Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive205

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Minaret controversy in Switzerland[edit]

I think some administrative chaperoning is needed for the above article and its talk page. In the last few days the article and its talk page have been the target of possible sockpuppetry (e.g. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AntaineNZ), soapboxing and the use as a political discussion forum (e.g. [1][2]) and something close to edit warring. My impression is that the article needs a close chaperoning by at least one admin (preferably more than one) since things look pretty volatile there. I am semi-retired, not an admin and I am not particularly interested in this article and don't really want to continue editing this article and its talk page myself, but I do believe that the article needs close supervision for a while for various types of disruptive behavior. Nsk92 (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep reverting me, but are unable to back up your claims, so you are also being disruptive.--Rabka Uhalla (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Rabka has been indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland_not_neutral. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

question[edit]

How do I delete an article. Is there a place where I can see all the codes that I can use in articles, like to bold stuff for example? MoodFreak (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If the deletion is non-controversial, use {{prod}}. Otherwise follow the instructions at WP:AFD. More info on this including text formatting is at Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing and Help:Wiki markup. Equazcion (talk) 20:27, 6 Dec 2009 (UTC)
To clarify further: you cannot delete an article yourself (only admins can do that), but you can nominate it for deletion as described by Equazcion above. See WP:DELETE for more details on the process. The process can appear find intimidating at first, so feel free to approach any experienced editor on their talk pages and explain in plain words which page you want deleted and why, and they'll be able to help you. Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued Incivility by Dapi89[edit]

Moved to AN/I where it belongs [3] <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed for a quick fix on moved pages.[edit]

Resolved:  – ukexpat (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I just made a few silly mistakes, which I was hoping an administrator could solve. I attempted to move the page of the album UGK (Underground Kingz) to Underground Kingz, since that is the album's actual name—UGK is actually the group that made the album. While proceeding to complete the move, however, I accidentally typed UUnderground Kingz. To make matters worse, I then actually moved "UGK (Underground Kingz)" to "Underground Kingz", even though by then it was a mere redirect to "UUnderground Kingz".

Hence now "UGK (Underground Kingz)" redirects to "Underground Kingz", which redirects to "UUnderground Kingz", where the actual article is now located. And of course, now I cannot move the content back to its intended page, "Underground Kingz". I was wondering if someone could fix this.

Thanks, and sorry for all those "Underground Kingz" in this text :) Do U(knome)? yes...or no 04:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved UUnderground Kingz to Underground Kingz, to which UGK (Underground Kingz) redirects. If we're only talking about one actual article, then I think that's everything in the right place, though all those "Underground Kingz" are a little confusing! Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is perfect. Thanks again! Do U(knome)? yes...or no 07:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
No problem, glad to help. For future issues like this, you might get a faster response using {{adminhelp}} on your talk page. Regards,  Skomorokh  08:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting closure of AfD for Waka Flocka Flame[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved: meh. --Jayron32 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This AfD (link) has been open for 10 days, and I believe that a consensus has been reached. Can someone close this for me? Dalekusa (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this cannot await the end of the relisting period? Tim Song (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I did not know about the relisting period. Can you explain to me what this is? Dalekusa (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted AFDs generally stay open for another 7 days. Though they can be closed before that if consensus has been reached. But what's so special about this one that justifies an AN post? Tim Song (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, withdrawn for now. I'll request again on Saturday if it hasn't been closed yet. Dalekusa (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Defying an AFD decision[edit]

Resolved

the policy question wasn't resolved but a practical resolution of this article has been! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that if an AFD decided as a keep, it is a blockable offense if an editor blanks out a page and adds "F--K YOU, THIS PAGE IS HEREBY DELETED".

If an AFD is decided as a deleted, it is also blockable disruption if an editor constantly recreates the article.

We have an incident where the administrator decided that a merge would take place. The decision was not challenged in deletion review. The merge decision appears fairly reasonable and not a rash decision. If one disputes the merge, they can't say that the closing administrator was way off base. The deciding administrator is in law school and has a template saying that they can't edit much, hence discussion with that person is not feasible.

I implemented the closing administrator's decision by merge but it has been completely removed. I have little stake in either a delete or merge but I do have a stake in upholding Wikipedia order and rules. If we are lawless, then Wikipedia suffers.

Here are the diffs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asa_Seeley

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Baltimore_%28MARC_station%29&action=historysubmit&diff=330329802&oldid=330289481

Should we uphold the AFD or make a mockery of AFD and defy the decision. Please advise. I am taking a neutral position on the inclusion or exclusion of the merged material but I take a position that Wikipedia rules and process should be followed absent an overriding reason. My initial feeling is that an administrator should re-insert the merged material and direct the editor to deletion review. If necessary with multiple removal of merge material, the page should be temporarily page protected with the merged material in and a referral to deletion review made to the proponents of deletion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I happened across this, but I am actually involved and will comment accordingly. I originally removed the material to which Suomi Finland refers. It was previously merged per this AfD, but that was back in February of 2009. The AfD has extremely low participation, with one supporting a merge, two supporting delete, and one wanting to keep. Also it was closed over 10 months ago. I doubt the closing admin, MBisansz, cares much what happens with this now, and simply because something was merged once does not mean it has to stay in an article forever—obviously that goes against the whole spirit of how Wikipedia works. It's also important to point out that after I removed this material I started a talk page discussion where two other editors also said it should be removed. That's where the discussion should continue as this is a content issue and not something requiring admin intervention. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
A couple of points (edit conflict, so probably some repetition with BTP):
  • MBisanz was actively editing as of a half hour ago; we can perhaps wait for him to chime in after all.
  • "Merge" decisions in AFD discussions are fuzzy; I'm quite confident that MBisanz didn't mean to imply that his decision was the final say on the content of the target article for all time (the AFD was last February).
  • It seems, with a year's hindsight, that consensus on the talk page at Talk:West Baltimore (MARC station) is to remove all the information. If you disagree, that talk page is the place to go, not here.
  • If the material stays removed, the redirect should be deleted; right now, it's disorienting to go to a page with no info on the subject of the redirect. I've never done WP:RFD, so I'll have to do a little light reading before nominating it (also, curious what MBisanz has to say).
--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The redirect cannot be deleted, even if the merged content has been removed, since it is still visible in the page history. See WP:Merge and delete and WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I'll look into the merge and tag the pages appropriately. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a conceptual problem with "merge" decisions generally. The thing is, they often have no input from people involved with the "target" page; those editors may well feel it's inappropriate to cover the topic in that article, for one reason or another. So, we have a discussion among people who don't edit a page, saying "This third article should contain the following content - X".
Understandably, this doesn't usually work out well. It's a bit weird to say that the discussion is somehow binding and supercedes what the editors of that page themselves think; we don't have a process to vote that a bit of content should go in and stay in. The best approach, in these circumstances, is to make sure there's a copy of the "merged" material on the discussion page, and start working from there. Edit-warring it in, going to DRV, etc, seems a bit disproportionate. Shimgray | talk | 00:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The situation of the station is unchanged from February so the AFD decision is still valid. The process should go to Deletion Review. After that, the process can be speedy and, if overturned, the merged material can be thrown away. Another possibility is to make an exception and "revote" or do an AFD again on the convicted felon. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of a bureaucratic solution for a website that tries (and occasionally even succeeds) to not be a bureaucracy. What is it exactly that you don't like about using Talk:West Baltimore (MARC station)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems completely out of process because it defies the AFD administrator. If a partial removal of material is desired, the talk page is logical. If it is to gut the entire AFD decision, then deletion review seems to be the logical route. It is not bureaucratic. It is logical and orderly. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(mucho edit conflicts) Just want to second Floquenbeam's point about the Asa Seeley redirect. Assuming the material on that person stays out of the article about a train station (and it's impossible to exaggerate the extent to which I think that is the right decision, my comment at Talk:West Baltimore (MARC station) explains why), we do need to delete that redirect, and I'll offer a mea culpa here in terms of being a bit sloppy and not thinking about that when I deleted the content. I'm fairly certain the redirect would not be a speedy candidate, so an RfD would be necessary. MBisanz has been informed of this discussion so perhaps he can weigh in here and then we can proceed accordingly, preferably away from this page in the near future since it isn't necessarily the place for this.
Also to Suomi Finland, if you are going to hold that position consistently then you would be arguing that no material that was at one time merged per an AfD can ever be deleted. Obviously that's not a tenable position, which is kind of the key point. Had the material been deleted two weeks after the AfD that's one thing, but it was 10 months ago, and you are the only one so far who has a problem with it's removal. You might help your case by at least explaining (on the article talk page) why you think an article about a train station should discuss a guy who was there one time and somebody thought he threatened the president but then it turns out he didn't do that (that's literally what we are talking about here). In so doing you would want to avoid process wonkery like "that was the AfD consensus" and instead just explain why you think that makes sense in terms of making West Baltimore (MARC station) a good article, and in terms of a BLP policy which would suggest that we should not talk about people simply because they were accused of something but then it turns out they didn't do it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If the West Baltimore article is changing and growing, then eventually the material merged might be unsuitable. However, the article is not much changed from February so the decision still holds. It is possible that the best decision was 1. merge, 2. keep, 3. delete. By merging then defacto deleting, this is potentially wrong.
What is so difficult to do a deletion review request? Just explain why you disagree to the merge and advocate either keep or delete? By being orderly, Wikipedia wins. Anarchy and deliberate rule breaking (absent a good reason) is not so good. If you start a deletion review, I can chime in and support not a merge. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Because DRV takes a week and means that dozens of editors will look at a situation that they absolutely do not need to look at (and that's already happening right now right here). In other words it's a highly unnecessary waste of time. How about we wait for MBisansz to comment here, and if he is okay with the status quo (i.e. the merged material having been deleted) then you agree to drop the matter since no one else is complaining. If he asks that the material be reinstated per his AfD close then you go ahead and do that and maybe someone will start a DRV. Does that work? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As painful as this might be now, it's actually the best thing. It can decide what to do if the target of the merge object. Maybe it should go back to AFD so a 2nd choice can be decided, merge or delete? The Notability (news events) discussion took several weeks (just finished recently) so discussing it here for 1/4 of a day is not too much! Besides, there are no die-hard proponents here. I don't object to anything about West Baltimore, just would like to see an orderly process. Peace man, Bigtimepeace! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
ZOMG this a long screen of text to read. So a merge means the original article no longer exists, but in the interests of WP:PRESERVE it would make sense to put some information elsewhere. If it is later decided elsewhere to get rid of that information, that is 100% fine. Is there some large issue I am missing here? MBisanz talk 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a larger issue. The target of the merge (that article) is essentially unchanged from before. If that article was entirely re-written, then it makes sense that most of the merged part could be removed. However, just a few minor edits have been made and then the opponents of the AFD want to remove it. At least, they should consult with the community and the others of the AFD. It is possible that keep might be better than delete (Merge > Keep > Delete) so if the people don't want a merge, then a possible decision could be made to Keep. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I like to resolve things. So I will be bold and notify others so that we can peacibly merge the contents and then delete that contents so that the AFD is essentially a delete decision. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the last message Suomi, but please just let this go. The closing admin is fine with the current situation as I predicted. There is nothing more to be done, unless you want to discuss the issue on the article talk page. We do not do process for the sake of process, and that seems to be all that is at stake here. No offense but I'm done commenting on this matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a larger issue, though this is not the place to discuss it. I'm more used to being involved in similar discussion, in other areas such as fiction. We have 2 contradictory practices: that merges and redirects are matters for normal editing, and not questions of deletion, but on the other hand they are among the possible closes for an AfD, discussed during afds, and very often resorted to as compromises. We try to accommodate this with the basic current rule is that a AfD decision can give a very strong but not binding recommendation of a merge or redirect. The key reason why that rule does make some sense is that a merge or redirect can be reverted by any editor, and an admin has no special prerogative for it. However, it not infrequently happens that someone pursues the obviously unfair tactic of trying to remove material when they know they could not get consensus for deletion by first merging, and then removing the material. Trying to do this is not editing in good faith, and if we have no specific rule against it, then IAR is certainly applicable. However, for one person to try to delete, and another to edit out the material not in the context of the original AfD can be in perfectly good faith as it is here, and another discussion, as agreed to, is the way to deal with this particular case. We still need to deal with the basic problem--not that I have any idea except to centralizing all contested merge and redirect discussions, which would essentially double the AfD-type work and is not at all an ideal solution DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

New CCI[edit]

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Aiman abmajid - 14 pages going back to 2005, relating to Malaysian roads. Have fun. MER-C 03:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy violation in fawiki[edit]

Hi. Recently two users in fawiki have deviated the discussion of an article for deletion. One of them linked an insulting text - written by somebody else - in that discussion page, after debating that the weblogger whose article was to be deleted and people like her are so important that their name should be remained in the history. These users want to link the insulting page in one of the articles in fawiki. Neither discussing on remaining in the history nor linking the insulting page in the second article was related to the article in deletion. Besides, the second act is against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If two users in the english wikipedia deviate the discussion page of an article for deletion in this way, do the wikipedians permit them to violate the wikipedia policies? Unfortunately, the two users continue to do so. What is the wikipedia policy for these users? Javanbakht (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the English Wikipedia administrators would have authority over the Farsi Wikipedia? Durova371 16:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not the impression I got. It could be read simply as a user's asking advice on what our policy would be in such an event, to take that over to fa.wikipedia.org to help form a like response. Though we of course have no jurisdiction over there, it's naïve to think that—as by far the most prominent *.wikipedia.org—our actions and policies and experience can't help the younger derivatives. The brusque response this user received did us no credit. Steve T • C 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it brusque to inquire? People do come here occasionally asking en:wiki to adjudicate other wikis, and occasionally en:wiki admins go to participate in other wikis without learning the local policies (AFDs at Commons, for instance). Over at Commons where I am sysopped that's created quite a backlash; there are fellow Commons admins who don't even want to hear what's happened at en:wiki even if it's actually relevant. The wording of the query is ambiguous; a polite request for clarification seems appropriate. Durova371 00:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ack, sorry. With that last comment in my post, I was making a more general point about the short response and then the thread being hit with a resolved tag. My indents probably gave a false impression about to whom I was responding; I was only in part referring to your comment—which I initially read as a brush-off, though I should have seen it as a reasonable request for clarification, as you say. Steve T • C 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Removed resolve tag per your comment. Durova371 00:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Without getting into the meat of the complaint I do wish to offer some general warning. While WP:BLP is a local version of foundation policy, advice which admins or editors offer on the english wikipedia may be drawn more from our norms and customs than any broad guidance or best practice. Those local norms may be good or bad, but they are certainly an imperfect fit for another project. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Like many smaller wiki's fawiki mirrors en's rules and polices (at least they frequently seek guidence here) so basically we have a request for clarity. To answer the question, we would not generally allow a BLP violation in an AFD and, in fact, an editor here was blocked for a month recently for just that. Violating material would be expunged and if necessary the deletion debate would be restarted. Of course,not knowing the full facts and the exact circumstances we don't know if that would apply to this case as it depends on the degree of violation and the wider circumstances. Of course, the local consensus and admins make the final decision. To be honest this smells a bit of appealing to authority in a content dispute so the real issue is the exact degree of violation and local admins can make that call. Spartaz Humbug! 03:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The administrators of fawiki are engaged to block the misusers there. The problem has been solved. So, we don't need any administrator of the english wikipedia. Javanbakht (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I now contribute at RealClimate?[edit]

  • Resolved: GoRight appears satisfied with the feedback (Even the parts which conflated community with Arbcom :P) Protonk (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please see the discussion on Wizardman's talk page, [4], and his reply, [5].

What I seek here is a brief discussion amongst independent administrators as to whether it would be considered acceptable for me to contribute at RealClimate so long as I otherwise honor my editing restriction as it relates to William M. Connolley, not to be confused with User:William M. Connolley.

What do others here think? Would contributions there which are unrelated to William M. Connolley be considered a violation of my current editing restrictions? --GoRight (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  • How could we possibly confuse William M. Connnoley with the user of the same name? It's not as if they are the same person or anything. Oh, wait, they are. Leave it to other people, there is virtually no chance of your editing there without causing a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as an independent administrator, I have to agree with 100% with Guy on this. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I would go find some other articles that need help. As Guy and Krazilec have noted, if you have problems dealing with William M. Connolley the editor, then editing articles related to him as a person or projects he as a person has worked on seems like a generally bad idea. Wikipedia has other editors besides you, and others can fix these articles as needed. Seeking out articles about Connolley to work on, after you have been in a conflict with him, seems like WP:POINT-making of the worst kind. Just avoid them entirely and the Wikiworld will be a better place. --Jayron32 04:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, please familiarize yourself with the history of the case before making unfounded assumptions. Neither do I have a problem dealing with William M. Connolley the editor, nor am I seeking out articles about William Connolley the real world person to work on. Quite the opposite, in fact, which is precisely why I am asking the question here in an open forum. My reasons for wanting to contribute to RealClimate are wholly unrelated to William Connolley. Indeed, as I have indicated above, I recognize that if I were to make edits related to William Connolley the real world person I would obviously be in violation of my restriction. --GoRight (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, others please note, that Guy and Jayron32 are not neutral players in this particular context since we have crossed paths before. --GoRight (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? When have we ever crossed paths? It must not have been significant, because I don't ever remember it. --Jayron32 05:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I know that I recall your name from somewhere but I can't recall exactly where and it doesn't seem worth the time to go digging around to find it. In any event, I acknowledge that any such interaction was more in line with having had the opposite POV on something rather than having had some nasty history. In the interests of time, I shall simply strike my claim above and apologize for my confusion.
More to the point, are you aware of any specific reason(s) that the RealClimate article should be considered a "William Connolley-related" page? --GoRight (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I should have copied the actual wording of the edit restriction here for easier reference. From WP:Editing restrictions you will find:

"GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley."

The distinction is not mine. It is explicitly worded into the editing restriction that was voted upon. I am perfectly free to interact with and discuss things regarding User:William M. Connolley. My restriction is only on editing pages related to the article William M. Connolley. During the discussion that led to the editing restriction it was argued that RealClimate was one such page at the time, presumably because of his association with that blog.

Since he is obviously no longer associated with the blog, is there any real reason to prevent me from contributing to the RealClimate article? Note that my restriction does not explicitly forbid such, I was just being extra cautious in honoring my restriction.

If you feel that there is some rationale remaining for considering RealClimate to be a "William Connolley-related" page can you please articulate it here? --GoRight (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For those of us less familiar with the case, could someone explain how RealClimate is linked to William Connolley? I'm not aware of the details of the history here, and a brief refresher might be helpful here.
On the question at hand, I'd be inclined to recommend a 'no' to GoRight. GoRight has a history of on-wiki conflict with William Connolley, GoRight was blocked just last week for edit warring on another climate-related article, and the RealClimate article appears to be the site of some intense editing already and I doubt that lining up additional adversaries will help it. While I'm sure that there are policy wonks who will analyze the semantics of the ArbCom restriction to death, I'm satisfied to answer the important question – Will the encyclopedia be improved if GoRight is allowed to edit this article? – in the negative. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
By way of full disclosure, TOAT and I have also crossed paths in the past and he is typically closely aligned with WMC so this response is not particularly surprising to me. For example, Will the encyclopedia be improved if GoRight is allowed to edit this article? – in the negative is most likely a reflection of TOAT's POV vs. mine on many topics as opposed to a direct response to the question at hand. This is just another example of minority views being suppressed, at least IMHO. No offense to TOAT is intended by this statement.
"For those of us less familiar with the case, could someone explain how RealClimate is linked to William Connolley?" - I have exactly the same question actually. This is the primary question I am seeking a response to. I was never clear myself on why RealClimate should be considered as being a "William Connolley-related" page. When I asked for clarification in the in the original discussion, none was forthcoming. The only connection between the two seems to be that at one time he was a contributor there, but as we see he now disclaims any further association with that blog. --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me approach this topic from a slightly different angle. I seek a community consensus one way or the other on the following:

Is there any reason that anyone here is aware of to consider RealClimate to be a "William Connolley-related" page such that it should be considered to be part of my editing restriction as shown above? --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The history here, as I can tell, is that MastCell asked WMC not to edit the RC article, since he had a conflict of interest there. WMC replied that he was no longer connected with the site. (See User_talk:William_M._Connolley#RealClimate, User_talk:LVAustrian#Real_Climate_dispute, User_talk:MastCell#COI.3F and this). Now there are various ways to parse WMC's "non-connection" and WP:COI (which is, when it comes down to it, guideline not policy). But the issue of whether William should be editing the RC article is beside the point. GoRight is topic-banned from articles related to WMC, and his eagerness to edit the RC article strikes me as a cause for concern. Obviously I'm not an uninvolved observer here, but GoRight's edit history makes me inclined to err on the side of caution. Guettarda (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    "his eagerness to edit the RC article strikes me as a cause for concern" - A reasonable concern under the circumstances, I guess, but again I am still prevented from discussing William Connolley the real world person in any such edits. That much is obvious. Why should I be restricted from participating in discussions related to be blog itself? And note that just because I am here seeking opinions up front in furtherance of my due diligence related to my editing restriction that does not imply that I am particularly "eager" to edit there. Please don't use the fact that I am trying to be up front and open here as an excuse to extend my editing restriction to places it was never intended to be used (i.e. regarding the blog itself). --GoRight (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, the "eagerness" I was talking about was your comment on MastCell's page. I appreciate the fact that you brought this here. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikilawyer answer: You should not edit RealClimate, because it is historically related to William Connolley because Connolley used to regularly blog there (As far as I understand from some of the links above; apologies if I have misunderstood). Realpolitik answer: You should not edit RealClimate, because it can only get you -- and by extension other people who would have to deal with the fallout -- into trouble. I understand it is theoretically possible to edit one page without mentioning the other, but I see no compelling reason to interpret the restriction narrowly instead of broadly and test the theory. For similar reasons, I'd say User:William M. Connolley should still avoid, or tread very lightly when editing the article, as I believe he could give the appearance of still having a COI, even if the affiliation is in the past. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your thoughtful response. --GoRight (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm in agreement with what Floquenbeam had to say. While I don't know the history of problems that led to the restriction, at this stage, avoiding grey areas is best. Shell babelfish 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm an uninvolved party here, and no, you should not edit RealClimate. Whether WMC is now involved in the website is irrelevant for our purposes; he was significantly involved in its history, and as such he is inextricably involved in the page. Thus, the RealClimate page remains a WMC-related article for your restriction. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll try to offer the "anti-wikilawyer" answer. It appears that arbcom set the restriction in that fashion as a means to avoid the first mover advantage inherent to "mutual topic bans". In other words, you are banned from WMC articles but not User:WMC articles largely because this would create an incentive for you (and him) to get to a topic/article first in order to exclude the other. Not saying that either of you do this, just that the incentive is there (and baked into the restriction). As such, we might imagine that arbcom would have preferred you and he not interact generally, but couldn't (or didn't want to) write a restriction to that effect. My suggestion (agreeing with floquent, largely) is that you not edit the article. My broader suggestion (which you are free to disregard) is that you not edit AGW articles writ large--but that is another issue and I'm not entirely "uninvolved" on the subject. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Neither you nor William have any business editing that page. Him because of COI and you because if your ban applies to any page other than William Connolley it would be RealClimate. Oren0 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


One small clarification for some of the comments above, my ban is community imposed not a result of an Arbcom decision ... not that the distinction matters for this discussion.

I think that this is enough feedback for now. I want to thank you all for taking the time to respond. While I reserve the right to raise this issue again in the future and/or to appeal the issue to Arbcom at some point, I can accept the collective input that the best course of action for everyone is for me to continue to avoid RealClimate.

If someone would be so kind as to mark this discussion closed it would be much appreciated. --GoRight (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Arbitration Committee Elections reminder: last week of voting[edit]

This is a short note to remind all interested editors that the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee is still open for voting. The voting period opened on 1 December and will close on 14 December 2009 (next Monday) at 23:59 UTC.

The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). A list of votes is kept at the real-time voting log, and a separate list of voters is maintained on an on-wiki log. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage.

There are twenty-candidates standing in the election, from whom nine arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Follow this link to cast your vote

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  08:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigation notice[edit]

Another CCI has been opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Aiman abmajid that involves I don't know how many hundreds of articles. It broke the software that makes the pretty numbered dividers. The list it originally generated was 3,000 kb, though after removal of articles which only involved minor edits it came down to 14 pages of article lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Closures needed at featured picture candidates[edit]

There are currently 17 discussions overdue for closure at featured picture candidates. A helping hand would be really appreciated. Durova373 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

3 steps to close as unpromoted vs. 12 steps to close a promoted image... I think a script needs to be written, or some changes in the promotion steps to make it less complicated. Then more admins would be apt to helping out. :-) Killiondude (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Image moved[edit]

Hello I have moved the image File:Ruins of the Smallpox Hospital 2007.jpg to commons can someone please delete the one here? Thank you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

Why is my article about the donation target amount treated as vandalism?

I created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_does_wikipedia_need_7.5_million and suddently my article was marked as vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iformacio (talkcontribs) 07:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your article contained only the following words:"Seriously? If it's a non-profit and exists because of user contributions, does it really costs 7.5 million to mantain it? The amount sounds unreasonable. I hope someone has an answer to this one.". It failed to meet any of the criteria for an encyclopedic article. It was deleted because it was not an article in any sense of the word. Redvers 07:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

JL 09[edit]

I am seeking neutral comments regarding an expansion of the "History" section of the "Philippines" article, and I feel that the aforementioned user doesn't get it. I have filed a Request for Comment seeking outside comments from uninvolved users and this user's current involvement violates etiquette. Could anyone sanction this user?--124.104.35.184 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that I have strong suspicions that this IP user is a sock of banned user User:23prootie based on the contributions and asking for sanctions against JL 09, a user that 23prootie was involved with and whose last sock was blocked as 124.104.42.21 (talk · contribs). I'm filling an SPI when I get the time hopefully resulting in another rangeblock. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, SPI already filled. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Elockid's involvement here should be treated as a personal attack and trolling since he had past disagreements with this 23prootie that are clouding his judgment and is beginning to attack new users. --124.104.35.184 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. Plaxico strikes again. MuZemike 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How come this IP user knew that Elockid has past disagreements with 23prootie? I never met any user other than 23prootie that uses the word troll most of the time, especially that the troll he is using is not appropriate to the situation he is saying. How did he knew that Elockid is making personal attack, citing a policy?--JL 09 q?c 12:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Papa Roach discography[edit]

Resolved

Someone please correct Papa Roach discography (vandalism on hit parades). --88.146.180.146 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I really couldn't tell if the article had been vandalized, but, on the basis that the previous editor to 88.146.180.146 had made some unrepaired test edits to the article before changing the data, I took the article back to a version from November. Redvers 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New article on deep-sea research blocked - HERMIONE[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to post an article about HERMIONE - an EU-funded deep-sea research project, which is looking at "hotspots" (submarine canyons, cold-water coral reefs, seamounts, mud volcanoes etc., which have higher than "background" levels of biodiversity) around the seas of Europe. We have a website (www.eu-hermione.net), and what we would like to post on Wikipedia is more information about these ecosystems, and what research is being carried out. I've had a look on Wikipedia and noticed several other scientific research projects, but the article is being blocked, or rather I am only at the entering title stage, and can go no further.

Could you possibly let me know if it is possible to unblock my article?

Many thanks,

Abigail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermione p (talkcontribs) 18:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider asking for help at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Your account is probably too new to create pages. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Also this may match the regex used to deter a certain pagemove vandal. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
New accounts can create pages immediately; Guy's explanation is surely the correct one. Gavia immer (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing in the filter log for this user, what happens when you click on HERMIONE or Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
When a non-admin clicks on HERMIONE and then tries to edit, we see:
The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.
If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:
  • Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
  • You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail.
  • Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
  • If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.
Thank you.
There's nothing preventing creating an article at Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas. An admin could then create a redirect from HERMIONE, so that normal editors could edit the article (I assume HERMIONE needs to stay protected forever because of you know who). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
But He Who Must Not Be Named was surely killed. βcommand 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh. but actually, maybe yeah. Now that we've got the edit filter, perhaps this can be taken off whatever blacklist it's on? IIRC, the concern was a proactive one against pagemove vandalism, no? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I've redirected HERMIONE to Hermione and therein a link should be provided to the Hotspot project. –xenotalk 20:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that the Hotspot project article exists, could HERMIONE be retargetted directly there, please? Thanks. Sizzle Flambé (/) 09:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's the best approach - since we have an article Hermione, variations in capitalization should go there, and this qualifies. It is highlighted as the only organization on that list, which will make it easier to find. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If its all capital letters, wouldn't that indicate the letters stood for something? Any chance of confusion in this instance? Dream Focus 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
WHAT ABOUT HARRY POTTER FANS THAT TYPE IN ALL CAPS? –xenotalk 18:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Then could we have redirects at Project HERMIONE, HERMIONE project, and HERMIONE Project, to make reference easier than typing the full long name? (Only admins can create them, due to the blacklist.) Thanks. Sizzle Flambé (/) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done, cheers. –xenotalk 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hermione is a dab for the female name Hermione, into which someone has crammed User:Hermione's project. Way to go Jose:) Hermione (disambiguation) disambiguates warships, asteroids, mobile phones and research projects. Think I'll move the research over there.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DreamFocus, I think I edited over you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
minor storm in a cauldron IMO. ;) Leaky Caldron 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A Leaky Cauldron, perhaps? Protonk (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request eyes on an unblock request[edit]

Resolved: Unblocked. Any more discussion can happen on relevant talk pages. NJA (t/c) 21:24, 9 December 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.

Reviewing the situation of User Talk:Boneyarddog. He was blocked for being a sockpuppet. Of who? We don't quite know. But in an area like the Troubles, it's kinda like pick your poison, and he made himself no friends by wading into a revert war on an article while it was still going on. He's had two unblock requests declined, by Daniel Case, and Moreschi. Recently his situation was brought up again, when another user, suspected to be a Boneyarddog sock, was instead identified by checkuser to be the sock of a different user (the banned User:Redking7. While that was going on, (confirming the situation, and bringing it up with the blocking admin, I put unblock request 3 on hold. Now that is resolved, I feel obligated to bring this up.

The situation is as follows. We're blocking a user without even identifying who he's a sock/meatpuppet of. I can't say that sits 100% well with me. Checkuser has been done, and came back as Unlikely. The user only has 1 revert for edits, and the rest are article talk and user talk posts). Due to my history of trying to admin in this area, I do think it's suspicious (we see sockpuppets a lot over there).. and I would be remiss if I did not say that I find things are.. not black and white (especially if you look at the user's talk posts, how at least one editor with likely similar viewpoints has made it a crusade to get this user unblocked, wlisting all the users (mostly IP's) not blocked on the other side who haven't been treated this harshly. To use the old phrase, I find the balance of probabilities is that there IS something behind it all, but it's not certain (I'd say 60/40, maybe 70/30 that there is some kind of recruiting/meatpuppeting going on).. and to block an account based on what it MIGHT be does not go down easily.

Could someone neutral in this area take a look at the unblock request? Thanks for your consideration. SirFozzie (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the request when it was originally made, and I considered granting it. Though the single edit made is highly suspicious on many levels, all of which do not need rehashing here as they've been made at the ANI discussion linked to on the user's talk page. However, without more evidence, I think it'd be best to unblock and monitor the account. NJA (t/c) 09:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It is long-standing custom that accounts who jump straight into revert-wars with a revert with their first edit get blocked indefinitely.[citation needed] I see no reason to make an exception here. The problem is not a single sockpuppeteer. The problem, as in so many other areas (Hindutva, Armenian, Azeri, etc) is an ill-defined group, largely coordinated off-wiki, who are IRL unrelated to each other but express virtually identical ideology. Figuring out which bit of this continuum Boneyarddog belongs to is not something checkuser could easily do, and couldn't do at all if this is someone's meatpuppet, as seems likely. AGF is not a suicide pact: we do not have to assume endless good faith in the face of constant trolling. Just block, accept this as a meatpuppet of the continuum, and move on. Moreschi (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • More fantasy, have you any evidence to suggest that any editors involved in editing articles on Ireland are in contact please show us all here and something can be done, if you have no evidence which I strongly suspect then shut up with your accusations. There is no evidence whatsoever against the blocked editor, and I would love to hear more of this custom that new editors who revert are indef blocked please show us this too or is this also part of Moreschi world.BigDunc 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If Boneyarddog acknowledges that this topic area is a contentious one, and if he/she agrees to edit within policy, then I have no objection to an unblock. We can always block later if there are future shenanigans, and these circumstances guarantee that there will be scrutiny of this user's edits for a while. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser suggests no evidence of socking by this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Some clarification about what NYB said. He is correct that checkuser shows no evidence of sockpuppetry, but that doesn't mean that the user isn't a sockmaster. It just means we have no checkuser evidence to prove they are. --Deskana (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deskana's paraphrase is correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
BigDunc, I believe that you are taking this too personally (not to be taken as an implication that you are connected to the user, btw). Let me paint you a scenario: many users are edit warring over a regular, plain jane 3RR article... admin steps in and warns everyone that they're in danger of 3RR blocks...out of the blue, a user who just registered that day comes in and reverts the article. In my eyes, and in the eyes of many admins I suspect, that new account is likely a sock or meatpuppet recruited to revert. It doesn't even need to be some grand mailing list conspiracy cabal, just someone going to their housemate and saying 'Hey, would you mind making an account and reverting this article?'. I personally might err on the side of warning the user, but I don't think that its out of line to come down on the blocking side of the line. As for not filing a SPI, if it is a situation that fits the duck test I don't think people would bother the checkusers...tho after the unblock request was made, that might have been a good idea. Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I would agree - the block, at the time, was quite reasonable. There were two violations - 1RR violation (assuming another account made the first revert, and this one the second), and socking (as cited in the block). Now that there is no evidence of socking, 1RR becomes just the 1 revert, which is acceptable under WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES. So, per WP:AGF, and with the acknowledgement of the editor that he'll be careful, I think an unblock is reasonable. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am taking it personally, Moreschi accused me of recruiting the editor on a forum or else someone I know IRL which is a complete fantasy and now he is starting on about a conspiracy on pages edit by Irish editors, this needs to be addressed Moreschi either backs up his claims or retracts them and shuts up. BigDunc 18:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
@ BigDunc - do you have a diff for Moreschi accusing you? I wasn't easily able to find it, looking at your talk page or the talk page of Boneyarddog. Syrthiss (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we simply get on with a straw vote or something or another to avoid any further bickering? I say unblock and monitor, despite my gut feeling, as there's currently no evidence that we're preventing any further disruption. NJA (t/c) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No need - Syrthiss has unblocked. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there was bickering. I assumed that you or Ultraexactzz would handle it, but have unblocked the user myself based on the above discussion. I was slightly concerned that Hersfold seemed to be saying that it would be hard to find conclusive evidence that Boneyarddog wasn't a sock, but I'm equating that to Deskana's and NewYorkBrad's exchange above (ie Boneyarddog might be a sock, but is not a sock of a participant on the page as far as checkuser is concerned). Syrthiss (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Support unblock but close eye. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The diff's for the accusations can be found here on Moreschi talk page in addition to the crap here and here, with Moreschi being warned about their conduct here. With the contorted views they expressed in those discussions, to be consider an uninvolved Admin is a joke. --Domer48'fenian' 18:47, 9 December 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.

Ghost article[edit]

We have a article that cannot be viewed normally, and cannot be deleted easily. Im offering a reward to the first admin that can successfully delete the page in question. Commons:File:Reginald Warneford funeral.jpg[6] this page is not on commons. Im baffled. do what you can. βcommand 16:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I unsuccessfully tried Special:Nuke'ing it. --Aqwis (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. For reference, the page history was:

(cur) (prev) 13:36, 12 November 2009 Eingangskontrolle (talk | contribs | block) (45 bytes) (←Created page with ' funeral of Reginald Alexander John Warneford')

Not sure how it was possible to create a page with the "Commons:" prefix.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe s/he created the article then moved it into the "commons:" prefix? If you didn't check the logs you may have missed that if they did. Course the only way we'll know for sure is if some one checks the logs or actually tries to move something into "commons:"Rgoodermote  20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fund raising site notice problem[edit]

Resolved

This is seriously annoying. Whenever I come to the site, and click on the "hide" link on the site notice for the fund raising campaign, it shrinks the site notice and then forces me off site to the donations page at this URL. This is happens in Firefox and in Explorer. Not every time either; just most times.

Can someone fix this please? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:VPT. –xenotalk 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Except I seriously doubt any regular users have the ability to edit the site notice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the technically-minded admins/users watch that page more. Have you disabled cookies? –xenotalk 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That's all I got ;p Suggest cross-post to VPT (appears to be a local issue on your side rather than site-wide issue). –xenotalk 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nobody here can fix the fundraising banners, they are handled by the Foundation. Try reporting it at meta:Fundraising 2009/Launch Feedback. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Also try Special:Preferences → Gadgets → Suppress display of the fundraiser bannerxenotalk 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for. There is some bug with the banner, beta, and firefox. That fixed the problem. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is apparently fixed now, per Wikipedia:VPT#Annoying javascript bug(s) with banner. –xenotalk 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Amendments to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty[edit]

Since the close of Tang Dynasty six months ago, Tenmei (talk · contribs) has continued to edit without a mentor, at times violating other restrictions placed upon him as a result of the case. The Arbitration Committee has been unable to find a mentor for this purpose, with Tenmei rejecting one recently proposed mentor. As a result, Tang Dynasty is amended as follows, effective immediately:

  • Tenmei (talk · contribs) is required to have at least one volunteer mentor. Until such a mentor is found, Tenmei is banned from all editing except for the express purpose of locating a mentor. During this time, Tenmei is instructed to avoid talking about other editors. (Amends Remedy 2.1, amendment passed 8-0)
  • The mentor(s), once found, must be identified to the community as Tenmei's mentors and be willing to be available for others to contact them either publicly or privately. (Passed 8-0)
  • Editors are advised to contact the mentors if they come into conflict with Tenmei. (Passed 8-0)
  • The restrictions placed on Tenmei in remedy 1.1 are reset, to take effect when a mentor is found and approved by the Arbitration Committee. (Passed 8-0)
  • Should Tenmei violate the requirement to have a mentor before contributing, or cause unrest whilst seeking a mentor, Tenmei may be blocked for up to a week for repeated violations. After the fifth block, the maximum block length is extended to one year. (Passed 6-0, two abstentions)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Nyswander[edit]

Resolved: Closed. Redvers 13:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at this AfD? I think it qualifies for an early close. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Is there some way I can view a list of contributions from an ISP range? For example, a list of all IPs in a certain range who have edited. Or would something like this be restricted to sysops? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Try Preferences->Gadgets->"Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions". Fut.Perf. 09:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This was very helpful, thanks! What gadget will they think of next? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist[edit]

There is a discussion regarding the spam blacklist and the reliability of sources here.--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Community ban for Bharatveer[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: There is a clear consensus to establish a community ban. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • N.B: probably time to close this tomorrow, if someone wants to do the honours. Moreschi (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - one of the more obsessive of the Hindutva brigade, Bharatveer has a long and thoroughly ignominious history of trolling, as documented at the evidence page of the RFAR. He was initially put on a comprehensive editing restriction, but after multiple violations in short order he was banned by motion of the AC for a year. He's just returned from that ban and is back to pushing the same fringe Hindutva-cruft nonsense that got him banned in the first place at Talk:Max Muller and Talk:Romila Thapar (see also WP:FTN#Max Muller). I suppose it's a mild improvement in that he's no longer edit-warring, just trolling talkpages, but really, there comes a certain level of addiction to ideology where rational dialogue simply becomes impossible. His arguments make precisely zero sense and he simply cannot follow a coherent argument. We have no hope of getting anything productive here. I ask for a community ban. Moreschi (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is most disappointing to see this kind of response. I request WP editors to look at my edits in Talk:Max Muller and Talk:Romila Thapar. I don't understand moreschi's charge of "hindutva" edits. In either of these articles, my edits do not have even remote connections to hindutva.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment by Moreschi. The bit at Talk:Max Muller by the user in question seems especially tendentious. Cirt (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Max Müller the question appears to be the legitimacy of Müller's academic degrees, on which Bharatveer cites a source whose reliability is challenged. At Talk:Romila Thapar multiple sources are cited calling the subject a Marxist historian, and the question is whether and how to reflect that in the article — a robust debate in which Bharatveer is only one of several people voicing his position. I don't see this as trolling, just as content disputes; I'd think RfCs on content would be more appropriate than a call for a ban. Sizzle Flambé (/) 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
At Muller he cites a source whose reliability is non-existent and whose credibility is zilch. No comment on Thapar, as I'm less familiar with the subject matter, noting in passing that genuine Marxists generally self-identify as such, and that Indian academia is so riven that anyone who isn't a nationalist will generally get labelled a Marxist by those who disagree with them, although normally they will self-identify anyway. But have you actually bothered to check this guy's history? The evidence page at RFAR is really quite extensive, as indeed is his block log. Moreschi (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The past RFAR imposed a one-year ban, which has expired. The past blocks likewise expired or were lifted. Imposing a new ban because of past bans or blocks is not our practice as I understand it; nor is doing so over content disputes. Holding an RfC (or straw poll, or whatever terms you settle upon at the talk pages) would at least settle where consensus stands; then there's something to guide content editing. Sizzle Flambé (/) 13:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
No, this is simply not true. Blocks and bans are not simply standalone: they indicate a pattern of disruptive editing, which in this case involves fringe theory POV-pushing of the most tendentious nationalist sort. We don't simply ignore such patterns; we act on them. In this case the user has returned from the ban and is straightaway simply pushing nonsense at Talk:Max Muller, which it would be laughable to dignify with a straw poll or RFC. Consensus is clear from the discussion. Block lengths are cumulative, and traditionally with each successive sanction the community's patience for further transgressions becomes shorter. Bharatveer must have known that post-ban he was living on borrowed time, and yet here we are again. Moreschi (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Moreschi is right, there is no need for further processes at Talk:Max Muller, when consensus there is already quite clear. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And really that's the only talkpage of which this can be said, since at Talk:Romila Thapar in fact a number of people agree with Bharatveer. And Bharatveer is not editwarring this time around, but presenting grounds on the talkpages for edits to be made — which sounds like an improvement. So what it should come down to is a clear ultimatum to Bharatveer to abide by consensus and shut up at Talk:Max Müller (about the degrees) or be banned again, correct? Sizzle Flambé (/) 16:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Moreschi's argument does have merit, that after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer, Bharatveer (talk · contribs)'s actions of continually pushing this fringe tendentious POV and inappropriate sources in the face of consensus to the contrary, is inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Arguing a minority viewpoint, citing a source not satisfactory to others, in a single section of a single talkpage, may well be "inappropriate", but is it ban-worthy? And if you're going to impose a ban for it without even giving the ultimatum first, then is that preventative or punitive?

How would it look at WP:BANNED? "Banned for citing an unreliable source on a talkpage, and arguing against consensus." Talk about a chilling effect! Sizzle Flambé (/) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather, banned for continuing same pattern of behavior user was previously banned for, pursuant to a prior arbcom case that had the eponymous name of the user in question. Cirt (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the previous pattern included editwarring, which Moreschi notes above is no longer the case. Discussing proposed edits on talkpages is the desired pattern of behavior. Sizzle Flambé (/) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Support community ban of Bharatveer. The evidence collected in WP:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer suggest a long history of flawed judgment, POV pushing, and edit warring. The fact that the edit warring has not resumed since his last ban expired on 24 November gives us little reason to hope for anything better in the future. The data which Bharatveer has provided us about his ongoing intentions at Talk:Max Muller I think is evidence that he will be unable to work with others to improve the encyclopedia. I think we would need to see a dramatic change of heart to justify him resuming contributions to Wikipedia. Anyone whose block log fills more than one screen should get special, accelerated handling when new problems are reported here. He was not obliged when his ban expired to cause new problems by offering strange reasoning from bad sources at Talk:Max Muller. He could have tried to redeem himself by doing humble but useful work on non-controversial articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
«The fact that the edit warring has not resumed since his last ban expired on 24 November gives us little reason to hope for anything better in the future.» [underlines added] — The fact that the user has amended his behavior, to avoid what was chiefly complained of earlier, gives us little reason to hope...??? Sizzle Flambé (/) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
For the moment he has refrained from edit warring, but we still have the flawed judgment and the nationalist POV-pushing. An editor in the 2007 RFAR complained:

Bharatveer is a non-collaborative, disruptive and tendacious editor with apparent agendas, including one relative to hinduism and hindu nationalism, and in particular with documented bias against "whites", "westerners" etc., and that he is consistently not complying with Wikipedian standards.

The original RFAR closed in October 2007. It appears that the problem continued, and the Arbitration Committee imposed a one-year ban in response to a new motion in November, 2008. That ban expired in November, 2009. Do you see anything in Bharatveer's conduct since 24 November to suggest he has given up his poor attitude? EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
So now the problem is... poor attitude? Looking at Talk:Max Müller, do you see incivility on his part? Or rather a plea for civility from others? Has he resorted to personal attacks, or has he stayed civil and on-topic? Sizzle Flambé (/) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Support community ban. Wikipedia needs more fringe nationalists like we need a hole in the head. *** Crotalus *** 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
So the problem is not behavior but beliefs? He could be perfectly well behaved, but as long as his political opinions remain the same, out he goes? Sizzle Flambé (/) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
He is engaging in tendentious editing and fringe POV-pushing. And that all stems from the fact that he's an extreme nationalist. If he kept his views to himself, no one would care. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and he seems unable or unwilling to comprehend this. *** Crotalus *** 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
But he's not spouting "his views". In the case of Talk:Max Müller, he wanted to add a {{fact}} tag to Müller's degrees because a book he'd read disputed them. In the case of Talk:Romila Thapar, he had six or so sources characterizing the historian as "Marxist", and want to add that characterization. These were not out of his own head, his own imagination, but from sources he cited. It's fair to rebut cited sources as unreliable, Crotalus, but to then link the flaws of the cited sources to purported flaws of the editor who cited them seems like another form of ad hominem. (I've been editing Byron-related articles, but that doesn't mean I share his flaws, nor he mine!) Sizzle Flambé (/) 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban (barring further information). For the record I'm completely uninvolved with this situation and had never heard of the user in question before. The stuff here at the Max Muller talk page is classic tendentious/POV pushing editing. Such tactics waste an extraordinary amount of community time, and Bharatveer is really on his third go around here in terms of taxing the community's patience. No way would I support a ban if this was the first (or probably even second) time that matters had come to a head, but the pattern here is obvious, and we need to be able to show editors the door who clearly come to Wikipedia with an agenda and in the process prevent other editors from doing useful work. That seems to be exactly what is happening here, and we're not obliged to assume good faith to the end of time when there is clear evidence to the contrary. If some admin or other experienced editor is willing to vouch and be responsible for Bharatveer's editing behavior down the road (basically a mentor situation) then I would reconsider support for a ban, but in the absence of such a sponsor I think the smart move is to say "this pattern isn't changing" and bring it to a stop before it further hinders the process of writing an encyclopedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: the editors who run into difficulty yet really intend to reform usually seek out mentorship on their own initiative. Nearly anyone will accept a mentor as an alternative to getting blocked, if one is offered to them. The latter kind of person generally follows up by tactically maneuvering the mentor and prolonging the misery for everyone. See WP:TURNIP. Durova373 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I basically agree with that. I just came across this situation randomly and decided to look into it and weigh in, but in my comment above I wanted to leave the door open somewhat for further information coming in that could change my view of the situation (given my lack of familiarity with the background). For example if someone stepped in and said, "I know Bharatveer, think he or she can be a constructive editor, and am willing to take responsibility as their mentor" then perhaps a ban would not be necessary for now. If no one like that comes forward (which I'm guessing will be the case) then that itself rather says something and makes it almost certain that a community ban is the right move. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. As someone about to come out of arbitration restrictions, I take special offense when a fellow recent unconditional parolee seems to fail so spectacularly at not learning from their time away from Wikipedia. An indefinite break until such time as this user contacts us with evidence that they will change their ways is warranted. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
He seems to have learned, at least, and changed his ways far enough, not to editwar, but to discuss edits on talkpages instead. Sizzle Flambé (/) 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
While refraining from edit-warring is a laudable characteristic, the evidence provided looks clearly to me like he's treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not see evidence that he is interested in collaborating or hearing from any other editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support From an uninvolved editor. We've given him a chance to return and already he's being disruptive, so it appears that he has no intent on changing. Normally I would oppose a siteban and support a topic ban in this situation, but all of Bharatveer's edits are under the topic of India and they all give credance to the notion that he is only here to insert his disruptive POV into articles. This is the last thing we need and I don't see any place where the encyclopedia benefits from his editing. ThemFromSpace 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Then a topic ban on articles related to India and its immediate vicinity, as though there were a CoI, would fit the ticket, wouldn't it? He could edit articles in which his political leanings took no stance. Sizzle Flambé (/) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be a solution, except that all of his edits are India-related. He doesn't have a side-project such as cleaning up a particular part of the encyclopedia or participating in discussions that aren't India-related. If he would specifically ask for a very broadly-construed topic ban related to India and Hindutva than I'd probably accept this but he only seems here for that specific cause. ThemFromSpace 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
So...? Then he can either edit outside "that specific cause" (where he may attain NPOV), or not edit. Would you have a problem with either outcome? Sizzle Flambé (/) 23:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Repeated Nationalistic disruption, seemingly without any improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose community ban, alternatives not exhausted. Bharatveer no longer editwars; this is now about (civil) content disputes. Note that, once the source he cited on Talk:Max Müller was definitely debunked, Bharatveer stopped arguing, rather than continuing. Count his posts there; not many; hardly "tendentious". If the problem is Bharatveer's Hindutva politics, why not seek a topic ban on articles where Hindutva takes a stance, leaving Bharatveer free to edit only what he may possibly attain NPOV for? If he breaks that ban, then, well.... Sizzle Flambé (/) 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There is nothing very noteworthy at Talk:Romila Thapar or at FTN. And at Talk:Max Muller it looks like the discussion that arbcom called for instead of edit-warring. Is there a secret codicil to the arbcom case perhaps? I seem to be missing something that is transparently obvious to others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You and me both, Angus. Sizzle Flambé (/) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban or topic ban. Bharatveer is a minor problem as long as he doesn't edit war, but a problem nonetheless. His recent activity at Talk:Romila Thapar is disruptive, though it may not seem so to editors who haven't followed the article. Before his one-year ban, Bharatveer edit warred and argued on the talk page that Thapar should be labelled a Marxist. Thapar does not embrace the characterization, and has written that it's used as partisan rhetoric [7]. Thus it would be a BLP violation for the article to claim that she is--yet before the arb case that's what Bharatveer wanted the article to say (see [8] and this topic in the archives of the article's talk page. So Bharatveer comes back from his one-year ban and starts right up on the same issue. This time, at least he has presented us with some sources for his desired edit--but, as an IP editor and User:RegentsPark have shown at Talk:Romila_Thapar#Reliable_sources_for_the_term_.27Marxist_Historian.27, the sources don't say what Bharatveer claims they do. We don't need ideologically motivated axe grinders here, especially ones that can't let go of an issue after a one-year ban, and definitely not ones that push BLP violations. Add tendentious misinterpretation of sources to the mix, and I think Bharatveer needs to find something else to do. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. Akhilleus puts the problem well. Despite myths to the contrary, tendentious editing is in itself a sanctionable form of misbehaviour, even without revert-warring or incivility. Continued, persistent pushing for a BLP violation is serious, and the issue on Max Muller also showed a serious lack of responsible self-scrutiny of his POV agenda. I would be sympathetic to the alternative of a mere topic ban, but I doubt one can be defined adequately – the set of "topics on which a Hindu nationalist POV might have an ideological axe to grind" is just too large and too fuzzy. Fut.Perf. 06:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a ban reluctantly - problem editing needs to stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. Good analysis above by Akhilleus, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Moreschi. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban if he won't accept a mentor. I just read Talk:Max Müller after Sizzle Flambe brought up the attempt to add a fact tag and that has convinced me that his problem editing has to stop. I can't see how we could frame a topic ban that would work, but if someone could I might support that. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not so much that the most recent talkpage edits are atrocious in and of themselves. But they underline the fact that we cannot realistically expect anything from this account besides a narrow and unrelenting focus on promoting material that runs counter to this site's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. It's the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as I'm concerned - individually, it's minor, but added to the previous issues it acquires a bit more meaning. There must be some point at which we, as a community, decide that someone's likelihood of constructive contribution to the site has asymptotically reached zero. For me, this does it. A topic ban would be fine, but given the contrib history, I think that would be equivalent in a practical sense to a full siteban. MastCell Talk 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic-ban from India-related content if the editor is capable of finding an acceptable mentor. This ban, like other similar ones, could potentially be lifted upon good conduct. Should he not be able to do so, support site ban. Enough is enough. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban, or at least topic-ban from India or South Asia related articles. The editor has a long history of disruption and pov-pushing. (see WP:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer). Despite a 1 year ban, he has not changed, and I doubt his behavior pattern will ever change (even with a mentor). --Ragib (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. At this point, I don't think half-measures like mentoring or topic-bans are adequate responses. Bharatveer currently surpasses my tolerance limits for tendentious editing. With such a long history of contentious and argumentative engagement, I hold little hope of constructive improvement in Bharatveer's behaviour. Pigman☿/talk 00:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. The arbcom link above shows that this dubious sourcing has been going on for many years. And, the Max Muller assertions are fascinating because of their extreme fringe nature. I don't see why we need editors who do nothing but use up the goodwill and time of other editors.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Vandalism question[edit]

Having recently witnessed a debate where one user claims that repeatedly changing facts in an article into obviously-incorrect info should be considered a content dispute and the other claims it should be considered vandalism: I have a question, which I'll phrase as a hypothetical rather than muddy the waters by using an actual example: User X comes along to the Rolling Stones article. His first edit is to change Keith Richards to the lead vocalist, put Charlie Watts on bass, and Mick Jagger on drums. Now, it is absolutely clear as day that User X is either A)taking the piss, or B)just totally as wrong as he can be. Neither of these is a net positive to the article, so User Y reverts the edit with "rv wrong info". Then X comes back and re-adds the same incorrect information, and then it happens again. I would agree that on the first edit, AGF applies and the edit can't be called "vandalism"...the FIRST time. But what about the second and third time? (Let's for the moment leave 3RR on the table; I'm interested in clarifying "vandalism".)If the second and third time are not vandalism, what about these situations?

1. User X leaves no edit summary for any of these edits, nor comments on talk page.
2. User X leaves edit summaries "no, you're wrong".
3. User X leaves edit summary "for great justice and epic lulz".
4. User X comes back the next day and does three MORE reverts to the same totally incorrect material despite attempts to engage him on both talkpages--the article's, and User Y's.

My issue here is that I have a really, REALLY hard time categorizing "deliberately adding and re-adding clearly wrong info" as "content dispute". If I were basing it on my opinion, that's vandalism--but WP policy says differently. I guess the main question I'm asking here is, where do we draw the line on deliberate misinformation and good-faith misinformation? Is it still a content dispute if someone adds that the sky is green? And if not, what is the line? Right now, I'd be hesitant to block anyone based on these situations, simply because even after studying the policy, I'm not sure I'm interpreting correctly. Any input would ba appreciad...GJC 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  • It's tough. There is "wrong" and then there is "wrong". Let's take The Rolling Stones as an example. The current genres listed are "Rock, rock and roll, rhythm and blues, blues". If I edited the article to include psychedelic rock as a genre, you could pretty easily treat that as "wrong", but I would be uncomfortable just treating it as "wrong" (ie vandalism). So we are kinda in the grey area where bright lines go to die--the edits are obviously disruptive but not necessarily made in bad faith (though adjusting genres can often be in bad faith, see User:Scarian/Genre trolls). The pat answer is that you seek DR and hope to some consensus...but that's kinda bullshit. What happens in practice is that we hope someone else is watchlisting the article too and when they revert too many times in order to insert the "info", we block them for 3RR (I know you didn't want to involve that, but it is too intertwined in practice). Or, perhaps more common in practice is that all unhelpful/semi-disruptive additions are reverted as vandalism (in clear contravention to our expectations about dealing with new users).
  • Here's my suggestion (if we are avoiding 3RR). Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a guideline. The first revert can and should be undone with an explanatory edit summary and or a talk page note (it is what I do for the relatively popular articles on my watchlist). The second revert can probably be undone in the same fashion, but you would want to start a discussion on the article or editor's talk page. By the third or fourth revert, we are beyond normal discussion. Bring in another admin to deal w/ the problem using the buttons. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You've obviously forgotten about Their Satanic Majesties Request, Protonk. Deor (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My personal guideline on this is that if somebody adds a false fact to an article that is at least plausible and it is possible that somebody somewhere might believe this, then I revert and explain why this is wrong in an edit summary. eg diff However, if the "fact" is so absurd nobody could possibly believe it, I revert and warn for vandalism eg diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Basically, if someone harms the encyclopedia by replacing article text with "Bush is teh gay" or a string of repeating characters, then that is vandalism and we block them expeditiously. If someone harms the encyclopedia by waging a relentless 6-month, 2,000-edit crusade to claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or garlic cures cancer, or the gold standard is the root of all human misery, then it's just a content dispute, and sanctioning them would be a value judgment. Groups of editors who revert such claims are a tag-team or "majority POV-pushers". Because obviously "Bush it teh gay" is the bigger threat to the project's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work.

Ouch, it looks like I got up on the wrong side of the bed today :| MastCell Talk 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but this is also sometimes also the evil behavior of paid agents of the worldwide pharmaceutical conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious natural remedies. Now go back to bed. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious ediotors breach actionable policies: they fail to source, use unreliable sources, or misuse reliable sources. Anyone can make a few mistakes at first, but the ones who refuse to rise on the learning curve need to rise to the attention of the sysops. One disruptive editor can drive a dozen productive ones off the project. That's why it's dangerous when the admin corps gives the brush-off by calling situations content disputes that aren't. Durova379 19:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to close Bharatveer ban discussion above[edit]

Resolved

Is there an admin who has not voted who wants to decide if there is consensus for a ban at WP:AN#Community ban for Bharatveer, above? It appears that enough time has run, according to Moreschi who opened the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll get it right smartly. Steve Smith (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman got it while I was reading the discussion. I'd have closed it the same way, in any event. Steve Smith (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So did I - edit conflict.  Sandstein  20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's good that we all reviewed it independently and came to the same conclusion. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 Is Gender Biased and Preventing the contruction on a fact based Article on Alimony[edit]

I would like to request that Slp1 stop editing the page on Alimony. He/she has a gender bias and is not allowing the contruction of a fact based article. I am sure Slp1 is a good editor, but he/she cannot maintain "editorial" neutrality on this subject.

Please see the countless roadblocks she has put up in the discussion area and in the History section.

Thank you,

PTiger1985 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

On the surface this appears to be a simple content dispute, but PTiger1985 is an SPA. Contributions to other articles include editng Slavery in the United States to add a wikilink to alimony at the "See also" section,[9] with similar focus elsewhere. More pertinent to AN, though, is copyvio and unreliable sourcing. See warnings at User talk:PTiger1985. Among other things, this editor has been citing a self-published source[10] and a copyvio YouTube hosting of a comedy monologue by Chris Rock. Durova375 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Now as a female editor I obviously have a conflict of interest here so heading away while you menfolk sort this out. Won't worry my pretty little head about this any longer...but might search the Library of Congress site for full frontal male nudes to restore... ;)
That's disgusting, Durova. :P Personally, I can't see what's wrong with this. I've had flicks through the contribution log and all seems normal. To be honest, though, I think PTiger1985 has a few issues. You accuse of "gender bias" but you haven't pointed to any diffs and you don't even know what gender Slp1 is... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I call WP:PLAXICO now? SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I propose a topic ban for PTiger1985, his continued disruptive editing pattern, shows that this is a necessary step. I would do it myself, but I would like other admins to comment as well. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good idea. Prior block, plenty of polite engagement and warnings. Tendentious. Durova379 04:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the "biased" administrator involved I was hoping that a topic ban would not be necessary, since I see some signs of progress and declarations (at least) that the editor wants to try to be of NPOV and follow policy better[11] [12]. I still hope this is the case but unfortunately the problems are ongoing, including plagiarism/copyvio, unreliable sources, material that is not in the sources given. See these posts to PTiger1985's talkpage [13] and [14]. I'm getting tired of needing to check every single edit and compare it to the source, and repeating the same guidelines/policies to this editor. I haven't totally given up, but am pretty darn close to it. --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban on alimony and alimony related articles. Okay, that was quick. I've had it. This edit [15] promotes the views of alimony activists up the article; and this one [16] reinserts very clearly unverifiable material ([17]) that I had already explained in detail here.[18]. My patience is exhausted. --Slp1 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A8UDI Vandalism warnings again[edit]

A8UDI (talk · contribs · count) has been templeting and giving out warnings for edits that are clearly not vandalism, this issue has already been discussed once here [19], After this revert [20], and warning [21]. I began watching to see if he was doing it to others and found [22], [23], [24] ,[25]. That's three people so far this morning.

When I left a message on his talk page regarding his warnings, he removed the message commenting that he dose more good then harm and to calm down [26]. Ridernyc (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning given. This has become a significant problem with this editor. Tan | 39 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
igloo gone A8UDI 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That was the first warning ever given to me, and it wasn't fun. Kleuske (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem has nothing to do with igloo. Ridernyc (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
IGNORE THE RED TEXT AND RED BUTTONS. There's my advice. No Huggle! Hey, use all green if you want since you get a custom summary to fill in. ...Or just voluntarily remove Twinkle for awhile? Or is it possible to just get rid of the evil red text if you paste in the full TW script? Would be hard to do if you literally couldn't do it even by mistake. daTheisen(talk) 02:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to take a break for a little while. Obviously I'm incapable of using software. tom67.241.191.198 (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Time to commence head to desk repetition. I was trying to be entirely helpful in good faith, is the ironically clueless bit on my part. Has nothing to do with software, just something as simple as a mis-click, and you even removed igloo on your own. I've done the same thing before a few times, was chewed out by some very experienced editors and had not-terribly polite messages left even after I correct it, etc. (I entirely deserved it), just not all combined at once like this. I'd expect to have been in the same situation, and I learned a lot overall. daTheisen(talk) 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, it's a girl![edit]

Mahalia Merita Angela Smith (6lb 11oz) was born this week, delivered by Wikipedia. Who needs a midwife, when you've got the collective knowledge of wikipedians. "The kid that anyone can deliver". See here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We should probably delete whichever article he used. WP:NOTGUIDE. Equazcion (talk) 10:35, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe we should also rename the project to "Wikipedia, the midwife encyclopedia"? On a side note, I think we can expect a donation from the father soon. I do hope he adds "for delivering my child" or something as a reason. Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Aww... There's my feel-good story for the day! Thanks, Scott MacDonald! --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 10:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Are we really sure it was us and not WikiHow? Reading our articles on Childbirth, Home birth, and Unassisted childbirth wouldn't give much help, and we're not in the top results for Google. Not to burst the bubble or anything... ~ Amory (utc) 15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do hate to whine, but this isn't an issue for administrative action (or even for the attention only of administrators) and would perhaps be better suited at the Village Pump? ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be taken to yet another place in addition to (at least) here, User talk:Jimbo Wales and WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Hans Adler 15:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That guy now needs to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
And why couldn't they have stuck Wikipe-tan in that name somewhere? People have given stranger names to people for less reason. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is the holiday season, so anything to put a smile on our faces is welcomed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently he used the"Internet guide wikiHow," so I don't know if they changed the article or if OP was wrong... Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
They changed the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter issue?[edit]

This edit [27] appears to have tripped a filter of some kind (see [28], notice it's tagged for repeating characters, obviously from the nearby "billion" link, although editor did not touch said link). This is either a bug in the filter or a limitation in the abuse filter extension. It would be handy to know which. --Thinboy00 @010, i.e. 23:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Its the latter, it is possible (but much more intensive) to create a filter that only checks things that are added, instead it checks the added lines - the green areas in diffs. There is a way around this that involves counting the number of matches before an edit, and the number after and seeing if it increased, but that isn't worth it for a filter that just tags anyway. Prodego talk 14:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog[edit]

Resolved: Cleared Rodhullandemu 02:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As of 10.08 UTC, the user reported area of WP:UAA is heavily backlogged, though my quick scan shows quite a few are not blatant violations of policy. Anyhow, assistance by any available admins would be appreciated. NJA (t/c) 10:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski article again. Editor refuses to stop inserting information to whitewash case[edit]

moved to ANI. Equazcion (talk) 06:40, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

ꆇꉙ[edit]

I would like to redirect ꆇꉙ to Nuosu language, but it is blacklisted. AGENT SMITH 05:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to redirect 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 to Gothic language. AGENT SMITH 05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are there any incoming links to these terms from other Wikipedia articles? Are they likely English search terms. I know redirects are cheap, but what about these words makes you think that someone using the English wikipedia would be typing them into the search box, or using them in an article as a wikilink? --Jayron32 05:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
They are the names of those languages in their respective alphabets/scripts and are listed as such on Special:SiteMatrix. AGENT SMITH 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

  • Editors of articles related to the topic of socionics are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
  • Rmcnew (talk · contribs) and Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.
  • Rmcnew (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.
  • Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twelve months.
  • Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

  • A good job by the arbitrators in cutting through a massive pile of verbiage. Now perhaps someone can rewrite the article so it makes some kind of sense. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections[