Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218

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

Noticeboard archives


Remind me what to do about outing?[edit]

Just found an editor adding what he says is another editor's real name on an article talk page. The editor is probably a sock as they only have about 6 edits. What's the form with outing now? Rev/del, report to ANI, what? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the 'named' editor denied that that was his name, but it was still an outing attempt. Maybe just warn the offending editor? I'd still like to know the drill for future reference. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the drill is usually block and oversight. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Also FYI failed outing should be treated the same way. And the editor shouldn't comment on if the outing was successful or not (even if it wasn't). See WP:OUTING - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I probably didn't make it clear, but that's also what I was getting at: the user should be blocked and the revision oversighted as personally-identifiable information, regardless of whether or not it is true. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A block should not be automatic. If it's malicious then probably, but a revdel and warning that it's against policy can also be appropriate. Admins are employed for their judgment, so I'd recommend that Doug. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, but in this case it seems pretty malicious to me; a non-malicious "outing" would be accidentally using the real name of someone you know in real life while on wikipedia, in which case a warning or a simple note would be more appropriate than a block. Attempting to impersonate someone and trying to reveal their real name probably warrants an indef, imo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a fairly notorious case of a few years back when a "newbie" account outed another editor when commentating that the target account was contributing to an article in a manner which advocated the the subject's use and that they had a big COI in that regard. The outing editor was first blocked and then banned, and took to socking and off-wiki postings and suchlike, while the article contributor continued to edit and furthermore had many editors who expressed concern over the article(s) blocked as sock or meatpuppets of the banned editor. Regretfully, it transpired that the outing editor was correct, and the contributor was using Wikipedia to further their personal interests within the subject matter in real life. The original editor was unbanned and the really abusive contributor banned - as he remains today, although he apparently still tries to edit the articles via socks. Especially with newbie editors, it pays to carefully regard whether they are outing someone for malicious reasons or they think a COI should be noted - not that the latter is always appropriate, but some AGF may be directed toward them by means of noting the correct method of addressing those concerns and warning against repeating the comment. Obviously malicious outing should be dealt with by blocks; preferably indefinite ones - new editors can always start again, more carefully, and established editors have no excuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up for a page move?[edit]


The move request at Talk:Sexy_Commando_Gaiden:_Sugoiyo!!_Masaru-san#Requesting_move closed as supporting a move (there was no opposition). However, the page cannot be moved due to the double exclamation point being on the blacklist. Can some nice and/or bored administrator please make it happen? Thanks in advance for your trouble. Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 DoneDoRD (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks bunches. Gavia immer (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Block review: User:Magioladitis[edit]

Resolved: User unblocked, any underlying issues regarding templates should be discussed elsewhere.  Sandstein  22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Block review: User:Yobot

Yesterday, I informed Magioladitis [1] that he needed to stop his campaign of insignificant and trivial edits contrary to WP:AWB#Rules of use. This was another in a long line of cautions and requests I and others have left for him on this and similar issues between his account and his bot account (see thread referenced above, his talk page archives) to stop making these changes.

Many of his edits stem from his apparent desire to have as few templates/template redirects as possible and he makes edits to articles that have no change on the rendered text (e.g.), spamming watchlists, and then jamming up RFD and TFD processes trying to have the templates that he orphaned in fait accompli campaigns deleted.

Instead of stopping, he today engaged on another campaign targeting {{three other uses}} [2]. Since he is an administrator, I cannot revoke his AWB access - so I have instead blocked him indefinitely pending review. Any administrator may feel free to unblock him if they feel I have erred, or the user agrees to stop this pattern of behaviour. –xenotalk 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I commend him for cleaning up templates, we have way too many useless redirects, some house cleaning is needed regularity. ΔT The only constant 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If they were useless, they wouldn't be used. –xenotalk 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite often Template:A is created, then Template:B is created which is an extension of template:A (IE {{other uses}} when it had a single parameter) Template:B adds a second parameter to {{other uses}}. At some later date Template:A is modified to incorporate the features and parameters of Template:B, thus making B redundant to A, people sill use B, for a long time, until someone comes along, cleans up its usage and then deletes it as redundant. Normal house cleaning. ΔT The only constant 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the standard procedure is to simply redirect B to A. —David Levy 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No, we have a process for deleting them as G6, most of the time redirects dont work due to very minor syntax differences. ΔT The only constant 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. Deleting wrapper templates/template redirects (that users might call from memory) is user-hostile and breaks old revisions. –xenotalk 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
CSD G6 is for "uncontroversial maintenance." This is far from uncontroversial. —David Levy 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I should also note that you are in a dispute with said user and thus should NOT be using your admin tools, (which you have already done in a conflict of interest case/involved administrator). ΔT The only constant 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
My interactions with this user have been administrative in nature; attempting to enforce guidelines and AWB's rules of use. –xenotalk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to state that I think that this is unnecessary and I personally agree with Magio's "crusade" against template redirects. Some of my reasons are listed below:
  • Template redirects can have undesireable effects on third party links such as Facebook, mirror sites, Wikibooks, etc.
  • There were a couple examples recently that have come up about certain templates not working correctly when Facebook displays the page. Unfortunatley I didnt write them down but I think it was {{Start box}} and {{End box}} that was causing WikiBooks to not print correctly and needed to be changed to {{S-start}} and {{S-end}}. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Template redirects can also have undesireable effects within WP. They make it difficult to account for when programming bots or scripts.
  • To use {{Find a Grave}} as an example. There were a number of redirects to this template including: findagrave, Findagrave and FAG. If you want to make a change to one of these using a tool such as AWB you need to take into account all the variations. that means you might have to add logic multiple ways to catch it. This is less of an issue with other data on regular articles because there is a limited number of times that data could appear but with templates, it could be on tens of thousands of articles a dozen different ways. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Template redirects can be confusing to the users. If you are a user and you are new to WP and you see a template listed 5 or 6 different ways it is easy to get confused into thinking they are all different. Add to that the hundreds or thousands of valid templates WP has and you have a big mess. The whole point of a redirect is to allow a link to the real article that intuitively could be done by the users. To an article though this can get really confusing because in some cases we really do have multiple templates that do similar like things. Additionally Magio maintains several bots and is one of the programmers of AWB. Too block him based indefinately based on something that is best described as a disagreement would be a serious blow to WP. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Please provide some evidence for your claims. Oh, and indefinite=forever. (FYI, I have recently cautioned Kumioko about similar edits contrary to AWB's rules of use.) –xenotalk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not merely a simple disagreement. In his reply to xeno Magioladitis said “The template is marked as ‘Deprecated’”. There was no such marking on the template or the template's talk page at that time. More than twenty-eight hours later Magioladitis nominated the template for deletion. This is only the latest incidence of this behavior and the only one that I can document. JimCubb (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion, but this was a different template we were talking about there. –xenotalk 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to add by paraphrasing something from an ongoing conversation with Xeno on my talk page. I think he is getting too worried about watchlists. If I was doing edits that somehow adversely impacted the server performance or was somehow affecting the site itself I could understand and would agree. But, doing so many edits that I am filling watchlists is not a problem for me. Personally I smile whenever I see my watchlist fill up because that means the pages I have on my watchlist (which is about 18000 BTW) are getting some love. The more love they get the better they are. Trivial or otherwise each improvement made to an article makes it a little better. --Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason AWB has a rule against trivial and insignificant edits is in part because it clogs up watchlists. Just because you don't mind someone making an edit just to bypass a template redirect doesn't mean others want that on their watchlist when there is almost no net benefit. –xenotalk 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Simple solution, press the "Hide minor edits" option. ΔT The only constant 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Why should users change the behaviour of their interface to accommodate users who ignore guidelines, rules, and community norms? –xenotalk 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Further, why counsil an editor to use a function that also hides massive or malicious edits that are hidden as "minor"? An no, I'm not labeling the 'bot migration of templates as malicious - contentious definetly, but it is certainly not overtly or intentionally malicious. But everyone has run into editors that always mark their edits as "minor". In some cases that lets lots bypass watch lists - from honest errors up through blatant vandalism. - J Greb (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Endorse block. Magioladitis is well aware that the community has rejected his/her logic (and just participated in some discussions in which this sentiment was reinforced), and he/she simply doesn't care. He/she is deliberately engaging in actions contradicting policy/consensus, attempting to force through his/her preferences by any means necessary. This is highly disruptive (especially for someone with the sysop bit, which he/she has used to speedily delete longstanding redirects not meeting any CSD) and needs to cease. —David Levy 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this was a well-advised block. It seems to be rooted in a wikiphilosophical disagreement about whether one should actively replace redirected templates. I have no opinion about this, except that it is not a disagreement that should be settled by blocks among admins. The replacements are not patently disruptive and I imagine that one can disagree whether such edits are "insignificant or inconsequential edits" according to the AWB rules quoted by Xeno. In the apparent absence of a clear community consensus about this issue, and without any formal stages in the dispute resolution process (such as a RFC) having been undertaken, the indefinite block seems both premature and excessive to me. Any sanction, finally, would probably be more effective if it were not undertaken by an administrator who seems to be actively involved in the underlying policy/procedure/MOS discussions.  Sandstein  19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This block might be lifted if Magilatidis will agree to cease his usage of AWB until he obtains consensus in a proper forum. I suggest that Kumioko should stop as well, for the same reason. If Kumioko won't agree, I suppose that admins might revoke his AWB access, since his edits don't seem to conform to WP:AWB#Rules of use. People who are familiar with AWB might suggest where the proper discussion should occur. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Possible venues are WT:Template messages and WT:Redirect. –xenotalk 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
@Sandstein: WP:R2D has wide consensus and existed long before I even started actively editing here. However, please do note (and feel free to act on), my above explicit permission for any admin to modify this block. I've also told Mag that I will unblock him if he agrees to obtain consensus for these changes prior to making them. –xenotalk 20:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a case of WP:R2D. That guideline tells us: "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. (However [[redirect|target]] may be replaced with [[target]] if [[redirect]] is not a {{Redirect with possibilities}})." It is the latter, parenthetical, case that the edits at issue are more similar to, which suggests that replacing deprecated templates is just fine in the light of that guideline. Sandstein  10:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic; but this is not the venue to have an extended debate on the meaning of R2D - will take it to the talk page there. –xenotalk 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse the length of this block. I'm neutral on the rest, but indefinite is exceptionally harsh given the nature of the edits, and the block lengths recommended by policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. The block addresses a long-term problem about which Magioladitis has repeatedly been warned, not an isolated incident that can be resolved by blocking for a predefined duration.
And Xeno has agreed to unblock as soon as Magioladitis agrees to seek consensus before continuing the controversial actions. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent" or even "long." —David Levy 21:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'm just checking on that. As long as we agree it's not permanent. I guess as a patrolling admin on WP:AN3 who regularly hands out escalating blocks which serves as warnings, I was a little taken aback to be honest. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I understand why it might have seemed harsh in that context. —David Levy 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The question seems to be what constitutes "overly trivial" in the AWB rules of use. I would not consider fixing templates and redirects to be overly trivial in the slightest, for example, though obviously Xeno and others disagree. As such I disagree with the block myself. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
One cannot fix something that isn't broken. Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken (a longstanding, consensus-backed instruction). —David Levy 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You comment is misleading. By the plain meaning of its text, WP:R2D applies only to bracketed links, not to transclussions. Ruslik_Zero 08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. –xenotalk 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • After reading his response, I unblocked Mag and requested he engage the TFD process prior to orphaning further templates. [3]xenotalk 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This block has no foundation in policy. WP:R2D and by extension AWB rules of use applies only to (piped) bracketed links, but not to transclusion of redirects. WP:Redirect actually says that they may create problems with updating template calls. So, this block should be lifted. Ruslik_Zero 08:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
    That line makes no sense and should be removed. Perhaps those who feel template redirects are a problem should consult the community to see if they share their view. Anyhow, I've already unblocked him, as mentioned above. –xenotalk 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Some comments: I won't be able to edit in the next 2 days.
In Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review:_User:Magioladitis, it was implied that this is related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Block review: User:Yobot. This is not case. The latter was caused by a bug in WP:AWB's code that was fixed. Of course, it's everybody's right to believe that I was doing the edits in question on purpose. I have already written on the matter in Yobot's talk page.
In the same discussion it's also mixes the action of bypassing redirects with the one of replacing a template with one other. I consider myself experienced on the subject of the DABlink and I think I have the right to add/replace with one that I think it's more appropriate. If someone checks I corrected many mistakes in DABlinks. Nobody, until now, ever reacted in my edits moving, updating, changing DABlinks. {{About}} with 70k+ transclusions is better established and more familiar for tenths of editors by a template with less than 200 transclusions which was not even used for its purpose other than in 4 pages. I consider my job the same with replacing {{About}} with {{for}} in the case the first parameter of about is unnecessary or tautology. If someone checks the dits they are many that the dablink moved on the top per WP:LAYOUT or multiple DABlinks were merged. I don't understand where the WP:R2D stands on that but this is a discussion we did again. I would like also to note that TfD discussions (not RfD) usually ended with the redundant DABlink to be deleted. Check {{Otheruses6}}, {{Otheruses7}}, {{Otheruses8}} and probably more which I don't have the time now to do find. I willing to get more consensus on these edits if this is the problem but I don't think the problem is that the community isn't aware of the edits but the fact that sme editors disagree with the "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" reason to delete a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that such AWB campaigns to orphan deleted templates skip the "deleted" part. If a template redirect is actually deleted as the outcome of a TFD, then of course that redirect has to be orphaned. But orphaning a redirect in order to later nominate it for deletion gets the process backwards.
However, that also ignores the AWB rules of use, which I am sure you are aware of. I have also seen trivial edits lately, although I didn't point them out. I'll keep an eye out for more of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Binocular vision and Stereopsis[edit]

Resolved: Not an administrator issue, please use the article talk pages to discuss such issues.  Sandstein  22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem. Two articles Binocular vision and Stereopsis have interwiki, for example: nl:Binoculaire dispariteit have en:interwiki Stereopsis but pl:Widzenie stereoskopowe have en:interwiki Binocular vision & nl:Binoculaire dispariteit.
All language articles about topic:

I believe that this is the wrong place for discussing this - I would say place it on thetalk page of one of the articles, and link to the discussion on the talk page of the other. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User adding valueless opinion to Hitler related articles[edit]

Resolved: The user in question has never edited an article, only talkpages. Nothing to see. ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 08:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be an idea to watch (talk) who is adding opinion pieces of questionable value to articles related to Adolf Hitler, and in at least one instance to an editor they seem to consider a Hitler apologist. Britmax (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well that's the thing about opinion peices, they're hitler miss... 23:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Durrhurrhurr... Grandmasterka 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying my best here; can you nazi that? HalfShadow 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The IP's only edits are to talk pages; I don't see any mainspace edits. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said "the talk page of Adolf Hitler and an editor they think is a Hitler apologist". Anyway another admin has removed some of them as trolling which is probably what they are. Thanks, guys. Britmax (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bug in Category:Candidates for history merging?[edit]

  • That's odd. The template {{Infobox power station}} was histmerged 3 days ago and briefly had a db-histmerge tag on it[4], but as you said it's probably a long enough time for the work queue to be cleared. However, that's the only reason I can think of since the preview page for Rototuna Wind Farm shows that Template:Db-histmerge is used on the page but it disappears if you preview the page without the infobox. Jafeluv (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The job queue takes forever sometimes, but if you do a null edit to the template in question (the infobox), it might fix it quickly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New essay - Wikipedia:Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal[edit]

I've created a new essay, linked above. I'm rather proud of it, to say :D. I've noticed it quite a bit as a patrolling admin at WP:AN3. Anyone feel free to edit it, add images, link it, change the name (I was thinking Wikipedia:You sir, are worse than Hitler, but turned it down), etc. Enjoy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something I wanted to write during the BADSITES controversy a few years ago. "Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll". The main point being, "no matter how logical or sensible you think your proposal or idea is, there are going to be those who will have good faith reasons to oppose it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If we renamed it "You're a big stupid dick" we could have another MfD over that in which users would call those with opposing views vandals who are worse than Hitler. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:GIANTDICK is already taken... --Jayron32 05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fiction and the relevant noticeboard[edit]

If you look above at the noticeboard navigation, you'll notice a "fiction noticeboard". No it's real, not fictional... Anyway, I've looked and that noticeboard is attached to the fiction page, which is currently marked "failed". There's no reason for us to have a noticeboard if it's a noticeboard of a failed proposal. But hold on, it gets even more complicated, the failed notice was added there by an IP, with the reason that it's failed because it hasn't been edited in three months. The noticeboard is largely inactive, and even if it was active, we don't need it, since fictional issues can be discussed on the relevant project. So, should I mark both as historical? Start a discussion on their status? Note: WP:FICTION goes to a different place. Netalarmtalk 02:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Content noticeboard can handle the low amounts of fiction stuff. So I'm in favor of merging the fiction noticeboard to the content one, and marking the fiction one as historical (or whatever should happen to it). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would actually prefer to see it activated. It would be a good place to hash out, in one spot, topics that span many separate articles, e.g., Transformers. If it could be used effectively in this manner, regardless of how FICT has failed or not, it would take a load off AfD and reduce inconsistent outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Chia N Mustafa[edit]

I'm not sure how to deal with this. An IP editor put an afd template on Chia N Mustafa, but since they're an IP they can't finish the nomination process. I can't do it either, since I'm an IP editor. Where would the appropriate place have been to bring this up? (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

☑Y Created now. I'll notify the IP so they can add their rationale, although the tag was added two days ago and they haven't edited since. If there are no comments for a while someone can just apply speedy keep here. Jafeluv (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Was this the appropriate place to bring this? (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, but you weren't far off. :) —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't require admin attention since any autoconfirmed editor can complete the process; I would suggest WP:EAR or WP:Help desk instead, for future requests like this. Or maybe a {{editsemiprotected}} on the article's talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Upload Picture Redirect[edit]

Hello, when I first joined Wikipedia I had a lot of trouble finding out how to add pictures to articles and thought it would be very helpful to have a page titled 'Upload Image to Wikipedia' which is simply a redirect to a FAQ or wikimedia commons. I tried to create this, but it is a banned term.

Currently it is very hard to work out how to add an image just by searching wikipedia and seems very obscure and unfriendly to new users. Indeed a sidebar link to Commons would be just as helpful.

Ion Zone (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions re. User:Mario96[edit]

Moved from WP:ANI: GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd run up a couple of trial balloons regarding our latest young user with an overactive imagination and multiple IPs. First, I think a ban is warranted. Second, I think he's just about ready for his own LTA page. I don't particularly care to give a vandal his own page, but I think he's become enough of a pest to alert others to his presense. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, if that's his year of birth, he'll grow up or get bored soon enough. It's the adult nutters that seem to be the real LTA nuisances.  Sandstein  19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
^Lol. Well put. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
True, but I would also point out that this user has been revealed to be a ninth-grader who had been at this since he was in middle school. This utterly evil little monster may have finally been shut down and believe me when I say that I'm being polite when I describe him, especially after that cross-wiki stalking incident he put me through a couple of months ago. Jimbo himself got involved with that issue. This is probably nowhere near as bad, but I wanted to take no chances after what I went through. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is Bambifan we're talking about here. FWIW, he's almost as bad as Grawp. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with a ban as there are almost fifty socks and banning streamlines the whole WP:RBI process, but since the original account was only blocked in May I would suggest we hold off for now on the LTA page. It looks like most of the socks were detected fairly quickly so far. Any change of a rangeblock having the desired effect? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
We should do something; I just clobbered a loudly quacking example as evidenced by the user talk page and deleted contribs. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm pretty convinced that BF is/was worse than Grawp. Most of the Grawp damage was caused by copycats and BF did all that cross-wiki damage on his own. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Just ban Mario already. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Consider him banned. He's simply not going to contribute meaningfully. Thanks, Fetch. Diggin' the new signature, BTW. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a ban is warranted. He's defacto banned right now: I can't imagine an admin granting an unblock request.—Kww(talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Category for Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color[edit]


Can an admin add [[Category:Northern Ireland political party colour templates]] to the template Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color please? Just for ease of navigation from a UK/Northern Ireland perspective. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I note you also brought this up on the template talkpage; note that the talk page is the correct venue, and you can use the {{editprotected}} template to get an admin's attention. I have added the template to the request for you. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done Ah great. Thanks for pointing that out! All sorted Zangar (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR issue[edit]

Probably the wrong venue to bring this up, apologies, but after seeing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Olbermann_catch_phrases I followed the google link and the first hit is to which is a rip-off of the wikipedia page without any attribution. Sorry to palm this off, but thought I ought to alert someone, somehow! Bigger digger (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  • How do we know that page is not the source of the article? Is our article a copyvio? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, this is a list of Keith Olbermann's sayings. I guess it's not like we can say we own the copyright to them. I wouldn't worry about it too much, granted the article is on it's way out anyways. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      • is a WP mirror. Licensing is noted at this page, but I think it's insufficient. If someone wants to contact them, go ahead. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is twice that this has come up within a fortnight. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Potential Copyvio - Help Needed. Bigger digger, the right venue is here, where you can add all of the several largely identical mashup WWW sites that are run by Discovery Media. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks Uncle G, I will put it up there. Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tons of pure vandalistic userpages that aren't noindexed[edit]

Seriously, just search for "cunt" or "fuck" or something similar and limit the search to the user namespace to see what I mean. I've been going through tagging as G3s but there are so many that I'd appreciate if some admins could just go through and help delete all these. They aren't noidexed AFAIK and the absolute last thing we want is for one of them to appear at the top of a google search. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How about we just NOINDEX all of userspace? Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have waded through such searches in the past, it is time consuming but there is an awful lot of userpage vandalism that takes place, I've tagged or deleted plenty of G10s there as well.. Sometimes you just just need to revert to the userpage of a long inactive user, other times it seems an account was just created to use a userpage as a Graffiti wall. Rollbacking and then Semiprotecting the vandalised userpages of long absent Wikipedians is also useful. It might be possible to get an editfilter look for some of this, or perhaps get Huggle or Igloo to look for the use of certain words in userspace - though of course there are also plenty of legitimate uses of any profanity you can think of. ϢereSpielChequers 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Igloo has profanity highliting, and is good at detecting userpage vandalism. I also set up a filter that makes any user namespace edit appear at the top Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
They should be deleted, but I wouldn't be in a rush to NOINDEX them. What set of search terms would bring those pages up on the first page? Protonk (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Fuck you", "cunt", "nigga", etc. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (Search within User: Namespace only)
Those are searches on wikipedia's search engine (which works even if we don't allows compliant bots to index the page, which is what NOINDEX does). what google searches will bring these pages on a google search page? Protonk (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Noindex does not affect Wikipedia's search; only Googling. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of scope user page ?[edit]

User:Marvin fant is it out of scope ?--Musamies (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional userpages can be tagged for speedy deletion as advertising, so you can do that in the future if you catch one like that. I accordingly speedied that one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross[edit]

The nominator has now !voted "keep". Would an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross? Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! JodyB talk 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do I request a revision be deleted.[edit]

I think this diff might qualify per RD#2. Thank you for your time. Feinoha Talk, My master 03:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done ANI may get be the location where you will get the quickest response. If it is particularly bad you can request oversight via email here without drawing attention to the edit.  7  03:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved editor to close merge discussion[edit]

Per Help:Merging I would like an uninvolved editor to look at Talk:Cherem#Merge Herem into this article to see if a consensus has been reached in the merge discussion. It's been active for seven days. StAnselm (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with a deleted page[edit]

I received an email from the creator of an article that I recently deleted. He was not asking for the article to be reinstated but asked for the deletion message to be removed. It was an expired prod with a rationale of no available sources and a possible hoax. Now if the name is Googled the deletion page comes up with the hoax message which the creator finds damaging professionaly as he is being called a hoax. I thought (foolishly) that I could rectify the problem by reinstating then redeleting with a different message, but now both deletion rationales show up. Is there a way to fix this? I don't want to cause this person excessive grief. Thanks J04n(talk page) 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If the "deletion messages" you are referring to are the edit summaries in the deletion logs, then the only way to remove them is for the deletion log entries to be removed. Ks0stm (TCG) 15:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears that this user has also recreated the article. Is the content there now any different from the deleted version? Tarc (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Essentialy the same article but interestingly it was the original prodder that recreated it. To respond to Ks0stm, yes I am referring to the deletion log enties, can they be removed? how? J04n(talk page) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, oversight will do so if it meets the criteria for oversight. RevDel is also possible if it meets criteria 2, from what I can gather of the RevDel page. Ks0stm (TCG) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I used RevDel to take out the edit summary. J04n(talk page) 15:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As for the article being recreated, the original prodder is interacting with the creator, I'll see how that plays out. J04n(talk page) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Massacre of Lviv professors[edit]

Moved to WP:ANI: GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TIme for WP:RFRD?[edit]

Note: The previous discussion was archived here. Can an uninvolved admin look at the comments and evaluate consensus? Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This needs a community-wide RfC. The straw poll is an inadequate in terms of consensus to implement a new community discussion board. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a nice opinion, but pointless bureaucratic delay. If it was inadequate, there was plenty of time to say so here before it was archived. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors do not actively watch and comment on this board. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As a proponent of the board, I must say that the concerns raised by sitting members of ARBCOM would give one pause before implementation. Has anyone actually asked the Foundation for a view, or Mike Godwin? It seems that this may, and I use the word "may" with due dilligence, be potentially outside the community's remit. Pedro :  Chat  19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't ask for someone to go rubberstamp it and start it, and you'll note (upon review of the archived discussion) that I've expressed concerns about the titles (vs. numbers) of people opposed to it. What I DON'T want to do is just let this fade away into the archives while the original problem (RFRD requests posted to ANI) continues unabated. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that way, start an RfC. You've got to be kidding me if you think that the ~30 editors who commented on the aforementioned thread creates an accurate representation of the opinions of the whole Wikipedia community. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see consensus there. There are lots of tentative supports, and the only truly certain ones appear to be about equal to those voicing concerns. There are legal implications, and there really ought to be a RFC. Status quo is fine for now, until it can be properly and widely discussed. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw assertions of legal implications, but none that were anything beyond vague fears. I saw some enthusiastic support, numerically superior, with some oddly imprecise "concerns" expressed--exactly the sort of situation where a neutral observer would be welcome to summarize the discussion and move on to next steps. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well you have a few neutral observers commenting here suggesting that the next step is an RfC. Count me in on that suggestion. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You do realize it was on WP:CENT from September 26 until October 9? That's clearly plenty of time for input. Seeing as how no one else seems to want to address this, I think I'm going to go ahead and implement it over the weekend unless anyone can articulate a good reason to delay. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
What? No. You've just been told by three people that an RfC is the right path. You've simply decided that you don't like that answer. Protonk (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And I just told you "Been there, done that, don't see anything to be gained by doing it again". So, since no one else was inclined to summarize the discussion to date, then I'm going to go ahead and proceed reasonably, cautiously, and appropriately, taking all the input into consideration. Want to help me? I'm going to start constructing it in my userspace, at which time there will be a concrete proposal which can be discussed. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And I still say you asked for input, got it, decided you didn't like it and are proceeding apace. You are free to do whatever you like, of course, but remember that it doesn't really have any community force. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I asked for input, got it, then later asked for someone to formally close the discussion and write up a consensus statement, and three additional people chimed in suggesting that more input was appropriate. Everyone is free to opine, but process for process' sake is needlessly bureaucratic. Asking for a closing statement was really a formality. I'm a big boy and can implement a proposal incorporating feedback that suggests community opinion differs from what I'd actually prefer, so in that sense, I will be acting on input that I don't like. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(od)FYI, there's already a draft at User:Access Denied/RFRDHeader. Rd232 talk 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll probably use that as a starting point. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not like we need a decision, we just need someone who didn't participate to formally close the discussion and add a brief statement summarizing the results. I'd do it but I participated. I notice it is becoming harder lately to find admins to do stuff that actually requires them to write something themselves and not use some template. I have had two such requests here be ignored in the last few weeks. I ended up doing one myself since it seemed nobody would step up, and this one [5] is still sitting with no closing statement. I know it's nobody in particular's sworn duty to do this, but c'mon guys. If you can close an AFD you can evaluate consensus in other conversations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, any admin who doesn't mind being contacted individually about RevDel can add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit restriction poll[edit]

There's a slightly mis-placed community poll at /Incidents#Edit restriction proposal for Rich Farmborough. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't much see the point of splitting the ongoing discussion from the extant thread to move it here. → ROUX  10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Generally if the discussion started as a result of an incident, it's usually just left at ANI; there isn't much point in splitting it, when the incident at ANI is directly relevant to the sanction discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Announcing the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections[edit]

Preparations are underway for the annual elections to the Arbitration Committee, due to take place mid-November to mid-December. Provisional election pages have been set up based on the model of the 2009 elections, which were conducted using the SecurePoll secret ballot system. The proposed timetable allows for a 10-day nomination period (from Sunday November 14 to Tuesday November 23), a 10-day voting period (Friday November 26 to Monday December 6), and a subsequent period for the vote to be audited by independent scrutineers.

Until the call for nominations on November 14, the parameters of the election are open to community examination and feedback. A draft set of nine general questions to be posed to each candidate has been established (voters will also be able to ask unique questions of individual candidates). Editors interested in helping to organise the elections are encouraged to sign up as volunteer coordinators.

Working as an arbitrator is an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to take it on. This year, 10 arbitrators are expected to be chosen; experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing.

Discuss this at the election talkpage.

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned editors needling one another[edit]

Knock it off, all of you. The rest of us are sick of it, and likely to react irrationally with indiscriminate blocks. We don't need another thread on who's more evil than whom. ENOUGH.--Scott Mac 09:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This was hatted at WP:AE because it was not really in arbitration intervention request. I still think that because of the problem which seems to be well recognised we should consider some kind of community solution.
For background, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and in particular note the findings and remedies relating to William M. Connolley, Lar and ATren. Some background is also available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence and, if you have a day or two to spare, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision and its countless archive subpages. --TS 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not the only example, but it's typical of the way in which, for the past week or so since the end of the climate change arbitration case, topic-banned editors are still needling one another. I include Lar because although he is not topic banned but requested to stop using his admin bit in the area, there is an arbitration finding in the case (Finding 12.3) that Lar "has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin." In fact he has not edited in the topic but acted in the enforcement of the recently superseded probation. ATren and William M. Connolley have a long history of animosity toward one another, as do Lar and William M. Connolley.

The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match from the Running commentary thread on the arbcom noticeboard to Lar's user talk page. Lar picks it up gladly, and ATren jumps in with his two penn'orth.

I wonder if it would be appropriate now to ask Lar and the topic banned editors ATren and William M. Connolley to observe a mutual interaction ban. They've had a week to get over it but seem not to have done so. --TS 14:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC has animosity toward many folk. However, it assumes facts not in evidence to assert that others, even those he calls stupid and malicious, have animosity to him. I certainly have none. I merely don't appreciate his tactics, which he got multiple sanctions for. He continues baiting many folk, making snide comments, and so forth... as in the instance that TS refers to, WMC baits me about a reference that wasn't actually to him. When I clarify on the ArbCom page, TS seems to think that's a sign of.. what? Further WMC turns up to needle me further on my talk page, I again respond mildly. ATren appeared to comment on the WSJ ref... I don't see the needling here by ATren or me that TS does. What's needed here is a further interaction ban on WMC, but not necessarily on others. Restrict his needling and baiting. That cures the problem. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This ad hominem comment, directed at me at WT:ADMIN, a discussion to which I was specifically invited by Roger Davies, is similarly gratuitous and unhelpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh? That you've got a hobby horse? Did you want the diffs demonstrating it? You take swipes at me every chance you get. In fact, here you are now. QED. You strain at gnats and pass camels. As has been pointed out to you before. You're part of the problem with your enabling behavior. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The entire message thread can be reviewed here[6]. I think that this particular jibe is consequential because it is not part of a "needling match." I was commenting on administrative policy. Lar's name wasn't mentioned, and he wasn't even participating in that message thread until I commented (as suggested on my talk page by Roger Davies). Then Lar dived right in with his attacking "hobby horse" comment, which served no purpose at all but is consistent with the battleground behavior noted in the arbcom decision. I advocated that Lar be separated from CC enforcement during the PD discussion, which indeed happened, and that resulted in the antagonism that you see displayed in his comment above, and also motivating his "hobby horse" comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Re the topic starter: I disagree with TS that WMC and Lar were engaged in a "needling match." WMC politely asked that Lar refactor a personal attack. He responded by needling him about the Wall Street Journal editorial.ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
He responded by refactoring. [7] How many times have you, Scotty, been involved personally in a situation that one of the most influential newspapers anywhere saw fit to comment on? You wouldn't mention it on your talk page? Scotty, why don't you stop commenting on Lar and leave him alone? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have difficulty seeing how a WP:MYOB restriction on interaction between WMC and Lar would harm the project. Their unchecked mutual animosity helps no one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
While the editors involved appear to have problems with civil communication with each other, I'm not sure that an AE enforcement is the right thing. Maybe if TS specifically layed out a case for enforcement (as the instructions request) it might be clearer. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the editors keep these sorts of discussions confined to the the appropriate forum. Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match - wrong. Lar called me a prat; I aske him to retract the PA. I considered contacting an admin, but reflected that the advice in general has been that one should in general contact the offending party to request redress first. Is taht advice now retracted? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Lar: Are you persisting with interactions with editors of the climate change subject area, or have you withdrawn completely from activity in that area? If you have not, why not? AGK 19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add this to this discussion. I commented at Tony Sidaway's talk page not expecting my comment to be anything more than my opinion of what was being discussed. Lar came to the discussion accusing me of being bias about WMC and him, an accusation I feel is hurtful to make. His whole comment to me is rude. Lar is an administrator that I used to go to for lots of different things. I don't know why he wrote to me like he did but I don't think he, as an administrator, should be talking to people like this. I think that this should be stopped. I don't want any problems with Lar, but lately he's been commenting after I make comments trying to put me in a bad light and it's not right. I'm sorry but this behavior of his towards me is starting to make me nervous. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think banning interactions between them would help to make WP a happier place... --BozMo talk 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I agree. Absolutely no harm would come to the project from an interaction ban between these two users, and the reduced sniping would make the place much nicer for the rest of us. -Atmoz (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I support an interaction ban between any of the editors that seem to be continuing their disputes with each other. Right now, this includes ATren, Lar and WMC. Anyone else see sniping by other sanctioned parties? The WordsmithCommunicate 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or is this an attempted interaction ban against Lar for responding to a post on his very own talk page? Arkon (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well the comment on his own talk page, the comment in question, was asking him to retract a statement that William M. Connolley had interpreted as a personal attack. The right way to deal with that is to apologise and say you didn't intend to attack him. That's not what Lar's doing. To be fair, Connolley is also looking for a fight. This only happened after an arbitration clerk had closed down the original ruckus on, of all places, the arbitration committee noticeboard. They should both (and possibly others too) be asked to stop it. --TS 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) ::: In that thread Lar states "I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling you anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)" Is the argument that that response isn't good enough? Arkon (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It would have been fine if he had left it there. What happened next was not so good. --TS 21:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
What happened next was that Lar redacted the comment. [8] Sounds more than reasonable. Are you referring to Lar mentioning some very, very prominent press coverage? This is Wikipedia. He was on his Wikipedia talk page. He brought up some important, interesting press coverage of a Wikipedia event that he, Lar, was involved in. That isn't needling. I think, Tony, you're straining at gnats. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not involved. I like Lar. I don't really know WMC, but i think the arbcom case was a bad bit of business (and whatever one thinks of the outcome, it's understandable that WMC is feeling sore about the whole thing). But all that aside, why not just let them go on needling each other if they both seem to enjoy it? Why police one or both of them if it's not hurting article content? Now, if anyone's going over the top -either in volume or extremity of commentary, deal with that as it happens by the usual means.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I am surprised that this continues in this way in spite of the topic bans. Since one of the editors is not subject to a topic ban, I also note that apparently the finding in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Lar's comments, actions, and mindset, which came without any formal sanction, did not have an effect. This and this are simply not acceptable. The indirect insult was inexcusable under the circumstances. The response to WMC's complaint stretches credibility beyond all reasonable bounds. ("The ends do not justify the means. Especially when it's actually possible to produce quality output without being a prat, and therefore the means used are unnecessary. Which is the point of the sanctions on you. Which I gather you don't like much." – "I fear you've misinterpreted what I said. Unless you choose to apply the term to yourself, I wasn't talking about you, necessarily.") And triumphantly topping this with a link to a Wall Street Journal attack piece against WMC escalates it to the point where I, if I were an admin and completely uninvolved. would have blocked Lar for blatant personal attacks. Hans Adler 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose - I'm just not feel'n it. if one or the other of the group flies off the handle and gets a block, then maybe revisiting this is appropriate. Otherwise, I'd let them gently needle each other on thier talk pages and keep it off the drama boards. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
William Connelly has nothing to really do here any more and that is what is the issue. User is lingering around with nothing to do, he is not editing anything. I think we need to deal with the users restricted that continue in a stronger manner, as in, either move along and edit some flower articles or don't but involvement in continued disruption will result in blocking. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Off2riorob's comment is probably spot on, but the call for a formal interaction ban is likely premature. Yes, everyone involved should knock it off, go find their own corners of Wikipedia (or a sister project) to productively contribute in, and leave well enough alone. Just staying out of each others' way for a while can help a good bit with return to collegial relations, as I can personally attest. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The advantage of an interaction ban is that it doesn't interfere with content work at all (unlike topic restrictions or blocks) and puts it on the record that the people need to stay away from each other. There's been a "Oh, I'm not causing a problem" reaction from all involved, and a lot of uninvolved people are agreeing that there is in fact a problem. If the involved parties don't get it, an interaction ban is the most humane and least damaging intervention. Merely hoping they leave each other alone was the hope yesterday. Perhaps we don't have to pull the trigger today on a formal ban, but if it keeps up, perhaps tomorrow or the day after. The bickering is disrupting several sections of WP boards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • GWH: Agreed. Would you say that an interaction ban between William M. Connolley, Lar, and ATren is warranted? Are there any other parties that need interaction-banned? AGK 22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I warned yesterday on the arbcom noticeboard talk page; I commented here. I didn't pull the trigger on any actions yet (and wasn't planning on today). If other admins agree that there's an issue I trust their judgement and would support actions; I think I see that here today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • AGK, would you please identify the diffs from the last month where I interacted with WMC? ATren (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a troubling notpology: I'm sorry you drew that inference from my other words "I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand what I said"...and apologise unreservedly if you found my wording insulting - note the conditional "if you found"... Not taking responsibility for what was said but rather "I'm sorry you couldn't figure out what I meant". More needling under the guise of an apology? (Note the Was it your intention to call me stupid and malicious some weeks back? at the end). If this is how he acts when under scrutiny, there's little hope he will improve his behaviour on his own. Guettarda (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh really, Guettarda? Let's just reproduce the whole thing here:
It wasn't my intention to call you a prat. I'm sorry you drew that inference from my wording, and apologise unreservedly if you found my wording insulting. I'll try to do better in future. Was it your intention to call me stupid and malicious some weeks back? ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the "[I] apologise unreservedly" takes "responsibility for what was said" and is the operative part of the diff, isn't it? The "if" doesn't really mean a thing, does it? But let's not stop there. Note the timestamps:
  • I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling you anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) [9]
  • GWH: You have misinterpreted my words too. I will be more careful in future to be more explicit in my referents. Try not to jump at shadows so, though. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC) [10]
Now let's note Tony Sidaway's similar reaction when GWH criticized both Lar and Tony ("Tony, please don't poke Larry or assume bad faith." [11]):
Has this discussion become so toxic that my good faith statements and queries can be so badly misinterpreted? I withdraw and apologise without reserve while denying any intention whatever of poking or assuming bad faith. --TS 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) [12]
Aside from writing style, it would be impossible to differentiate Tony's response from Lar's (even down to Lar's non-American spelling of "apologise"). Denying that one meant to insult and apologizing anyway, then saying that one will be more careful in the future should be a sufficient reaction. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would hate to have to take this back to arbitration so soon for an amendment, but this continued sniping isn't good because it keeps the bad odor hanging in the air while we're trying to rebuild a cooperative atmosphere (with some promising signs, I might add) in the topic area.

These are editors who show every sign of hating one another's guts. Why can't we just ask them to avoid communicating with one another or talking about one another, even in generic terms? There's no reason why William M. Connolley need ever interact with Lar again, and there's no reason why Lar, who has seldom if ever edited the topic area and is not expected to take admin action in the area, should ever mention either William M. Connolley or the editing of the climate change articles on the wiki ever again. Much the same applies to William M. Connolley. He is not involved in editing on the topic area, and if he writes on his talk page about the editing of the topic he risks poisoning the well or influencing some other editor who might face charges of meat puppetry. --TS 00:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony is misrepresenting this situation. I responded to Lar, on Lar's talk. I've had no interaction with WMC in at least a month, and I'm asking Tony to retract his charge and apologize. ATren (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW My opinion is to let things be, they will cool down when interaction outside of talk pages ceases, which it will with the topic bans in place. Arkon (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that expectation is a bit of unjustified optimism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment by JohnWBarber above is another proof that some people here are simply tone-deaf. Tony expressed his surprise, then in a separate sentence apologised for the bad sense of having made statements that could be misunderstood in the situation. Everything he had said in that thread was entirely consistent with him assuming good faith throughout and actually welcoming 'skeptic' expert editors so long as they are contributing constructively. (The real problem is that what we are getting here is not experts but 'experts' who get their 'knowledge' from blogs.) It is also possible to read what Tony said as underhanded attacks, but I believe him that he wasn't aware of that.

It is very hard to similarly assume good faith in the case of Lar. Apart from the more subtle cues Lars wasn't sincere, let's play a bit with italics and see what happens:

"It wasn't my intention to call you a prat. I'm sorry you drew that inference from my wording, and apologise unreservedly if you found my wording insulting. I'll try to do better in future. Was it your intention to call me stupid and malicious some weeks back?"
"I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling you anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly."

Try to do the same with Tony's apology and you will see what I mean. The most obvious differences are that it doesn't come put the blame for the (real or supposed) misunderstanding on the opposing party, and that he doesn't attach an open counter-attack at the end. Lar's insistence on openly spiteful behaviour is disgraceful. And I say it once more because it seems to have been ignored: If a fellow editor you don't like becomes the target of a character assassination attack in a widely circulated newspaper, under his real name, the last thing you should be allowed to do is rub it in triumphantly. Hans Adler 06:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lar has apologised on my talk page, and I've accepted that. That is the correct solution to this problem. I really don't think TS has been very helpful here - this was a needless escalation of something that could, and has, been resolved William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What do we do when an editor creates duplicate articles?[edit]

TommyWilson4Pres (talk · contribs) created Tommy Wilson (Professional Wrestler) and then Tommy Wilson (Wrestler). Can we speedy one of them? Dougweller (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Or redirect. They'll probably get deleted anyways. Grsz11 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The second could be speedied under A10 - duplicates content elsewhere in the enclyclopaedia. But neither has much merit as they stand.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Consider turning the duplicate into a redirect. A history merge may sometimes be in order if there is significant content forking. --TS 14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin to wrap up topic-ban discussion?[edit]

Might be time for an uninvolved admin to wrap-up this discussion, subpaged off ANI. Although it has gotten a bit messy there seems to be consensus for a topic ban.--Misarxist 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except, regretfully, that an armistice has broken out between the parties and there are attempts, via an RfC, to resolve the issues that lead to the dispute. Why are "uninterested parties" so keen to have editors sanctioned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request uninvolved merge-discussion close[edit]

Two merge discussions at Talk:Longevity myths#Merge discussion and Talk:Longevity myths#Merge counterproposal appear to be over. As per WP:MM, would someone please determine whether they should be closed and archived, or relisted somewhere to restart discussion? There are also larger issues involved, and, after performing this minor request, it would be useful to consider contributing at WP:FTN#Longevity-cruft or elsewhere, or to request additional links. JJB 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached in the next 48-hour bot-enforced limit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJB 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability[edit]

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is breaking down very quickly. Discussion was intense yet collegial over the past few weeks, but today has turned into a series of edit wars and personal attacks. I request not that some action be taken here, but that a senior editor or administrator please try to calm down that situation. NW (Talk) 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot running wild?[edit]

Resolved: Sfan00 IMG is not a bot. Use his talk page first before filing premature AN reports. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

Please create and add {{WikiProject Internet}} and {{WikiProject Thailand}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting rfc closure[edit]

Hi, I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin close the Rfc at WT:UP regerding userspace drafts and FAKEARTICLES, thanks, Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for the lifting of editing restrictions[edit]

There is no consensus to lift these sanctions at this time.

I am closing this discussion after it has been open for about a week. Only six editors, apart from Koavf, took part in the discussion. Three of them (Fetchcomms, Ncmvocalist, EdJohnston) state that they do not oppose lifting the restrictions (albeit with some reservations). Three (Swatjester, Jayron32, FayssalF) did not express a (clear) opinion for or against lifting the restrictions. In other words, few people have offered an opinion one way or the other, even though Ncmvocalist apparently asked the participants to the original sanctions discussion to participate here.

By comparison, the restrictions were imposed by community consensus in a discussion in which almost twenty editors supported these (or similar) restrictions, and there was no opposition against the general idea of Koavf being restricted in some way (indeed, he seems to have narrowly escaped a site ban at that time).

In view of this, I find that the present discussion does not indicate a community consensus to overturn the sanctions under appeal. It does indicate a certain indifference of the community to the whole matter, but positive consensus is required to overturn sanctions imposed by community decision. The restrictions, therefore, remain in force. Koavf remains free to appeal to the community again at a later time, or to the Arbitration Committee (which under these circumstances may well be inclined to review an appeal on the merits).

 Sandstein  18:34, 23 October 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.

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment I have moved this discussion from the ArbCom to this venue for community input.

Initiated by Justin (koavf)TCMat 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Case affected 
Koavf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
  2. Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
  3. Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
  • Suggestion: Repeal all.
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Other user templates:
Koavf (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)