Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement[edit]

Let me just mention that without Sandstein handling things, this rather important area appears to be somewhat understaffed at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised one bit. RlevseTalk 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this? (strange site-redirect)[edit]

Resolved: Typing error by OP, no action required. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this: http://survey.prizesgiveaway.com/w/index.php?f=wikkipedia (Popped up when I manually typed wikipedia.org into my browser) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you mistyped, wikipedia.org should take you straight to the main site. Your computer may be infected with a virus or malware that's redirecting your browser to other URLs. Run MalwareBytes (malwarebytes.org - Make SURE that's the site you download from) and Antivirus (http://free.avg.com/gb-en/homepage or http://www.free-av.com/ are safe). Exxolon (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
That seems the most likely explanation; I've had to deal with browser hijackers before, they can be really quite annoying. Another common one is for the hijacker to replace search engine hits (google, yahoo, ask, and whatever else), with its own advertisements. By the way, I would recommend trying to download any antivirus or malware applications from a different computer if possible, as it may well attempt to intercept URLs of known antiviruses. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
More likely it's just typosquatting. I just typed wikkipedia.org into a browser window and it took me to the prize givaway site. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I didn't notice the "f=wikkipedia" in the url indicating the referrer ;) Yes, it must have been a typo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. Definitely a typographic error, marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:M12390[edit]

The user User talk:M12390 has been repeatedly warned on his pages on issues concerning MQM, Altaf Hussein, and Imran Farooq. It seems he has an agenda he's POV-pushing. On the page I fould him on for a recently deceased person (Imran Farooq), 2 editors (one of which was me) have inserted content that is sourced (after a discussion with another fellow who considered it uncited, but we duly found sources) and he removes it saying it is "irrelevant." In addition to his bias he has gone and first WP:NPAed the other editor User talk:Saqib Qayyum#Why are you hell bent in highlighting the "Muhajir" background of Imran Farooq? and then at my own page User talk:Lihaas#A Lahori CANNOT be neutral about Karachi (which came AFTER i warned him about personal attacks).

I believe this is the right place to post the message, the help desk didnt answer my query on September 19.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC));
I think ANI might have been more appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Any unbiased researcher would soon learn that Lahoris in particular and many opinion-makers of cities on the GT Road (Peshawar -> Islamabad -> Lahore) for some reason cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Check this out. According to the Daily Mirror [1] "Within minutes of the death of Dr Farooq - a leading member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement which means United National Movement - websites in Islamabad were awash with claims he had been assassinated or killed by his own bodyguard."
Where did these people find out about the details of the murder when the Scotland Yard has been scrambling to get clues?
Also, UK-based Punjabi supporters of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (based in Lahore) are writing all kinds of conspiracy theories against the MQM similar to this. [2] This website is based in Rawalpindi, another city on the GT Road. M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is just users from opposite points of views, I have edited there and there has been ethnic labeling without clear supporting citations, user Lihass wants to categorize Farooq as an immigrant, Farooq was born in Pakistan and where I come from we don't do that, as in a person born in England is English, if his father was born in Pakistan and moved to England then his father was an immigrant...anyways, User:M12390 has got a bit heated about that, as I see it a word in his ear to keep cool and stay civil are all that is needed for the time being. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Off2riorob for your kind comments. I would definitely try to keep my cool. :) M12390 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, We had a civil discussion about the content and the cites showing where he was on the talk page.
As for M12390 his attacks both here and on both talk pages are WP:NPA by any stretch of the imagination. He has also had warning from many others in the past over all such articles. How many more warnings? The first time i did so he responded affirmatively, then went again and i wrote him (without a template), and he went right back to attacking and labeling.(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC));
Lihaas is a biased contributor. He has no business "warning" me. First, I accepted him as an unbiased contributor so I showed good faith. However, he rapidly became aggressive, started accusing me of whatever, and started threatening me. I absolutely have no problem with the neutral point of view. However, there are certain things that just cannot be neutralized. In those things we need to at least initially give the subject matter (especially if it is a human being with a vulnerable family [3]) some benefit of the doubt until a strong neutral point of view emerges with time. It is only human. Lihaas is biased to start off with, and the other person he mentions in his complain above is as bisaed as Lihaas is. Many Lahoris just cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Why is it? I don't know. I don't see many Karachiites going around commenting on Lahore-based anything. But some Lahoris make their business to poke around and malign Karachi-based people and entities. Something is up!!! M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Shutterbug[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Ban enacted. Courcelles 05:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See enclosed relevant evidence.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation
  2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted
  3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation
  4. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 03:33, 2 June 2009 - Blocked 24 hours for violation of topic ban.
  2. 19:57, 17 May 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Wobblegenerator, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  3. 18:12, 19 May 2010 - Shutterbug sockmaster account indef blocked, for sockpuppetry.
  4. 20:28, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:MrSimmonds, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  5. 20:29, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:JessaRinaldi, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  6. 22:57, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jbsweden9, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  7. 01:59, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:AlexJohnTorres12, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  8. 03:42, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jimgreensboro, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  9. 03:44, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Mike Greenwood, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  10. 03:45, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Monsignore, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  11. 03:49, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Fairyday, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
  12. 20:25, 24 September 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Margaret's son, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  1. 01:31, 29 May 2009 - Notice of WP:ARBSCI restrictions by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. 03:31, 2 June 2009 - Block notice for violation of topic ban by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  3. 17:06, 19 May 2010 - Indef block notice for sockpuppetry by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  1. The account is already subject to probation, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation.
  2. The account is already topic-banned, and restricted to one account, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted.
  3. After violating probation, violating the topic-ban, violating the restriction to one account, and violating site policy on sockpuppetry, the account has been indef blocked [1].
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. As proposed, above. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat that if it passes an official amendment is appended to the relevant cases to centralize the aftermath. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. T. Canens (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support PhilKnight (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious. MER-C 07:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support; the user appears to only be interested in causing disruption, and making it a community ban protects the community when having to deal with any future sockpuppetry. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support -- If he was hoping to be taken seriously, using ten different sockpuppets was not a smart move. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support User has proven that they refuse to follow the policies of Wikipedia and the restrictions that have been placed upon them on several occasions. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I thought it was done already. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Recurrent sockpuppeting can only be fixed by permaban. I am not familiar with the contribution of the user but the proposed decision does not look like controversial 203.202.234.226 (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Etc. etc.; once this is over we can stop paying attention to him anymore. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This is overdue. The user clearly does not intend to follow site policies.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

OgreBot + Commons images[edit]

Please note: I am requesting to create a supervised automated bot to assist in the process of clearing the {{subst:ncd}} (i.e., commons) backlog. I am requesting approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot 2, and I wanted to get consensus here for it. Please feel free to comment here or there. Of course, I am going to be extremely careful with this bot, and any unforeseen issues will be printed out and I will have to fix them manually. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck to you! If it works, that would be fabulous. (bot clueless here, but, really, fabulous. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-working 404 Wikipedia link[edit]

Firstly I hope this is a place to bring attention to a non-working wikipedia article link.

I was searching for "Senkaku Islands" from google, and clicking on the wikipedia result gave me a "404 Not Found" error. Typing "senkaku islands" in Wikipedia's search box will throw up the same error. Similarly, clicking on "senkaku islands" on the disambigiuos Senkaku article page shows up the same 404 error. Same with this redirect page. In fact, the only way I can reach the article is to search for the less common Diaoyutai.

A check with the move logs show that the page has recently been subject with quite a number of moves, due to it being a result territorial disputes between China and Japan. (That was the reason why I was searching for the article originally, as I was looking for more background on the incident). The last discussion regarding the move resulted in a "no-move" agreement among the editors, but the prior moves may have somehow "broken" the way Wikipedia is linking to the article.

If I'm reporting this to the wrong board, hopefully someone can re-direct me to the right place to report this error. As this is a hot news topic at the moment, the article will be highly sought after and the bad link should be fixed as soon as possible. Thanks in advance!Zhanzhao (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, it works for me... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Me too; either you have a virus sending all links to external spam sites or something broke somewhere temporarily. The better venue for questions of this nature is WP:VPT, by the way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm thats odd, will hop over to WP:VPT to post the report, but can you guys test this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands? Thats the exact wikipedia URL for the Senkaku Islands article that I have problems getting into, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talkcontribs) 06:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No issues whatsoever with that link on my end. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Brett Jon Salisbury[edit]

this may not be the correct place to bring this, please forgive me if so. i am having a discussion with a user at this deletion talk page. it appears this IP, the main editor and possibly author of the article, may be borrowing other users accounts (notice two seperate posts signed by two different usernames, posted in the same edit by the IP editor). cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

upon further inspection, the author of the aritcle is obviously the same person as this IP. IP is now impersonating other users in the discussion in an attempt to influence me. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As one of the other users involved in the discussion on the AfD, the intent of the IP user does not seem malicious. However, the IP/User (apparently having technical difficulty figuring out logins, signing posts, etc) could definitely use a clue. Actually, probably more than one.... In addition to technical issues, their style of arguing makes them very difficult to work with. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

External link w/brackets?[edit]

I'm not completely sure this is the right place to post this, but I've been having trouble putting a link into the article The Sibley Guide to Birds. I'm using the cite journal template in a reference, but the link is broken up when I save the page because the url has brackets in it. I can't use a link shortener because those are all blacklisted. The url is http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113[0255:OL]2.0.CO;2

Can anyone help? —outoffocus 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It should work if you change the brackets to %5B and %5D, respectively. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113%5B0255:OL%5D2.0.CO;2 ... Testing link --B (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! —outoffocus 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:VPT is the "right" place, btw. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain and User:BilCat[edit]

Resolved: Admin attention not required, and duplicate discussions are taking place at WQA and ANI respectively... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

A while back I saw that Association football articles were referenced simply as "football", but American football articles were called American football. This didn't make sense, so for awhile I changed Association football articles from "football" to Association football to help avoid POV bias between the two codes. I went to Manchester United with this and another editor said to me, "No, it's an WP:ENGVAR issue, since in Manchester, people call Association football simply as football."

That's fine with me, as long as there isn't a POV, so I figured "Ok, i'll fix the American football articles to put them in line with the Association football articles rather than the other way around." That's when the trouble started.

I opened up an RFC on the issue, and no consensus could be reached either for or against the ENGVAR option or the full code name option, so I went with the ENGVAR option and Cuchullain (talk · contribs) and BilCat (talk · contribs) (who participated in the RFC, but did not contribute any solutions to fixing the problem) started on a campaign to destroy all my attempts to help with the problem.

It's gotten to the point where They're talking about me on their talk page, and whenever I try to bring more people into the RFC or reopen it elsewhere to get a firm consensus for or against anything, they call it "forum shopping".

I'm not sure what to do, or where to place this, I can provide more diffs if needed (diff cataloging isn't my specialty, i'd have to look back), I just want to solve this problem (NPOV between the two codes) and move on. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I stopped editing American football articles 2 days ago to avoid you. As to discussing you on another user's talk page, I was asking his advice on taking you to ANI. He recommended against it. There's no issue left fo me to discuss here. Good bye. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an example of what i'm talking about here. I wished I never would have to say this about another Wikipedian, because I see it as incivil, but I need to be honest: I don't want to be around these either of these two anymore, as they don't want to solve the issue, but I want to still solve the issue. If BilCat wants to give up on trying to find a compromise, that's fine, I can't stop him. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is now a parallel thread on ANI Rodhullandemu 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The American football articles and soccer articles should use the same approach. There's no reason to have wikipedia pretend that soccer is the only "real" football in the world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Internationally it's the most common usage of the term "football", though; American football, as the name implies, is generally only referred to as football within America. In any case this content discussion is irrelevant to AN. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The entire discussion is content-related, and should all be sent back to the article talk page. It seems like the soccer fans are trying to squelch dissent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 28 September 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.

User:66.217.112.3[edit]

Question about edit filters[edit]

Can admins see what an editor's attempted edits are when they are blocked by the edit filter? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can generally accomplish this by using the "examine" or "details" option from the Special:AbuseLog and relevant revision.   Thorncrag  01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Not very legible, is it? :) But at least it's there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD's generally closed too soon[edit]

This is a general complain, not aimed at one editor, so I post it here. Many editors, especially many admins, close AfD discussions early (hours or even days early) without a good reason (real "Snow" or "Speedy" closures). I am not claiming that the outcome would have been any different if we had let the discussions run a bit longer, but the current standard of letting AfD's open for at least seven days was achieved after some fairly lengthy discussions. I noticed the problem with it when someone added a day too early to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and Mathbot automatically indicated that only 16 of the 78 discussions were still open, half a day before the full seven days would expire.[2]

Looking at the actual log for 8 September only, I see that the first one was closed some 16 hours early, the second, the third and the fourth nearly two days early (as were the sixth and the seventh and many others by the same closer), and also by other people this one and this one and this or this. Oh, and this or this. And this one, after 4 1/2 days. The vast majority of the 62 discussions already closed, where closed hours to days too soon.

I'll notify the three editorsd with the most early closures of this thread, but could everyone who closes AfD discussions please respect the minimum time of seven full days? Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any disputed AfD should run the full 7 days, but I'm not seeing how a closure "16 hours early" causes a problem. If some editor intends a thorough dissection or a heroic re-write, it seems inadvisable to wait until the last few hours. / edg 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I check things listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, so yeah, had not realized there was a problem with things being listed too early at that page. Someone should go ahead and fix that page for future reference. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, that doesn't seem to be the problem, since you lowed many pages from the log for the 8th, which isn't listed there yet. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, some of those may have been relisted already, and thus were at AFD for longer than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I only close from User:Excirial/Dashboard. I didn't realize that the listings included those earlier than they should be closed, although the nature of the list should have told me. (In fact on the top of the /old page it says "This page contains Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the deletion process") I'll watch the times as well as dates now. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Boldly changed the text at the top of the page to reflect what it really is [3] NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have revised this change to reflect the actual policy: that fthe page lists discussions within 24 hrs of closing, but only those that have been open 168 hours may be closed. It would be even better if we could rewrite it so it actually did list the ones that can be closed, the way WP:PROD indicates the expired prods. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, why are you all balming this incorrectly on the Afd/old page? This lists only pages where every single one has passed the seven day (168 hour) limit. It doesn't list discussions 23 hours early, it lists a day only when the most recent discussion is at least 168 hours old. I have reverted the incorrect changes to the text of the AfD/Old page. Please check such things before making such statements. Fram (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I regret to have to admit that some of the examples above are my closings. I should not have closed them when I did. The reason I did so is the pernicious effect of instruction creep, and the effect of seeing what everyone else does--in practice I seem to have been looking at areas on the page where most of the articles are already closed, and following their examples by closing others nearby. I've previous been trying to fight this, and protested rather vigorously to the individuals, but in view of the insistence of one or two of the regular closer who have refused to change their ways, I seem to have unconsciously decided to join them--some of this may have been the understandable but not really good motive of trying to get my share rather than be foreclosed in this area by those who refused to follow the rules designed to allow cooperation.
But I see nothing on the above list that needs to be reopened to prevent error, either mine or the others, but anyone is I think free to do so.
I suggest we enforce this strictly, unless a SNOW close is appropriate in special cases and can be justified. The justification of a SNOW is like IAR--no good faith editor who wants to object. There might be one other special case: a BLP where the continued discussion is harmful.
I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours.
I think we should clarify the relistings to indicate that a relisting must be for another 7 days. There are too many examples where one is closed after a single additional person has spoken. If we need to send out a message we need more time, it is simplest and fairest being for the same amount of time. If we already need to wait more than 7 days, no harm is done by another 7. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be ashamed of following the crowd and closing some AfDs early. At all. But what you describes certainly confirms what I have said before: If there is a rule not to close an AfDs early, but it is not followed, then it creates bias of a kind that I would prefer not to see: Admins who decide it's not all that important for themselves to follow the rules strictly have more influence on AfDs than those admins who insist on painstakingly sticking to the rules. Hans Adler 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
DGG, I agree with the sentiment, but not your take on relistings. Relistings do not need to be for seven days, and in many cases should not be. If one additional !vote validates the outcome, then a close is appropriate. If discussion is ongoing and progress is being made, then yes, discussion should continue. A hard and fast rule on relistings is unneeded, in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Same here. If someone really cared that much about an article, they should have commented in the first week. -- King of ♠ 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You know, the {{Proposed deletion}} template includes a hard-coded timestamp; when the proper amount of time has elapsed, the template itself changes the visible text to highlight that "This article may be deleted without further notice". We've used similar functions for templates associated with the Arbcom elections (changing pages to open voting at the correct moment, for example). Could the AFD template be amended to show how long the page has been in existence? If the AFD is created with the nomination, then a template could add a "Don't close me early" flag until the current time is precisely 7 days after the first timestamp. Even better, the {{afd2}} template is substituted, to format the debate. We add a timestamp to that, so that the nomination is timestamped. Then, the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, normally invisible, could display a notation under the title if the elapsed time is less than 7 days - or a different "This debate has been open 7 days, and may be closed shortly" notation once the elapsed time has gone past 7 days. Either way, we could retain the highly useful WP:AFD/OLD listings while avoiding early closures. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns voiced by many and have also noticed this problem. If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. As a partial solution, I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy to add the following to deletion policy: "Administrators may without discussion undo any closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed." Comments are welcome on the policy talk page. Additionally I support any templated timestamp solution as per Ultraexactzz's proposal.  Sandstein  20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought I was waiting a week, but I wasn't. That needs to be cleared up, but the above proposal makes sense. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a good solution, but it would be even better if admins had a place where they can find all AfDs that need closing, and only such AfDs. Then the problem would disappear automatically and we would prevent tensions from building up between admins. Hans Adler 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It would be possible to make a template on an open AFD add the AFD to a category exactly seven days after the AFD has been started. Ucucha 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of using a category rather than a list. It seems appropriate for the purpose. Hans Adler 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If the AFD2 template adds a timestamp, then REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD could add the category if CURRENTTIME=TIMESTAMP+7 days. We've already got the REMOVE template in place (it adds debates to CAT:AFD), so no need to add another invisible template that would need to be removed on closure. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

At first glance, this report has had the effect that the editors most responsible for these early closings have stooped this (thanks!), only to be replaced by others. These were closed after this discussion started, so... 14 hours early, 16 hours early, 13 hours early, 12 hours early (and many more by the same editor, who I'll notify), 5 hours early, 14 hours early, 14 hours early, 8 hours early, 8 hours early, and some more by this editor as well. Basically, this AN discussion has replaced the three editors most active in closing discussions early, with three other editors doing the same... Fram (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful and wait the full 7 days. -- King of ♠ 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(addition) Let's admit here: closing AfDs is fun. It's either like whack-a-mole when you have 10 delete !votes in a row, or more like sitting in the judge's seat with a controversial AfD; both are pretty amusing. A typical AfD cycle for a day's log goes: 25% are speedy closed, SNOW closed, withdrawn, or closed after 8-12 days (for relists) well before the 6 days. Next to go are the whack-a-moles, which comprise another 25%, in the first two hours. Slowly throughout the day some trickier AfDs get closed (again 25%). (This is where, admittedly, I do most of my work, after the moles have already been whacked by someone else.) 15% get relisted. Finally, the 10% is the nasty part that actually makes it into the -8 log: it's either annoying long or it has around five disparate !votes (the gray area where it's too many to relist and too few to call a consensus). -- King of ♠ 07:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to wade through the coding this afternoon, and (hopefully) have a template add-on that will timestamp the debate when it is opened, list it as "Scheduled to close at (TIMESTAMP+7 days)", then - once that time passes - list it as "This debate is eligible for closure". Once the debate is either A) no longer included in CAT:AFD or B) included in Category:Relisted Deletion Debates, it will remove the timestamp. Consensus, above, is certainly strong enough for a trial. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm definitely a guilty party on this one, closing some that were at 6 days and X hours, rather than 7 days. As a general rule, I guess, we all need to know where we stand on UTC-- in my case, I'm 5 hours behind, so at 7:00 this evening my time, it's Saturday on Wikipedia. If I was in California, 4:01 pm local would be 0001 hours UTC. I pledge to be more careful about this. Mandsford 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Add me to the guilty list and considering that there are now several threads about this it's surprising that this wasn't bought up at my recent RFA. In my case it was because I was closing from the 7 day log. That's the log I do relists from and while there it only made sense to also close any clear unambiguous keeps. Later as I gained more experience I became more mindful of the time it was posted and not just what log it's on. However, I still think that administrators should be able to use their best judgment in such cases. If a debate is close and/or still receiving comments then it should be left to tick out the full 168 but does it make sense to leave "borderline snow" AFDs where everything that is going to be said has been said and nobody has posted anything in 3 days open just for the sake of process? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for timestamp on AFD2 template[edit]

I've gone ahead and coded a timestamp function for the {{afd2}} template - the code can be found at User:Ultraexactzz/Afdtimestamptest, and a sandbox example at User:Ultraexactzz/afd test. The afd2 template is the template that actually formats the deletion debate. The code will take the timestamp (+7 days) at the time the debate is formatted - this becomes the time of the nomination, and the +7 days sets the time after which the debate may be closed. It then compares the current time to that timestamp. If the current time is prior to that of the timestamp, a small notice gives the scheduled closure time (in the form "This debate is scheduled to end at 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC).") If the current time is after that timestamp, the notice becomes a standard-font bold "This debate has been open for 7 days, and may now be closed by an administrator.". I have not added categories, though this could be included as appropriate (and if there's consensus to create a Category for debates ready to be closed). I also am unsure how to remove the notice if Category:Relisted AfD debates is present; it might be that removing this parserfunction becomes a step in relisting, for now. The notice at WT:AFD points discussion to this page; should we make a request there as well, or just note that I'm calling the question? Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Minus the by an administrator part :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea, but as for the implementation, I think {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} is a better place for it so that the "can be closed" note will be automatically removed after the debate is closed. -- King of ♠ 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, generally. Maybe we do both; we use the AFD2 template to enter a parameter (the current timestamp +7 days) into the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template, and then have REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE call that parameter when deciding whether to show "Debate scheduled to close at" or "This debate may now be closed". This has the virtue of not requiring the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template to be substituted, since debates are shifted in category all the time - we get a lot of bad inputs or custom categories, which put the debates into "Not yet sorted", and then someone changes the template to reflect the correct category. For example. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The relisting script will have to update the template and either change the timestamp or a relist parameter or both. There is no parserfunction, AFAIK, that tells if a page is in a category. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that relisted debates are as much of a problem. To the best of my understanding, a relist means that at the time of relisting, there was no clear concensus; if there is a clear concensus 3 days later, I see no reason not to close it - it had its full 168 hours, and the result is clear. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cases of unanimous consensus[edit]

I am going to give an example, below, and pose a question:

  1. Something was nominated to AFD.
  2. It has no objections to deletion.
  3. No one has done anything to demonstrate notability.
  4. The AFD has unanimous comments from individuals, all who have commented, with, Delete.
  5. Duration of the AFD since time of nomination is 6 days, 23 hours.

In such a case, is the discussion above, stating that admins are forbidden from ever closing such AFDs early, even under obvious WP:SNOW provisions, in unanimous cases? -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that an administrator should be able to use his best judgment in such cases. Both of us work off the 7 day "relistable" log and it does make some sense to go ahead and close the slam-dunk keeps and deletes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
But here's the problem: 6 days 23 hours ... 6 days 22 hours .... 6 days 12 hours .... 6 days 1 hours.... 6 days 5 minutes.... This is one of the times when a clean cutoff rule is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
How about the case of: 10 unanimous comments in favor of Delete, no objections to delete, no one commenting keep, no sources in the article, the article is a completely unreferenced BLP page, and it has been 6 days and 1 hours? -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Admins are forbidden from closing even such AFDs early by current policy ("at least seven days"). Slippery slope problems aside, that's because somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours. The only possible exceptions to the seven-day-rule are, AFAIK, WP:CSD or WP:IAR (that is, situations where following the seven-day rule would be positively harmful to Wikipedia or members of the public). This would include unsourced, potentially libelous BLPs, but not much else.  Sandstein  12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I see your point. Perhaps my view on this is clouded by the fact that until recently, I could only close "keep" and only for slam-dunk (or nearly so) cases. Deletion is more permanent and harder to undo and it's more likely that someone may show up at the last minute with a source then then it is for an 11th hour damning rebuttal on a borderline snow keep. However, there are some clear cut cases in the delete department such as this one. (borderline G3) That probably could have been closed at day 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that closing AfD's a bit early is harmful. As Sandstein said, "somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours" - yet what if an editor provides sources after 7 days and 1 hour, once the article is deleted? Then the difference is the same. A well-reasoned keep !vote should have the same bearing on an article's inclusion no matter if the discussion is active or has been closed for 3 months. As long as closing administrators recognize this, deletion becomes much less permanent. I certainly don't think AfD's should be closed before 6 days (in order to allow discussion during every day of the week), but a flexible closing period after that time seems fine. A 168 (24×7) hour listing period is fairly arbitrary anyways - how long do they list AfD's on venus.wikipedia? :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
We already have what you describe: a hard line minimum duration and a flexible closing period afterwards. The only difference ist that the hard line is currently set at seven days, as agreed per community discussion, and not at six days as you propose. The point of this thread is to get people to comply with the hard line minimum (which is of course arbitrary, but it has to be set somewhere).  Sandstein  06:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
So I think the point of confusion (for me at least) is that, without careful examination of the current hardline duration, one might assume that AfD's can be closed on the seventh day, when in theory, they should be closed no earlier than the eighth. It's similar to how the 17th century spans from 1601-1700. Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing, for example, should be pointing to the discussions of one day earlier. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I've made that change. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Having an article that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria stay on Wikipedia for 23 additional hours is not much of a problem either. The advantage of having a non-arbitrary dead line is that it reduces uncertainty, confusion, and unnecessary discussions. (Some of the arguments in this discussion seem to assume that editors are checking their watchlists 24/7, yet many editors are active only once in a week or even less often.)  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
As well as curtailing the time open for debate (we chose seven days specifically because access to Wikipedia is often on a weekly cycle, especially when weekends are taken into account), the rush to deletion also means that certain admins end up closing all the debates. That's partly why I gave up closing AfDs: other admins were 'cheating' by closing them early, and ignored my requests not to. Seven days should be a bright line (excepting CSD and blatant IAR issues), and those who breach it should be sanctioned. Fences&Windows 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, would you also consider WP:SNOW a blatant IAR case? For example, 4-5 days, 9 keeps with a strong basis in policy, maybe one other delete either not based on policy or with a good counter argument? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
IAR should only be invoked when following the rule would be harmful to Wikipedia. In the case you describe, no harm would be done by waiting until the full seven days have elapsed to close the AfD, and so it should not be closed early.  Sandstein  14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:IAR doesn't actually say it needs to "prevent harm", it simply says ignore rules which prevent you improving or maintaining wikipedia. And keeping an AfD open when there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it passing is a waste of the community's time; why not close it? The existence of WP:SNOW and the fact that many, many AfDs are closed as WP:SNOW seems to indicate that there is at least partial consensus that it is an appropriate interpretation of WP:IAR, and I don't think this is the correct venue to build consensus on whether or not WP:SNOW is an acceptable reason for closing AfDs early. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We can disagree with respect to SNOW/IAR cases, but there are many AfDs being closed early that do not fall into either category. These are the main problem here, I think.  Sandstein  15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree there; admins do have a certain degree of flexibility with WP:SNOW due to WP:IAR (there's always discussion with the admin / DRV if others disagree with an AfD, and further discussion is likely to be needed if WP:SNOW closes are to be challenged in general), but the discretion of the closing admin isn't infinite; withdrawn nominations with no support and WP:IAR should really be the only reasons to close early; as discussed above, the 7 day period is set at that for good reasons. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there is room for some template magic, here, and that might help give the full 7 days, but this edit should fix most of the problem. Debates will now be listed at "In Closing" only after a full 7 days have elapsed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh! I thought I was the only one who used WP:CAFD; guess not! :) It may take a little while to get all of the AfD closers on the same page (pun not intended), but we can be lenient as far as sanctioning until then. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why even SNOW cases would need to be closed before the seven day mark. Even if there are a bunch of editors !voting keep and no editors !voting delete, I see no harm in leaving an AfD discussion for its full seven days. I understand that you can IAR even if you're not preventing harm (as Giftiger wunsch pointed out a few posts up), but what's the real point in this case? I suppose to avoid drawn-out discussion, but if an AfD is snowing, I feel like a lot of users wouldn't feel the need to even !vote... I personally am in favor of having a cut-and-dry policy for this, such as waiting 7 days in all cases. GorillaWarfare talk 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved: There is zero momentum for altering the topic ban at this time, and it is getting "snippy" from both sides. I am closing this to keep it from getting out of hand. --Jayron32 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have an "indefinite topic ban" for what was believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. It has been almost three months now, wondering if this can now be lifted? --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the relevant discussion? → ROUX  21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
General Sactions imposed on Obama Related topics and quite a lengthy history behind it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Based on a quick look, oppose lifting the topicban. → ROUX  21:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Block log has multiple Rigthwing conspiracy blocks. Ron Paul POV pushing at ANI, birther fun at ANI, and Climategate 3RR board posting with PA at 3RR noticeboard. I am convinced this Topic ban is for your own good. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is simply not true, look at my block log for yourself. You only show your own bias.--Duchamps_comb MFA 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose...based partly on a quick look as well...but also because the request seems to indicate that the user still believes that they didn't do anything to deserve a restriction in the first place. --OnoremDil 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't appear to have discussed it (lately) with the administrator who imposed it. You should discuss the issue with NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) before bringing it here. It is at least conceivable that he may be willing to suggest some standard for good behavior after which he would be willing to rescind it or commute it to a finite period of time. As others have said, if you're not willing to recognize that what you did was wrong, there is no reason to remove the ban. --B (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Lets get the story straight, If you look at the log you will see (I have been treated unfairly in my opinion). [4]

There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given an indefinite.

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.

Time line of edits that lead to topic ban: My first eddit as of 00:04, 4 July. [5]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [6]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [7]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July. [8]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [9]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [10]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July. [11]

I stopped editing the article as of 01:37, 4 July; I was blocked as of 08:00, 4 July. So for 6.5 hrs. I had no activity, I walked away with consensus from the talk page to not add any of my information or refs. Is this not how wikipedia is supposed to work? I would also like to add I had no warnings of any kind from the blocking admin or anyone else. Since when do we give topic bans for 2RR?--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR is not the only thing you can do wrong at Wikipedia. The entirety of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines does not reduce to 3RR and nothing else, the fact that you keep returning to the lack of 3RR violation as proof of innocence in regards to your topic ban only reinforces to me the need to keep it in place. If you are genuinely interested in why you are topic banned, you should read WP:TE, and if you can explain how you will STOP doing the the things listed there, then you may have something. But claiming that you are not guilty of a violation you are not accused of isn't going to win any points. Try actually addressing the problem instead of redirecting. --Jayron32 05:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I admit I am guilty of 2RR, pushing the flag pole, poor sourcing with worldnetdaily.com, and possibly below average writing skills. I many times edit in political places where it makes me enemies. I have learned to use a 1RR personal policy to keep from being so combative. However if you look at my argument how others who were topic banned from Obama, it is clear I have done nothing even close to the others who received an "indefinite topic ban". So I am asking the ban be lifted with time served 3MO. --Please explain to me how no prior topic block, no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given, is this how topic bans work? Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence dissenting voices?--Duchamps_comb MFA 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You show a long term issue with pushing fringe view points on BLP pages, Violating WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP not to mention as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please review WP:AGF as well as the statement "Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence dissenting voices?" seems to characterize it in WP:BATTLEGROUND. You shown a troubling and disruptive pattern thus a topic ban was administered. Again discussion with NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) is your best option at his point as he made the ban rather than coming here behind his backThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I posted on his talk page this morning [12] thank you for the good faith. Ok, I miss spoke I should have said,"Is this a new under the radar tactic to silence users who add material that is counter/objectable to other users and their POV?" Or something like that. Again thanks for trying to stereotype me and my actions and misrepresenting them.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see any evidence that Duchamps comb can be a constructive contributor in this topic area, or indeed any controversial topic area. "I haven't been as bad as other people" is a singularly terrible rationale to appeal a topic ban; if there are other editors who edit like he did, I would ban them as well. NW (Talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have already said I see/know what I did wrong, admitting fault. As well said I would stick to a strict 1RR policy in the future on Obama related articles, what more do you want from me? It may be a "singularly terrible rationale" but I am seeking fairness, to treat one user more harshly than others seems to signify to me the actions of the admin MAY have been too severe or politically motivated. If I am wrong please explain to me how no prior topic block on Obama pages (or any other), no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given, is proper wiki admin procedure...--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can claim that you are admitting fault if you keep claiming that you're only being topic banned to silence your POV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That is not exactly what I'm saying, it is more complicated than that. I do believe I have admitted where I have went wrong, and how I might edit Obama related articles in the future with 1RR. I have respected the Ban for almost 90 days now. However I do feel compared to other editors who were banned form the same topic I was judged more harshly.

I bring up the second point as I feel admins have too much power in topic banning, as well it is easy to email an uninvolved admin/buddy to issue a ban on a user who's political views you disagree with. Here is one example with user Hkwon who was "indefinitely topic-banned from all edits relating to Korean cuisine (including, but not restricted to, the Kimchi article and anything to do with dog meat)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Administrator_Fut.Perf..27s_self-issued_topic_ban_to_User:Hkwon According to WP:BAN, bans (both full bans and topic bans) can be only issued by community consensus, ArbCom (directly, or by uninvolved administrators in areas they have specifically delineated), Jimbo Wales, and the WMF. So, Is it appropriate for an administrator to act unilaterally in this fashion? Abuse of power can happen, and what better way to silence minority voices than topic banns. [13]--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground, you continue to talk about there be conspiracy to silence based on the actions of a Admin who is not Nuclear Warfare. You have been involved in three seperate incidents Birther, Climategate, and pushing a Ron Paul POV. Those are three separate topics where admin Intervention was required to sort things out. Several Admins have agreed with his evaluation; neither is this about your POV. We have Admins from every Political, religious, Scientific, and Ethnic Background and every level of commitment to those ideologies on the spectrum. Their only common threads are:
  • Respect for the Project
  • have a degree of Trust from members of the community
  • agree with the five pillars of policies
Don't tell me that anyone here is trying to Silence you because some of these people like myself are very close to your ideiology. The difference being they just know how to be civil and respectful of others which you seem to have trouble with. Thus a topic ban was correctly applied. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You continue to project on to me your feelings and incorrect misconceptions of my opinions and misrepresent my block log yet again. Somewhat unfairly bring up things from over three years ago. First off I have never used the word conspiracy. Nor have I said Nuclear Warfare was trying to silence me. Only that I FEEL I was dealt with more harshly than others. I simply used the illustration of the topic banning on Korean cuisine/dog meat to illustrate a point that topic banning could be used inappropriately, which you totally missed. You continue to insert the straw man. How about answering this question, explain to me how with no prior topic block (of any kind), no warning, and not even a comment left on my talk page to please step back was given to me, and my "birther incident" contained no uncivil comments or even 3RR after Ihad walked away for almost 7hrs deserved an indefinite topic ban?--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You hadn't walked away. You were blocked for a week, and coming across your contributions, I felt that you had not been a constructive presence on these articles for a long time, if ever. Had I come across other editors with the same behavior as you (as I don't watchlist articles in that topic area, such a thing is unlikely unless I happen to run across it), I would do the same thing. Period, end of story. NW (Talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom has specifically granted admins greater power to enact blocks and bans in certain highly controversial areas, one of which is Obama-related articles. Second, your insinuations of people abusing their authority to enact PoV-pushing does nothing to encourage me that you've learned, so I have to Oppose lifting restrictions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Brother I wish it wasn't so [14] but usualy it is mob rule, birds of a feather stick together.--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This should be closed. This is not getting anyone anywhere. Duchamps needs to abide by the bans or find somewhere else to play. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have abided by the topic ban now for almost 90 days, however the admin has not issued a term or time limit, perhaps he will, so I will not have to come back ever so often to hear others who only want to lynch me for past behavior, and not look to my positive contributions or assume an ounce of good faith about me...--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The time limit is indefinite. This means that it has no set end. When you can demonstrate that you understand, at a bare minimum, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, the community may decide that your topicban is no longer needed. Your comments here have indicated that you do not understand why you have been topicbanned, and see it merely as 'silencing of minority opinion,' instead of what it really is: preventing someone from inserting unsourced fringe conspiracy theory (and frankly, racist; were Obama fully Caucasian we would not be seeing any of this nonsense) garbage. → ROUX  04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Roux, you have just totally crossed the line sir! Uncivil is an understatement, calling me a RACIST (you do not know what race I am, or what race I am married to). Then to add insult you call my efforts are garbage, conspiracy theory, and fringe.--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


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

Absolute Abuse by an Senior ADMIN (User:Varlaam) - Requires Severe Action[edit]

Resolved: Varlaam is not an admin, and had already been appropriately blocked for the interaction
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Being a Senior ADMIN, (User:Varlaam) should have been a role model to others in assuming good faith. But he is involved in severe verbal abuse with User:YellowMonkey at Yellow Monkey's Talk Page. Following are the extremely abusing words he has used againg Yellow Monkey:

Where the hell were you when me and Dewaine turned it into a bloody table, eh?
Have you read the talk page yet? When were you in Vietnam?
Varlaam (talk) 11:10 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)
I am not a fucking American, and I used to live in Australia.
Where were you during the Vietnam War, eh? I found the first ever half-Vietnamese war film yesterday, put it in the table, and now you are fucking busting my balls over it, asshole.
Varlaam (talk) 11:19 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)
Try doing some actual work some time. Varlaam (talk) 11:20 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)
Try looking at the version of the page from earlier this month after Erik deleted the entire bloody list. Did you happen to notice that, eh? Varlaam (talk) 11:23 am, Yesterday (UTC+5.5)'



I request severe action against User:Varlaam to stop him from acting like this to other fellow Wikipedians. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 06:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Two things:
  1. Varlaam isn't an administrator.
  2. He was blocked for the above personal attacks half an hour before you posted the above.
I'm not sure there's anything left to do. --Jayron32 06:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)User:Varlaam has been blocked, and is not in fact an admin here. → ROUX  06:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for de info. Just had a look at his talk page. 1 week block is too less for such a big abuse. Moreover this not the first he is warned / blocked. Also he defies by saying that he wont worry about the punishment. Then block him to not worry indefinitely . ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 06:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
A block is not a punishment. If he acts unruly again, he can be blocked again. --Jayron32 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Another thing, indefinite does not mean "forever", it means "without limit of time", which is not the same thing. Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Topic ban proposal[edit]

Per RfC input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010), I am proposing on behalf of the multiple editors in good standing commenting at the RfC that the following topic ban be enacted:

"Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) is prohibited from using any community input process for proposing the removal or curtailment of display of any public-domain Rorschach Test images, broadly construed, until September 25th, 2011." Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I believe that there is community consensus for an indefinite topic ban for Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) on the subject of Rorschach Test images. Danglingdiagnosis is henceforth prohibited from adding, removing, or altering in any way the display of images depicting the Rorschach Test and from initiating or participating in any community input process to achieve this end. -- King of ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Process Discussion[edit]

  • ps, Jclemens, you should have notified Danglingdiagnosis. I have done so. It might also be a good idea, in the interest of fairness, to notify everyone who commented at the RfC.→ ROUX  06:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, good catch. I do tend to rely on others' use of watchlists on topics and pages in which they have an expressed interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as why the duration I proposed wasn't longer, it is true that consensus can change, and I'm really hesitant to propose an indefinite prohibition on any user bringing up a topic in good faith. In formulating the restrictions proposed here, I tried to balance the disruptiveness of repeated, essentially unchanged requests for removal vs. the WP:CCC principle. If the community, as judged by the uninvolved administrator who ends up closing this proposal, believes that a longer topic ban is appropriate, I would not oppose it. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • When/if it changes, either someone else will bring it up or the user can appeal the ban; if consensus changed then they should have no problem getting the ban lifted. T. Canens (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The most important two words there, Jclemens, are 'good faith.' Danglingdiagnosis neither brought the proposal in good faith, nor argued in good faith. Instead, he repeatedly evaded answering direct questions, preferring to use rhetorical tricks (such as somehow defining 'censorship' as 'releasing information') to try his case. He proved in this instance, and in the previous one that he is immune to actual logic or comprehension of policy, and is the poster child for WP:IDHT. → ROUX  08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell DD absolutely acted in good faith here, working toward improvement of the article. He didn't seem completely bound to the notion of removing images as others above have claimed, and when the RfC was submitted for him, he was still in process of dialog with other editors, asking for opinions on what an RfC to improve the article might contain. Those aren't the actions of the closed-minded ideologue he's presented as. Roux above brings up IDHT, but in the end they were DD's arguments that weren't being heard, as evidenced by the total lack of interest in discussing them. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (sorry, ROUX, I editconflicted with you when trying to edit my statement)
    • Exactly as he did last time, he was attempting an end-run around the consensus on the talkpage of the article. Last time he pretended it was under the umbrella of 'involuntary health consequences,' citing also concerns about photosensitive epilepsy--which he then proceeded to blithely ignore in order to focus on his pet peeve. Doing so very deliberately and specifically was an attempt to bypass the extant consensus at the talkpage of the article in question. That is not acting in good faith. This time he tried to gain exactly the same result, via a different set of rhetorical tricks. He was seriously attempting to argue that releasing information is censorship, while preventing such release is not. That is not acting in good faith. You say he was engaging in dialogue to find out what such an RfC should contain? Sure he was. And quite deliberately ignoring everyone saying "There is no need to bring this, consensus has not changed here." DD's--and yours, I might add--intense focus on not listening to anything that disagrees with you is also not acting in good faith. → ROUX  00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Again: DD did not submit this RfC. People were saying there was no need to bring this... so fine: he didn't. He was working to see if there was a compromise that could be reached, trying to find something that COULD be brought to find a new and better consensus. Maybe he would have brought the RfC anyway, but so far he was just working on it as a possible thing to "bring" if consensus supported it. Note that even after it was an active RfC he was having dialog with Xeno (IIRC) to improve the questions. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • And again--you seem to be missing the salient point here--the consensus has been crystal clear for years now: the images stay. Period. End of story. He was told this the last time he tried to do this, and was told then that he was trying to sidestep consensus. The exact same thing happened here. And that is why he is going to be topicbanned, whatever the length of time may be, from doing it again. He has shown that he is unable to accept that what he wants will simply not happen here, for a very wide variety of reasons, no matter what rhetorical tricks and ignoring dissent he tries. → ROUX  00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
          • And again, that's not the salient point since DD did not suggest removal and seemed open to consensus building that did not involve removal. So arguing that the consensus was against removal is completely irrelevant... yet repeated ad nauseam. You've topic banned a guy for saying things he did not say.Crcarlin (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Roux is completely correct. Consensus has been clear for ages; this latest RfC was nothing short of disruptive and trying to promote his own views, which are obviously against consensus. I see no evidence that he is trying to find a compromise given that there have been multiple discussion over this same topic before, and none of them have been in his favor. He keeps trying, and refuses to accept the final decisions made. This sort of stubbornness is detrimental to the project and is only annoying. An indefinite topic ban is the only thing that will stop this ridiculous behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have taken a look at the discussion and closed it accordingly. -- King of ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you acted too fast here. Danglingdiagnosis should have been given a chance to respond. → ROUX  18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Buried history[edit]

Since last year, the archives for Talk:Rage Against the Machine have been moved to Talk:Rage Against the Machine 1. Being that's the talkpage of a nonexistent page, it has been deleted 6 times. Could an admin go through the deleted revisions and merge them with the correct archive page (Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 4) so we have a proper full archive? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I removed the text that Cluebot placed the other day onto the talk page. I think I corrected an issue that was having the bot place the text on the erroneous page so we shall see in a day or so what is up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I already fixed the problem, so ClueBot shouldn't add more. However, we need to dig stuff up from the deleted history. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. Except, I'm not sure which threads are supposed to be where on the page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, someone needs to go through and add back in the stuff still. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bomb Iran[edit]

Resolved: done Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please move Bomb Iran (parody song) to Bomb Iran please? I'd do it myself but Bomb Iran is protected; the (parody song) suffix isn't needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Short term Admin mediation needed at Canton Viaduct[edit]

I would like an admin to review the edit history of Canton Viaduct over the last week. Every time I make an edit, User:Doncram reverts it. Given that there is prior history of bad faith interaction between us at other articles, I would like to prevent further escalation if possible. A short term, unofficial mediation would be helpful. I will notify Doncram that I have made this request. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Geesh, this would be unnecessary. But, well, if Blueboar is asking for it, that is evidence that something is necessary. Basically this regards my request to him at User talk:Blueboar#Canton Viaduct that he not come on too strong for a newish, focused editor. I was actually encouraged that Blueboar could hear what i had to say and did back off somewhat (relative to his pattern of prolific article and Talk page edits at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, one of the main places i have had interactions). This is being discussed, and there is a wp:BRD type process going on. It would be helpful perhaps to get some other editors comments at Blueboar's talk page, but i don't see this as ANI relevant. However if ANI action were to be taken, i would hope for it to be strong guidance to Blueboar to chill. I will post notice of this new ANI discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues, where other discussion of Blueboar's behavior has occurred, and has seemed to garner some help from other WikiProject Freemasonry editors in related edits. I don't have time for further discussion now but i will return later. There is no urgent problem with anything at the Canton Viaduct article, and there is no urgent other problem which can't be discussed slowly over some time instead. --doncram (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, I don't accept that there is a history of bad faith interactions on my part with Blueboar, or at least that there is no unjustified bad faith if that is different. Since Blueboar focussed on some disambiguation pages such as Masonic Temple and others that i had developed, i have been forced to deal with him on topic after topic, and I have disagreed strenuously many times. I believe in all or almost all cases where a decision was then reached, my position was supported by consensus of editors, i.e. each of Blueboar's many related AFDs has been rejected. At some point Blueboar began claiming there is obviously bad faith because of all the disagreement, but that is misleading reasoning. I have at times expressed some well-justified exasperation. And, here we go again. --doncram (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Doncram, considering in your last revert, you removed a reference supporting Blueboar's contention while restoring unsourced text, I can see how BB might be getting a bit frustrated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the first time. Doncram, it seems as if you are happily willing to revert any and all edits I make to any article we both want to work on... (while strongly objecting if I revert one of your edits). It is frustrating. Instead of edit warring this time... I am asking for an admin to step in. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm in as an involved editor, not as an admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Huge backlog of images tagged for speedy deletion[edit]

Hi.

There is a huge backlog of files that need to speedy-deleted building up and requires administrators' attention. These files are listed in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no urgency in processing these files since it makes no real difference whether the files are deleted or not. It does give us a chance to review the files in question, so it shouldn't be rushed. There are a significant number which will want deleting from here and from Commons.
The only Commons-related backlog which may matter - and which we don't have any really solid processes to handle - are the name clashes: the cases where an image here has the same name as a different image on Commons. Some of these are in Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons, but only a very few since this category is populated by manual tagging.
Supposedly there is a toolserver query that will generate a listing of all images - here - but I certainly couldn't get that to work and in any case rerunning the query every time you want to look is a bad idea. We should probably have a periodic report generated onto a page here in enwp. Likely someone with half a clue could do that easily enough. Fabulous virtual prizes await! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This backlog has been around for forever. It's not urgent, but admins should try to clear out one subcategory when they have spare time. It takes about 10 minutes or less for me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on cutting down the undated category; I don't know if I'm making any progress, but it can't hurt. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... "It takes 10 minutes" and "I don't know if I'm making any progress" leave me confused. I wish I could help... Alas. Fleet Command (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it takes ten minutes to clear out a subcategory. It also takes ten minutes for a new subcategory to be populated :/ /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about a category here backlogged by months when a related Commons category is nearly 2.5 years behind, although I have been working on it. Rodhullandemu 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That I can help. I'll review three files per day until this category is depleted. You admins can help eliminate the aforementioned backlog without undertaking much pressure: Every day, each of you admins delete one file from one of those two categories. How's that? Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Files don't need deleting surely, just reviewing to check the bot did the move OK. Theoretically,anyone who wants to use the image in an article could just check that the info is all ok, there's nothing hinky, and remove the tag.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
When you say "files don't need deleting", it means that you've got the context wrong. Files in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons need speedy-deleting. If an administrator delete one of them each day, soon these categories will be depleted. In the mean time, I'll review three files in commons:Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review. Fleet Command (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought you meant the admins to delete files out of the category that both you and Rodhull had been referring to, rather than the categories you started the thread about. I like your approach though - everyone does one or two regularly, rather than one poor sod thinking 'I've got to sit down for three weeks and do this...' I'll try to do a review whenever I log on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Recently created unreferenced biographies of living people[edit]

Hi all. The above database report contains a number of BLPs that could either be sourced or deleted through the BLP Prod process. It could use some attention; does anyone want to take a look and possibly consider watchlisting it? NW (Talk) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by the extremely small number of items currently on the list. Either we are patrolling and correcting or deleting very efficiently indeed, or we have successfully taught potential user to source BLP articles. From my own patrolling of CSD, I think the second is not the case. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the bot just does not manage to catch everything. Still, it's usually a couple of articles every day. NW (Talk) 01:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, most new article creations that belong in Category:Living people aren't created with it and don't immediately get it added, although they nearly always do get it eventually. If the report used the category as a base, this alone could result in missing articles. Gavia immer (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo[edit]