closure which disrupted people's ability to respond.

The admin there closed it as no consensus, even though only 43% of those responding voted Keep, with one of them being a simple !vote and 2 being the editors of the page, which means an actual keep percentage being quote lower. Please see here for the mathematics.

However, the main complaint is this and this. One is a statement from hours ago which states that they already predetermined that it would be no consensus, even though there are more and more deletes with the only keeps coming in on things that were already debunked.

It also shows that the user closed the AfD with an admitted bias and predisposition. The worse of it is this statement: "I'm gonna' enjoy watching the drahmahz". I do not feel confident that the user is using tools in a way that can be trusted by the community and they have closed in an inappropriate manner that violates CoI. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The morons have more guns than you do Ottava, let it go. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I honestly want to know what Jimbo, Godwin, and the rest of the WMF feel about this issue and the manner people are treating this whole situation. This is a page that serves as nothing more than a mouth piece to allegations against one of our users. To be bluntly honest, I would want everyone connected to writing that page and in support of that page to receive a 24 hour block for WP:NPA violations. To repost those allegations without even a court trial on Wikipedia with a Wikipedian as subject, that is one of the most disrespectful and lowest things you could do to another Wikipedian. It is bad enough when it is done to anyone, but at least people could respect the people that they edit with and not stoop to such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Please just drop the issue, there wasn't a chance in hell of that AfD closing with a consensus either way, no matter how much canvassing you did (and still do) on IRC. Jeni (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because an argument is long and complex doesn't mean it doesn't show consensus. I think this was a premature, bad close. Of course, in full disclosure, I voted delete. But a close of "keep", after the full length it was supposed to run, would have been less troubling than this. Closing as "no consensus" was a lazy way out. Tan | 39 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
And dishonest. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Understandably, I disagree that "keep" would've been the proper close. I go agree that I took a lazy way out, however, because I believe a merger is probably the best course of action overall. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note that is not specific to this particular instance, AfDs are being closed early. I meant to post the following a while ago, but it was when editors were doing the "dramaout" so I feared there would not be a large response:

One minute into the day, there was only one open AfD that has been open seven full days. While I do not doubt our administrator's skill at determining consensus, I do not believe that ~80 AfDs were closed in less than a minute. What I want to know is why administrator's aren't honoring the fact that deletion discussions at AfD are supposed to last seven days. For some reason, this is turning into a race to close more discussions than any other administrator, and it is cutting in to the time that editors are supposed to be able to argue the fates of articles. Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. And that's sort of what I was getting at. Lifebaka, I don't mean any insult, and 99.9% of the time I support your actions. However, I have to say that this was one that should have been closed very late, if anything. Closing as "no consensus" prior to the deadline is a little illogical, no? Tan | 39 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't terribly mind if you revert my close (with links here and the related thread on my talk page, if you do, for transparency) but I don't believe that an additional 14 hours, 14 days, or even 14 weeks is likely to actually change the overall consensus. I'd be happy to amend my closing statement to state such explicitly, as I really should have when I closed it.
I agree that AfDs are being closed too early these days. This has lead me away from closing AfDs, since most of the time I head over to WP:AFDO it's empty. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no honesty or integrity here, so no real surprise. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Is anyone taking this to DRV? I'm heading out for a bit; if it's not at DRV when I get back I'll set one up. MIght as well continue the discussion there. Tan | 39 01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it will matter. If the page isn't cut, the OR wont be removed (I mean, come on, a page from 2007 being used as a reference? And most people say all of the references are great. Did they even read them?). The problem wont be fixed. It will just stay there with a huge section devoted to the allegations. The only way to stop this is to put an amendment to BLP which states "No allegations" - i.e. we can briefly state that there were allegations and of the general nature, but we cannot elaborate or reproduce what they state. That would effectively kill any of these pages, as there would be no "meat" to base the page on and make it seem bigger than what it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave to the side the issue of the National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts article and AfD and address the more general concern here. As others say above, AfDs are being closed too early. As someone who closes them from time to time I've noticed this, and it's something I've meant to bring up. Except in certain specific circumstances (a clear - as in very clear - WP:SNOW situation, a withdrawn nom and no real !delete votes left, etc.) AfDs should simply never be closed early. It is absolutely unnecessary. Either AfDs run 7 days or they don't. Having a deadline makes sense, because it means editors know they should be bringing in any additional information (more sources etc.) within a certain time frame. If we close 12 hours before the 7 days is up, why not close a day before? Or three? No 'crat would ever dream of closing a close RfA 12 hours early with a note saying, "at 80% so clearly going to pass," yet admins routinely shut down the AfD process early.
Why? It's hard to avoid the impression that it's because they want to close a lot of AfDs, and in order to do that you need to jump the gun. When it comes to controversial AfDs like the one discussed here, this happens quite often. Trigger happy admins sit around and can't wait to close the AfD that 200 editors commented on. This is where the real problem comes in (and I'm not saying the following is necessarily what happened in this situation with the National Portrait AfD). When it's all about being the first to close a given AfD (controversial or not), inevitably the focus will be on getting there first rather than getting it right. Most AfDs are not controversial and are easy to close, but even with those there is no godly reason to jump the gun before the 7 days are up other than wanting to be the person to close it. Clearly there is not a backlog problem (except for difficult AfDs, which can sit around), and therefore no need to get a head start. It makes no difference who closes an AfD so long as it's done well, and indeed it's probably desirable to have a number of admins closing a few AfDs rather than 2-3 closing basically all of them.
Personally I thonk we should say enough is enough. When I come across early AfD closures, I think I'll start making a point of asking the admins who close early to stop doing that when there is no reason to do so. I encourage other editors (admin or no) to do the same. If AfDs are supposed to run for seven days then lets let them run seven days (part of the irony of this is that the comment period was just extended by two days). You don't get extra ribbons on your admin buttons for closing the most AfDs on a given night, and we should be emphasizing that quality rather than speed is far more important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The nature of a wiki allows for each page, each discussion, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Yes, most discussions should run for 7 days, but there are many cases where forcing a discussion to run for 7 days is impractical, unproductive, and downright silly. WP:IAR outlines this quite nicely, I think. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:IAR is not a blanket policy. It cannot be applied to such a broad range of debates so arbitrarily. I cannot believe that out of say, 80 AfDs there are only five that are not "impractical unproductive, and downright silly" enough to close early. IAR is supposed to be applied with care on a case by case basis. Malinaccier (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. As you said, arbitrary rules can't be applied to extensive processes, which is why I believe universally enforcing the 7 day rule would be inappropriate. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that as long as there is activity and that there isn't an obvious snow (huge amounts of one side and nothing from the other), then an AfD should stay up for 7 days. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec, responding to Julian) I'm not sure that "forcing" a discussion to run for seven days is the right word here. You just let it sit there another 12 hours (or whatever)—you don't force anything. Could you outline examples of some of the "many" cases where closing before 7 days is a good idea such that we should invoke IAR, and where not closing early would be "impractical" (I find it extremely hard to believe that waiting a few more hours is impractical), etc. etc.? If there are really so many examples of that, should we not just toss out the 7 day guideline, since clearly if we follow that rule it often causes us to be "unproductive" and "silly?" I don't think you can just assert what you are asserting and toss WP:IAR into the mix, you need to explain why ignoring this particular rule (which again was specifically recently adopted since people thought 5 days was not enough time) is a good idea. As I said in my first comments there are times where an early closure makes sense (no one has said anything about "universally enforcing" the 7 day rule so that's a strawman best cast aside right now), but I'm not talking about things that end up getting speedied, SNOW closed, etc. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, as a general rule, there's no deadline. It is rarely going to hurt matters if an article is open for a few more hours or days while we have possibly have further discussion. Unless of course, one is worried that we need to rush to get this all done before the deadline. That said, I was under the impression that the extension from 5 to 7 days was made to deal with the early closes at 5 days. That is, we all knew we'd be getting closes this way at 5 or 6 days like the policy originally intended. So if we enforced the limits strictly we might then want to dial back to 5 or 6 days. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(also responding to Julian) I mean a rule such as IAR, a rule that has many possible consequences to its application, not a simple technical rule such as leaving AfDs open seven days. Malinaccier (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
@Bigtimepeace: An example would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikezie; CSD obviously doesn't apply and there was no landslide consensus, but it was a scenario where further discussion would be unproductive and inconclusive. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
@Malinaccier: Fair enough, but I still believe very few "rules" should be blindly applied. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This has come up twice before. Once here and once over at AFD talk Here's what I said in the latter discussion...

Ideally, debates should run for 7 days but an administrator (or other) should be free to evaluate discussions on the 7 day old log without worrying about the exact second it was opened. This is especially true if the discussion has enough comments to make a call but nothing for the last few days. However, I will say that it's a good idea to start from the bottom of the log because this is where the oldest discussions and most of the relisted discussions will be. I will also concede that a closer should be more mindful of the time (not just the date) the discussion was open if he plans to close "delete" or if one of the discussions close to the top is still drawing comments

This has been common practice for as long as I have been working at AFD. IMHO if closers were barred from touching AFDs until they appeared on "old" then a lot of debates would be open a lot longer then they need to be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguably the real problem at AfD these days is not unclosed AfDs hanging around, it's a lack of comments in AfDs. Articles are routinely relisted because only one or two other people (and sometime no one) besides the nom has weighed in on the matter, thus making it impossible to determine consensus.
Also there is apparently an existing consensus on this issue, already expressed on the AfD talk page in April, and I think we should abide by it unless there's been another conversation since then. In terms of the change to 7 days, discussed here, part of the rationale was that "AFDs should be extended to 7 days to gather more opinions and because some people can only access Wikipedia on weekends." Please note SilkTork's closing note in that thread, which said the extension closed with a "strong consensus," and that "To ensure the reasoning behind this proposal is carried out, early closures need to be discouraged." This was less than four months ago, so I think we still have a consensus to discourage early closures. Unless we want to "IAR" with respect to a fairly recent and strong consensus, I think we should respect the idea that AfDs should run for 7 days, with certain specific exceptions.
If people want to close an AfD on day 6 (assuming it's not a SNOW or other obvious early close), they'll need to explain why they're going against the consensus established in the earlier conversation about this very topic. Again, I think we should all collectively ask admins who do this kind of thing to refrain from doing so—it's not necessary, and no one has argued against the idea that it inevitably leads to a race to close AfDs, with quality at times suffering as a result. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
In practice, a policy that " debates should run for 7 days but an administrator (or other) should be free to evaluate discussions on the 7 day old log without worrying about the exact second it was opened. " will soon come to mean closing after 6 days. True, I don't worry about the actual seconds, but I do at least pay attention to hours (although I have once or twice been an hour off through miscalculation of time zones). DGG (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like add my voice to those who feel early AfD closures are a problem. If the guidelines say "at least 7 days", which they do, then debate should run at least 7 days - not 6d1h, 6d12, or 6d20h. The "rush to close" mentality currently found at AfD is seriously bothersome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(thread hijack) I haven't cruised by AfD in quite awhile, because it doesn't seem to need my help. But I can't help but notice we have almost month long backlogs at WP:PUI and WP:FFD, WP:CFD needs help as well. Not sure why people like AfD so much. We have quite a disproportion of admin tasks here. I'd like to encourage some AfD regulars to stand back, and try working on some of the other deletion discussions for a change. We shouldn't have early closings in one section, while a month goes by without a closure in another section. Really, what is the deal? -Andrew c [talk] 03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A very good point, which I say as someone very much guilty of not helping out with those backlogs. Obviously AfDs (and articles generally) are more high profile and therefore attract more admin attention, but that's not a great excuse, and I think your point is well taken that early AfD closes seem especially unwarranted when there are backlogs elsewhere. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jimbo Wales and Bishonen[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion relating to the above named parties. It may be viewed at WP:AC/N.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Tags a long term feature?[edit]

I remember seeing a discussion on tagging articles and another editor mentioned the Category:Articles needing additional references from June 2006 page [11] on a talk page. I think it's worth addressing whether these tags are helpful to our readers and whether there's a better way to include them and get articles fixed up. Is that discussion still active somewhere? Was it resolved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You might have better luck asking at the help desk or Village Pumps; this doesn't really have anything to do with administrators per se. FWIW, that page is only wikilinked from one user talkpage. Regards,  Skomorokh  07:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it go in the Policy, Technical, Proposals, or Miscellaneous section at the Village Pump? I've seen it said that Wikipedia is a MMORPG, but it seems more like a choose your own adventure book... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Policy (if you're interested in a formal change, or finding out what the prevailing consensus is) or Misc (if you're looking for an unstructured general discussion) I'd say. Good luck on the Garden of Forking Paths.  Skomorokh  08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. If only Garmin made a gadget to help me navigate the policy pages. My map and compass aren't helping much at all and I keep hitting dead ends where the story ends unsatisfactorily. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with Wikipedia??[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue for such problems. Please use Talk:Tripel or, if this fails, dispute resolution and the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards SoWhy 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
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.

I rewrote an article about tripel beer from Belgium using two books by Belgian authors (Jef van den Steen is a retired teacher who has spent over 30 years researching Belgian beer and Geert van Lierde is a well-known journalist who has written several popular books about beer. van den Steen's books include a lengthy bibliography.) I was therefore quite surprised to find that User:SilkTork (and Wikipedia adminstrator) had completely rewritten the article [12]. Since we have corresponded by email in the past, I asked why he had changed it. He wrote me: "The new version of the Tripel article is built on reliable sources. The old one contained mistakes, was inaccurate, and had few reliable sources." When I replied asking what the errors were, I got no answer.

Now, let's look at his reliable sources: a wine shop in San Francisco (, an American beer import company (, several amateur brewing sources and a couple of British beer writers, including Michael Jackson. However, I discovered that what Michael Jackson (a usually reliable source) had actually written ("I believe the first golden Triple was produced by the Three Lindens brewery, at Brasschaat, near Antwerp, in the post-war period, when brewers of strong, top-fermenting beers were trying to compete with Pilsener-style lagers." [13]) was different from what was written in the article ("The first golden strong pale ale which is associated with the term, was brewed by Hendrik Verlinden of the Drie Linden (Three Lindens) brewery in the early 1930s, when ale brewers were looking to compete with the pale lagers from Plzeň." I posted a third-opinion request [14] and several days later, to my shock, I read this: "I don't really see why a third opinion is needed here: there is no discussion, and there are three active editors here (so really an RfC or something else is better). Having said that, here's my take. SikTork's edits are very well done, and are a huge improvement over the previous version of the article." [15]

Does this mean a wine shop in San Francisco, amateur brewing groups and beer importers (all American, btw) are more reliable about the history of a Belgian beer than a Belgian scholar and journalist?

The new version of the article is complete fiction - there is hardly a single accurate statement in it. According to several Belgian books, for example, the beer produced by the Three Linden (Drie Linden) brewery was a dark beer, not golden/pale, and furthermore it is very doubtful it was a tripel. Secondly, the first sentence of the new article reads (in part): "Tripel (also Trippel) is a term used by brewers mainly in Belgium and the USA to describe..." In my country (the Netherlands), there are far more breweries (relatively speaking) producing a tripel (almost half the breweries in the country) than in the USA and Danish breweries also produce quite a few, yet neither country is mentioned. Also, tripel's are not all pale. For example, Het Kapittel Watou Prior and Achel 8 Bruin are both dark and tripels.

If Wikipedia is the place to publish fiction, nothing need be done. Otherwise the article needs to be reverted. But, be careful! User:Peterdjones, who I filed an admin notice about here [16] will tell you the article is accurate and, besides, accuracy is not necessary because "it's supported by consensus" (hint: it isn't, but even if it did, wouldn't WP:RS be more important?).

So, what is wrong with Wikipedia? Mikebe (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not an appropriate place for this comment. Please return to talk:tripel. 1Z (talk) 14:06, 5 August 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.

AfD needing some cleanup.[edit]

Can we get someone to cleanup the text-blocking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Takenouchi (2nd nomination). Two editors have added huge blocks of unformated text, which makes the discussion difficult to follow. --Farix (Talk) 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't an admin issue. (And personally, I didn't find it so difficult to follow that reformatting someone else's comments would be called for, but that's just me.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Places impacted by urban decay[edit]

Category:Places impacted by urban decay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Chocolatechipcookie91 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)

Can someone please look at this and the edit history of the creator and tell me if this qualifies as a CSD? It appears to be highly point of view motivated. Please take care of the procedures needed to delete if possible and let me know the best way to handle dubious categories as opposed to articles. Sswonk (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Was recreated multiple times by same user after being deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_26. User was previously given a final warning, and blocked for 48 hours following today's recreation. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALT text on a restricted template[edit]

I need an admin to add WP:ALT text to the two compasses at Template:Geographic Location based on feedback received at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive1 about's_Cycle_Center .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the alt text to be used at Template talk:Geographic Location#Accessibility support and add {{editprotected}} to the page. –xenotalk 02:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to use an image[edit]


Please allow to use the image File:Édouard-Henri Avril (29).jpg in the article trainfuck NSFW so that I can improve the article and prevent deletion. Thank you. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. - BanyanTree 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a ridiculously bad article. The references are just links to porn sites. It even has the classic line "But sometimes the roles are switched and bottoms become tops and tops give up their asses." - deary me. Can this just go or does it have to be AfD'd? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)



The above talk page seems to have got screwed up somehow. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC) OK, forget that, somebody's fixed it. Thanks to whoever that was. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I have just speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail (DC Comics) (2nd nomination). I want to flag the situation up since the article was nominated one day after a deletion debate had been closed as No consensus regarding the same article. The article had been nominated both times by TTN (talk · contribs), who has formerly been involved in arbitration cases, namely Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. TTN makes pertinent points regarding why he relisted in the deletion debate, but I do find myself concerned give the user's past history. I offer up both my close of the debate and the swift renomination for review and comment, given my concern and also the possibility that such concern has biased me. Hiding T 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The remedies for EnC 2 have long since elapsed, so my first comment is that something shouldn't be closed simply because TTN opened it. It was probably right to be closed, though it didn't meet any speedy keep criteria. I'm pretty unhappy to see all the old warhorses dragged out again on these AfDs...kind of reminds me why I left that whole part of the 'pedia. IMO you haven't done anything wrong, hiding. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    zee problem is TTN has imediately returned to what got him sanctioned in the first place.©Geni 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    Remedy 1 had a time limit; Remedy 2 did not. Remedy 2 directed the parties in conflict "to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." If TTN's current editing practices have violated this direction, there are two courses of action -- returning to Arbcom for enforcement action, or developement of a community sanction. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    Except interested parties have repeatedly sought clarification on remedy 2's applicability to TTN's AfD crusade (of sorts) and been told, variously, that it didn't apply. Protonk (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete "article"Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground is only a policy, not a reality ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    and which way would you personally prefer to have it? DGG (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    I would prefer it if more editors where here to build a respectable encyclopaedia rather than having no idea what the distinction between that and a fansite might be. That's the core issues. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What do we discriminate against? Fanwank. Cruft. Swamps of plot summary. Disruptive editors who are vision impaired. Inappropriate content should be removed Mercilessly. Wikia can have the inappropriate content; they can have the editors who are primarily interested in such content, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    Do you create quality articles Jack? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There should not be a time limit for renominating for a no-consensus closure, as "no consensus" is emphatically not "keep". Anything that can get a definite consensus one way or the other is better. Sceptre (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd agree, but offer that would that to be the case, we should simply not close discussions until consensus has been reached. A re-nomination one day after the closure of the previous discussion is always bound to seem "off", for want of a better word, and in all my time on Wikipedia there's been an assumption that a month is a "reasonable", for want of a better word, period between afd nominations. And since consensus can change, it's always hard to pin down exactly what a "definite" consensus is. I'm sure you'd agree a page for which a consensus to keep has emerged can later be nominated for deletion. I think a lot of the time it is about that collegiate atmosphere we are supposed to enjoin in. It involves us thinking to ourselves, well that was a really dumb decision, but perhaps the right time to mention that would be in a couple of weeks rather than right now. Or do we disregard the idea that politeness, good faith, civility and eventuality are the oil which keeps the engine of collaboration working? Is it better to get the right result with the "least" amount of fuss or the "most" amount of fuss? A perusal of the second debate shows it descending into typical "farce". Waiting a month may have avoided feeding some of the "actors" a pre-prepared "script", if you catch my drift. Like I said, TTN made pertinent points in the debate, but the speed with which the article is nominated forces the debate on to different ground. I'm wondering if the pertinent points would be better able to breathe if they were made in a month or so, and that such a wait might also remove any concerns regarding TTN's behaviour such as the ones I found myself pondering and which led to this discussion in the first place. Hiding T 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Consensus can change, but it tends not to do so in the blink of an eye unless you have some very persuasive arguments. Certainly repeat nominations can happen, but doing so immediately seems unwise, and very likely to be a waste of both time and breath -- hardly fair to those involved in those discussions if they have to keep going at it day in, day out. If the closure is inappropriate, that's a different thing, but at this rate the discussion might as well not have been closed at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This really does seem disruptive at best, isn't there a Magic 8-ball page about gaming the system until you get your preferred outcome is wrong? If this editor has been active for a while in this one area and they were encouraged by Arbcom to work toward a more equitable long-term consensus then this really would seem counter to that. Instead of working toward solutions it seems like a campaign to simply remove items one doesn't like which may or may not actually help the overall situation. Relying on outside wikis to be the repository only works if we are sure which information actually is or isn't encyclopedic. Frankly it's either on Wikipedia or it's not - we shouldn't expect anyone else to hold stuff we might think is worthy, it's either kept or not. With a lot of these articles as well mergers into lists with redirects would be acceptable routes but the adversarial approach hinders consensus-building to do that. It takes work to dialog and hear each other and it takes more work to merge or listify than delete. If TTN is unwilling or unable to play nice and try to make that happen then maybe they should take a break and get some perspective. If they are frustrated likely others are as well. -- Banjeboi 10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why this automatically has to be me forcing my view. Has anyone actually taken a good look at the first one? The first two days were slow, with one delete and one comment from A Nobody stating that there are other topics with the same name as Salvation, Texas, the second article in the nomination. A Nobody then should have either waited for the article to be deleted, or just have created separate articles, but he did not do that at all. Instead, he combined all three topics inappropriately, which lead to an obvious keep for that article. Afterward, the article was split, and the original content was easily removed and forgotten, which means that it would have been deleted had he not done that.

That whole mess overshadowed Grail (DC Comics), and if you look at the AfD, the number of delete and merge comments outweigh the keep arguments both in numbers and the actual weight of their arguments. That seems like a perfectly good reason to nominate Grail separately. People have mentioned DRV, but I have never seen anything like this last more than five minutes before being closed as an inappropriate venue (only fifth nomination BLP articles are ever dealt with there), and please do not even attempt to recommend discussion on a talk page. If you have dealt with fiction, you will know that dead articles never receive anything past two comments. Basically, if there is even a need for a discussion like this, it should be about A Nobody using fairly underhanded editing to force a keep, even though he couldn't have cared less about the content. TTN (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments on two separate issues:
    • Regarding previous Arbitration, there was also the declined E&C3 (Jan 2009): Request to amend Full case
    • Regarding DRV, no consensus closures are particularly difficult to overturn, but I think there's enough here for a reasonable discussion. Relist as new AfD is also a possible, though unlikely, outcome.
      Flatscan (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - to get back to Hiding's original point, I must have misread that bit at the end of the original AfD, where DGG and other arch deletionists noted the merits of renominating separately based on the divergence of sources available to the original articles in question. In the highly unlikely event that such a discussion did in fact take place it would then appear that, yes, Hiding, you did act rather inappropriately - not only in closing as you did, but further in imputing as you have the motives of the nomination since reasonable grounds had been provided in the first go-round to separate out the nomination into individual AfDs. However, what's done is done, so the best outcome here is to admonish User:Hiding to act more responsibly in the future. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't recall outlining anywhere what I had "imputed" the motives of the nomination to be, whatever that means, but take the thrust of your criticism on board. My only wish was to try and cut drama off at the outset and work out from there. As I said when I brought the thing here, TTN raised pertinent points regarding why he relisted in the deletion debate. Any "imputation" has as much to do with reactions to anything TTN does as much as to anything TTN does. The second debate was becoming somewhat "unhelpful", and rather than see that develop along such an "unhelpful" path, I thought it might be better to take a step back. As to what the first debate debated, there's a wonderful "smorgasbord" of opinion raised within it, such that any potential outcome could be viable, and it doesn't logically lend to a swift, unchallenged renomination. If it did, the original closer would have closed according to that consensus. But I take on board the advice that sometimes I don't get it right, even if I try to do so for the best of reasons, and I thank you for your feedback. It's a shame you imputed my motives so incorrectly too, but then... Hiding T 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Need to add e-mail to account for Password Recovery[edit]

Hello, I am unable to log into my account and it says that I did not register an e-mail address to have a new password sent to when I created the account. My account is now 7 years old and I have made a few contributions with it that I don't want to lose. Per meta:Privacy policy#Discussions I would like to request that an e-mail address be added to my account so that I may recover my password. How can I contact an admin to go about this? (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is server level stuff. An administrator can't do that. Also, if you've left this account unused for seven years, just make a new one and move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've used the account for 7 years, not left it sitting... I've only been away from wikipedia for about 3-4 weeks and now I'm unable to log in. How can I contact someone who can handle server level stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh. That makes more sense. I am still not sure of the proper channel to request assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The history of the account does not die, and is available to you and everyone else. I suppose contacting one of the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats would be worthwhile. They would know if you can be aided or not, or what avenue, if any, is available. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The only people who can add an email address to your account or reset the password for you are the developers. You will also need to be able to verify your identity in some way, for example, have you emailed someone in the past who can verify that your account really belongs to you and that you are the person you claim you are. I would probably start with the Functionaries mailing list, Thatcher 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Single IP Lookup[edit]

Single IP Lookup is a tool that I just finished, it combines about four lookups that are needed when looking into IPs. Feel free to use and abuse it. if you have any other feature requests or tool requests please let me know. It does Whois, local block log, current Global and local blocks affecting a giving IP. βcommand 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice to have a location function, see for an example, for when a location is needed say for a suicide or violence threat. Otherwise, good tool :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 00:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for a good geoIP tool. but I cant find one that can be read via script. βcommand 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There is this. Not sure if you can put that in script or not, but it does have a search box on the parent site and gives a Google Maps view of where the IP comes from. Not sure if that helps or not. -