Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive216

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

Noticeboard archives


Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed needs staffing[edit]

Click here to watchlist the page

While the diligent efforts of User:Fastily in patrolling this page are appreciated, this board seems otherwise woefully understaffed (requests languished while Fastily was on vacation). Users requesting the confirmed permission are on the verge of taking the red pill, and we should make sure they are granted access, rather than have to wait a few days for their request to be reviewed (and potentially losing interest in contributing). The confirmed userright jumpstarts WP:AUTOCONFIRMED can generally be granted fairly liberally. –xenotalk 18:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot making hundreds of links to, when links to would be better[edit]

Unresolved: Discussion continues at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#External links and references to former GeoCities sites. –xenotalk 13:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes trial closure discussion[edit]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure

FT2 (Talk | email) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BAG nomination[edit]

Hello everyone! I have been nominated for the bot approval group and would like to invite you all to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/EdoDodo. Thanks. - EdoDodo talk 02:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed New Policy[edit]

Resolved: User directed to appropriate venue. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose a change to XFD policy, which would apply across all namespaces.

Simply, if a piece of content (article, redirect, image, etc.) survives a deletion discussion, the user who nominated it before cannot nominate it again, ever (no statute of limitations). That doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion a second time; it just can't be nominated again by the same person who nominated it before. The purpose of this proposed policy is to prevent users from POINTILY attempting to get content they don't like deleted by nominating it again and again.

Failure to follow this policy will lead to warnings (if the user was not warned previously) or blocks (if the user has been warned before about breaking this rule).

The inspiration for this proposed rule is this discussion; a user has recently re-submitted a case to AFD even though the redirect survived a previous AFD that was also initiated by him. This same user has been found guilty of edit-warring on this and similar topics in the past. I think there should be a way of preventing things like this from happening again. Please note that this policy will not apply retroactively (so Tallicfan20 will not be disciplined no matter what happens).

Supports and opposes can go below. If you feel that the proposal should be modified (for example, if you feel there should be a statute of limitations), you can express that viewpoint too. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to hold a discussion of such a proposal. In any case, we propose policy changes by discussion and consensus, not by jumping into a straight up-or-down vote without discussion of the alternatives. In any case, we aren't going to change policy based on on person's dislike of one action, and even without that circumstance you would never get consensus for such a policy. There are a number of other things wrong with this proposal, but in the interest of brevity I'll stick to the major ones above. Gavia immer (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I was going to disagree, but on reflection gavia's got it right. Wrong place. It might be worth noting why I'd have disagreed:
1/ We tend not to do "never" as a community. 2/ There are cases where the nomination was appropriate but the AFD was during the ongoing event or communal sentiment would not have allowed deletion at the time, or it was "no consensus", so the article was kept, but after some weeks or months was then closed as delete. Users who make pointy repeat nominations with no new grounds tend to be pretty obvious and I wouldn't have a problem with the AFD being closed as "speedy keep" and the user warned for WP:DISRUPT or WP:POINT if that were the case. Notice the replies in the example XFD were all "keep". Is a disruptive user going to be able to do it 3 times in a row, same user? Very unlikely. So I would not amend policy for an edge case like this. Better to rely on admins to figure it out and on user observations, at the time. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Isn't 3RR a "never" policy, though? What I'm proposing is not all that different from 3RR, in that it's intended to prevent people from using Wikipedia as a battleground. Besides, I'm not suggesting that articles that survive AFD can never be nominated again, I'm just saying I don't think the same user should be able to nominate them a second time. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if this is the wrong place to hold such a discussion, where is the right place? I don't know yet. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This would presumably be a change to deletion policy. Try Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will move this discussion there. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Argh, I would have gone WT:AFD, but I suppose it doesn't matter :) –MuZemike 14:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that notifications should be added there and on all the XFD talk pages (WT:TFD, WT:CFD, WT:MFD etc.) as well as on WP:VPP. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending unblock request User talk:AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC[edit]

User talk:AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC has a pending unblock request that has not been responded to in a long time. Can someone take a look at it? Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I responded and unblocked them, if anyone disagrees you can contact me on my talk page. -- Atama 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Email received re: "Changes in Wikipedia editorial practices in the last few years"[edit]

I received an email with a subject line of "Changes in Wikipedia editorial practices in the last few years" on August 15. It's from a user who registered an account back in May but has yet to make an edit. WP:EMAIL doesn't really say much about circumstances like this (or much of anything, frankly), and I'm curious - does anything need to be done/reported with this? The email isn't particularly bothersome, just odd that someone would sign up for an account just to (presumably mass) email a bunch of editors. JPG-GR (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have this really useful tool on my e-mail page that deals with unwanted e-mails and spam such as this. I cal it the "delete button"--Jojhutton (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes yes, how informative - I had never noticed that before. I was just trying to reach out and see if anyone else had received a similar email and whether or not registering an account just to email (perhaps spam) a bunch of people is frowned upon. JPG-GR (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It's almost certainly frowned upon; the severity of said frowning depends largely on the purpose of the emails and the extent of their distribution. Please feel free to forward such material to the Arbitration Committee through our mailing list. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I didn't get this email; it's been months and months since the last time I received a Wikipedia email that wasn't sent just to me. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Kirill. JPG-GR (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for forwarding, JPG-GR. Having read the email, it appears to be from a researcher looking at Open Source projects, and there have been a handful of similar requests for assistance in research over the last few years, and it appears to be legitimate; both of the signators are indeed on the faculty of the university they identify, and the email address matches the published email address of one of the academics.

    Each recipient should decide for themselves if this is a way in which they wish to spend some of their Wikipedia volunteer time. Many have limited time available, and this isn't a priority for them. Others may feel that the underlying educational pillar of the project includes participating in such research, when they have the opportunity. Risker (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fresh administrators needed at Climate Change board[edit]

I would like to request that any admins interested in volunteering in the climate Change area, which is currently under general sanctions (the enforcement board is here) please sign up on that page. The old admins there are getting tired and jaded, and it shows. Users are bringing less and less complaints there, because they don't believe that the current crop can solve them. If we can inject new blood, though, then I think that the climate change topic area will run much more smoothly. Anyone interested in helping out?

Requests there generally require a consensus of uninvolved admins. If you want to know more about how it works, there are a few closed and collapsed requests there that are fairly typical of how things go. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Robespierre would have had a better chance at getting volunteers <g>. Collect (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the probation has effectively collapsed because admins are no longer dealing with enforcement requests. Almost every enforcement request that has been submitted over the last few weeks has died from lack of admin involvement. If The Wordsmith's request doesn't produce new volunteers, I suggest that the probation should be formally discontinued and closed down. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I will do it if no one else will. Disclaimers: I won't be as active as I'd like for a few months, though. I can't do it on my own. I also don't like getting sucked into the climate change fiasco (or any sort of sanctioned area). fetch·comms 22:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it too; I don't know that I have high availability at the moment, but this one is somewhat important. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems is that after a few enforcement actions, accusations of being involved start getting tossed about. I have about five edits to climate change-related articles (all recent and all to BLPs; three were adding ISI highly cited links and two were reorganizing articles to restore NPOV balance), but I suspect that because I contributed evidence to the ongoing arbitration I would be accused of being involved, which is ludicrous. It's already happened to two editors on this topic, and I've seen it happen elsewhere. Horologium (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a great deal of confidence that an admin who makes edits like this[9] will bring a calming effect on this contentious topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the subject under discussion was a request for a statement on BLP policy, in a topic in which BLP violation has been blatant, the parallel was appropriate. That both sides assumed that I was supporting their PoV seems to indicate that it hit a little too close to home for all concerned, which was my point. Horologium (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers[edit]

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mario Kart: Double Dash‼/GA1 --edit protected[edit]

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User Template555[edit]

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

War crimes discussion[edit]

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 00:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing votes[edit]

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Huge SPI backlog[edit]

There is a huge backlog at SPI. The oldest cases are nearly 2 weeks old now. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I got most of them. Only one CheckUser request which needs another SPI clerk opinion, and about 7 open cases remaining. Now we need the CheckUsers to step up to the plate and finish the job :) –MuZemike 00:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
We really need more checkusers. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It can be a remarkably brain numbing endeavor, that's for sure. Almost 100% burnout rate. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tool for a mass delete?[edit]

Does anyone have an easy way to delete all the pages in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Leslie81285? Bit of a mistake needs correcting; a class project was mistaken for malfeasance. Crap, I just noticed we also need to delete all the user talk pages, for the same reason (they were all created to hold the sock message, and are all previously unused.) Or, I suppose, they could just be blanked, but deleted would seem more fair. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you misappropriate one of the adminbots, such as Procseebot, to do this? Or maybe someone can write a little script. One of the things that Betacommand would have been good at, if he were still very active, and allowed to do these sort of things. --Jayron32 07:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Cleared manually. DrKiernan (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Didn't feel like doing all that typing. Late night, error prone. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't twinkle's deli-batch work for that? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Also User:Animum/massdelete.js. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam Rittenberg[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this but the admins I usually ask aren't online at the moment. Could an admin please userfy the Adam Rittenberg article for me? Preferably right here. It was previous prod-deleted. I plan on publishing the article and want to see what I can salvage. I'd be very grateful. OlYellerTalktome 17:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Not much there, I'm afraid - Dumelow (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess it's a start. OlYellerTalktome 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

RfCs at Wikipedia talk:User pages need closing[edit]

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia talk:User pages#Vandalspaces and Wikipedia talk:User pages#RfC: Sexually provocative content in userspace, and Wikipedia talk:User pages#Proposal based on above discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? Cunard (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I've marked the superseded discussions and RFC as closed (a separate proposal superseded these and gained community consensus). I haven't marked the last of those 3 as closed, even though it's not contentious to do so, because it's one I opened. It's not an RFC though. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, FT2. Would an uninvolved admin close the discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Proposal based on above discussions which is fairly uncontentious? Cunard (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of my actions[edit]

Hello. I recently closed a move request: Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)#Requested move (2010), and more than one editor has objected to my decision. Therefore, I'm requesting that other members of the community look in, and if there is consensus that I made a mistake, I will not object to my action being reversed. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Endorse Looks like a good close to me based on the discussion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me, both on process and outcome. More involvement would have been nice, but the discussion was open for four weeks. Rd232 talk 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Alien (AcidBlood) surely? :) I think that you made the best you could with a discussion that was short on editors and short on actual discussion. Of the moves your choice was the one that seemed to have the widest support as well as the one that strikes me as most helpful to the reader. unmi 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks fine - I think that discussion was never going to reach an agreeable consensus simply because I don't think there really is a good title for that article - Wikipedia's standard method of disambiguating just doesn't work for a creature that both shares a name with its fictional franchise, and is a common English word. Any title is going to be awkward and I think you did a good job of evaluating the sparse consensus that appeared in the discussion, arriving at a name that's probably the best of the available bad choices. ~ mazca talk 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks okay here too. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Barney's on Fire[edit]


I think the Barney's on Fire page should redirect to instead of Barney & Friends, as the Anti-Barney Humor page specifically references the song. (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be better to discuss that at one of the talk pages, as this is an Admin board and this doesn't require immediate admin action. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the redirect, it's an obviously sensible change. Apparently it originally redirected there anyway, and got lost in a few bot double-redirect fixes. ~ mazca talk 13:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Review requested on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpa[edit]

I'm requesting a review of an SPI case in which I closed, in which today Symbio04 (talk · contribs) edited the SPI's archive page (and also added himself to the "list of suspected socks", which for now I'm assuming this mas mistakenly added) here and then requested unblocking of all the socks involved on my "unprotected talk page" here. I indefinitely blocked all involved accounts in the SPI after seeing similar edits, language used, and similar timing (i.e. they come on and off all at about the same time). Any review here would be appreciated. Regards, –MuZemike 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the sockpuppet investigation case page, your talk page, and the article talk page and by the admission of this new editor, if these people aren't sockpuppets they are at least meatpuppets and I think that the block was still warranted. This new editor is also throwing around libel charges left and right and leaving bizarre messages (telling Kwami that they are in love with them)... It seems like English isn't a native language but that's still no excuse. There seems like some big backstory here that I'm not seeing, which also involves some legal matters, and I don't want to get mixed up in it, but I don't think this new editor is here to be productive. -- Atama 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry about Kwami in Love etc.But what else you can do in a case that falsely accused people is left in WP without any help? Biographies of living people should not be maintained with old newspapers libellous references.WP forbids this.

But look carefully this case : 1-a group of people starts with libels of a living person(s) 2-Data that this was false in Courts are given by Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 at least in Discussion. 3-The group of people, who had disagreed scientifically (linguists?)with the victim (Arnaiz-Villena and his group)a year ago and started the libel on June 9th 2010(Dumu Eduba),say that they do not know how to finish the oldish case.However,they block accounts of libelled people :Arnaiz1 and Virginal6 and libel stays forever in WP.

Thank you ,Atama,I already stated that I was representing the defense of people attacked by a libel .It refers to a case which happened about 10 years ago and it was already solved (false accusations were induced and accusers blackmailed by offering them fix posts in Administration) .I am not involved in the case myself.I have come later. This is the only one purpose of the account.You say you dont disagree with this type of accounts. I am working ,as I said ,with Arnaiz-Villena who came into Wikipedia with his own real name Arnaiz1 (all Wikipedians should do it and you could avoid these defamation cases on WP). Thus,I will dissapear once you let defending Arnaiz1 himself and also another defamated person (Virginal6) from the same case, who does not work now in the group,but he is another civil servant researcher.I just ask you to unblock their accounts (one with a real name). If you think that Arnaiz-Villena and his group have not contributrd to knowledge and to WP project.,just make a search in WP,Google,Google Academic,PubMed ,Biological Abstracts ,BioMed Experts etc Thus,I disagree with your statement that I am not useful or constructive.Symbio04 (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the No Legal Threats policy; by repeatedly accusing others of libel, you are making perceived legal threats which are not allowed on Wikipedia. In most cases we will block the editor until they retract that language and promise to not do so again, but I'll be lenient in your case because you don't seem to be threatening me, but using that language elsewhere can definitely lead to sanctions. Also, we don't allow editors to collaborate in real life to work together in Wikipedia to push an agenda, that is called meatpuppetry and whatever their reason for doing it, we don't allow it, so those accounts will remain blocked. There are also conflict of interest concerns here. There are so many problems that I can't see how allowing these editors back is going to be helpful to Wikipedia. I'm sorry about the trouble your friends are having, but as an administrator (and as an editor) my concern as always is going to be what's best for the encyclopedia.-- Atama 21:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Atama,please apologize my English expression and my intention is far from bothering you ,of course. I will not involve you anymore in this case. We could not agree that having false biographies of living people (Antonio Arnaiz-Villena) is good to Wikipedia.Thank you,Symbio04 (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

the actual issue seems to be a criminal charge against Antonio Arnaiz-Villena that the new ed. claims was subsequently dismissed. Charges that an academic misused research funds during his professional activities is relevant to their notability as an academic, and in this case especially, because the subject claimed that the charges were motivated by politically-based disagreement with his academic work, but if the charges were dismissed, that certainly must be prominently said, --if the dismissal of charges can be shown only from official court documents, and not published news stories, the way to use them is to send copies to WP:OTRS, and the article will be adjusted properly. Our need to get this sort of BLP problem right is more important than even sockpuppetry, and if inexperienced users act improperly to get things like this corrected, it should not be held too strongly against them. (Incidentally, I comment here because I know of the ultimately underlying issue: the publisher's unilateral removal of the work in question from its journal to the extent of removing it totally from the electronic archive on the basis of what some -- including myself-- consider political motivation, is considered a notable example of publisher's questionable practice, & can be well-sourced as such. ) DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Old NAC AfD never transwikied[edit]

Found this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of triband flags

It was closed by a non-admin as Transwiki to Commons, yet the articles were never transwikied nor were the AfD tags removed. Could an admin please take care of this? —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's 16 articles in all. User:Morenooso closed it, I have alerted him of this discussion (as you should have done, per the recent rule change). Whoever closes an AfD discussion should not just leave it hanging. Fences&Windows 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The AfD tag from June is still on Gallery of flags by design. What a mess. Fences&Windows 13:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you noted that already... Fences&Windows 13:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we can ask a Commons admin to do this import at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Fences&Windows 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of armed forces flags, closed as transwiki by User:Tone but not done. Fences&Windows 13:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Durham University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of the American Revolution, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Choctaw Native Americans. This is quite a trend. Fences&Windows 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Several admins here and several with Commons adminship as well were asked to transwiki the files. I assumed and that is probably a bad thing that one of them would have taken care of it. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Assuming is always bad (ass=u+me :P) Anyway, I'm not a Commons admin (and I nominated all those anyway), so I can't really help. I'd ask at the Commons AN to find a sysop on both there and here who can transwiki it over and then clean up here. fetch·comms 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a notice. 17 galleries are now moved - see [10] for details. --MGA73 (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
16 is correct. Because I imported one page twice because of repeated failures. I applied 1 rev import → history import to en:Gallery of triband flags. (p.s. During my importing work, I encountered more than 10 errors. Blame wikimedia servers)Kwj2772 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
As I started the AfDs, I don't want to delete the enwp pages because of COI; can someone do that? fetch·comms 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a COI with a purely ministerial deletion, but YMMV... Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

How to edit a certain admin-only page[edit]

And now for something completely different that hopefully won't set off an unintended firestorm: After you have speedy deleted an article you are sent to the "Action complete" screen. On there are links listing the more urgent/populous CSD categories, it looks like this:

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (all pages | attack | spam | nonsense | notability | copyvio | author request | oldest)

The one for "nonsense" still links to Category:Nonsense pages for speedy deletion, which was renamed Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as nonsense pages and deleted several months ago. I just recreated it as a redirect because I can't figure out how to edit the "Action complete" screen. It appears to use a template, but I don't know the name of the template. It looks like it would be Template:Maintenance links but that does not exist. Any ideas? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Filedelete-success? Anomie 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
That's the one, I've fixed the link I think. ~ mazca talk 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, you said that your recreation was temporary, so I've deleted it because the link was fixed. Feel free to restore if you don't think it should have been deleted. That being said, I have a question — do we have a comprehensive list of MediaWiki pages, or a category full of them? Or is there a way to determine what MediaWiki pages are being used on any given screen? I've always had a hard time knowing what page to edit or to which to request an edit. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Special:AllMessages. –xenotalk 19:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Special:AllMessages kind of sucks because it's paginated and isn't easily searchable (yet). loads all the messages files at once, which makes in-browser search possible. It's a large page load, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Also you could ask at Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages, where you'll also find a nav template listing key messages. Rd232 talk 19:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages or, more generically, the technical village pump are both good resources. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Rd232, for the pointer to that page. Most helpful is the search page; I'd never thought to search the MediaWiki namespace for text that I wanted. By the way, any idea how pages such as MediaWiki:Wm-license-cc-by-sa-2.5-scotland-text exist? It appears that it has text, even though it's never been created and has no history. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
(totally uninformed speculation) I think it's the default text from MediaWiki. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Graham87 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thanks for the fix, I'm fine with it being re-deleted, nothing much else linked to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempted deletion review, I think[edit]

Could somebody have a look at Linda Christas College prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review? Ta, Chris (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I retract that. It's spam, apparently. Chris (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

New Category:Formerly banned users[edit]

Resolved: Category deleted.

I have created this cat because I think this could very helpful in tracking what happens to users whose bans have expired or who manage to get their bans lifted. It would make it easier to see which of them re-offend and are re-banned, which have honestly learned to edit productively, and which simply go away after winning their battle to be unbanned. However, I just created it and at present it only contains the most recently unbanned user. So, if anyone's got any names to add it would be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What sorts of ban do you mean — a total siteban of any period of time, or topicbans as well? Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of banned users has a list of formerly banned users. Besides the former Betacommand, it lists TheJazzFan, Seeyou, Piotrus, Petri Krohn, Locke Cole, Lightmouse, Jack Merridew, Ulises Heureaux (formerly known as "Encyclopedist"), DanaUllman, Boodlesthecat, and Avg. I suspect that there are plenty more who were banned for specific periods of time and simply forgotten about. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this meant to be an opt-in or mandatory category? I know that User:Jack Merridew would likely happily place himself into it, but I'm not sure that such scarlet letters (whether or not that is the intent, the result is the same) are needed (or indeed appropriate) for users who've been unbanned - not to mention the fact that we already have a list. –xenotalk 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This category is designed to be included in the unbanned user's user page. Basically, it should only contain unbanned users – users who have previously been banned but is currently unbanned and unblocked. Also, I've integrated that category into the {{Unbanned}} template. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are replying to me, that hasn't answered the question as to whether users are to be placed into this category by others (possibly against their will - which I think is wrongheaded and runs counter to forgive and forget), or if it will be a voluntary opt-in category. –xenotalk 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just considering the scarlet letter aspect of it, as that is certainly not the intention. Although this is not the normal reasoning, I though making it a WP:HIDDENCAT would deal with that. I hadn't intended it to apply to topic bans. I wouldn't consider it mandatory either, but if it is hidden there is little reason to object. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I would suspect a good number of editors have hidden categories displayed, it doesn't do much to dilute the scarlet aspect. –xenotalk 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of such a list? Unbanned means the same as not banned or never banned as regards access to the editing tools - it depends on whether you are blocked or not - and there are many "never banned" editors who have little chance of gaining access to enhanced permissions owing to perceived issues with past behaviours. Unless you are hoping to encourage banned users to sock themselves back into responsible editing - knowing that their old account will be forever linked to an episode in their past - I see no good coming of having a list of people who were once denied access to this site. I am not convinced of the worth, now that I know of it, of having that sublist on the banned page. If we want to have editors retain their original username for their editing career, I think we need remove these public "marks of shame". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
LHvU, I really must object to your use of "compulsory tattooing" in your previous edit comment. That's rather sensationalistic and over the top, and practically an invocation of Godwin's law. Regardless of whether or not this category is a good idea, that sort of hyperbole seems completely unnecessary and could easily be offensive to some. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That was the intent. I might have written "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Formerly Banned Users editors list" but most here seem have fallen for the current claptrap that Communism is intrinsically evil and the point lost. This is a website whose purpose is to create a free and comprehensive encyclopedia, not a vehicle for the stigmatisation of some editors. Those who are banned, like those who are blocked, are the unfortunate few who are unable to work collegiately with the majority - we should not continue to victimise those who have returned to the project, but rather ensure that they are treated the same as those who have never been banned. This category flies in the face of that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You are very articulate and I'm sure you can get your point across without hyperbole. I do have one concern, and that is I'd like to know whether unbanned users experience any difficulty or harassment due to their former status. I suspect they do, even without a category. It seems to me that if this is done as an indication of an exemplary turnaround in attitude and behavior, it could be more of a badge of accomplishment than of shame... Yworo (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they do. I was commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban by the arbitration committee and get my past thrown in my face and used as a weapon against me all the time.
Resilient Barnstar.png The Resilient Barnstar
For a successful and legitimate return after a siteban. Keep setting the example and showing it's possible! Durova320 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I got a barnstar regarding this, too. Yet, I'm Branded (TV series)#The show proper for life. Jack Merridew 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's a nice barnstar. :-) But I'm sorry to hear how you are treated after making good your errors. Yworo (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Terima kasih. I made two errors, one in 2006, and another in 2008. No one's perfect. Jack Merridew 02:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Was there a discussion about this Cat? I would like to review it and contribute my concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This appears to have been a bold creation by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) after closing this unban discussion. I suspect he hasn't fully thought through the implications of such a category being involuntary added to user pages, and I've suggested he cease adding it until this discussion and any attendant discussions (CFD, etc.) have run their course. –xenotalk 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I just created it about an hour ago along with {{unbanned}}, which is intended to replace {{banned}}, when a user is unbanned as the banning template is often the only thing on their userpage. The purpose is not to humiliate anyone (indeed it is a sign of trust to get unbanned) but rather to aid in tracking what happens after, as explained at the top of this section. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Regardless of intent, the result is the same: the unbanned editor is branded, and any kind of forgive and forget mentality goes out the window. If this category is to exist, imo it should be opt-in only. –xenotalk 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask some of the actual unbanned users what they think. Since neither of us have ever been banned this is a fairly hypothetical discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I've already pinged Jack when I mentioned his name, I see you pinged BC/D when you added the cat. –xenotalk 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll third that, see my observation above in response to LHvU. Yworo (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question - How do we keep track of, or how do we currently know who has been banned in the past?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(outdent) Although I see and understand and appreciate the idea, this discussion might be better served at VPP, to the talkpage for WP:BAN or Unban, or elsewhere...we seem too early to be having it here, now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. What an awful proposal. I note the purpose outlined by the OP but such labels are never used in that way. This amounts to little more than a scarlet letter. It will be divisive and disruptive. There is something faintly odious about the whole proposal. MtD (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the users allowed to not have it if they don't like it? Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I have proposed the deletion of this category at CfD, which is the correct venue for the discussion anyway, I believe. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No, that's the actual wrong place at the moment. This template might have potential - the locations I noted are the first step before deletion, and nom was a pretty bad move IMHO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty open about my past. I think that's a good thing, and should be encouraged. My userpage has long been clear about my past. At various times, it has listed me as things such as a sock, indef'd, sported a block button, offered the text of relevant motions. Xeno notified me of this, and I was 'tagged' while reading this. I also see that I was added to the dubious list of the 'formerly banned' and that it was done recently using {{vandal}}, which is not accurate. And I don't believe I was ever on that list while 'banned'. While indef'd, my user page never said banned, it said blocked indef/sock (because trancluded pages are used in the page, the bottom is not quite what was displayed, but the boxes are what was up-top, most of the time; earlier versions of the bottom content were present, too).

I have at various times been encouraged to say less about my history, or more, or to say it differently, and in different ways. I got shite for listing my prior accounts on my user page. This account was created to evade my earlier-yet past; i.e. it's a 'sock' and in that sense always will be. And I was directed by the AC to use *this* account, so I do. This was, in part because I don't have control of my original account as I fully scuttled it, and the other accounts had few fewer edits than I had as 'Jack' which is what I am most widely known as; I have proved in many ways that they're all me. They 'point' at this account and there very much is a Scarlet Letter aspect to this. The 'tattooing' metaphor is not off, as that's what all the demonization is about. It's in-out group]]-thinking:

In sociology, an ingroup is a social group towards which an individual feels loyalty and respect, usually due to membership in the group. This loyalty often manifests itself as an ingroup bias. Commonly encountered ingroups include family members, people of the same race, culture, gender or religion, and so on. Research demonstrates that people often privilege ingroup members over outgroup members even when the ingroup has no actual social standing; for instance, a group of people with the same color shirts, when the other group has another color of shirt. The term originates from social identity theory.
In sociology, an outgroup is a social group towards which an individual feels contempt, opposition, or a desire to compete. Members of outgroups may be subject to outgroup homogeneity biases, and generally people tend to privilege ingroup members over outgroup members in many situations. The term originates from social identity theory.

We call this toxic-wiki-shite. This place is poisonous.

I do believe Beeblebrox means well with this, and am not miffed about being tagged. Should I be? I was considering adding myself. If I had, would it have been about transparency? Acceding to community wishes? Or would it have been about sticking it in the faces of my critics?

I'm hitting edit conflicts here, and I see new stuff has appeared while I've been writing, and see that it's a CfD, now, so I'm gonna just save this as-is into a fast moving discussion.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I forgot to mention Daedalus tagging Giano's page and The Bish/Jimbo Affair ;O which did get him out of the blocking business. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Note that we had a discussion regarding the List of Formerly Banned Users here Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Formerly banned users. I removed it at one point and it was restored, after which the discussion took place. I lost interest in arguing for it to be removed. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd not looked at the talk. And I see that you used {{vandal}} per the page conventions. That list is far from complete and serves to call-out specific users. How is it that it is not a type of Wikipedia:Attack page? Anyone know if I was, in fact, ever listed there while banned? I believe I looked once and determined that I was not. I'm quite tempted to simply cut that section citing 'attack' and my personal objection. I'll say it again; this place is toxic. I've never vandalized. The wording in {{unbanned}} implies that anyone banned was 'unproductive'. One of my sock accounts was indef'd with an assertion of 'No useful contributions', which is simply not true. This is all WP:MMORPG stuff. Anyone really surprised that I criticize shite here? Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Update The template has been modified to better reflect the intent and purpose, I've asked for the category to be speedy deleted as it is wildly unpopular and I'm tired of all the bullshit accusations of bad faith being directed at me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

It is awfully backloged, could an admin remove the backlog? thank you. TbhotchTalk C. 06:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 16:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment[edit]

As per discussion initiated at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment's talk page, I would like to inquire as to when we can expect to get a site-wide notice up and running for this vote.   — C M B J   07:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I already added and updated the links to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details a few hours ago. I'll await consensus on posting it on MediaWiki:Sitenotice, because, IMO, it gets somewhat annoying when it appears on every single page with no current effective mechanism to hide/dismiss it (at least that's what I recall). Also, such notices, especially regarding major policy discussions, are generally posted more on Watchlist-details than Sitenotice; the latter seems more reserved for critical site issues that all users (including anons and new accounts) must see. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fair. On a related note, there is now discussion of restructuring and restarting the vote, as there have been some serious concerns expressed over the methodology of this particular vote.   — C M B J   09:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I can confirm CMBJ's statement, some people think the vote isn't a good way to build consensus. It certainly does show how people feel about it (so far about 3/4 support in some fashion), but the concern is that a vote like this shouldn't be used, but rather continued discussion. My concern there is that it may not change any minds and - while it would certainly create some policy changes meant to satisfy some editors - would not have any use on those who just want to see the process removed. I'm keeping a close eye on the proceedings on the vote page, in particular the talk page, to discuss concerns brought up there. I'll keep this up as well. CycloneGU (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There has already been a lot of discussion and discussion is also able to continue, there will always be objectors but in this case they are in a small minority. Already over one hundred and fifteen interested users have joined in and added their preferred choice. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this poll is poorly designed and worded. I cannot commit to supporting pending changes without improvements, but there is no option to indicate this. I suggest we discontinue this poll and construct one more reflective of the comments in the discussion, and include an option where a clear commitment to implementing requested improvements is made. Yworo (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Your option is clearly to reject then as you have done, there is no guarantee of any improvement to the tool, just the idea and the desire to improve. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Yworo, unduly confusing and complex and the method (having everyone reply with a number) doesn't work well either. --WGFinley (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like some subtle changes were made from how it was first posted, I think that's a bit better. --WGFinley (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Getting a little tired of discussing this, but this "poll" was set up by Off2riorob and was originally the most convoluted and rigged things I've seen, regardless of my opinion about the subject. We are discussing a serious policy change about something that was supposed to be a trial, correct? Also, a person saying that a portion are in the "minority" when that person is the one who set up the poll is really disingenuous and represents a serious conflict of interest at best. Concerns over "lost votes" are really misplaced as well; does anyone not remember thier history here and Jimbo's repeated blanking of improper polls? Ryan Norton 19:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
What really concerns me is that Off2riorob is edit-warring over the removal of a portion of the lede (that says a "6-4" majority should be dubbed consensus) that's facing universal condemnation on the talk page as far too low a standard. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/VC is a show-trial!) 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering where the 6-4 came from. I thought it was either 50-50 or 75-25 or something along those lines (70-30?). CycloneGU (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Text from previously speedily deleted articles[edit]

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask this, but I'd like to be able to access the source of a couple of previously speedily deleted pages. I've begun an article on Exploits Valley Air Services in my userspace here. According to the logs, two earlier attempts to create a page on this company were speedily deleted. It's possible there may be some salvagable material in those attempts that could be incorporated in a this article, but not being an admin I can't access it. Admin assistance is therefore needed! Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

They're both short and fairly useless, I think:
Deleted stuff

Exploits Valley Air Servces EVAS

Exploits Valley Air Services (EVAS) is an incorporated aerospace/aviation company operating in the Town of Gander, Newfoundland, Canada. EVAS is comprised of an extremely experienced and highly skilled team of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers authorized to certify maintenance of avionics systems, structural repair of composites, sheet metal and tubular structures. It provides Corporate travel, Cargo and Dangerours Goods transport, Air Ambulance, Aerial sightseeing and Charters.

That one is from Exploits Valley Air Services (as of 22 July 2010, at 10:06) by User:Ealobe, and also has a short chart titled "Explits Valley Services EVAS Fleet", but it's unsourced and I doubt it's needed anyway. The other older deleted version basically says what you have already in your draft. fetch·comms 02:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks--it's basically taken from the company website, and I suspect the fleet information came from there as well. So not much help really, but useful to see it all the same. --RFBailey (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, you can request the text of deleted pages at WP:REFUND. Cheers, Skomorokh 03:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Commandment[edit]

This is not the place, as the big red text in the edit notice says. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is across the quad. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad Reference - upcoming editwar in Bodo Sperling[edit]

Please have an eye at Bodo Sperling, my thoughts are on the discussion page. Maybe an edit-war is coming up soon. Thank you for your attention. (We had the exactly same problem in the German article, see w:de:Bodo Sperling.)Regards --Robertsan1 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, there's this book: ISBN 1155483499 - and the IPs want to use it as a source. But - you argue - it's copied from Wikipedia content (and WP:CIRCULAR would apply) - is that correct? Is there anyway of determining that it is copied from Wikipedia? I can get "ISBN" stuff to work, but Google is beyond me... TFOWR 19:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I put the links to the discussion page of the article