Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Afd needing closure[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time for Annihilation has been open for nearly two months, in which time the article has been much improved. However, there is a current apparent consensus for deletion, largely due to interested editors not going to the Afd and defending it. I commented myself, so I can't close it, but it needs outside eyes to take a realistic point of view and do the right thing. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that this AFD was never transcluded onto the log for May 20th. I did so and relisted it with a note pointing to this thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Ron. Probably explains the lack of comments from editors, but nevertheless, the AfD notice has been repeatedly removed by an editor whom I blocked earlier. That doesn't excuse those actions, of course, since the AFD was valid, but I think another 7 days is probably the correct thing to do. Rodhullandemu 01:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if the AFD tag not being on the article at the moment when "interested editors" saw it might have hurt its chances. Those who remove AFD tags don't realize that by doing so they're keeping the "keep" !voters away as well. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hence the block, for precisely that reason. Rodhullandemu 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose Topic Ban[edit]

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

Resolved: User topic-banned for 6 months

For User: Wittsun, on all articles and edits relating to race, ethnicity, and religion. Per [1] and [2].

Supports and opposes can go below. Also feel free to comment on either of the two original threads, if you wish. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - having seen the article Six Families of Berlin, which Wittsun deprodded, it is clear that Wittsun holds extremist views on this subject matter. The page was an anti-Lebanese racist hoax/synthesis, and it is clear that Wittsun's views show that he cannot edit impartially on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talkcontribs) 22.39, today
How so? Being only one of two German speakers on that thread, I was able to evaluate the referenced sources for notability. As for stonemason89's partisan fixation to get me banned, I encourage others to evaluate his 'contributions' such as the supposed widespread misuse of the metaphor 'black hole'[3] and his close following of the 'redneck shop'[4]]--Wittsun (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Both articles have been accepted by the Did You Know editorial team as legitimate, and were even featured on the main page, so you're going to have a very hard time getting people to agree with your statement. Also, simply creating an article about a particular topic, as long as the topic is notable and appropriate for an encyclopedia (unlike, for example, the aforementioned Six Families of Berlin), is not in an of itself a reason to suspect bias. If everyone on Wikipedia was afraid to write or contribute to articles about certain topics because they thought other people would judge them for it, then Wikipedia's growth and comprehensiveness would be greatly harmed. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Both articles are borderline conspiracy theory and seem to have temporarily escaped the attention WP:ZEAL editors such as the ones piping up here for a topic ban. Unfortunately better material has been deleted or so mangled as to be hardly understandable.--Wittsun (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory"? Hardly. Your comments about "racism" being a code word of the Frankfurt School, however, are conspiracy theories. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support temporary topic ban -- 6 months, say? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Stonemason89 is an activist who himself is biased when it comes to racial issues.--Wittsun (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Since when is being anti-racist being biased? In my opinion, you're lucky this isn't a full ban. Support per Stonemason's reasons. (By the way, I really think this dispute belongs as ANI instead of the main noticeboard.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Being 'anti'-anything for ideological reasons is an admission of bias. By the looks of things admins have shown more tolerance towards your presence here than you show others.--Wittsun (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • First of all, I think it's more than a little ironic that someone who defends Podblanc would accuse other people of not showing "tolerance". Second of all, Wikipedia has a very definite policy regarding WP: FRINGE views, as opposed to mainstream ones; white nationalism is definitely the former, while being opposed to racism is generally regarded as the latter. You may think that's unfair, but it's how Wikipedia operates. WP: NPOV means that we try to avoid adding our own bias to articles, but it does not mean that we have to give FRINGE viewpoints the same amount of weight as mainstream ones. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
          • For someone who relies on a vast amount of FRINGE terminology to make himself remotely understood, I'd say this is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'[5] -- another metaphor that apparently has been overlooked by your eagle eye for 'anti-racist' reinterpretation.--Wittsun (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't use "fringe" terminology. I don't know what you're talking about. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support ban related to race and ethnicity only. There doesn't seem to be an issue in regards to religion. -Oescp (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As a heavy-handed editor yourself[6] with a history of over-involvement in ethnic disputes this vote is hardly surprising.--Wittsun (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Looking at Oescp's comment on Spylab's talk page, it appears as though he conducted himself civilly. He didn't attack Spylab, he merely asked Spylab about some of the latter's edits, which Oescp didn't understand the rationale for. Nothing wrong with that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Wittsun is right. How rude of me to ask someone to elaborate on a particular edit. That's completely unacceptable, but in the future I promise not to engage in such heavy handed editing. -Oescp (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a great New Year's resolution. Another one of your 'helpful' NPOV edits, here:[7]--Wittsun (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, Oescp did nothing wrong; racially motivated crimes and reverse discrimination are two different topics. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment While I support a topic ban as a minimum, why aren't we talking about an indef block? An editor with a history of making unacceptable edits to push their political views has no place in Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support temporary topic ban (six months as per Sarek is ok). Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    I didn't know that apothegm; personally, however, I'm more for quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt?, as Horace put it. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    I prefer Tacitus myself: corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.--Wittsun (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - seems excessive, only one block for 24 hours, nothing here warrants such a punishment. Requests for a full ban are laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to get some more feedback on this thread; while I think we've come pretty close to reaching a consensus (the consensus appears to be that Wittsun should be topic-banned, but maybe only for 6 months), I still think getting one or two more participants in this discussion would be a good idea. I'm not an admin myself, so I don't have the authority to close this thread or to issue bans; I'll have to leave that up to someone who actually does have admin status. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - After looking through the users edits, it seems that Wittsun cannot edit in the topic-related articles with a NPOV attitude, and is distinctly biased in their editing in the topic. As such, I think that a topic ban would be a good idea. Skinny87 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - after a long attempt at dialogue with this editor at Talk:Hate crimes against white people and Talk:Reverse discrimination, it's becoming clear that he's either trolling or unable to maintain a WP:NPOV on this topic. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    The guidelines are: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. As for 'anti-racists' trying to edit phenomenon that effects white people specifically there is clear WP:COI --Wittsun (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this editor really arguing that only racists should be allowed to edit particular articles? RolandR (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears so, which is what has prompted me to close this discussion as fairly obviously supported by the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (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.

Stats are down?[edit]

See [8] for an example. We seem to be missing a lot of data from the last few days ([9]). Does anyone know what's happening? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a recurring issue with stats.grok.se - there were several threads last month about this on WP:VPT. —DoRD (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not stats.grok.se that's down - it gets its source data from http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ . If you look at that URL you'll see that the logs for the last few days are all broken. I'm guessing it's a server-side problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
OMFG! the stats are down, quick someone give the nerds a tranqulizer before they go into traumatic shock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.101.182 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha, someone signed out just to post that. --mboverload@ 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Which is sad, because there's plenty of people who I would expect that kind of comment from. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a long line... Actually, the reason I noticed was because an article of mine was main paged the other day. Unfortunately with the stats being continuously dead for the last week there's no way of telling how much of a response it got. :-( -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Revdel - review requested[edit]

Per a request on my talkpage I've WP:REVDELed four edit summaries, and would like my actions reviewed (Did I go too far? Not far enough?)

Background: Time_served (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), blocked by Elockid for being an obvious sock. The sock's usual target asked me to look at a number of their edits, which I did, and I chose to undo them. Revert me at your leisure, that's not what I'm seeking review for!

I also decided to RD2 four of their edit summaries, as I considered them to be purely disruptive. I'd appreciate review of these RD2s. Am I being too trigger-happy with rev-del?

TFOWR 10:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

These summaries fall under RD2 or RD3; you did the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lightbot is being considered for re-approval[edit]

ArbCom is considering lifting the restriction imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Lightmouse automation, subject to BAG approval of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4. As part of BAG's mandate is to gauge community consensus for proposed bot tasks and Lightbot's former activities were highly controversial, I invite all interested editors to join that discussion to ensure that community consensus is in fact in favor of this task. Thanks. Anomie 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange article renaming[edit]

Resolved

A while ago I started Guntram the Rich, but suddenly, the article name changed to Guntram, Count of Habsburg, and the old article doesn't exist anymore. The logs however contain nothing, and I can find no explanation for this event. The new name is completely wrong, and it should be moved back. I don't understand at all. Tropical wind (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? There is no entry in the move log, indeed no entries in the log at all for Guntram the Rich, nor do you have any deleted edits. If you want to move it to that name, use the move button. –xenotalk 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm 100% sure I started Guntram the Rich (by clicking the red link at House of Habsburg), I edited it for a while under this name, but it suddenly got renamed. This is very strange and a bit scary too. Tropical wind (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You'll note that redlink was piped to Guntram, Count of Habsburg, which is why it is no longer red even though Guntram the Rich was not created. –xenotalk 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Perhaps I just got it wrong. Tropical wind (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
...In Wikipedia, pipe tricks you!xenotalk 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Directed at Xeno's terrible joke, in case there's any confusion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

E. Normus Johnson history restore[edit]

Can an admin please restore the history for E. Normus Johnson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
How long will the history remain available?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page. I'll willing to userify it so you can work on it. Otherwise, I was going to ask you about it anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a couple sources that will enable it to stand as an article now, but i might not get around to it for a month or so. If you just leave the history up for about 2 months I will create a page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I am just reading my talk now. Userfying is O.K. too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB requests[edit]

Resolved: Cleared by the expert, as usual Rodhullandemu 00:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please check the requests here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I know it hasn't been 48 hours but my name is on the list and I lose access for the rest of the week to a Windows machine (which AWB works on) in just a few hours. I'm anxious to get started using it. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-done Approved you so you can get rolling; there's someone from fr.wiki with 17 edits that I don't know how to handle, so I'm going to punt if someone more familiar wants to take a look. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!! Dismas|(talk) 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Done Editor from fr:wiki has been offered appropriate advice. Rodhullandemu 00:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cruft cleanup request[edit]

I'm too busy to deal with this myself, assuming that it in fact requires debate, but I was looking through my past edits and by chance viewed this AfD and then viewed the edits of Thaliafan to find that he has created a mass of articles related to what appears to be his own incredibly non-noteworthy (and virtually non-existent) musical creations, which have lasted well over a year. Could someone deal with this garbage? Lexicon (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OKC Thunder Article.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Issue resolved, no admin action required. Doc9871 (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed a part of an article and was warned it was "Vandalism" it was reverted and I asked for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_Thunder&action=historysubmit&diff=373371549&oldid=373334471

Then was warned again that it was "vandalism" even though the edit in question is factual. Afterwards I asked the person reporting it why it was reverted and was warned of a ban for "attacking him". This person is supposed to be an admin, if this is how admins act (basically trying to ban people for no reason) I'm curious about the qualifications of becoming an admin and the lack of even giving an answer of what the vandalism was in the first place. If asking a question or stating a point is "attacking" then this whole thing is just wrong. Some people have no right to such power if they don't know how to wield it or just use it to push their point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.160.51.149

I'd like an answer as to why a fact is vandalism, why asking for an answer is "an attack", and how can someone can threaten a ban for basically no reason whatsoever.

Thanks67.160.51.149 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - A) This is clearly not a good revert of "vandalism", and Rollback should never be used to revert edits like these. 2) "Lame-duck" needs a reference to be included there: one editor's (or many, for that matter) opinion does not make it necessarily fit for inclusion. And, Z) Wrong venue. This should be filed at WP:AN/I instead of here. Chuckles... Doc9871 (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know all the rules of where things go. What about the "personal attack" and the ban threats? Didn't attack anyone, asked a question of why it was reverted and was threatened with a ban.67.160.51.149 (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing (please, admins, correct me if I'm wrong), Dcheagle used Rollback to revert a non-vandalistic query from 67.160.51.149 here, then issued a warning on the IP's talk page 1 minute later here. Despite repeated queries from the IP, the warning was neither explained nor acknowledged. This use of Rollback (second in this case) is against policy, and there seems to have been no attack at all, so no templated warning was warranted. It's in the wrong venue - but it's here already. Eyes? Doc9871 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like bad communication on both sides.
    67.etc., edits that can be construed as negative towards the article subject, and particularly those that are added by IPs, are generally reverted if they lack direct references. Please read the verifiability policy, and consider creating an account. Also, your comment to Dcheagle here was uncivil, we expect people to treat others respectfully here even if the other guy isn't doing the same to you or he just screwed something up.
    Dcheagle, please do not use inaccurate automated edit summaries, please do not use your rollback tool for stuff that isn't simple vandalism, please assume good faith of the IPs, and please do not blank comments from your talk page without addressing them. --erachima talk 08:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this! Reverted and used references (the owners own comment about "another lame duck season").67.160.51.149 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment:I would like to say sorry to the IP who has made these edits I admit I was wrong, its been a hard week with a death in my family and it seems I have let my emotion get the better of me and its effected my behavior as such I will be taking a three day wiki break and will return after that to hopeful contribute once more. One last thing before I go if any admin sees fit to block me or remove my rollback and reviewer rights I will not contest the block or removal of my user rights. Once again have a nice day.--Steam Iron 08:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't be necessary, just try and learn to do better. --erachima talk 08:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No rights should be removed from Dcheagle in my opinion - he only needs to understand when not to rollback. Rollback should only be used for blatant vandalism (not simple): this was what the very wise admin that granted the tool told me; and now Dcheagle (and erachima - excellent comments, BTW!) know this. 67.160.51.149 referenced the article and is happy; I move this be marked and closed as resolved on this board forthwith. Everybody's happy! Yay! :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Minor edits preference[edit]

The "mark all edits as minor by default" preference is to be removed. Once this is implemented, is there any reason that editors blocked over this issue cannot be unblocked? Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that depends on the circumstances: there has always been a way of deactivating it in preferences, and those who were blocked for marking all edits as minor chose to do so after numerous warnings. If they can show that they now understand why they were blocked and that only "minor" edits should be marked as such, then I'd say unblock. But removing the ability to automatically mark all edits as minor isn't going to change the fact that some editors have ignored warnings to turn the setting off or manually unmark it from non-minor edits, and may continue to mark edits as minor inappropriately with or without the automatic feature. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be unblocked. They weren't blocked for the minor-edits issue per se – they were blocked for being intentionally disruptive and refusing to stop after multiple requests. And they're still the same people. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 09:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag has this one right. An editor who is so belligerent that they would rather be blocked than uncheck a box has no future here. --erachima talk 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically, removing the autominor feature is irrelevant; if they would have been unblocked anyway (if they demonstrated they would abide by policy and stop marking edits as minor) they unblock them; otherwise don't. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part VII[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.
for letting File:Ray Charles (cropped).jpg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT The only constant 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, it was for less than 1 minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thats because I have an IRC bot that started screaming bloody murder and I was quickly able to find J Milburn and get it protected. Had I not taken action it could have been there for a lot longer. ΔT The only constant 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean MPUploadbot uploaded it locally and protected it less than a minute after it was added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've protected main page images after being alerted by Beta's bot a Hell of a lot of times- plenty of times when Beta hasn't been here to trout about it. Just look at that log, then tell me there isn't a problem. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying there isn't an occasional problem that needs fixing; I'm saying that there wasn't one this particular time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that unprotected Main Page images=bad, but trouting AN every time is perhaps not the best way of fixing it. Maybe we should cascade protect the TFA templates, that would solve most of the problems. ITN is cascade protected, DYK images are protected by cascade protection while they're in the queue and on Main Page/Tomorrow, TFP and OTD should be protected via /Tommorow, so that jsut leaves TFA images added after midnight UTC as far as I know. Cascade protecting the TFA blurbs for their stay on the MP would solve that problem. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
...Unless I've missed something, cascade protection does not work cross-project. You'll note the protections log I linked was my Commons protection log. J Milburn (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This has been a problem in the past, but MPUploadbot seems to have really improved lately; are there recent problems (say, in the last 1-2 weeks) that it didn't take care of? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I added the image after a protected edit request, and it was protected on Commons by J Milburn right away. I only did it because I knew I had a Commons admin, J Milburn, accessible on IRC and he actually got it done right as I was asking (so no, it wouldn't have been up longer than another 2 seconds, Δ). Although it might not seem like it always, I generally know what I'm doing, and I didn't see much bother in reuploading locally if both the local and Commons pages were protected right away. In any case, I didn't even realize that MPUploadBot would automatically upload a local copy each time. fetch·comms 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing wrong with what your doing, except before adding it to the main page make sure the image is protected. ΔT The only constant 02:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Would X! consider expanding the purview of MPUploadBot to locally uploading and protecting the Commons images on tomorrow's main page instead of today's (subject of course to BAG approval), thereby preventing the current race condition?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it already did? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This image was added by a protected edit request, so the bot didn't know. I think it already does, as HJ said. fetch·comms 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
OIC, never mind then. How about encouraging dual admins (here and Commons) to handle image-related protected edit requests for the Main Page?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not who does the edit requests. It's just forgetting to either protect on commons or reupload before they press "save" (X! · talk)  · @143  ·  02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It does. Of course, due to the multiple API calls and lag, server load, etc, it can take up to a minute for the images to be uploaded. The bigger issue at hand here is that people put images on the main page without protecting them. I also agree with HJ that trouts are not the best way to fix this, because by trouting every single one of the 1500 admins for the actions of one, you're just irritating the others every time you do this. (X! · talk)  · @143  ·  02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree on the bigger issue and the trout. I work extensively ITN and frequently add images to the Main Page as part of that, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes to copy the Commons image and upload it locally. I don't mean this to seem personally directed, but I can't understand why people are still adding Commons images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The only way to truly make people responsible is to make an abuse filter that asks for them to confirm if they add an image that wasn't there before. (X! · talk)  · @505  ·  11:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I just want to clarify that I do not think anyone updating the main page is doing a bad job. Hope no one took it that way. J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Technical problem with sections in new format[edit]

This is probably not the right place to report this, but I could not find another. (Where should technical issues be reported?)

The issue is with the placement of the [edit] link in sections.

In the new format (dunno if it also exists in the old), the article Vermont Republic has several sections (History, Founding, Constitution and frame of government) that have images to their right. When the browser (tried FF 3.6.6 and IE 8.0.6001) is relatively narrow, everything looks fine, but if the user widens the window, the [edit] tag moves down (relative to the section's text). It looks as though these tags might be staying in place relative to the images, while the text is reformatted to fill the browser window.

Bloody Viking (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not related to the new format, it's the old "bunching" problem, fixed by using {{FixBunching}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Now  Done, though the size of the thumbnails should probably be increased to fill up the white spaces. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism[edit]

Resolved: WP:DNFTT - Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A couple of anonymous editors are trying to report suspected socks of GoRight and other involved editors keep ignoring it. It's clear that a number of people suspect these accounts are socks, so why can't we all AGF and keep the listings up? There is no requirement beyond that someone suspects they are a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.171.176.249 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fully protected the userpage for the time being. I will add only that mere suspicions shouldn't be left there indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm, this is about his socks, like SafelyAnonymous and STOATblog and Ricky81682, not about GoRight's page. Everyone knows GoRight is socking. It's such good socking that people can find the socks even the CU proves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.170.210.155 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI[edit]

Admins, there is currently a backlog at sockpuppet investigations which need good and responsible administrators to go over and make those tough calls. Remember that any administrator can take action on any SPI case and mark as closed if needed. If anybody needs any help as far as whether or not CheckUser is needed, feel free to let us know or, if privacy is needed, via email if necessary. Regards, –MuZemike 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim[edit]

I feel that the NAC closure of this AfD as "nomination withdrawn" was inappropriate and in violation of WP:NACD which clearly states that non-admin closures are reserved for clearly non-controversial situations. This AfD was anything but. Although the nominator has changed his mind regarding deletion, at the time of the closure there were a substantial number of non-retracted "delete" !votes. The AfD had another day to run at the time it was closed. While I am not sure if relisting or reopening it for a day will do much good, I request that the closure be reviewed by an admin and be changed from a procedural close to a substantive one (keep/no consensus/delete). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're quite right; controversial AfD discussions are not suitable for non-admin closure. I've reverted the close and will explain why on the user's talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'd still like an admin to take a look at this AfD to see if anything administrative needs to be done (re-closing, relisting or whatever). Nsk92 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm a keep !vote in that AfD and I, too, felt the NAC in this case was poorly-applied, even if it essentially accomplished my hoped-for outcome with this particular discussion. The AfD in question is/was way too hotly-contested to be closed as "nomination withdrawn." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I have closed a few as "nomination withdrawn" with an outstanding "per nom" delete !vote or 2 (and clearly stating in my closing rationale that I understand that there is a rule and I'm ignoring it) but this one had too many delete !votes with extended rationales to be closed that way, admin or not. This one should have been left to continue with one less delete !voter. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Check his contribs: Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) Today alone he has closed or relisted nearly 100 AfD's. I haven't checked if many of them were inappropriate or not, but I find it hard to believe that over 100 AfD's are eligible for an appropriate non-admin closure in one day. In particular, he closed an AfD that I was watching: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trucks and Bus Company. He re-listed it once and then closed it as no consensus, despite there being only a single vote! I have reverted his closure. I strongly believe this user should refrain from non-admin closures except in extremely obvious circumstances, like uncontroversial nomination withdrawls. I request that an admin go through his contributions and revert any inappropriate non-admin closures. SnottyWong gossip 01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Er, a "single (!)vote" looks like a no consensus to actually delete it to me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I checked quite a number of his closes/relists and they seem all to be very good -either he closed 100%-keep discussions as keep, or he closed as no consensus (making it clear that it can be speedily renominated) when, even after a relist, no other editor showed up. In my opinion, excellent work for the AfD backlog. Of course if something inappropriate comes out, it should be reverted, like for everyone. --Cyclopiatalk 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ron is our most prolific NACer and his closes are generally speaking quite sound; I don't see a problem with the particular close SnottyWong referenced, either. Also, I don't like the idea of the AfD nominator reverting a close, even if it's an NAC; either take it to DRV or find an admin willing to revert it. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban[edit]

User NW issued an "indefinite topic ban" for what he believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. If you look at the time line below, after the second editor stepped in I backed off and went to the talk page (the way wikipedia is supposed to work). I accepted the consensus and walked away as over the next 6.5 hours I did nothing to the page in question. The topic ban issued by NW does not follow the same logic, severity of offense, or level of fairness that other admins have issued on [10]. Indefinite topic bans in every case except mine have been sockpuppeting or shorter incremental bans leading up to a total ban. I have never before had a topic ban of any length of time or even a warning. I request the ban be lifted with time served, or something much more reasonable.


My first eddit as of 00:04, 4 July. [11]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [12]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [13]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July. [14]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [15]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [16]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July. [17]

I was blocked for one week as of 08:00, 4 July. [18] --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick review of the log of sanctions [19] shows that most bans have been for six months, one for one month. Why not come back after a month and ask again? In the meanwhile, continue to edit Wikipedia productively, and after that time I am sure you will find a much more sympathetic audience here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. However your assessment of the log of sanctions is utterly incorrect. There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. I do not see a single user with a six months ban. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given indefinite.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That is probably because other administrators are far more lenient than I am. I, however, have little patience for source misrepresentation and other generally disruptive behavior. NW (Talk) 01:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit I thought (WND) Worldnetdaily.com was RS and it is not. However I did not misrepresent, or intentionally misrepresent anything. My first edit where I inserted the two new topics however did need more research and better grammar before I put them in. Please show my misrepresentation, I am always open minded in learning and bettering my self.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the difference between my assessment of the sanctions log and Duchamps_comb's is based on the distinction between a block and a ban, which I assume Duchamps_comb didn't take note of. The blocks are of many and varied lengths (depending of course on all sort of criteria; see WP:Blocking policy); the topic bans I've seen were for 1, 3, or 6 months - and note that Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation doesn't impose any limit on discretionary topic bans. Seriously, come back after a month. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist. --Duchamps_comb MFA 02:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I advised Duchamps_comb to wait for awhile before requesting a lifting of the restriction. I see that they fail to take good advice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely no reason to lift the topic ban at this time, considering the edits that were the subject of the edit war above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Source misrepresentation should lead very quickly to an indefinite block, not just a ban. Still, this seems like an appropriate action on NW's part, and supported by the community probation. Duchamps_comb, people really do tend to be pretty lenient around here - if you edit productively on some unrelated topics and ask again with the new year there is a good chance your appeal would be successful. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on ANI[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Return_of_longtime_disruptive_user_under_another_new_sockpuppet_user_account_.28Filmcracker.29_registered_for_the_purpose_of_Wikistalking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL requested[edit]

Could somebody please do a quick REVDEL and remove this[20] from the history log? Certainly qualifies as RD2, especially given BLP considerations. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Review of my action welcomed, but I'm damn certain RD2 is appropriate here. TFOWR 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Definitely redactable, but please try not to post diffs of these things on public noticeboards, where they only attract more attention. fetch·comms 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick block review for an IP[edit]

I'll be off for a bit, and just blocked a persistently uncivil IP for 3 days. Somebody can feel free to lower the length, but considering they started their incivility, and edited over a period of over 24 hours, and proceeded to call people nazis, blank talk pages and the like after multiple final warnings, and the fact they don't think they've done anything wrong, I blocked for 3 days. Others feel free to change the block. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look. Calling people "nazis" and "furher" is clearly in violation of WP:NPA. Good block. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Seeing the two subsequent unblock requests i am inclined to agree with that assessment. Good block. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at MfD[edit]

Hello, there is a backlog about a week deep at WP:MfD. Not horribly pressing, but could use some attention. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposing community ban of User:Timothy Sheridan[edit]

Timothy Sheridan has been around since early 2007 and has endlessly tried to promote two websites (theubie.com and AmericaSmokeless.com) in the Vaporizer article. So far we got:

  • At least a dozen of IP sockpuppets and two accounts.
  • Both websites on the spam blacklist, though evasion attempts are still made.
  • At least two reports to the unblock-en mailing list (I have only been in there for three months, but i believe older reports were also made) , with at least an equal number of reports on OTRS, all of which were refused for obvious reasons.
  • Persistant personal attacks and conspiracy theories (Example) as to why his spam is not allowed, combined with semi-legal threats.
  • General nonsense such as modifying other people's comments and AFD votes(AFD Diff) in a pointless attempt to have his spam article's undeleted. Ironically the AFD closed 5 years ago, after which it was changes to reflect "past consensus".

The user keeps coming back every few weeks at least, each time trying to add his link or rant somewhere that his product is being "unfairly treated". Be it the article talk page, Jimbo's talk page or some other location. he is more or less community banned as is (With no indication that his edits will ever change) so i would propose to formalize the current "De facto" community ban on User:Timothy Sheridan into a "de jure" one. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. I am sad that it has come to this but it really seems that we cannot get through to Mr. Sheridan. If he didn't lace every single talkpage comment with links to his sites (now edited so as to avoid the blacklist), and wasn't so strident in his paranoia that we were all in the pay of The Man I think that he could have been a productive editor here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess my cheque must have got lost in the post :-/ Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, user clearly is not willing to discuss reasonably, long term spammer, blacklist evasion, etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support basically per MER-C. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support User is useless, he won't help the project, and isn't interested in improving. --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    I wouldn't go so far as to say he is useless. IMO thats a needless ad hominem. Syrthiss (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    I agree - that part is making things too personal (and is needless). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Dirk, and Rockstone (in nicer words). fetch·comms 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages? and comment. –xenotalk 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved for now Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt to resolve the proximal issue but this general issue comes up rather often so comments are still invited. –xenotalk 12:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion needs closing[edit]

Could someone uninvolved from the Ireland/British Isles/Troubles disputes please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LevenBoy and close it as they think fit, please. It's been sitting there with little input for a couple of days. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've only briefly scanned it and will probably leave it to someone else to close, but I'm a little concerned that this seeks to instate general sanctions based on a not-very-well-advertised ANI discussion. –xenotalk 12:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The ANI discussion has been there for a while and most if not all of the involved editors have already commented there. If "new" accounts pop up and start doing the same thing, then they can always be warned before a sanction is imposed (if they haven't been SPI'd first - the list of indefblocked editors on this issue is quite long). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - it is a fairly localized localised issue, so hopefully any interested parties have noticed it and had time to comment. –xenotalk 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC closure[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin look close the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements‎? Thanks, nableezy - 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is no consensus for any of the proposals. Of course, if silence equals consent, my proposal is the answer.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
That is not obvious at all. I see a proposal with 25 supports and 9 opposes with most of the others having equal levels of supports and opposes. The vote count is obviously not the most important thing, consensus is determined by the strength of an argument. Either way, the rfc could use an uninvolved admin looking over it. Or do you want to argue over that as well? nableezy - 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll give it a try.  Sandstein  06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrey Stepanov[edit]

Please can someone take a look at the above page and the two links from it. Although I believe that User:Russavia is acting in good faith, s/he does not seem willing to communicate, and I'm unsure how to do the cleanup. If they both share the same name, the appropriate page for the footballer is Andrei Stepanov (footballer). The other person is an unsourced BLP whose author seems unsure of the man's first name, suggesting that Andrei and Andrey with hatnotes may be more appropriate.

With regards to cleanup, I'm unsure if all histories are correct, if all redirects redirect correctly, if any pages need to be deleted to move pages to their correct locations, and if there are any double redirects. I am certain that the DAB's What Links Here's are wrong, but as the footballer is in the wrong location, and pending help in deciding whether the other person's name is Andrey or Andrei, there is little value in correcting these just yet.

Thanks in advance, WFC (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a Russian name, Андрей, from the same roots as "Andrew", but pronounced with a short "y" as in "yellow" sound at the end. English doesn't have a single universally accepted transliteration of that й letter - you will see it written in English as y, i, and even (though I realize your head may explode, here) j. It's an appropriate disambiguation page, as is Andrei Stepanov, which I see you tagged for speedy deletion. BTW, I referenced and expanded the second one, Andrei Ivanovich Stepanov, he seems to be a reasonably notable diplomat, the first (post-Soviet) Russian ambassador to Switzerland, and the first (ever!) Russian ambassador to Liechtenstein. Not really Talleyrand, but not chopped liver either. --GRuban (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, and good work on that article. I agree, he does seem notable. I tagged the pages for speedy deletion because at that stage the article hadn't been created (and therefore I was correct to tag it as a CSD G6). I now agree that they should be redirects, but I have kept them tagged for the reason below.
The incomplete maintenance still needs to be dealt with. The two pages I tagged need to be temporarily deleted for maintenance purposes. Andrei Stepanov's talk page + Andrey Nikolayevich Stepanov‎ need to be moved to Andre(i/y/j as preferred) Stephanov (footballer). At that stage the links to the current DAB can be fixed to point to him, and then the DABs can be recreated. For absolutely clarity, I now agree that they both need to be redirects, but they need to be temporarily deleted to sort out the absolute mess that User:Russavia (an administrator on the commons who really should have known better) has left. WFC (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to exactly what is requested here. Is it desired that "Andrey Stepanov" is to be the dab page, with "Andrei Stepanov" and "Andrej Stepanov" redirects to the dab page? Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Redirects have been created, and a couple of G6s declined. It looks like the only other issue to be decided is that of the title of the article about the Estonian football player. This can be done by either boldly moving the article, or filing a WP:RM and seeing whether there is consensus that he does not have a middle name. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the football players' article has been moved, so this issue is now resolved (I think). Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, firstly my apologies for not replying sooner, i thought i did. doesn't help having 50+ tabs open with a variety of things going on. As per Gruban, there is obviously a need for the disambig page. In relation to Andrey Nikolayevich Stepanov, I did the move based upon him being of Russian descent - although Estonian people don't use middle names or whatever, Russians do, and as he has a history of playing a large part of his career in Russia, there is obviously a need for his Russian name in the article. If it needs to be moved to Andrei Stepanov (footballer), then that is ok with me, but in terms of other articles, it is long standing practice on WP for us to disambig Russian people with their patrynomic, so Andrei Ivanovich Stepanov stays there instead of being at another placename because does one disambig him as a diplomat, ambassador, professor, educator, rector, author or historian? In terms of spelling of Andrei, I always use Andrey in real life, but on WP it seems WP:RUS says we use Andrei, so that move will be done by myself too. And I will also do the fixing of wikilinks. If anyone needs anything else, just let me know on my talk page page. Cheers,--Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Andrei Stepanov (footballer) is now with correct name. But one thing I don't understand is, why Andrei Stepanov redirects to Andrey Stepanov, where are two links: 1)Andrei Ivanovich Stepanov and 2)Andrei Stepanov (footballer). Then the disamig. page should be in Andrei Stepanov. And there is no need for Russian name. Thanks for cleaning the mess. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Dab page now at Andrei Stepanov. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. WFC (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[edit]

There is a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It's a bit unfair if the reports go stale. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is being dealt with, and might not be as bad as I initially thought. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Guideline RfC needing closure[edit]

There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline about whether the promote the proposal there to guideline status. It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator could review the RfC there and decide how it should be closed. Thank you in advance! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done (Hopefully those who "lost" the argument won't hate me too much... ;-) Unfortunately, someone always has to lose.) Regards SoWhy 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
And thanks again! I certainly appreciate it. :-) Anyway, that's why they pay you the big bucks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

DRV backlog[edit]

Two discussions at WP:DRV need closing. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Luckily I'm not very active these days so, if I upset people with those closes, I might not be around often enough to feel the wrath Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussion: User:Orsahnses?[edit]

Resolved: Added to WP:BU. Additional edits by socks can be deleted on sight (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As the list of socks grows, and considering that this has been occurring now for over a year, is it now time to discuss a community ban of the user? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What's there to discuss. He's been blocked indefinitely for a full year, and has no chance of coming back given his continuing behaviour. Looks banned to me. --erachima talk 12:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Blocked indefinitely for a full year? It's an oxymoron - no offense... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the term indefinitely, Doc. Indefinitely doesn't mean permanently, it means "without a foreseeable end". The implication, I believe, was that he was blocked indefinitely a year ago and has remained blocked since then. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking he understood, but he wanted to point out the oxymoron (indefinitely definite)...not going to speculate on why though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree, but a community ban gives editors confidence to revert. WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting banned users, but does when reverting indef blocked users. Arguably, an indef'd user with no admin willing to unblock is de facto banned... but I wouldn't want to revert repeatedly and risk myself getting blocked. TFOWR 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support: on top of sockpuppetry, even after a year, he has not learn to be civil. This personal attack recently, and an attack from last year. Elockid (Talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support: per what TFOWR said; I used to just say editors need this protection, but if no progress is made on a recent (but separate) matter, I may have to revise this opinion to mean "both admins and editors need to be protected". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. TFOWR 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. User is de facto banned; let's make it de jure, per TFOWR's concerns. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support per arguments by Elockid and TFOWR. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support Pretty easy call, really. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support per Salvio. fetch·comms 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Support - Here again, uncivil multi-socks that have no redeeming qualities need a ban to encourage good-faith editors not to be afraid of WP:3RR. I see unanimous support for a ban, which is encouraging. Jusdafax 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Support "Duh!"... Doc9871 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

user:Article editor[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue, editor in question was never engaged concerning this issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, a large number (several tens) of redirects created by Article editor (talk · contribs) have shown up at WP:RFD lately (last few weeks). This may indicate a problem with the user's understanding of how to use redirects. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified of this report. "Stupid rules"... Doc9871 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually brought this up the other day on another user's talk: User talk:Bridgeplayer#user:Article editor. Now that it's been posted centrally I suppose it's worth taking it here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I see, there has been no attempt to engage this editor on their talk page about this issue. Also, this should be posted on AN/I as that is a better venue for this. Until then, not only is there no need for administrator action but there is also a need to try to engage the editor in question on their talk page instead of bringing the drama to a noticeboard that doesn't deal with this issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock Help[edit]

I need an admin who's familiar with rangeblocks. Got a user with dynamic IPs creating VERY inappropriate posts on Userpages and User Talk pages. IPs geolocate to same area and ISP. Anyone willing to help? N419BH 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there might be a couple of short-ish range blocks to had. I'm taking a closer look now.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
70.129.16.0/21 can probably be blocked for a while. 70.251-255 looks a bit too big. I recommend semi- where appropriate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks[edit]

For information, the Arbitration Committee has just put out a statement advising administrators how to handle disputes concerning Checkuser blocks. The full text is here.  Roger Davies talk 02:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

G10 deletion or no?[edit]

I declined User_talk:Geo_Swan/Iqinn_grounds/caveat because I felt that although there was mild wikilawyering, that is was a page being set up for evidence, and above they were making their case. However, the editor who csded it had a valid point. (They are the subject of what they consider personal attacks) and so I am not sure exactly what to do in this case. Let's try to figure out what to do with it... NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is such a page required on wiki? If one wants to gather evidence in relation to a planned ANI post, can't he or she do that with his or her preferred word processing software or simple plain-text program? Then when one is ready just copy-paste into ANI? N419BH 04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's policy... Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." But we could change it? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me like he's using that more as an excuse than for actual purposes. Even if he were using multiple computers to prepare a case there are things such a flash drives and e-mailing yourself. If it were just diffs I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's more than that. It names an editor and makes an accusation. N419BH 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions[edit]

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privileges@wikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privileges@wikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Did we drop the ball on this?[edit]

I just read this article about Wikipedia (and a few editors) in FrontPageMag. While a lot of it sounds like sour grapes, there are more than enough reasonably accurate-sounding assertions made that seem credible.What's the scoop? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Cimicifugia and Special:DeletedContributions/Cimicifugia. Prodego talk 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Part of the article refers to this discussion and the associated article edits: Talk:The New York Times#new section on nytimes and holocaust. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's hard to tell from the article, since it's so one-sided, but this looks to me like a case of an editor who --rightly or wrongly-- came across as a supporter of The Truth™, which has always been a fast ticket to a long block. If she (is Karin a female name?) was contributing to Wikipedia in a similar tone to the section of that article explaining what The Times did, I could easily see her getting ruled against by third parties by virtue of her contributions being less neutral in tone even if they were more accurate (which I have no way of assessing without seeing the edits and sources in question), and of course, accusing your opponents of holocaust denial is a huge mistake. --erachima talk 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Based on the attitude of the user on their talk page, they should not have been blocked for personal attacks. They recieved too much aggression and not enough help. That said, the content views may have been problematic, and/or working with others may have been a problem. I haven't looked in to that aspect much. But they seemed in good faith. And I don't like blocking people acting in good faith. Prodego talk 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's laughable that anyone here actually takes that article seriously. Have you even investigated the site where it's posted? It's essentially an extreme right-wing conspiracy and hate site with a specific agenda. There's a big logo on the same page that proclaims "Help us stop Obama's radical transofrmation of America", along with plenty of sensationalist articles with misleading, prejudiced titles like "Cutting their own throats: Dutch municipality funding Sharia website", "Reid’s Two-Faced Immigration Record", and "The Music World Goes Anti-Israel – Part III". There are no real news articles on there, just a bunch of opinion pieces full of misrepresented factoids and personal bias. The internet has lots of these sites, none of them are worth anyone's time. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact that requires people to accept the biased POV of agenda-driven extremists. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I must say, however, I was very moved by the logo on their page that says "This is our Paul Revere time: and we must spread the word as patriots have always done when America is in danger". It really convinced me that this is a useful site and not a crackpot conspiracy mill. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you are not a newbie given your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edits ever are what they are. WP:SOCK comes to mind. Frankly, your immediate attack on your very first edit ever from your sock lends a little more credence to the claims of the editor complaining about people like you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to change the subject? So you're saying Wikipedia should allow people with agendas to just write whatever they like here when they resort to posting screeds on extreme right-wing agenda sites? Sounds like you really have the interests of Wikipedia at heart. I am not breaking any "Wiki Rules" by calling a spade a WP:SPADE. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hiya! I've got over 22,000 edits and have been on Wikipedia for over 4 1/2 years. Since the number of edits seems to mean something to you, I though maybe we'd talk. Now, Legitimate (you don't mind if I call you Legitimate, do you?), WP:AGF doesn't extend to outside sources -- it's a rule for dealing with other wikipedians in a collegial manner. I'm free to say that, in general, FrontPageMag is even less of a source of valid criticism than your average Daily Kos diary, and that their reputation for reasoned analysis, careful fact-checking, and solid reporting was left torn and tattered on the state highway minutes after they started the site. See? No AGF violation. Yeah, User:69.211.7.137 should have put it smoother and calmer, but it's not an AGF violation. The possible AGF violation is coming from you, Legitimate -- but you're not alone. It's a overwhelming tendency among nearly everyone, left, right, or center, to examine IP edit counts in the light of "do they agree with me or not?", and praise or revile accordingly. 69 doesn't seem to like FPD and, in admittedly intemperate language, states that it is nothing worth paying attention to, which is a perfectly reasonable position. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to change the subject? So you're saying Wikipedia should allow people with agendas to just write whatever they like here when they resort to posting screeds on extreme right-wing agenda sites? Sounds like you really have the interests of Wikipedia at heart. I am not breaking any "Wiki Rules" by calling a spade a WP:SPADE. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Let's ignore the 69anon for the time being. Granted, the website is ...less than optimal. As well, its clear this Karin person wrote the article after getting kicked the crap kicked out of him and shown the door in short order. He feels he has a reason to be a little biased about our culture (such as it is) . He feels that there was a coordinated effort, at least partially involving User:Bali_ultimate (btw, should we get their input here?) to undo all of his edits, which - if the external link is an accurate telling - seems surprisingly well-sourced. It would be interesting to see what these reverted edits were. I know we aren't Holocaust Deniers - that sort of nonsense is as stupid as Flat Earth Theory. And while we are often ill-tempered jackasses, we are not stupid.
So, take away the guy/gal's anger at getting reverted and indef'd and look at the source material. Holocaust Denial in the WWII media sounds really intriguing; it might make an excellent article, sourced correctly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The user was not indef'd and is currently not blocked[21]. S/he has one 30h 3RR block and one 24h incivility block. See also[22]and the user's other effort[23]. PhGustaf (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict):::. FrontPage Magazine has an article, and evidently an agenda. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Doug. I'm not saying we shouldn't consider the source, but instead simply look at the edits. Self-policing ourselves makes us a better community, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous, I'm being attacked for participating in a discussion by sharing that the website is basically an open blog with an agenda? It is demanded that I assume good faith, yet everyone automatically assumed bad faith of someone using an IP. Maybe "Karin" is right after all. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, WP:NPA, Jack. Calling others trolls without any evidence at all is a violation of that, it would seem. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you done now, 69anon? We hear you. We get your point. Assuming that we hate you bc you are an IP and not going somewhere constructive and editing something (your first three edits are here? In AN? Come on, now) is what prompted the wikilink to not feeding the trolls. I used it because there simply isn't a quicklink to something along the lines of We-Ain't-Noticing-Kids'-Erratic-Rants. Maybe you could create such a tag. until then, look, listen and learn. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This subject came up a few days ago, either here or at ANI; I left a comment on a related story written by the same author, but I can't find it in the archives. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me for even suggesting this, but it wouldn't have been purged by an admin, could it (thereby making it more difficult to find)? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Purged? What do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean, deleted along with edit history, oversighted, etc. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't imagine why this would have been done. The only recent deletion from this page was a couple of edits from the 13th; it was a post made by a logged-in user, and the thing I'm talking about was posted by an IP address. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The matter is discussed at this[24] AN/I thread. It's not pretty. PhGustaf (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)What a disgusting, disgusting, disgusting spectacle. It was a valid topic. The new editor was treated like shit. Shit. Most of the editors involved in this tawdry lynching behaved like grinning mindless thugs. And some of you were worse, you behaved like sadistic pious beaurocrats. Ugh. I need a long shower. Anthony (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that FrontPageMag isn't the most reliable of sources. However, it will likely make The New York Times and the Holocaust a search term worthy of a redirect to the appropriate section in The New York Times. That used to be The New York Times#Nazis, Jews, Soviet Union, and Ukraine in World War II, which seemed a bit long to me, so I boldly shortened it to The New York Times#World War II (and added a sentence on the Times's own article on the subject). The article seems to have been salted; could an administrator be kind enough to make The New York Times and the Holocaust a redirect to The New York Times#World War II? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Done, and still protected. fetch·comms 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony. It is utterly disgusting. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How sadly ironic this is. A question is raised about whether people dropped the ball, when someone who was thought to be "new" (but who clearly, as many people do, had read Wikipedia for a while before writing and learned about verifiability and suchlike — People do do this, you know.) was met with harshness by established editors. And in the ensuing discussion of that question, as soon as someone that also looks "new" steps in with a "consider the source" argument — an argument that established editors should have long experience of addressing, given what we do here — established editors do the very same thing all over again, immediately treating the "new" person dismissively, patronizingly, and in general badly. I think the answer here is "Jack Sebastian et al., you're still dropping the ball even now.". Uncle G (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Pardon me, Uncle G, but I was the one asking whether we treated the writer poorly while here