Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive210

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

Noticeboard archives


Admin needed to close discussion[edit]

Resolved: Closed by Benjiboi.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could we please have a completely uninvolved admin review the discussion at Talk:Johnny_Weir#Wording_adjusted_per_archived_discussion and close it if you agree that consensus has been achieved, and that the edit which has been made to the article was appropriate. By "completely uninvolved" I mean, ideally, someone who has never edited the article, or participated in any discussion regarding it. Many thanks. Wine Guy~Talk 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need an admin to close the discussion? All the editors who frequent the discussion seem satisfied with the wording.--RegentsPark (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe it is appropriate to close the current discussion without prejudice to the topic being discussed further in the future. The current thread has come full circle; a problem was presented and discussed, proposals were made, and one proposal gained support and has been implemented. The reason that I ask for an uninvolved admin to close the thread is that there have been recent closings/archivals/deletions of threads by people who have been involved in the discussions they close, and this has caused further problems. It is also my understanding that in most cases it is best for an uninvolved party to close a discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, or if this request is somehow inappropriate. Wine Guy~Talk 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Nevermind. Discussion has been closed. Wine Guy~Talk 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Nothing wrong, but you don't need an admin. No sense in 'admin responsibility creep'.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Under normal circumstances I would absolutely agree, but discussions surrounding this article the past several days don't really fall into the category of "normal circumstances". It should be fine as is though, thanks for the reply. Wine Guy~Talk 02:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And it was closed by... Benjiboi, who is one of the most involved. Which was a good reason for having an uninvolved admin do it. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. This was exactly why I brought it here in the first place. Everyone, editors and admins alike, who has been involved on that talk page has been involved in discussion of article content either in the thread closed by Benjiboi, or in other related threads. IMHO, it may have been more productive to simply close the discussion per my request, rather than question my motives for making the request; but c'est la vie. Wine Guy~Talk 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To Be Redirected[edit]

This Following Article is to be Redirected as soon as possible ( to the following Article (#REDIRECT [[1]]) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • When you go to edit this page a big fat notice opens up that says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." This isn't any of those. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done For future reference, you can use the WP:RM for making such move requests, or ask for help about such procedures at WP:Help. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem.[edit]

We have been lucky that we didn't have a second Seigenthaler incident. For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer." Fram (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

...and the article was...?
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The revisions have been deleted; publicising the name of the article helps nobody. REDVERSSay NO to Commons bullying 08:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You can easily check it in my editing history (my log of deletions will help as well), but for BLP privacy sake, I'ld rather not put the name here. Yes, I realise that that makes this a bit awkward... Fram (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Look... If you're going to bring something to a noticeboard, it needs to be useful in some way. Informative - there's a problem we didn't know about, etc. Alerting - do something about this. Those sorts of things.
Posting the equivalent of "Elvis is still dead" is not useful. Yes, we know there are problem BLPs out there. We weren't given any useful information here - no article to check the edit history on, to see if editors are still around who contributed to this mess, to cross-check other articles they were involved in. No information to better inform future decisions on either operational response or policy decisions.
I would accept "other admins / arbs / whoever have already done those other reviews, all taken care of". But in that case... why put any mention on AN at all?
Putting something here is asking for attention. Don't do that if you don't want attention...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a wake up call, a notice that despite the claims of some people in e.g. the BLP RfC or other pages, there are a number of very serious, long term BLP violations on (unsourced) BLP pages which could harm those people seriously (the article in question has been spread over many, many WP copies, with the result that any English language search for his name gives rather bad publicity), and could harm Wikipedia seriously as well (our reputation didn't really get a boost from the Seigenthaler incident). Furthermore, anyone can very easily find which article this is about, so people can check whether I handled this delicate situation correctly and whether any further action (oversight, rounding up of every involved editor, ...) is necessary. Fram (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to reinterate (once and only once more) that this is a curious approach to and goal in posting something to a noticeboard, and that it was not perhaps entirely useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
And the discussion caused by your objection to it is even less useful.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* - the edits have been undeleted now and suppressed per policy. You can see who made the edits but not the edits themselves, thankfully. That article was an utter disgrace - Alison 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Well done everybody, and it is a bit of a worry that this survived for so long. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt that that vandalized BLP was not an isolated instance, but its not about having a few sources cited. The reason we don't have a second Seigenthaler incident is because the press won't cover every wikivandal case. Its not exciting to be "second" in the news about such things, aside from an occasional "wikipedia reported XX was dead for 10 minutes today". To the extent the general public knows anything about wikipedia, they know that anyone can edit it, and thus sometimes its wrong. But the root of the problem is not whether an article has a few sources or not--its about vandals who wish to deface a page. One day when I checked out what Wikipedia Review was, I became aware of a trio of articles repeatedly vandalized by a troll for over 2 years, where he asserted (with different usernames or IPs every few months) that one person was not a person at all but a pseudonym of the other. This started happening in mid-2007, and was last vandalized earlier this month. The articles are Chris Gore, My Big Fat Independent Movie, and Philip Zlotorynski (the last of which currently redirects to the movie article as a protective move). These articles were not unsourced BLPs -- they had some sources cited, and the blatant vandalism was slipped in, and overlooked despite other editors stopping by from time to time (like one editor suggesting that the two BLPS be merged if they were the same person, oblivious to the fake claim). Sample diffs for Zlotorynski:[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Since I am watching the articles now, and have berated the loser vandal, I suspect the problem will be controlled (but now that admins will read this, feel free to ban him). So, while unsourced BLPs are the bogeyman of the day, I have had trouble finding any link between BLPs that are sourced and whether they become a vandalism target. The vast majority of BLPs, sourced or otherwise, are uncontentious. Though, if BLPs could not be edited by IP editors or unconfirmed users, this case may have not happened.--Milowent (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that 'xyz was a former President of Sicily' is now considered just as much of a BLP violation as 'xyz was a flashy mobster'. Yet all you have done here is replace one unreffed BLP with another. So, per BLP, somebody delete the professor's article, and then someone can replace it with a sourced article about the mobster of this name, who actually lived in the 19th Century. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No, its still a BLP violation, but negative material that is provably false is much greater of a violation. Mr.Z-man 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The sort of vandalism claimed here is not he dangerous kind, for such edits will be very quickly spotted. The people advocating strong action on unsourced BLPs have been generally highlighting the danger of the less watched and unnoticed articles, where vandalism can stay for a very long while. I'm not sure either is as much of a problem as the potential for damage to people in what are ostensibly non BLP articles. There are a great many many problems, and the attitude that all usourced statements are harmful prevents a focus on the true problem areas. Given our basic principles of editing this is hardly surprising. Given them, I'd say we had a rather low lever of vandalism, and I think a number of outsiders have commented that we are among the best sites in attention to removing them. The reason we have a very low level is because of the great number of editors, and the true solution to the problem is to encourage new people to become active, which is not done by deleting articles. (In the meanwhile, the existing ones will need to work a little more carefully and perhaps a little harder.) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
For a year and a half, from 26 July 2008 until today, we had an article claiming that someone who in reality is a University professor, former Italian Minister and former President of Sicily (as evidenced by the interwiki and by a Google search) was in fact a "flashy mobster" who "was imprisoned in 1999 at the age of 53, for: narcotics trafficking, conspiracy to commit murder, several counts of murder in the first degree & several counts of assault on an officer. - is that what you mean by being spotted quickly? Guy (Help!) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well unless people actually check the sources to see if they're true or unwarped, it won't help, as many entrenched users use fake sources etc. And people are reluctant to make a stand against entrenched editors, especially when a lot of the pov pushers are part of an ethnic/religious bloc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I am not going to defend BLP violations, but are we sure it is vandalism?
I cannot see the deleted edits. However, the Italian corresponding article is weakly sourced but enough to confirm that the guy has indeed a criminal record as being involved with Mafia, even if dissimilar in the details from the one cited above, and he has indeed been involved in that at the age of 53. See here for example if you can read Italian -the source is one of the main Italian newspapers; I am happy to provide a translation if needed. (The thing is complicated by the subject having the same surname of a notable Italian mobster -with whom he is involved in the events leading to the arrest, making the whole thing a bit convoluted). --Cyclopiatalk 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, see [8]. Again, the details do not fit with what Fram says it was in the article, but the situation is much less clear-cut than it seems. Again, happy to provide translation if needed. --Cyclopiatalk 00:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Cyclopia is right. The guy was "presidente della Regione siciliana", and was also arrested as a mobster; he was also addressed as "professore", which doesn't necessarily mean he was a university prof. Did you think their mafia has no political connections?! Surely references are good, but there seems to be no contradiction here between the two statuses. Reminds me of a recent similar case in Romania, but I forgot the name of the guy. Pcap ping 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No, they are not the same person - the problem is there are two separate Giuseppe Provenzano's. One is a 19th century Sicilian mobster (see [ this link). The other one is a former President of Sicily who was in office from 1996-1998 (see Politics of Sicily). Unfortunately their names both linked to the same article, which apparently contained both the mobster bio and the President's bio scrambled into one. They need to be disambiged and separated into 2 different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two different Giuseppe Provenzano. But the professor (who was a university professor indeed) we're talking about was also arrested or otherwise implicated for strong suspects Mafia connections, due also to turncoat's confessions, and not in the 19th century but few years ago. An excerpt from one of the refs above "Ma l' incarico di "curatore" dei patrimoni del boss di Corleone - è la rivelazione di Francesco Di Carlo - sarebbe stato affidato poi a Giuseppe Provenzano, eletto deputato regionale in Forza Italia il 16 giugno scorso e diventato presidente della Regione. Il pentito Di Carlo avrebbe raccontato di conoscere queste vicende "per averlo appreso personalmente" da Totò Riina e da Bernardo Brusca. I due boss sostenevano - sempre secondo Di Carlo - che il professore Giuseppe Provenzano, commercialista, docente alla facoltà di Economia e commercio dell' università di Palermo, un tempo anche perito del tribunale, avrebbe fatto quadruplicare i capitali di Binnu." ("But the responsibility of managing the belongings of the Corleone boss -that's the revelation of [turncoat] Francesco Di Carlo - has been delegated then to Giuseppe Provenzato, elected as a deputy in Forza Italia 16th of June and became president of Region [of Sicily]. Turncoat Di Carlo explained he knew about this for "having personally learned" from Totò Riina and Bernardo Brusca. The two bosses claimed -according to Di Carlo- that professor Giuseppe Provenzano, accountant, lecturer at the Economy and Commerce faculty of Palermo University and even assessor to the Palermo court, would have made the fortunes of Binnu quadruplicate") --Cyclopiatalk 13:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
He was arrested for suspected mafia connections, he was not convicted for murder and so on, and didn't die in prison last year (as the article also claimed). Some vandal used the bio of the 19th century mobster, and pasted it on the current professor/politician. That minor parts of it were correct does not mean that it is somewhat better. Was the professor ever convicted? Fram (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't know. Don't take me wrong, you were absolutely right in removing such unsourced information, being it true or not. I was only presenting such info here because, being unable to see the edits, I wasn't able to decide if they referred to the real arrests or not of the subject. --Cyclopiatalk 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. The article did not refer to the actual allegations of links with the mafia, but only linked the actual 19th century mobster facts with the current politician (using his date of birth and so on). Fram (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, with my trez kewl Admin powerz I can see some of the edit history of this article, & it appears that the material Fram is using to argue that unsourced biographical articles on living people is a problem was added by an editor using an anon IP address. Ignoring the possibility of a mistake made in good faith here (it appears both persons with the same name were arrested for being alleged Mafia members), since this derogatory information was added by an anonymous editor, then we should ban anonymous edits from Wikipedia! (Oh wait -- that's one of those perennial proposals which will never be accepted.) Then the unsourced controversial information remained -- despite the fact over half a dozen people editted the page -- for over a year & ahalf until Fram came along. (Maybe we ought to sanction all of those editors for failing to remove this information. That's not a perennial proposal -- yet.) I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep such unsourced information out of Wikipedia, but that WP:BLP is rapidly becoming one of those slogans -- like "Think of the children!" -- which will lead us to cures that are worse than the illnesses. -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How does who added the material have any relevance on this discussion? No one has argued for any of your strawmen here. Fram (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Who added the material is not the issue; I don't know why you would think it is, unless you fail to recognize & understand sarcasm. The issue is that derogatory material was added, & the fact this biographical article about a living person was unsourced is irrelevant to how the derogatory material got there. Putting sources on the article would have been as ineffectual as banning anons from editting or punishing editors for not removing derogatory material. This instance does not justify the claim you made in the header of this thread. You made an error in logic here. (I can't believe I need to explain what I was saying in this post; maybe I should start using more words of a single syllable or less.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The claim I made in the header: "Why some (unsourced) BLPs are a huge problem." This article is a BLP, right? And it was indicative of a huge problem, namely that we can have content that is so negative that it needs to be oversighted hanging around for a year and a half. So I hope you do agree that some BLPs are a huge problem. And in this case it was an unsourced one, hence the (unsourced) in brackets. If it had been sourced, people could have more easily checked it (certainly if it had been an online source: just a click and you can see for yourself). With an unsourced article, you have to make more of an effort to check it, or just believe the contents as they are. But anyway, my header focused on the BLP problem, and added the unsourced because this was an unsourced article. I have not made an error in logic, and it appears that your opposition against the unsourced BLP RfC has blinded you here. I agree that if you would use words of less than one syllable in this discussion, it might be a bit more constructive (and would have been archived already). Fram (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No blindness on my part. Unsuitable information is added to Wikipedia as we write this, not only to biographical articles on living people, but to articles on dead people & to articles on various useful subjects. The original concept of Wikipedia was that many eyes would be sufficient to keep this unsuitable material out. Sadly, over half a dozen people editted that article & never thought to remove this unsuitable material -- which means either we accept that this situation is the best the Wikipedia model can do -- proprietary reference works have the same problem, yet fail to respond to mistakes as quickly as Wikipedia has done -- or we openly admit that the "many eyes" concept isn't good enough & stop calling Wikipedia "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Because the BLP policy is being invoked more & more frequently to overrule any process of discussion, thus becoming a nuclear option that will eventually be used by someone in a way that will destroy Wikipedia -- just like an exchange of nuclear weapons. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
We all want to keep bogus material out of Wikipedia, but some people act as if Wikipedia can be perfect when it can't possibly be. Like any online forum, it will pick up false and derogatory material now and then. I'm even seeing a big BLP hissy fit currently where somebody doesn't want people to add comments about someone's potential homosexuality that have been widely reprinted in the mass media, and despite a formal complaint being made about the case by a gay rights group the GLBT project isn't even allowed to tag the article. In the effort to make Wikipedia "perfect" they're creating a censored never-never land that rivals the complaints people have made about Wikipedia alternatives in China. And if they enforced this harsh BLP regime without racial bias, to also protect the reputations of Chinese soldiers and officials, we'd have to change the Tiananmen article to read just like the Chinese government's version of events! Wnt (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit notices[edit]

Request for assistance I tried to add an edit notice to George Orwell bibliography, but found out that only administrators can do this. I would like to suggest that an admin either 1.) add an edit notice to this article of {{British-English-editnotice}}, 2.) add this edit notice to every article that has {{British English}}, or 3.) investigate if {{British-English-editnotice}} can somehow be automatically created as an edit notice for any article that has {{British English}} (or another such English language variation template.) —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I think you can request this with {{editprotected}} at the talkpage (someone please correct me if this is in error). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't realized this was an admin-only thing, it was just switched on one day and I guess I figured everybody could do it... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I assume that the rationale is somewhere along the lines that they are high profile vandalism targets or they should not be added without talkpage consensus or some other good reason. Anyone can create an editnotice in their own userspace, though. I think we have had the ability to create /Edit notice or something like that for a while, but they recently made it much more user friendly (thanks, developers!). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
May I request a similar edit notice for U2? It has undergone similar attempts to switch from British to American English in the past. I'm a bit leery about trying to use {{editprotected}} in case that's the incorrect way of going about it. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Using {{editprotected}} is in fact the best way to go about it, really. Also, note that account creators (for whatever reason) can also do this along with administrators. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Block review?[edit]

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive592#MisterWiki. Again.

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected) was blocked for a period of 10 years (later altered to indef) around a month and a half ago. I am not questioning the original block, but I am hoping that the community will see fit to allow MisterWiki back. It is my sincere belief, having been in email contact with him, that he has learnt his lesson and is willing to come back and resume his good quality contributions to the mainspace. He has apologised (more than once) for the comment which precipitated the block and struck it out. The Following is a statement from MisterWiki:

Please, my sincere apologies to the admin I offended and the rest of the community of Wikipedia because of that unexplained situation I did in mid-January. I promise that if I comeback here, I'll go back to build articles, specially to Pichilemu, an article that I hope sometime will be a FA, and to get Modern Talking to GA. It was really an idiotic thing to say that you, a jewish admin, were nazi. I know it is very offensive. My great-grandfather itself was killed in Germany because he was jewish, in the World War II. I really need to comeback, it is the best thing I've ever found on the net, and a space to show everybody my knowledge. Again, my apologies. --MW talk contribs 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[1]

I am more than willing to mentor MisterWiki and will take personal responsibility if the community sees fit to unblock him. If probation or restrictions of some kind are deemed necessary, MisterWiki and I are willing to cooperate with any conditions that gain consensus. I apologise for the tl;dr and thank you for taking the time to read this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin, implementing what seemed to be clear consensus. I feel that MW is genuine here. It may be that he should be made to wait a little longer per WP:OFFER, but I would currently be willing to see him unblocked. I base this on my interactions with MisterWiki on Wikinews, where he went after being banned here. He was perfectly friendly towards me and held no grudge; what's more, while he has had problems getting his articles past our deadlines due to hid non-perfect English, he is damn well trying. See Wikinews:User talk:MisterWiki and his contributions, where he has two articles to his name but has tried to get several more published (stale articles are eventually deleted if they aren't published on Wikinews, which can't have been nice). Of course, here there is no WP:DEADLINE so it would be an easier environment. He's keen to contribute, and has become a regular in #Wikinews on Freenode where he is quite pleasant to people and clearly trying to be useful. I say yes. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No. The problems extend far beyond simply calling another user a nazi. No. Just no. Why waste the time? → ROUX  19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly strong with my view on removing troublemakers. My main wiki - WN - has a blocking policy where admins can hit a disruptive user straight away, and that is generally how it's done. I was recently chastised for getting it wrong here with a block length in excess of what the community felt was appropriate. If I'm saying a user can come back, I'm not doing it lightly. Partly, I am trusting HJ to try and keep the guy on the straight and narrow. I still have concerns about it being so damn soon, but if not now then at some point, yes. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Hells to the no. The problems were far greater than "calling another user a Nazi", involving immaturity amongst other things, and the fact that MisterWiki doesn't seem to recognise this is indicative of said immaturity. If he's useful on wikinews, fine! He can be useful on wikinews. And when he's demonstrated 6 months of useful work on a sister-project, maybe we can discuss allowing him back. Welcoming him back with open arms after little or no evidence that he's changed and matured simply demonstrates to blocked users that a block is more a day off then a formal suspension. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a reasonable deal, Iron. I believe something similar was said at the time of the block, actually. HJ, you seem confidant you can mentor MisterWiki. Would you be willing to come accross and help him there? Learning curve is steep but not insurmountable, and we're a friendly bunch. If not, we're doing fine with him and you may not have time to add another project to your workload, but given your willingness to help out I thought I'd throw that out there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's similar to Durova's standard offer, really. I'm not saying "contribute for 6 months and we'll welcome him back", but if he demonstrates maturity and usefulness elsewhere, then I don't see why there's any theoretical problem to refuse him. Until that point, however, I remain opposed to any unblock. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm keen to agree with Ironholds; we need a bit more time. If MW contributes constructively and with maturity on a sister wiki for a few months, I'll support the unblock, but not right now. Airplaneman talk 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • @Sandman, yes, I'd be willing to do what I can to help out on WN. I've contributed there before. The pace is a bit slower there so it could make for a nice break. I am confident I can mentor him because, at the end of the day, I genuinely believe he means well- I've no tolerance whatsoever for trolls and vandals (and I've encountered my fair share) but I think MW would benefit greatly from having someone to bounce ideas off- he is, after all, a good mainspace contributor, but perhaps needs to think things through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm also with the "wait" crowd here. It has not been too long since MW's block, and I would like to see a little more time to ensure that he won't return to the behavior he was blocked for. (X! · talk)  · @971  ·  22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, it's too soon. When someone gets blocked as a result of prolonged debate at ANI, it's usually a waste to even consider unblocking them for at least a few months. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • He'll need to promise not to recreate his one-man Wikiproject on Modern Talking for the third time. He is however, only young (still at high school), so it may well be more likely that the sharp lesson has taught him than with an older person. Give him another couple of months on Wikinews working with HJ Mitchell and review the situation, as he does have the capacity to be a useful editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely needs more time. He was getting reported to ANI on about a weekly basis, and definitely needs some time away to ponder where he went wrong. I think his enthusiasm, even desperation, to get back onto Wikipedia is not necessarily a good sign. Fences&Windows 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

  • Hello,

Again, Abnima, who's apparently an admin in the Arabic wiki, is deleting, reverting valuable resources, in the criticism section, applying abusively his point of view. I hope, someone will check this issue, [[9]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by النول (talkcontribs) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Or, put another way, you insist on rewriting the article to include a badly spelled "Arabic Wikipedia is teh suck", leading to the obvious conclusion that you've been in trouble there for POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Another angle, POV pushing, as criticism. you can judge the links instead, and also, correct paragraphs included before, in the AraBic Waykipedia, for I'm not an English Guy!. (i never said it sucked too) --النول (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Repeated edit warring will get you blocked, and your edit summaries are turning out more than a little pointy. Woogee (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Woogee, do you find this sane: One Arabic journalist living in the Netherlands!, and why abnima is deleting the akhbar reference, you lucky to be in the English wiki, where there're much of Communists! (you were a former admin too) --النول (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cat's for Speedy Deletion[edit]

Did I miss a discussion somewhere? There's a crapload of cat's under CSD right now ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Kitteh needs speedy deletin Guy (Help!) 17:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I CAN HAZ TEH DELORTED??!? A tiny part of me died when I wrote that. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That was the weak part. Now you are stronger. ~ Amory (utc) 13:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Wikiproject tags[edit]

At CENT, if I'd looked harder. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been three debates recently on WP:ANI over tagging of WP:BLP articles on individuals not known to be gay, with the LGBT WikiProject tag.

It is asserted that this is a problem because inclusion in the LGBT project implies something about their sexuality, whereas in the cases cited this is founded entirely on media speculation (in some cases minor speculation at that).

This is, to my mind, akin to the issue with contentious categories: the tag does not include any kind of rationale and the project is not "WikiProject sexuality" but "WikiProject LGBT studies", so inclusion is binary, lacks nuance and places the article in a specific set (LGBT / straight) rather than an encompassing set which does not imply membership of either (since the fact is Unknown, not LGBT or straight).

Any removal of the tags results, not unexpectedly, in a large number of editors form one side of the debate descending on the article. There is no obvious corresponding group to organise the other side of the debate, so this necessarily tends to skew the discussion, with a result that we risk confusing agreement of a large number of members of a specific group for actual consensus. I am sure the consensus in the project is that they should be able to claim any article on anybody they like, but that is not necessarily a neutral or correct view, albeit held in good faith.

This argument is clearly not going away, so I'd like to encourage some uninvolved admins to consider how we might kick off a process to resolve the argument properly. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC would help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with protection[edit]

My work as an admin almost never involves protection, so I need advice from others. Lone district of Bacoor and Lone district of Imus were deleted about twenty hours ago after going through AFD, but they have since been recreated and deleted four times each. It looks to me as if temporary create-protection is needed, but for how long? Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest simply blocking the creators if they fit the bill for vandal-only or have passed final warnings. SGGH ping! 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that any create-protection is necessary. The block should suffice. If he starts up again, I would suggest that either the page be create-protected for 6 months or so, or that he be blocked for a longer time. NW (Talk) 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Up in the Air (film)[edit]

I tried to close this requested move looking at both the discussion and policies. A few editors are trying to force this move, based on the film being the primary topic. To ensure that it was the primary topic, I did quite a few searches on the internet (attempting to leave out Wikipedia entries, of course) and I came to the conclusion that the ratio of pages out there was around 60:40 film:book. I did not see this as a significantly clear lead (maybe I was wrong...), so I declined the move. That caused much complaining, both on the talk page and my talk page, and one of those editors reverted the close without telling me. I explained my point, and then left it for some other admin to try and close. User:Anthony Appleyard then closed it with "no consensus", and also got much complaining, so he reverted the closure himself. Now the article is sitting there waiting for a third admin to run the gauntlet.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I closed it. I saw no compelling argument for the move, and said so. I am not concerned if there is some verbalisation, because I am the one with the big stick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't worry about the "verbalisation" - but they reverted my close, and I was not going to revert back without a second opinion.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A call to stop unilateral indefinite protections[edit]

Hello there. I have written what turned out to be a mini-essay :) and I would welcome your opinion. Thank you. (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please centralize your replies there and let me know if there is a more appropriate page/way to seek admins' opinions on the matter. Thanks again. (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Practically all actions on Wikipedia are unilateral. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
And practically all of them should be. Gavia immer (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course. It can't be any other way, really. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a longer parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD needs closing[edit]

Resolved: AfD closed. NW (Talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kare Made Love KM has already been running for over two weeks. If there is no consensus after all this time, it should be closed as such instead of being repeatedly relisted. —Farix (t | c) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that there were no new commends since Scott MacDonald had relisted it, so without reading the rest of the AfD I relisted it myself. That was probably a bad call on my part; I have since deleted it. NW (Talk) 18:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Forty lashes with a wet noodle for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Starmania article deleted[edit]

Hi there! I don't see enough relevance on this article. I also added a deletion tag and I left a comment on it's discussion page. I'd appreciate that this article gets deleted. Mischa the Pilot (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the deletion tag and delete the MfD subpage as both an out-of-process (should have gone to AfD) and disruptive (per WP:IDONTLIKEIT) deletion request. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BRFA for adminbot[edit]

I have created a BRFA for an adminbot that was requested. The BRFA is here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EyeEightDestroyerBot. It is a one-time run which deleted 25000 specified images in a certain category. Even though this should be a relatively uncontroversial bot, I am posting it here and at WP:VPR to make the community more aware about its existence. (X! · talk)  · @079  ·  00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the immediate deletion of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster[edit]

Resolved: No. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The creation of this page is simply insulting. A few articles that were not sufficiently paraphrased in sections does not invalidate my work on this project, which was always done to the best of my ability and always in good faith. Frankly, this is ridiculous, and I respectfully ask that it be removed immediately. Concerns with any article I have written or edited may be directed to my talk page and addressed there. I am working on rewriting problem articles, but doing so mainly off of Wikipedia to avoid unnecessary drama. FlyingToaster 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

CCI is a great way for us to help you address the copyright issues. It is not intended to be insulting; we are simply helping out. Theleftorium 21:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm heavily involved with CCI, though I've had nothing to do with this one. But it seems that one of the SCV contributors found current problems in seven of your articles: Irish School of Ecumenics, Canal City Hakata ([10]), Ars inveniendi ([11]), Irving Morrow ([12]), Morgan "Bill" Evans ([13], [14]), Uterine orgasm ([15]), Parastichy ([16]). Having only just seen this CCI, I have not evaluated these. In addition, a good many more were located earlier, as discussed at your talk page. The purpose of a CCI is to aid in evaluating for copyright problems when a contributor has been shown to have placed copyrighted content outside of policy in multiple articles. Even if your doing so was inadvertent, I believe this has been true for you. Is there any reason why your edits should not be subjected to review by others to ensure that they are properly cleaned? (I do see, though, that the list of contributions includes reverts. I'll see about replacing it if the page remains.) This CCI is one of two dozen currently open and is by no means suggestive of bad faith. At this point, AGF specifically discusses that policy and copyright here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)It seems that it was filed correctly, at the appropriate page, and accepted per guidelines. I do not see there is any reason for removing it. I also do not think that you have the authority to propose a different way of dealing with the situation. You can either proceed in your own methodology of correcting the problems, or you can join the others within an established process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I am more than happy for others to review my work if they wish, but I feel an entire project page on the matter is both punitive and unnecessary. Phrases such as If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately are not applied to editors to whom good faith is being assumed. Editors' dedication to article cleanup and copyright law is laudable - I am objecting to this method and not the work. I'm requesting that since very few articles are insufficiently paraphrased, and the substantive body of my work is not a problem, you let me fix what needs to be fixed on my own, as I have been doing offline. FlyingToaster 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's policy; see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It is part of the instructions placed at the top of every WP:CCI, along with the caveat: "However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal", which is also present in yours. As I said above, WP:AGFC specifically addresses this situation. It says, "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices." This method is the simplest way of listing your article content and noting which ones have concerns and which ones do not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Endorsing what Moonriddengirl says here. We should all be treated the same way. Don't take this to heart, and I urge you to follow LessHeard vanU's advice and join in with the established process. So far as I'm concerned, that's the best thing you could do and would show good faith. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me also note that these are not indexed, and as soon as it is fully closed it will be courtesy blanked. We have only kept a few with their content still visible because they are needed, as for images that are up for deletion on Commons. I can think of several CCIs where the contributors themselves have been (and in one case still are) very active in working alongside those who have been addressing the concerns. The point is simply to get any problems resolved as quickly as possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree. FT, it is undeniable that there are problems with some of your contributions and the best thing you can do is help these editors establish which, fix them and then we can all move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
As a way "to avoid unnecessary drama" as FT says, taking something like this to WP:AN seems a bit counterproductive. I agree with the other comments above that deletion is not warranted in this case. But in future, WP:MFD is a more appropriate and drama-free place to take non-article deletion requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I am incredulous that this editor is still not grasping Wikipedia's most fundamental and important rule. A few days ago, she was here wanting magical tools just handed back on a plate. Can someone please explain to her - slowly; just how serious this is. Otherwise, sooner or later, it will fall to me to explain, and it won't be in words of one syllable. If she's still not grasping it, then she has to be banned.  Giano  22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Giano, your talents are many and I count myself as an admirer of them; "WikiLifeGuide", however is not one of them, and I would very strongly suggest that you do not make the attempt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I kind of think that was the point. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't find this comment helpful; many editors come here with good intentions, and find our policies and guidelines an extremely steep learning curve, and if they can't cope with that, despite well-intentioned attempts to direct them in the right direction, just give up. We've all made mistakes editing here, and I defy you to find me one editor who hasn't. On the other hand, talk of "banning" is premature; even you seem to have been rehabilitated for the time being. I accept re-adminning of Flying Toaster is unlikely in the circumstances, but I do not consider a page of collections of cpvios, for the purpose of validating our content, can be construed as an attack page. It is more an attempt to correct mistakes made in the past, for the benefit and protection of the encyclopedia, and no attack is intended. Maybe such a page might be better offline, but that makes the job of those trying to fix the problem more difficult. It can be here, for maintenance only, and only for as long as needs be here, and then it should go. It is already {{NOINDEX}}ed to prevent unnecessary external obloquy, and I think we've largely got it about right here. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

FGS, if people are so stupid that they cannot understand that we do not copy other people's work and pass it off as our own, then there is no place here for them. In short, it is ilegal and brings the project into disrepute.  Giano  23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The vast majority are totally fine and if a few editors have a little look the page will soon have been dealt with and gone. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK. Tell me, from your own past experience, what limits, if any apply to the policies of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? These may not be legal requirements, but they are nevertheless regarded as critical policies. As regards copyright violations, many editors unwittingly introduce them into, for example, lists of television programme episodes, and it would be a full-time job to keep track of them. Fortunately, nobody has yet (as far as I know) successfully sued the WMF for breach of copyright, although I'm pretty confident that there have been a few emails to the Office in that regard. What is important is not that we act upon copyright violations when we detect them, but that we have a coherent system in place to do so. CorenBot is all very well, but it is not a catch-all solution, and does not catch subtle plagiarism. The alternative is that recent-change patrollers are alert to cpvios, as well as vandalism, but my experience is that there is already too much to do on that patrol. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • There have been many emails to the office about copyright issues, varying from the obviously valid to the batshit insane to the argument between two people over who owns the copyright on the content they used to share (and resulting in both sites being blacklisted due to their edit-warring over links). I think I'm right in saying that we have never received a valid DMCA takedown notice. This is largely, IMO, because our response to copyright issues is generally robust and small-c conservative, as is right and proper given our commitment to the free-as-in-speech part of free software: we prefer free content, freely given. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum I[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock or meatpuppet of the banned user Hetoum I (talk · contribs). More info about Hetoum is available here: [17]. It seems that he changed his geolocation, but the editing manner is the same. In any case, that IP is used for the same type of edits as reported here: [18], and needs an admin attention. Thanks. Grandmaster 06:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User page text copied[edit]

A recent User page, created by User:MrRohanM on 26 January 2010 has the opening text copy pasted from my Userpage, including the Babel tower and the Barnstars! The design format however is not mine original, rather a standard one. Are there any wiki rules that cater to this situation?!! If yes, please guide/intervene. Thanks! --Ekabhishektalk 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The user has been recently blocked for ignoring copyvio notices too. It is definitely a mis-representation of himself, especially indicating years of work on articles and displaying barnstars from established editors! Here is another complaint raised by an editor. prashanthns (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I presented the barnstar to Ekabhishek, not MRohan. AshLin (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Material here is released by you per the GFDL guidelines. I will however leave him a note about this discussion and about the false use of barnstars awarded to others. JodyB talk 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as a followup, I left a note asking him to remove the false Barnstars. I removed the one from User:AshLin referenced above. JodyB talk 14:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed them all as they were misleading. I've run into users like this before who have copied a user's page, which resulted in 7 users being errniously added to a project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether somebody's User page edits are released or not, the person who copies them to their User page must still follow the attribution rules. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the licensing issues raised above, there is the issue of misrepresentation too. prashanthns (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. As a side note, since user pages are often edited solely by their owners, the wikilinks for the page and author may be the same. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New filter may be in order[edit]

It may be time for a filter to help alert us to a very persistent character. User:Channel 6 has been nurturing a very single-minded sockpuppet farm almost certainly via proxies. He's been trying to promote a totally non-notable singer named Sarey Savy since at least December 2008. He simply keeps creating variations on the title as each variation is salted. "Sarey" is consistent among all the variations; could we create a filter that would alert us to "Sarey" and/or "Savy" or perhaps "Savvy?" --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • FYI, he's also over at Simple English. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at DRV[edit]

Resolved: Several somebodies did. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close the two discussions remaining open at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 17 before they disappear? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions poll by Jimbo Wales[edit]

Please visit and comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales/poll. Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has started a poll about whether or not we should simply turn on flagged revisions ASAP using the same settings as the German Wikipedia. This would seriously reduce the time it will take to implement, but it will likely mean we have considerable more work to do than we would have with the settings we actually want. It looks like Jimbo is advocating that we would switch off the German version and switch over to our own version as soon as it's ready. Anyway, enough from me - Go vote! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem with template deletion process[edit]

Please investigate I decided to take a look at {{First Class Matches}}, {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}—all of which I recently nominated for deletion and all of which were voted for deletion. Even though the discussions were over, {{tfd}} was still on the pages and {{being deleted}} was not. This lead me to Category:Templates for deletion, which includes (amongst others) {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, which was nominated and kept last November. I don't know how widespread this issue is, but I suggest an admin take a look. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the issue here, I'm a bit unclear: what's the issue with {{Saudi Arabian political parties}} being nominated and kept last November?
You're right that {{First Class Matches}} seems to have been overlooked, but the TfD templates had been removed from both Infobox Canadian police service and Infobox Police Department. I don't know that {{being deleted}} is necessary, because the closure of the TfD discussion seems to have been to redirect those two. Redirecting is, of course, a form of keeping. Pending some clarification, I'll go ahead and remove the "being deleted" template from those two. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to note, I've asked an admin who does a lot of work at TfD to help clarify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "voted for deletion" isn't an accurate description of the results for {{Infobox Canadian police service}} and {{Infobox Canadian police service}}, so a {{Being deleted}} template would not be appropriate. {{First Class Matches}} was just closed this morning (UTC), so I'm not sure if it was "overlooked" or if the admin just didn't bother because he expected to have the deletion finished quickly enough for it not to matter. Leaving the TFD notice on {{Saudi Arabian political parties}}, on the other hand, was clearly a mistake. The result tag on the talk page was also forgotten, so I added that. A quick scan of the category also found an incomplete close for Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 20#Template:Bihar State Highways Network, where the Tfd template was left on the page after it was userfied, and a few false inclusions (templates that show up in the category because a nominated template is transcluded into them). But the vast majority of the templates in the category are current nominations, so I don't think there is a widespread problem here. --RL0919 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, missed the obvious there. The problem with it was that the TfD template had remained. :) Not a problem with the TfD itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If you check the links to {{First Class Matches}}, you will see it's on my todo list. I didn't see a need for the {{being deleted}} since it was going to be handled within 24 hours. This is not always an instantaneous process, especially when there are hundreds of templates being nominated in the span of a couple days. Next time you can always just ask the closing admin about it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Right I didn't think it was a problem until I saw the deletion from November. Obviously, things take time, but things this simple don't take four months. 24 hours on the other hand is completely legitimate. Thanks for the input. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea to check Category:Templates for deletion, as you did, every so often. You will frequently find templates which were tagged, but no discussion was started, or templates which have closed, but never deleted, redirect, or orphaned. It would probably be fairly straightforward to write a script to check for members of this category which were not currently listed on the TFD page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)



Can someone help with this template please? I tried renaming it to US_War_on_Terror, but I broke the template in the articles where it was used. I tried renaming it back, but that didn't fix it. Thanks in advance. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what happens...[edit]

...when you indeff an editor Face-grin.svg. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I told them; a thousand year block would have been more appropriate! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Very interrrestink... but stupid! Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Best... video... ever... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Obvious troll - they misspelled "indefinitely. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
"Moderator?" We have moderators? —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of times where admins are called mods because of the way we block and delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind. Just alluding to the fact that those unfamiliar with WP often use an imprecise term.DoRD (?) (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe the term is derived from neutron moderator. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

user: & user:[edit] (talk · contribs) / (talk · contribs) is trying to endrun around WP:TFD by removing all instances of {{for2}}, even though consensus at TfD is shown to keep using it (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_18)

This user also seems to have an obsession with disambiguation hatnote templates, replacing one with another, and nominating them for deletion. Several people have complained about this behaviour on the user's talk pages. (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename CAT:CSD[edit]

Please express your opinions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. (discussion closed, timestamp added) Fram (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving old BBC News articles[edit]

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into WebCites before they are removed and then we'll have a huge sourcing problem in our hands. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This problem crops up more and more. What happened to User:WebCiteBOT? And can't AWB be extended to allow rapid WebCiting? Rd232 talk 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It is useful to Webcite such references even if, at this stage, citations are not edited to link to the archives. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


LirazSiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is co-founder of TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user's history shows that he has engaged in a prolonged campaign of promotion of his commercial interests, creating the article on his product (twice), and recently edit-warring over his insertion of his product at {{Cloud computing}}, e.g. [19] where he describes removal of his addition of his product as "vandalism". I propose that LirazSiri be restricted as follows:

The history of the talk page and its deleted comments [20] shows that the user cannot possibly claim, as he appears to do on the current version, to be unaware of the problems of his conflicted editing. He was warned in February 2009 about COI edits [21] and when Abd warned him in Feb 2010 his response pretends he was not previously aware of this [22] (note that edit also removes warnings about copyright, removal of deletion templates and so on). There is no doubt that this editor is aware of our policies, the history of his talk page indicates numerous previous notified deletions of material due to rights issues.

Alternatively, since this is effectively a WP:SPA I guess a siteban would be possible, but I prefer to think that if we could prevent him from spamming he might still try to contribute some useful content on areas where he has knowledge. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Despite their obvious potential in contributing to Wikipedia in an appropriate manner, their insistence on using WP as a promotional tool is presently a nett deficit to the project. Since there is the potential, I concur that a article ban is the best option. This may be reviewed should their contributions start reflecting policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Generally, this may be a good idea, if only to avoid future problems. That said, the above description isn't entirely accurate:
  • The editor did recreate the page after it was first speedied, but the current version was userfied and developed before being sent, by the editor, to DRV, where it was approved.
  • The COI is in regard to an open source project, so it isn't clear that there is a direct commercial interest, and the editor is generally very upfront about the COI.
  • As I understand it, the major spamming involved placing a link to the article in the {{Cloud computing}} template, where, when it was first removed, the editor sought consensus on talk.
  • The current dispute, and accusations of vandalism, came after that template was modified, without discussion, by Samj with the somewhat inflammatory edit summary of "%!@$#! spammers!". Samj also accused the editor of vandalism for readding the link well before LirazSiri returned the favour, including placing a final warning on LirazSiri's talk. I note that LirazSiri suggested that Samj discuss the template rather than edit waring on at least three occasions ([23][24][25]) prior to either editor escalating to accusations of vandalism.
Short version - it looks like two editors managed to get caught up in a fairly wide ranging and heated edit war. While sanctions may be needed, I'm uncomfortable with coming down on LirazSiri without noting that there was bad behaviour on both sides, and that LirazSiri wasn't necessarily the worst of the two. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There was certainly a mess when the TurnKey Linux article was created, and a lot of argument, mostly instigated (or at least furthered) by LirazSiri. I guess my point there is only that that he seemed to get a clue, eventually, fixed up the article, and went through DRV. So the current article isn't necessarily suffering from the same problems, and he did improve his approach. I don't dispute that he is an SPA, and nor do I dispute that he has a COI. But I think the characterization of the editor's recent problems fails to take into account what was going on - while you're right that an editor had previously reverted the change from the template, LirazSiri took it to talk, and the result was (between the two editors) seeming acceptance of its inclusion. Then Samj turned up, two months later, removed it with an overly aggressive edit summary without discussion, and the two edit warred - with escalating commentary - over its inclusion, expanding the fight to TurnKey Linux. My hassle is that LirazSiri responded badly, and that he was arguably spamming the article with wikilinks, but it seems worth remembering that this wasn't the case of an editor reacting without cause, but two editors behaving badly, and that it was LirazSiri who seemed to be making moves to resolve the dispute (admittedly while reverting to his preferred version, of course). A topic ban might make sense, especially with the linking you mentioned, but it still seems worth keeping in mind what was pushing the reactions over the last few days. - Bilby (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If that had been an end to it, yes. But one of those diffs, [34], is from December 2009 and the edit war that started all this is recent. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I had planned to stay out of this but so long as I am being persistently criticised in a public forum using my real name by User:Bilby (who I note is a long-term contributor to the TurnKey article FWIW) I'm going to exercise my right of reply. First of all, and most importantly, my sole motivation is to maintain a very high standard in cloud computing related articles. In contrast, User:LirazSiri is a single purpose account for promoting TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library (and indirectly the associated commercial entity, Sterile Security, not that a subject need be commercial to give rise to WP:COI).
I don't own the Template:Cloud computing article, but I did create it with a specific purpose in mind (now described in the template docs) and I do care about it. What User:LirazSiri did in adding an "Appliances" category to advertise their flagship product is comparable to adding a new layer to the 7-layer OSI model for the same purpose - obviously that would be unacceptable and would be immediately and persistently reverted by other editors (as was the case here - note that I was not the only editor to remove the category and the consensus is that it should not be there). Furthermore, the template is intended to illustrate by example each of the three main cloud computing layers (infrastructure, platform, application) using the best examples available - it is not intended to promote unknown entities. So far as I am concerned this is without doubt spam and given it changes the meaning of the template consider it vandalism too. Note that "[Template vandalism] is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds of pages."
Also note that the template was a relatively minor part of the problem (albeit the one that initially caught my attention). There is also the far more serious matter of 10 problematic images having been uploaded AGAIN, containing TurnKey's logo grafted others' registered trademarks along with the claim that "I (LirazSiri (talk)) created this work entirely by myself". These were then persistently inserted and re-inserted into many non-image categories, with reverts summarised as "hotcat abuse"(?). When I then partially resolved the copyright problems by applying {{Non-free logo}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}} (calling for fair use rationale) this was quickly reverted. I was heavily criticised by both User:LirazSiri and User:Abd for my cleanup efforts, for listing the images for deletion, and even for my choice of tool! When User:LirazSiri removed the deletion templates (more vandalism) he used the edit summary "reverted vindictive edits by SamJohnston" and repeatedly claimed in the debate that this constituted "more cynical wikilawyering and harassment".
Now I may not come across as the friendliest editor (especially to those who seek to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion) and this one edit summary may have been a bit abrasive, but I feel little remorse for hostility towards such disruptive and tendentious editing, particularly in light of the abuse I have received both on- and off-wiki (here, here, here and of course this). Maybe I do take it "insanely seriously" but we have policies for a reason and they generally work well. User:LirazSiri has shown they have no respect for the rules and that they "will continue to express [their] opinions and advocate for what [they] believe in despite threats to censor [them] for 'making waves'". It seems the only way to avoid continued disruption is with a ban of some sort.
P.S. If you're looking for an explanation as to how routine spam cleanup turned into a full on dispute snaring multiple editors then look no further than User:Abd who has a history of same and an editing restriction "[prohibiting them] from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties" that we are seeking to enforce. -- samj inout 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It was pointed out to LirazSiri at least a year ago that Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. This has been studiously ignored. Only supportive comments have been accepted and the promotional edits have continued unabated. What we have here is a completely unrepentant promoter of their own commercial ends. We normally block such people, an editing restriction is definitely lenient here. But don't be tempted to start flinging mud at Bilby, he seems to me to be acting in good faith, I don't see any evidence you and he would have trouble agreeing on anything of importance if you set out to try. I know what it feels like to be on the end of one of Abd's crusades, don't let the feeling poison you against others who are trying to discuss the matter in good faith. The problem here is LirazSiri, plus the emboldening effect Abd has had, which has actively impeded LirazSiri's progress from a COI spammer into anything else. Now we're going to have to take action to fix that. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I would Support a topic ban rather than a block (and I should hope banning the TurnKey article will temper User:LirazSiri's interest in others, including the template where I see they have been busy even today criticising my work and pushing the point about linking). Alternatively, or perhaps additionally in light of the disruption caused, I would propose a short block (somewhere between a day and a month) in the hope that they finally understand that they are at fault as nothing else seems to be getting through to them. An indefinite block just gives them reason to criticise the project and to be honest (thanks in no small part to assistance from other editors, including User:Bilby) the quality of the TurnKey article is not *that* bad so they may yet become a productive contributor rather than a "net deficit". -- samj inout 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In light of User:LirazSiri's attempted outing of User:JzG in response to notification of this incident (grounds in itself for an immediate block per WP:OUTING) and their persistence on Template_talk:Cloud computing, I no longer believe that a topic ban would be adequate. -- samj inout 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update on LirazSiri's status[edit]

I was unaware of this discussion until a few moments ago, but participants will likely be interested to know that I have just placed an indefinite block on LirazSiri. S/he just attempted to out another editor, and s/he should remain indefinitely blocked until s/he expresses an understanding of our harrassment policy. (Unfortunately, I was subsequently forced to disable talk page editing by LirazSiri, because s/he continued to attempt to identify this editor.) If any admin sees fit to unblock after that, I would stipulate that it be under the condition that any further attempt to violate any other editor's privacy will result in a permanent block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LirazSiri immediately took this off-wiki and violated WP:OUTING "for the record" for the third time. He also abused me about it even though I didn't enact the block:
  • Warning: never use your real identity on Wikipedia. The rules of the game are rigged to punish you for transparency.[35]
  • @samj you are the most cynical and disingenuous professional I have ever come across online. And that's saying something. For shame. [36]
  • @samj I'm tempted to write a blog post exposing what really happened. With evidence. When you live in a glass house don't throw stones. [37]
  • @samj OTOH, this text MMORPG drama has wasted enough of my time and sociopaths like you self destruct on their own eventually. Good day. [38]
  • @samj Drop the Dr. Jekyll routine. You sound reasonable on Twitter but on Wikipedia you are a vicious (yet still clever) Mr. Hyde. [39]
This was in addition to their earlier posts:
  • @samj Wow. Just wow. Did you get on the wrong side of bed today? Take a deep breath. [40]
  • Why do intelligent people create unnecessary drama online? It is boredom? Hopelessly misplaced ape-like aggression? Here, have a banana [41]
  • staticnnonsense @lirazsiri because they're human. drama follows humans like flies, intelligent or not, intentional or not. we just sorta suck like that. [42]
  • darkuncle @lirazsiri explains it pretty well. [43]
  • That penny arcade comic is hilarious. And true. Good combination. Thanks @darkuncle! [44]
  • This week's lesson: watch where you step on Wikipedia. Some people take it insanely seriously. [45]
  • Wikipedia is like this giant text MMORPG nation with a complex legal system and culture only an insider can truly grok [46]
This is exactly what I was trying to avoid above, but now that it's done I think we have little choice but to leave the indefinite block in place until LirazSiri agrees to abide by the rules. -- samj inout 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I will note as a follow-up that LirazSiri emailed me requesting an unblock, and forwarding me a copy of an email he wrote to Samj (after he, LirazSiri, was blocked) in which he threatened to extensively discuss details of Samj's identity and occupation. He also intimated that he would consider socking as a response to an extended block. I was not comfortable with unblocking under those circumstances, and said so. I am not prepared to get into extensive on-wiki discussion involving editors' (purported) identities, nor do I feel that I can unblock this editor in good conscience. If there are other administrators familiar with the issues here, I will defer to their judgement on when or how LirazSiri might be unblocked. (I further waive any requirement that I be consulted before further administrative actions. Frankly, I thought this would be a simple indef-until-you-promise-not-to-do-it-again one-off block; I wasn't expecting to get sucked into interpersonal disputes and emails full of private and semiprivate information.) Emails will be made available to BASC on request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
With respect to LirazSiri, while I felt there was a reason for some of his earlier actions, there's no justification for his later ones. It would take something quite different to continued threats to out a user in order to warrant unblocking. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly suggest a few other admins to have a look at the deleted versions. If AGF is given any weight at all, this wasn't exactly an "attempt to out" as is being interpreted here. LirazSiri's explanation (followed by "sheesh!") is actually quite plausible, bringing both the block and the talk page restriction into question, which in turn might explain (though not excuse) some of the email and twitter reactions. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy's name is hardly a secret, as he had a link to his own wiki with identifying information on his talk page for a long time. I certainly wouldn't have thought of a mention of his surname as being "outing" - simply a statement of fairly common knowledge. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed about JzG. But isn't the subsequent threat made in email to TenOfAllTrades re SamJohnston what's being discussed here? Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The mail was apparently made after the block and restriction of talk page editing. Again, that would explain, but not necessarily excuse the email/tweet stuff. If TenOfAllTrades' initial reaction was disproportionate (which it certainly appears to have been), I'd like to at least see someone else review the email and see if there is room for resolving the issue in a less heavy-handed manner. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The initial block for "outing" JzG as Guy Chapman was incorrect, as JzG has identified himself as Guy Chapman for copyright purposes relating to Wikipedia images. See [47]. DuncanHill (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it was quite an over-reaction, yes. As did LirazSiri, it seems (admin only link, see bottom paragraph), and it's hard to see how his/her reply to Ten's concerns could be interpreted as warranting the reaction it got. I strongly support lifting the block under the circumstances. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • My name is not really a deep secret (though it's fair to note that I don't currently make the link here and others, such as THF, have arbitration findings underscoring a user's right not to have a link made even if they originally made it themselves). The issue here, though, is that LirazSiri seems to be unable to accept that his conflicted edits are a problem. IMO the major cause of this escalation is that Abd has spent a lot of time bolstering his sense of injustice and entitlement, resulting in the user receiving a very mixed message. Instead of being steered firmly away from promoting his product he's been told, in effect, that he can ignore the advice and warnings he's being given because of the person giving them - of course he's going to want to hear that rather than that he should stop promoting his commercial interests on Wikipedia, that's natural. LirazSiri showed signs of donning the Spider-Man suit but later Tweets seem calmer - I don't know if he's been outing SamJ as well though. I don't have a problem with sticking to the original suggestion of a topic ban. I think he's angry, not evil, and we've failed to fix a bad situation caused by someone giving him the wrong kind of feedback. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed on most points. My sense of the (since interrupted) discussion above is that you were looking for a topic ban to help things along, rather than an indefblock, which strikes me as a reasonable approach. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly that. Obviously we need to ensure that the user receives sound advice in future and not axe-grinding, and this should include guiding him to stick to usernames, not take on-wiki disputes off-wiki and vice-versa, and all the other usual stuff. It's not really his fault that he's become a pawn in a game he didn't even know was being played, it is our fault for not realising that the involvement of grudge-bearers was going to have this effect on what is, after all, a pretty routine matter. It needs an uninvolved admin who is not obviously part of the dispute or "teh cabalz", is all. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm willing if there are no objections. Looks easy enough to unstir the teapot in this case, but closure to the topic-ban discussion would be helpful. I'll check back in a bit and unblock with appropriate warnings if there's no problem with that. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering Guy's not too fussed about his identity being known, even if there was intent there was no harm done. The first attempted outing had a similar "I know what you did last summer" ring to it as the email (which threatened to "expose" me for a couple of uncontroversial edits I made when I first created my account 4 years ago as well as crying wolf about WP:COI) and I didn't see the second. As such I would (as the original originating party) again Support a topic ban rather than a block. I would even support lifting the topic ban if the user were to indicate that they understand and agree to abide by the relevant policies, in particular the suggestions in WP:COI. -- samj inout 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The paranoia over "outing" gets quite ridiculous around here, extending to the making and enforcement of "shut the barn door after the horse left" policies against revealing information that the subject himself revealed, then tried to take back. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now unblocked, hopefully the issues can be concluded without further drama. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Support a topic ban, let's see if this editor is able to contribute usefully to areas where they don't have a conflict of interest and a poor editing history. This is the kind of problem we get when editors listen to disruptive influences. Verbal chat 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The accused responds[edit]

Hi Everyone. This is as closest I've ever been (and ever hope to be!) "on trial". A lot has been written on my behavior and motives and it's strange to read that as a bystander. At least now that I'm unblocked I can respond.

I originally intended to include a description I compiled of SamJ's problematic edit history, cross referenced with his public employment record and peel away the pretense from his "I'm-just-trying-to-protect-Wikipedia" charade. But I won't do that. Not because I think it would be wrong, but mainly because it would be a big waste of my time to engage in a debate about this and that would be akin to the territorial retaliation I've been on the pointy end of this last week. I won't stoop to that. I'll merely conclude that this was an editorial content dispute that got out of hand [48] and there is blame enough to go around. At a couple of points I did get angry and loose my cool in and off wiki, but I got my sense of proportion back pretty quickly afterwards and calmed down [49] [50]. For the record, I've decided to forgive Sam for any real or perceived aggression against a fellow editor and cloud computing enthusiast. To his credit he did seem to tone it down a notch towards the end [51]. Unfortunately, this was just after he had me blocked for "outing" Guy so it's a mixed bag.

I haven't yet decided how involved I want to be with Wikipedia in the future. I've been contributing anonymously to areas of interest since not long after the project's inception (with the first Slashdot waves). I only created an account with my real name to facilitate full transparency regarding edits I had potential COI with. I was tempted to rationalize that there wasn't really a COI because there wasn't a commercial interest involved, but I realized what a slippery slope this was (there's a difference between being rational and rationalizing) and decided to consciously limit myself in this regard. Unfortunately, I feel that's made me particularly vulnerable to ad-hominem attacks which I am compelled to respond to in defense of my reputation. Instead of discussing content on its merits it becomes all too easy to simply dismiss edits as tainted with COI (at best) or even evil spamming. Last year the article on TurnKey was even "speed deleted" as spam instead of going through the normal AfD process for determining notability. It was then moved to my user space for improvement but since I had messed with the wrong admin it was speed deleted even from there. That felt abusive. Sure, the article was eventually restored by unanimous decision at Deletion Review [52] but it was frustrating to have to go through that and get dragged through the mud first.

Wikipedia's anarchic bureaucracy suffers from many perversions. The attempt to codify good behavior in policy has created a complex virtual legal system that can be easily manipulated by savvy individuals to their own ends (e.g., my blocking for an innocuous, lighthearted greeting). To paraphrase Lincoln, we all link to the same wiki policies, but in doing so we do not always mean the same things. In practice, many valuable would-be contributors to the project are being driven away through attrition, leaving the most obsessive, territorial contributors with free reign. Bad things can happen to good editors with the best of intentions and for all the wrong reasons.

Fortunately just when your head is about to explode from the insanity of it all comes along someone like Abd and offers neutral, positive guidance [53] [54]. What troubles me the most about this whole affair is how much mud had been slung in his direction. Some people in the community seem to really have it in for him. That's a shame. Wikipedia embodies so much of the good and bad in human nature and we need more people like him to tip the scale and prevent the project from further disintegrating.

Cheers. LirazSiri (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Liraz, you emailed me and threatened to "expose" me for uncontroversial, factual edits to the Citrix Systems article like this one, for creating the completely neutral System Administrators Guild of Ireland article and then got into a whole lot of hand waving about how I had been "so successful in pushing a POV on cloud that serves [my] employer's interests" and that "this makes [me] one of the most cynical and disingenuous professionals [you] have ever come across online" (conveniently ignoring the fact that I have literally just started working for my employer and that your accusations are conspicuously absent supporting evidence - presumably why you threatened to "out" me off-wiki with "a quantitative visual analysis of [my] edit history in the last 4 years with correlation to your public employment record" rather than using the usual processes). We have a word for that. I explained to you why a WP:COI accusation absent evidence is a type of personal attack (An interest is not a conflict of interest) and yet here you go again, going so far as to call me a single-purpose account in your emailed response.
As for User:Abd, who narrowly escaped sanction for violating his editing restriction and who will not be so lucky next time following clarification, here's a more typical sample of his "neutral, positive guidance". -- samj inout 06:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Two things immediately spring to mind from LirazSiri's comment: WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The "neutral positive guidance" offered by Abd is no different from the counsel you were offered a year ago, had you heeded it then you would not be in trouble now. Instead you chose to follow what you presumably thought was "neutral positive guidance" from Abd back then, which turned out to be a serious mistake because the grudge-bearers managed to persuade you that you could safely ignore our documented aversion to promotional editing. You can't. Or at least not without getting into trouble, as you've found out. I think you are being distinctly disingenuous here, notwithstanding that you have been counselled badly by some people who are primarily grinding axes. I am not persuaded that you have yet shown any understanding of why your promotion of your commercial interests here is unacceptable. You continue to use distraction fallacies, as you did then, in an apparent attempt to excuse continued conflicted editing. I'm sorry, that is simply not good enough. The evidence above is pretty clear: your primary purpose here is and always has been the promotion of your own commercial interests, apparently because nobody but you thinks your product is of such pre-eminent worth as to justify adding it at high-level articles. So you do it. Again and again and again. Even though you've had WP:COI pointed out. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support a "topic ban from making any edit relating to TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library, except to point out simple errors of fact at Talk:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library. But as I have not finished looking into this, this will have to be something I come back to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs) is trying to make unconstructive edits to an article (Pacific Ring of Fire) such as The Pacific Ring of Poo Tards (or sometimes just the Ring of Poo) instead of The Pacific Ring of Fire (or sometimes just the Ring of Fire).

Nascar1996 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC needs closing[edit]

Resolved: The WordsmithCommunicate 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can one of those legendary univolved admins determine consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC: Every playmate is notable? It's been open for a month now. Pcap ping 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix[edit]