Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222

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

Noticeboard archives


Some one please close this AfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Game Jam is a trainwreck with no hope of consensus. Let's just close it and move on. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuguar03 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't see any need. A WP:TRAINWRECK is when lots of articles get nominated together. This is just a bad tempered debate. Fences&Windows 22:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's due to be closed tomorrow, and anyway the nominator (the only delete) is now leaning a bit more towards keep.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Agh. I closed it a day early. Dammit. If anyone wishes to revert they may. I'm more tired than I thought, time to stop editing. Fences&Windows 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry for neglecting to sign. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wakeup call[edit]

Request: Can an expert in English language please review most of the projects categorised as part of the Soviet Union project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soviet_Union for grammar and language alone. Can an academic please check the references (the sources themselves) to ensure that there is no daisy-chaining (one source cited once, perpetuated forever without necessarily being relevant even for the first instance).

Is there a conspiracy here at Wikimedia to allow the dumbing down of history? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it. Read on.

Administrators and other persons of peer-appointed rank are allowing fantastical rules to subvert the encyclopedia project.

Since when did rules deigned by apparatchiki supersede facts or appearance? There are pages with questionable grammar and facts being served by Wikimedia right now. Is that the way we do things here now?

The articles in the favoured USSR section are critically important for a variety of reasons, not least of which is to present a best of class historical record. Recognising that evidencing what it was like for most Soviet citizens, and those who were arbitrarily executed or sentenced to prolonged (or lifetime) prison sentences, should be evidenced only (no comment passed on even abhorrent crimes), seems hard for some people to accept. That's not a good starting point for an encyclopedia.

For an overwhelming majority of articles under this category, the absence of specific citations for every adjective, and the absence of citations referencing learned discussion (by academics about taxonomy, morphology, history, ideology, etc) is the most common feature of pro-Western bias in these pages. The absence of citations referring to Marxist-Leninist theory to illuminate concrete Soviet policy is the most common feature of pro-Soviet bias. Before we reject the importance of this issue, let us recall that living memory dies within 80 years, and sources someone is deliberately trying to suppress die even more quickly. Worse, the enthusiasm of some Wikimedia editors to award brownie points ('barnstars, GA, FA ratings'), commendable though it may be, is no excuse for elevating articles about Soviet/Russian/imperial/Western imperialism history to some kind of endorsed status just because there are some like-minded people, or a need for such articles has been identified.

It is a considerable disgrace that articles with wording in English that would not pass a high school examination can be vetted as 'Good Articles' or even 'Featured Articles' just because the request is made and no one disagrees immediately. This is nothing short of Wikimedia lending itself to falsification of history.

May I draw everyone's attention to the search term 'useful idiots'. Stalinism (yes, my definition) has survived as a particular form of ideological terrorism precisely because of the self-censorship or 'open-mindedness' that Lenin remarked on as an intellectual feature of fellow travellers. Academic rigour is the only counterbalance we have.

Impartiality should start with critical examination of adjectives, and citations should be particularly precise about attribution of characteristics/stereotypes (taxonomy, morphology). Should I mention that some people who are beneficiaries or victims of the various Soviet regimes are still alive and will have strong views, none of which can be accepted in good faith.

Before you ask me why I don't do it, I have already been challenged about my orthodoxy on Soviet history and don't think I'm the kind of clean-skin necessary for the integrity of this endeavour. Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a bit counter-productive to come to the Administrators' noticeboard for help, and then jump in by accusing administrators of doing bad things. What's that old saying about flies, honey & vinegar?

In any event, what you've described is basically a large-scale content dispute, and administrators don't do content disputes, they do behavioral problems. I'm afraid you're going to have to resolve your concerns the way the rest of us have to, through discussions with other editors on article talk pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG, let's use tons of bolding and investigate the ludicrous claims of a conspiracy existing on Wikipedia. Russia is going to nuke us all, but someone thinks China is a bigger threat so let's all falsify more history, make ourselves look stupid, and archive this useless disgrace of a thread. Peter, what did you want again? Oh, yeah, "Can an expert in English language please review most of the projects categorised as part of the Soviet Union project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soviet_Union for grammar and language alone. Can an academic please check the references (the sources themselves) to ensure that there is no daisy-chaining (one source cited once, perpetuated forever without necessarily being relevant even for the first instance)." Well, this is the Administrators' Noticeboard, not the English experts', academics', and anti-daisy-chainers' Noticeboard. Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the only "Wakeup call" needed here is for Mr. Strempel to review WP:NPOV. -- œ 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD for a study page[edit]

Hiya. I've tagged the page UW SIS201 W2011 for speedy del. as a db:test, which it isn't really. Its a study guide for U.Wash. students. Its gotta go, but what is the proper CSD tag for this sort of thing? The Interior (Talk) 02:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it as A3 - it had "content" of a sort, but was not even masquerading as an article. I'd be interested in what others think of this situation as well. LadyofShalott 03:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Userfied. Moondyne (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? Wikipedia is not a general webhost, and that study guide has absolutely nothing to do with developing an encyclopedia article or even a user essay. How is this appropriate even for userspace? LadyofShalott 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Goodwill and little harm. I'll watchlist it and if it becomes a problem I'll sort it out. Moondyne (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This could easily be a copyright infringement though. 03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talkcontribs)
I'm not sure we're doing this new user a good turn by telling them they can host personal docs in their userspace. It might get them off on the wrong foot, and lead to "but it was okay last time!" type arguments. This user hasn't made any edits except to their study guide, and may have a mistaken impression as to what this site is for. The Interior (Talk) 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Moondyne, somehow in the process of deleting, restoring and userfying the page, the entire edit history was lost. The current history page shows you as the only contributor. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
History merged. Keegan (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. I could have done that much better. Moondyne (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Losing the edit history is problematic, although restorable. I also am not convinced this is in the best interest of the new editor (who has not returned to make any changes to the page as of yet). Maybe this needs to go to MfD. LadyofShalott 22:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC) The page creator has been given a belated notice of this discussion. LadyofShalott 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


Does this page fall under criteria WP:CSD#G4? There was a previous discussion about the redirect back in November of 2010 resulting in delete, until it was recreated in December of 2010 by Anas1712 with no prior observance of the previous consensus, but kept in a subsequent January RFD. In short, the RFDs conflict. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If it was up for deletion at RFD, then the answer is clearly no. Conbsensus can change, and the later RfD seems to indicate this. Additionally, a general rule is that no page which survived an XfD discussion can be speedy deleted unless it later turns out to be a copyright violation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


Resolved (talk · contribs) has been adding links to a blogspot page on talk pages. One here on, and three at commons, if this pattern is continued, then there should be other additions to other wikimedia projects and other languages of wikipedia. (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-spam1 and explained that blogs fall foul of WP:ELNO. No further action required at this stage. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: also at ANI --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly been reintroducing libellous material into the article on Shmuley Boteach. Specifically, he has included a report that Boteach was responsible for financial irregularities in a charity fund set up by Michael Jackson, and that funds from the charity were misdirected for Boteach's own use. See this and adjacent edits. Originally this information was attributed to a number of dubious sources: an opinion column from Fox news, a blog and a Michael Jackson fanclub website. He has now attributed it to an article in the Broward-Palm Beach New Times. That article is on a different topic altogether - the trial of an arms dealer who, perhaps, is remotely related to Boteach - but there is a one-sentence reference in the article to the Boteach charity affair.

This is, in fact, only the most recent and egregious incident of attempts to introduce libels into this article. Before extensive edits by myself, Demiurge1000, and The Interior, this article was a web of slanders, half-truths, and distortions, largely sourced to blogs, obscure Jewish newspapers, and Michael Jackson fanclub websites. Since cleaning the article up, Jonathan has been busy reintroducing the material that was deleted.

This is Jonathan Gluck's (if that is his name) second user to be involved with this article. Previously, he edited under the username User:Jonathanglick13. The only articles that these two accounts have edited are this, and an article about Ronn Torossian, an obscure advertising executive. From his initial edit, Jonathan displayed a surprisingly wide knowledge of Wikipedia editing techniques and politics. He knew, for example, how and where to complain about another editor who was trying to edit the Shmuley Boteach article, and attempted to get him blocked; he was skillful in the use of all Wikipedia markup codes. All of which suggests to me that these two usernames are not the first that this editor has created.

It is essential to prevent this editor from continued editing of this article, as the material he includes is libellous and a clear violation of BLP rules. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I think this would be better placed at WP:ANI. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Never done this before, I thought this was WP:ANI --Ravpapa (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Speak truth, not what you are saying above. Discuss changes on the talk page.... all of my edits are sourced to MSNBC, Fox news & Palm Beach Post. All valid places. yes, I complained about an editor who vandalised the story repeatedly. All of the sources are very valid. Discuss on talk page. Jonathangluck (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Who's Manning the Ship at Commons?[edit]

A couple ago, an image was removed from the Frank Buckles article per this discussion. Short version, they said the image removed wasn't military. A VERY quick search of Google Images came up with this image, the very same image deleted at Commons. The source for that About as military as one photo can get. This isn't the first time this has happened. It happened a couple weeks ago, then it was called a "copyright violation" and "there's no evidence that this is a federal work". Well, back to the ol' Google and via WLS Radio's website, there is the image, credit going to the Library of Congress, which as you know is at (I looked for the file, but gave up after 10 pages).

So, this is two seperate images that "aren't military" or "federal work" that turn out to be found on government and military websites. Did anyone at Commons even bother to look at Google? Check the sources of the images?

So, it brings me back to the question in the header, "Who's Manning the Ship at Commons?" I think we need to take a good look at Commons, if all they are doing is blindly deleting images because someone thinks they are a violation or aren't military, when a 30 second Google Images search finds they are. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 12:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • As I'm sure you are well aware, this issue has nothing to do with en as commons is a separate independent project. Spartaz Humbug! 12:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that, but I find the people at Commons are unwilling to try to make changes. I am actually having an arguement with an admin on Commons over whether an image found at of Buckles in an Army uniform is an Army image. Holy crap. So, I don't think they are going to be any help to make changes of themselves. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 13:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
      • m is the place where you should raise this... Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Okie Dokie. You can mark this as resolved or remove as a whole if you wish. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 13:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
          • While we're here, though, I trust you realize that being published on a military website does not mean that an image is free of copyright? The image of Frank Buckles asserts that it is being hosted "Courtesy of Frank Buckles and the Library of Congress' Veteran's History Project", which means it is not a military photo. (See [1]) The photograph was displayed here, where it does not indicate who took it. Here the LOC indicates that it "does not grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. Permission and possible fees may be required from the copyright owner independently of the Library." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Oh, it does matter to us, since you've brought it here now. :/ File:Frank Buckles at 16.jpg. I believe we need to take this to PUF. There's no evidencfe that it's a military file; on the contrary, the military credits it elsewhere. It was taken in 1917, so could be PD-US, but PD status depends on first publication. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this was published before 1923? --Moonriddengirl (talk)14:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
              • As I've explained to NH on my talkpage, the Buckles image was probably published in the last 20 years, as he didn't become notable until he was a centenarian. It's not PD in my opinion, it can only be used under fair use. The deletions at Commons were appropriate and necessary under Commons policies, and it's never a good idea to assume that material on a US government website is public domain. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This is relevant to enwiki (though not necessarily to this page) because files copied from here to Commons are often deleted here and with some attempts being made to delete against the original uploader's wishes.[2][3] Legitimate and sometimes valuable images get lost this way. Thincat (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't upload images to commons anymore and will continue to do so until forced by the software to upload PD images to commons, not wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For something like this, though, we don't know that it is public domain. Even though it is old, first publication of a personal family photo could be relatively recent. It is clearly not federal work just because it was on a government website. It would have had to have been produced by a federal employee as part of their job duties. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Update Both files hosted on Commons have been nominated for deletion. One as a duplicate the other, which I nominated for deletion as a duplicate of an image already deleted at Commons via a deletion discussion. A copy of the image is hosted on en-Wiki under NFUR rules. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevant information about this kind of thing is :-

"5.1.3 Does copyrighted material lose its copyright status and protection if it becomes part of a U.S. Government work or is included in a compilation published by the Government?

No, copyrighted material contained in a U.S. Government work does not lose its copyright status and protection. The copyright status of non-government works in a compilation is not affected by the lack of copyright protection of other works in the compilation or by the fact that the U.S. Government publishes the compilation. When copyrighted materials are included in a Government work or a compilation published by the Government, a copyright notice indicating what portions of the work are protected by copyright, and identifying the copyright owner, should be included."[4] Exxolon (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Userpage filling up categories[edit]

I notice that the user page User:Lavalamp from Mars has found its way into various inappropriate policy categories, due to transclusion of policy pages. The user appears to be indefinitely blocked - would it be appropriate to blank the user page to take it out of the categories?--Kotniski (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, and I did it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Trying to create a category[edit]


The category Category:Films directed by Vadim Abdrashitov on the article The Servant (1989 film). However, when I click on the red link, it doesn't let me create the category and I get the unauthorised message "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism...." Why? Can someone create the category for me? I've been adding categories like this all day, and this is the first time I've had a problem. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Very odd. I can see nothing in the logs indicating that this category should ever have been deleted or salted. I have now created it, which doesn't prove anything since I'm an admin, but please tell me if I have stepped into a minefield. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I couldn't see anything in the logs either. Lugnuts (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Update - I've just created this category without any problems. Strange! Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
My guess would be that titles with "shit" in them are blocked by the title blacklist. Jafeluv (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It's more subtle than that. The relevant entry is blocking the phrase "ate shit", as in Category:Films directed by Vadim Abdrashitov --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User: inserting patently false information into Japanese articles[edit]

There's been a spree of vandalism from this IP adding patently false information such as movie listings on Japanese voice-actors' pages that has gone unchecked since February 22, including Romi Park and Kappei Yamaguchi. Is there a way to revert all of this IP's contributions without removing the additions made by subsequent edits by other anonymous users? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note the heading of this page: Are you in the right place? * Vandalism or spamming → administrator intervention against vandalism.  Chzz  ►  04:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That page is used for blocking the offending editor. The IP has been stale for some time and has not received any warnings at all. This is just meant to ask any administrators if they know of a way to clean up the mess he had made. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, fair enough, I suppose. I am almost certain that the answer is 'no' - other than manually removing the edits. There is a technical function that allows deletion of all pages created (recently) by a specific user (special:nuke) - and there are scripts to help with mass reversion. But, revert/undo on older edits with overlapping subsequent edits automatically is, I think, impossible. of course, someone here might well prove me incorrect  Chzz  ►  04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request gone crazy[edit]

I dont know where exactly to report this but here at the Libyan uprising on the talk page Talk:2011 Libyan uprising#Civil War? there is a move request that is now 12 days old and has everything from votes to now subsections, I am just requesting an admin step in and help out here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Koch brothers manipulation of articles?[edit]

There is an article by Thom Hartman alleging that the Koch brothers have hired a PR firm to rework many Wikipedia entries to not only be more favorable to their client but to also remove favorable information about progressive group. (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to assert which editors are involved? Collect (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I registered an account over there to check. News organizations have already covered this in far better detail than Mr. Hartmann. Nothing to see here. lifebaka++ 23:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity do you have a link to some news coverage of this? Protonk (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thom Hartmann is a conspiracy theorist of the left-wing variety; he has asserted, among other things, that the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections were incorrectly decided due to electoral fraud (apparently, the 2006 and 2008 elections were free of the same fraud, and the 2010 Republican sweep was a result of the Citizens United court decision). I think we can safely close this section as "no action required. Horologium (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It's gotten a bit of debate on wikien-l since this post. I might've misspoken a bit in claiming "new organizations," but the ThinkProgress bit certainly does a better job (and isn't hidden behind a wall). Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Old news. Already in signpost. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-14/In_the_news. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC: Merge, redirect and Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 22#Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation were listed at WP:CENT and archived by SilkTork (talk · contribs). Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While I doubt that any user will be rushing to close the AfD RfC, I want to point out that it has a few days remaining in its 30-day listing period. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. I withdraw for now my request to close the above RfCs. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I miscounted – the RFC bot delisted the AfD RfC yesterday. Thanks for creating this request. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead, would an admin (or admins) close and summarize Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC (initiated 3 January 2011) and Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition (initiated 8 January 2011). These discussions were also listed at WP:CENT and were archived a few days ago. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this back from the archive. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp appended so this will not be archived until the four above RfCs are closed. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
One relisted and the other three closed. Thank you Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs), ErrantX (talk · contribs), and Hydroxonium (talk · contribs) for closing the RfCs. This can now be archived. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Move request at 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami[edit]

There is an ongoing move request here related to the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami. There are claims that the current title is in fact incorrect (and was merely adopted because that was where the first news reports came from). It would seem silly to leave the discussion open the full 7 days if the name is incorrect, especially as this article is prominently in the news at the moment. See also the arguments made in the discussion itself. Could I ask that admins keep an eye on the discussion and consider closing it early if a clear consensus has been reached? Please note that there are two issues: (1) Whether to name it "earthquake" or "earthquake and tsunami"; and (2) Whether to name it Sendai or Tōhoku. It is the latter that may need resolving quicker than the normal 7 days allowed for a move discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion and moved the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD backlog[edit]

More eyes would be useful at CAT:CSD - the backlog is 140 and rising. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2 closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Kehrli (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

  • Kehrli (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Maldives Scuba Diving v.[edit]

Thirty (30) references to back up the single statement "This case has been brought to the attention of many forum owners and internet news forums". I think this is just an excuse to link to various forums to reinforce the rationale for the existence of the article. I don't have a problem with the article, just the 30 references linking to forums and blogs for a single statement. I mean what news story doesn't get mentioned in forums and blogs? Pretty much every article on Wikipedia could have this statement and dozens of references to back it up.

So I try removing the references, and get reverted as "vandalism" three times, and warnings twice. Would appreciate if someone could look at this. (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of bothering with that, I've just gone ahead and opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maldives Scuba Diving v. However, those reverters should be reprimanded for not bothering to look at the ridiculous amounts of citations to forums that they were restoring. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


This user has been warned 10 times in the past ten months to stop vandalizing wikipedia.Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From a brief look at their contribs, I also see a good bit of legitimate, useful contribution. Anyone blocking this IP might want to leave a note on the talk page asking whoever is using it constructively to register an account. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion of an uninvolved administrator(s) required (case Jacurek)[edit]

Resolved: Third opinions are no longer required because the enforcement request has been acted upon.  Sandstein  07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I placed my requests on March 16 at 20:42 , you closed the case on March 17 at 07:10 which is 10 hours after. Do you really think it was enough time?

I have a permission from the reviewing administrators to ask for a third opinion on this board. If any administrator(s) (previously uninvolved) are willing to spend some time and get familiar with this case [5] her/his comments will be really appreciated. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For your convenience, here is the summary of the case as I see it:
The case concerns several editors, some or all of whom have been edit warring recently and where reported to AE. Roughly, we are dealing with two questions:
  • For edit warring editors, do we need topic bans or would 1RR restrictions be enough? And
  • Can editors who make no more then one edit to an article be still seen as part of an edit war and sanctioned (for their single revert)? There is also a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring.
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT resolved. Hours after Jacurek asked for an opinion of an administrator other than yours, you close the AE thread. This is not very heartening... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The timestamp of Jacurek's message reads "02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)". I assumed that this timestamp was correct, but indeed it seems not to be. Nonetheless, the sanctions I imposed have been available for review at WP:AE since March 14, which is plenty of time for input by others. Any sanctioned users who disagree with the sanction can appeal it as per the instructions left on their user page.  Sandstein  09:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please review this talk page comment - I'm concerned it's potentially libelous[edit]

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Sandstein  07:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm permanently confused about where reports of relatively serious (legal) matters go... Thanks for moving it. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Labelling people[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place, but I was wondering how much labels applied by certain sources can be re-used in wikipedia's voice in articles. Namely I am concerned about editors using Israeli and Jewish sources to label people as say, terrorists and rioters while Arab media reports them as militant and protesters respectively, and the western media just ignores the entire situation. Calling rioters protesters or protesters rioters both push POV, so if there is no majority accepted POV, how should the people be described? Passionless -Talk 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LABEL. "Terrorists" can be "attackers" which is NPOV, IMO. Of course, you can always say "So and so called them "terrorists" with direct attribution.
If it was a "riot" or "protest" would dictate what words were used. I would lead towards not using a label but spelling it out. An example from thin air would be spelling it out in several words if those involved in a demonstration became violent. If most sources (especially those that are completely unbiased) say one thing then that is also a good option. Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know which article(s) you refer to, but what would be especially helpful to the reader, I think, is to include an explanation of how Israeli and Arab media cover the topic differently. But you'd have to find a source for that and not base it off of original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I guess what I mean is what to do when you are only writing a very short blurb on the event such as at the current events portal or on lists like List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011, and there is no room to say this source says this, but this one says this. Maybe 'Protest' or 'Protest turned violent' would be appropriate for the column 'Type' on the list at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. And as long as a truthful description is given it will still be NPOV. Passionless -Talk 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Number 11 would be more NPOV if it was called a clash since that is what the source says. Clashes broke and the tear gas was only part of it. It currently reads like the Israeli forces were simply beating up protesters for no reason as is. So the overall problem with this list might be not how people are labelled but what words are used to highlight specific points instead of staying completely NPOV. Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess I'll just go back to trying to paraphrase as NPOV as I can and ignore all labels from sources. And to Cptnono, maybe we should move this conversation to the revelant talk page, Passionless -Talk 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem. It is all minor tweaks so it should not be that hard. I did find one source thats reliability is questioned. I'll mention it over at the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI[edit]

Good afternoon everyone, we have quite a backlog on SPIs right now where the average I am seeing is 8 days for an average case to be looked at for a block, and that is increasing each day. Any admins that would be availible to patrol/help out would be great. Don't worry if your new to SPI, I have a full list of instructions, and if you have any questions, feel free to talk to me or any other SPI clerk. That link above will also help those who are expirienced because it directly points to the help we need. Thanks for your help and time. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No seriously, he is not joking. If someone can sockpuppet for a week and more after being reported, should we all just not bother reporting people and go to our favourite admins instead? Is there a problem here? I'm sure some of these cases are just bullshit, but I'm sure some of them are not. Leaving them to rot for over a week is really not sensible in my opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Need an admin to close an AfD[edit]

Resolved: Closed as no consensus

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues has been open for more than a month. Would somebody please close it? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I note that, though it's been open for a month, it wasn't listed until March 8th. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Any admins fluent in Italian?[edit]

Resolved: User contacted in Italian as requested, awaiting further developments. Snowolf How can I help? 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Got this question on my talk page today. If I understand correctly what the user wants to do, it's something an admin would have to handle (I'm not one). Complicating the matter is this user is newly registered on and, so I can't easily track the issue down. Anyone willing to jump in? Townlake (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From Google Translate:
"Hello! Are you a manager? How do you delete parts of a page in history? Can you do it? Or [do you] need a manager? I'm hoping for an answer!"
Assuming "manager" means "administrator". Perhaps the user is asking for RevDel, but that can be clarified by someone who is using something more reliable than Google Translate... --Dylan620 (tc) 01:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate the translation you've provided for the admin community, I should clarify that I'm not asking simply for a translation, I understand the Italian in the question. I'm asking for someone who's got the tools to help the user potentially resolve a cross-wiki issue, or some other issue that appears likely to be above my pay grade one way or another. Townlake (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably an idea for somebody to find out what exactly they're requesting. Assuming it's something on this wiki which requires admin attention, I'll be willing to help, but there's nothing anyone can do without details. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I've gone fishing for more info, thanks for the reply. Townlake (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More explanation (though still no specifics) at my Talk... he wants to erase some stuff that violated some unspecified rule from a page history. Editor seems reluctant to tell me which page it is unless he knows I can help... interesting. Anyway, any takers? Townlake (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it clear that this issue involves en only? If so Wikipedia:Local Embassy#Italiano (it) lists 2 people who's user page say they are admins, User:Snowolf and User:Chaser. I have informed them of this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Got the poke on my talk page: on itwiki they've been using delrev for a long time, and vandalisms are deleted from the history with revdel rather than rollbacked, if my memory serves me right, he's asking if we do the same, I'd drop him an explanation in Italian. And yeah, in case there are any issues with italian stuff in general, feel free to poke me. I had a list of admins form Italy at User:Snowolf/Italian admins but it's long unmaintaned and the other admins on that list are long inactive. Snowolf How can I help? 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


This user had started edit warring and POV-pushing without any discussion on the issue or consensus on the Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, as it can be seen on the talk page.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Dispute resolution is that way, guys. lifebaka++ 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
comment : HCPUNXKID has been reverted many times since his edits are opposed to consensus (examples of what were supposed to be "discussions", failed since a single user can't accept that his opinion is not the consensual one: [6] , [7] and [8]), and not only by Muboshgu, but by many users. The main discussion on these protests are ongoing in the main article's talk page, not template's one (examples given).
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think reporting someone is a reportable offense. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk needed at Afd[edit]


: by Elen herself -- DQ (t) (e)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey - well meaning new editor has made a complete mess of it (can't tell the difference between AfD and the article talkpage I think). I'm the one who nominated it, so don't want to offend him by tidying up. Any volunteers? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What I have done in the past for cases like this is just remove the "====" part, place a standard Comment entry at the beginning of the line, then the person's header title just becomes the first sentence of the comment. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Elen must have volunteered herself. :P -- DQ (t) (e) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:Peer Review[edit]

There is a bit of a backlog at PR. If a few good editors and admin could take a look, review some articles and send these on their way, it would be appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 12:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock review[edit]

I just came across a user caught in a range block [9]. It's a /16, meaning 65,535 IP addresses. It was blocked as an open proxy more than 4 years ago. I don't know how long open proxies last, but 4+ years seems like a long time. Would it be possible to reduce this from 65,535 addresses to something smaller and possibly allow account creation? Or maybe just have somebody do an in-depth review of the situation since it has been more than 4 years? Thanks in advance. (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

PS the blocking admin is semi-retired. That's why I'm asking here. Thanks. (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I just saw that there was a previous block [10]. So I've asked that admin to comment. (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
IP ranges from this hosting company have been the source of high levels of abuse in the past, and they can be used to evade blocks. That said, whoever originally prompted this block is clearly no longer around, and we have more tools short of range blocks to deal with these types of issues now than we did 5 years ago. I am just going to unblock the range, though, for future reference, there is very little traffic on these IPs and they can be reblocked with little risk if problems return. Dominic·t 02:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

Got a mop but nothing to clean? Between today's ripe-for-closing discussions and the backlog, there's now an unprecedented 160 discussions needing to be closed (or relisted) at requested moves. We need some new blood. If you're unfamiliar with the area it can actually be quite educational and interesting. If willing to help out, but not very familiar, I'd suggest before plunging in reading:

Here's a cheat sheet with some text that you might need to use a lot on closes, and some of the code and instructions for the mechanics of doing the close:
{{subst:polltop}} '''move per request'''.--~~~~ ← replace the requested move template, just below the 
 ----                                           ← section header, with something like this, as tailored
 {{subst:pollbottom}}                           ← place at bottom of discussion

 Fix double redirect                            ← edit summary when fixing double redirects

 closing requested move survey; moving          ← edit summary on the close
 Requested move; see talk page                  ← reason given in text box when performing the move

I don't have a lot of backlog time available with "now" issues, but I am more than willing to help the inexperienced with history merges. I'm quite good at it. Email me or contact my talk page with questions. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick: I've found that the automated message Redirected page to Whatever (produced by a blank edit summary field) is a lot more helpful edit summary than "fix double redirect". It's also faster, so you have time to close more requests! :P Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It is very slightly faster (though ctrl+v takes milliseconds), but the edit summary is not as useful in my opinion. When I see "redirected page to X" I think "why was that done?" and may investigate. When I see "fix double redirect" I know the page was already a redirect and not an article, and knowing that it was doubled informs me (by implication) that there was probably a page move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Histmerge needed[edit]

Today, Hasteur (talk · contribs) made an AFD for Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) before Hasteur could complete the nom so now we have a misleading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) when there's only been one AFD. Could someone histmerge the pages so there's only the one AFD?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the hist-merge is necessary, really. Rtkat3 made the first AfD page in an attempt to contest a PROD, which was removed from the article regardless. Then Hasteur nominated it for AfD. I've deleted the first AfD page and moved the second one to its title without redirect, so everything should be fine now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
All right then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You left four red-linked transclusions lying around in places, which I've repaired. If you're going to move an AFD without a redirect, please make sure you change the transclusion on the daily log and the Deletion Sorting pages. Courcelles 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Ryulong did not follow the big orange notification box for the page and did not include any sort of notification to me regarding this. I only bring this up as their interpretation and application of core Wikipedia policies as evidenced at the above mentioned AfD and one other currently in discussion. I will be notifying the user to extend the courtesey that they have failed to demonstrate during our interactions regarding the articles. Hasteur (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in this concerns you directly. It was a housekeeping issue that you did not need to be notified of. The "misleading" is the "2nd nomination" part of the page title when it is only the first such nomination of the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you please point at what specific exemption you believe is valid for this case. The rules for the page say you must notify. You mentioned my name 2 times in what appears to be an attempt to throw dirt on me regarding the process, therefore you are obligated to notify me so that I am aware of discussions in public administrative forums. Ryulong, you want to put this to bed? Apologize and accept responsibility that you failed to follow the letter of both the page rules and the edit notice and we can move forward. Hasteur (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You are not the subject of this discussion. There was a minor snag when someone made an AFD and put it at an incorrect page title. That someone just happens to be you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sega 6-Pak[edit]

Earlier this month Sega 6-Pak popped up on my watch list. It was recreated after one or more deletions in the past years. As far as I remember at least one of the older versions was better than this new one. Could someone please follow all that older versions under its various names and bring them back at one location or see wether this new article should be deleted for the same reasons? --32X (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

  • This is a mess. It looks like the article existed at both 6 pak and Sega Genesis 6-PAK, and was deleted here, although the only consensus was for redirection, not deletion. It looks like we'd need to restore the deleted history at the redirect and do a history merge to preserve attribution, but I'm rusty on history merges. Someone with history merge talents want to restore 6 pak's history and use it to restore this article to the better deleted version? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The easiest solution: Move the existing article to the name of the deleted one (without creating a redirect), restore the deleted versions, continue these steps, and finally move the article back to its original name. --32X (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see the need for a hist-merge. Sega 6-Pak is a clear G4 (the AfD'd version was far better) and doesn't seem to have had any information ripped from old versions, regardless. So, I've gone with the second option. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Rosanacurso[edit]

I'd like to propose a ban of User:Rosanacurso so we can quickly revert his edits. He has been wardriving (please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosanacurso and has 50+ blocked/tagged sockpuppets (who knows how many other unblocked and/or non-tagged socks). His socks primarily edit food and drink articles. Thoughts? --Addihockey10 e-mail 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I find this superfluous as the editor hasn't really made any significant contributions (most of their edits are to the sandbox) but I'll support. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Resurrected from the ANI archives due to premature archival. --Dylan620 (tc) 01:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin to close contentious RfC[edit]

Resolved: RfC closed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at the Family Research Council page related to whether the lead should mention the controversy about the hate-group listing by the SPLC. It was originally added after a long discussion before it was removed after a vote counting discussion. For that reason, I opened a RfC on the question. A major issue I see with the discussion I see is that various people, at both sides provided arguments that have nothing to do with the question at hand, but everything with their personal dislike for the facts (this happened at either side of the discussion), and I think the Admin closing should be well capable of sifting the non-policy arguments from the policy arguments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. (By the way, since this isn't an "incident", but just a request for admin assistance, this board is probably the more appropriate one to use.) --RL0919 (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to revoke sanction no longer needed: WP:GS#Tony Abbott[edit]


1RR restriction lifted. Mjroots (talk)

I saw this while cleaning up WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Update: the cleanup has been reverted, so the direct link no longer works; discussed here) In summer 2010, the article Tony Abbott, about an Australian politician, was made subject to 1RR because of politics-related edit-warring. The sanction was logged at WP:GS as "indeterminate duration, but likely to be in place until September or October 2010", apparently because of the Australian federal election, 2010 due to be held then. The election has now passed and the article is no longer edit-warred over. I therefore propose to lift the sanction as no longer required.  Sandstein  10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have the users who commented on and enacted this sanction not been notified of this proposal? Perhaps they may note that the article's decrease in activity is due to the semi protection which has been in force since November (scheduled to expire in May)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The semiprotection seems to address a different problem, namely, repeated BLP violations by IPs. I didn't notify the users you refer to as this concerns a community decision, rather than any particular user(s), but I'm leaving a note on the article talk page.  Sandstein  11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
When a total of 5 users have commented in a "community decision", it would (in my opinion) obviously be wise to notify all of them rather than leaving a post on an article talk page which hasn't been used for a month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
If the reason for the need of the restriction no longer applies, then I'm happy for the article to revert to 3RR. It would appear that the need for semi-protection remains in place. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I've had this article watchlisted for years, and it's been pretty calm since late last year, so the 1RR restriction doesn't seem necessary. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As an ordinary user who has not engaged in content disputes about this article, may I request that any restriction for which there isn't a prima facie case at this time be lifted, and the editing status be returned to normal.
Regards Peter Strempel | Talk 13:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the restriction from the edit notice, will sort out GS next. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users[edit]

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily standard fare for administrators, but you're all in a unique position to help out with the added userrights you posess. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Pending changes RFC[edit]

I know, everyone is sick of it. We're almost done. Phase three, the review/recommend phase is now up. It is a questionnaire you can fill out with any reply you want, without having to argue or read fifty thousand words before participating. We really want users who haven't yet participated to join in in this phase, along with everyone who participated in the first two phases. The more responses we get, the clearer consensus will (hopefully) be. It will only take a few minutes of your time so fill one out whenever you have a moment. Thanks!

There is also a small but vocal group who want PC temporarily removed, not shut off just removed from all articles, during this phase. The Foundation has ok'd this move. I'm a bit too involved to feel comfortable evaluating consensus on this issue, if anyone wants to consider this and reply either here or on the talk page of the RFC that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "small but vocal" group. Almost half of participants appear to agree that PC should be turned off - to finish the "trial".
I object to this imposed phase 3 - I've tried to explain why, several times - but I'll state it here, for those who have not thus far been involved:
Phase 3, question 1 is, "Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off entirely?"
This is implying no choice other than NO PC EVER, or SOME KIND OF PC. I do not accept that those are the only options.
a) I believe that we should "continue to use Pending Changes in some form" - probably some trial, decided through consensus, to actually work out in a measurable way exactly what works and what does not.
b) I believe we should turn it off. I don't think we can meaningfully establish consensus for policies on usage, scope, and all the rest while it continues to be used without consensus.
a) and b) are not mutually exclusive.
I am not the only person who thinks this.
Over the past few days, since Beeblebrox announced this "phase 3" plan, it has been discussed on the talk page of the RfC. The overwhelming majority of people discussing it have serious concerns about phase 3.
The entire phraseology of this "phase 3" is leading users into supporting some form of current, immediate continuance of PC - again, as a "fait accompli". It leaves no scope for discussion and compromise.
I am extremely frustrated and disappointed.  Chzz  ►  19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Commenting only on the removal of PC: I started doing this back in September just after the trial ended (I removed PC from nearly 100 articles), only to be "reported" to Jimbo: User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 64#Removing pending. I would be happy to help with this task again, but only if I knew that this move truly had support and that other editors would not pounce on me for doing so (and I don't think I'm the only admin who holds this view). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I support the removal. Some probably will pounce on you, but all they have are non-consensus polls from long ago that proposed interim usage periods that are now over. —UncleDouggie (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
so do I. The necessary data is now available for analysis, and the continuation of this system of a small number of articles is confusing and unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
DGG & DaBomb, the Foundation has approved this, you both agree with it, and it is derailing the RFC. I suggest you go ahead and do it so we can end this distraction that is stalling forward progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, on the other hand, you are way off. There is absolutely room for discussion and compromise. There is no "fait accompli" being pushed by me. This is the sixth time by my count that I have suggested that those who feel having PC on is an impediment to further discussion go ahead and remove it. Why is it not happening? And the idea that users are pressured into accepting PC is obviously untrue since the first question(the one you object to so much) asks them if they would like to see it removed entirely. I am also extremely frustrated and disappointed that these circular contradictory arguments and straw men have been used to derail what was a very promising process. For some reason you believe that users submitting their own proposals without fighting in an free-for-all discussion is a bad idea that will be impossible to draw any conclusions from. It will be hard, but as you told me some time ago most things worth doing are hard.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for a volunteer[edit]

We are at an apparent deadlock on how to proceed. Or more accurately there are several proposals that are exclusive of one another being floated on the talk page. What we need here more than anything is a referee. Not to decide the future of PC but to decide the future of the RFC itself. Is there an admin bold enough to step in and help us resolve this? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: does it have to be an admin?  Chzz  ►  18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Don't worry about that; it's not worth bothering about that point, here. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Update It looks like we are quite close to a compromise and there has not been further edit warring so the failure of the cavalry to show up wasn't so bad after all and this thread can probably be closed as we shouldn't be discussing this in so many places at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Semarang State University "Papat Limpad" competition[edit]

For NPP and CSD admins, you may have noticed a slew of student accounts being created. There appears to be a competition host by Semarang State University with apparently celebrity endorsement by Christian Sugiono. So if you see a bunch of user pages created by edits with a prefix of "JV" all creating pretty much the same user page (Hello, My name ...,I am participant for "Papat Limpad" competition from Semarang State University Faculty of Language and Art), this is what it is all about. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects#Semarang State University "Papat Limpad" competition to see if somebody is willing to contact the organizer and possibly coordinate something. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


In short, User:HCPUNXKID is continuing to edit 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests in a disruptive manner pushing POV regarding Western Sahara, the users' home country. User has been unwilling to stop despite a clear consensus against the users' actions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what consensus are you talking about. The issue is that some users avoid the inclusion of relevant related sourced content to the article, depending on what user edits, while accept the inclusion of dubious or directly false claims (source gambling). Some users are trying to erase any presence of W. Sahara in the article, while others had put a fictitious date of start of the events. So consensus doesnt exists even between that users. Also, the only time the issue had been voted, 4 users agree to include the W. Sahara protests, while 3 disagree. I also point the issue that the POV & Unbalanced tags had been removed without any discussion, only because some users opinion.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
For that past month you have been heavily edit-warring (see his contribution history starting from Feb.19). Wikipedia is not a vote. Also, making a retaliatory report on Muboshgu just shows how much disruption you caused. TL565 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment : I tried to discuss this issue with HCPUNXKID, however the discussion wasn't successful. The fact is that there is a consensus about the information added to the article (discussed in the main+7 archives talk page), but HCPUNXKID stated that "only him got the truth". These are 2 discussions of what was supposed to be a discussion : [11] and [12].
On the other hand, there were (I think) more than 6 users reverting HCPUNXKID's edits, which are clearly POV.
Omar-Toons (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Additional comment : The issue is also discussed here : [13]
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The user in question has made a number of POV edits to the 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa Protests page regarding Western Sahara. A quick view into the history of the user's page[14] reveals specific POV, including (translated) "This Wikipedian supports the independence of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic." and "This user supports the right to self-determination referendum of the Sahrawi people." This user's repeated POV edits reflect this particular viewpoint. ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Imho, he has the right to have an opinion about WS issue (as I have have the right to have mine), however, he hasn't the right to edit articles according to his views, which is considered as extreme-PoV.
The problem is that his edits shows extreme PoV, for example, this [15] is a case of WP:OWN and WP:POV : I can't understand how an "activist" pro-Polisario woman can be cited as a source, as it is a primary one? I think the author should read WP:IRS, especially paragraph 4.2. :::--Omar-Toons (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I had just warned him about edit warring in 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests (had 10 reverts and also looks like a case of WP:OWN). This was his response, [16]. I STRONGLY recommend something be done about this user. He is disrupting articles wherever he goes and no one can discuss with him. TL565 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment : He reverted my edits and removed the Unbalanced template despite I started the discussion about the fact that he refers to activists as specialists, to some sources as the truth while adding "according to" to the ones related to the other side of the conflict (I fixed that but he reverted my edits). We also see a case of Own and Personal attacks.
Can an admin intervene and make sth to stop that? Thanks.
--Omar-Toons (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
HCPUNXKID blocked for 48 hours. EyeSerenetalk 10:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)



Hello people, [ why this user thinks we should use underline instead space in links ? also note that i am not a sockpuppet Jckrgn600 (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To declare without apparent reason that you are not a sockpuppet, will make people less inclined to believe you actually aren't. At any rate, the reverts by Jamesooders and the subsequent report to AIV do not seem helpful, I will give you that.--Atlan (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah never mind. I only just noticed the sockpuppet allegation in the AIV report.--Atlan (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, he alerted me i stopped that but he start alerting me again. Jckrgn600 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me Jamesooders is unaware of the process of link piping. I have informed them on their talk page.--Atlan (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I do appolagise for the inconveinice I caused, As mentioned I was not aware of "link piping". I have never seen any wikipedian make edits with such speed before, and it seems you were doing a good job :D. By the time I made the alert It was too late, but had realised that the work was in good faith. James'ööders 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remember Huggle should only be used for obvious vandalism. If you are unsure whether an edit is vandalism it is preferable to leave it alone. I will also note that bypassing redirects with link piping as Jckrgn600 was doing is generally not useful (see wp:NOTBROKEN). Yoenit (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
True. Regardless, it certainly is not vandalism. Jckrgn600 was already told earlier on his talk page that there are more useful ways to spend time on Wikipedia.--Atlan (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dallas Davidson[edit]

Can I get some more eyes on Dallas Davidson? There is no excuse whatsover for a a blatantly obvious copyvio/COI edit going unnoticed for SIX FREAKING WEEKS. The article has had problems with COI editors since I first made it almost two years ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dropped it onto my watchlist, along with probably a half-dozen others who didn't mention it. You can relax now, TPH, you seem wound tighter than an otter on ecstasy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Roman888[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.
Banned by community consensus. Courcelles 20:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a de facto to de jure ban proposal for an indefinitely blocked user. Roman888 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 8 March 2010 for violating copyright on the mainspace after multiple warnings. The following activities, many of which were engaged in the months after the block, indicate that a formal indefinite site ban is warranted:

  • Abusive sockpuppetry: Roman888 has socked with 31 confirmed accounts and one IP address. There are a further eight suspected sockpuppet accounts. The ongoing SPI shows that the sockpuppetry has persisted through almost the whole of the nine months since the block.
  • Copyright violations. This CCI demonstrates that over a period of two years (March 2008-March 2010), Roman888 engaged in systemic copyright violations. Just about every text that he/she contributed to a mainspace article was lifted directly from a non-free source. Roman888 was blocked temporarily for copyright violations in September 2008, yet continued to violate copyright with the account until March 2010. Sadly, the pattern of copyright violations continued with Roman888's sockpuppets. At first, the sockpuppets sought to restore copyvios that had been removed as part of the CCI (eg [17]). More recently, Roman888's socks have created new content (eg Batu Sapi by-election, 2010, created in October 2010) that again copies material from copyrighted sources.
  • Harassment of other contributors. Roman888 through sockpuppets has harrassed and sought to impersonate:

I thought Roman888 had given up some months ago. But regrettably, Roman888 is back and has been back for months. Before xe was blocked, xe edited articles about Malaysian politics (where xe took an unrelenting anti-government editorial line) and also engaged in disputes on articles relating to Gordon Ramsay (see for example Talk:Ramsay's_Kitchen_Nightmares). As it turns out, I have been suspicious about some recent IPs from Australian addresses editing articles about Malaysian politics; User:Drmargi has been similarly suspicious about Australian IP hopping on Gordon Ramsay articles. The recent edits of -- an IP pushing POV on Malaysian politics and getting into a dispute on a Ramsay TV show -- are irrefutable evidence that Roman888 is back and has been editing from Australian IPs. Amongst other things, he is continuing to violate copyright (violated source can be read here). A full site ban is sought from the community to bed down the ability of editors to deal with Roman888's ongoing socking and disruption.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support, having dealt with Roman888 through various socks. We can't take chances with serial copyright infringers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an editor who refuses to work within process, both in terms of copyright and in terms of respecting consensus and working toward new consensus. Roman has also attempted to frame me for sockpuppetry [18]. He appears to have relocated to Australia late last year, and is using that as an opportunity to push his agenda once again using a variety of IPs. In addition to the Malaysia articles, Roman is actively IP hopping and disruptively editing on two articles related to Gordon Ramsay and shows no inclination to stop. The rhetoric coming from these IP's is consistent both with what is seen on the various articles related to Malaysia on which he has edited, and with his rhetoric on the two Ramsay talk pages under the Roman888 user name. Most telling: I've referred to him as Roman on the RKN talk page twice recently, and he hasn't bothered to question my use of the name. Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Addendum to my earlier statement: Roman888 has now edited both a Malaysia-related article and the RKN article along with its talk page (still not denying he's Roman888) under a second (new) IP,, further strengthening the case that he is IP hopping for the purposes of block evasion and disruption. His "rationale" for not registering is that he doesn't want his personal details available to what he calls the Wiki Nazis, and he continues to insist existing consensus somehow doesn't cover the specific contingency he's using as an excuse to edit war. Drmargi (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Copyright violator, harasser, and "Monkeybuttgirl23"? Ban. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This seems a no-brainer given the editor's record and they're effectively banned at the moment with all the WP:DUCK blocks at SPI, so we may as well make it official. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. We don't need editors who are willing to engage in this behavior, and be persistent about it, too. --Dylan620 (tc) 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment: seeing "xe" sprinkled throughout this makes me want to hit myself in the head with a hammer. Ugh. Are we really that afraid of gender issues? Especially considering that the English language obviously isn't! Anyway, my apologies for the slightly OT post here. Back to the community banning...
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. MER-C 01:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and if there's any way to make an edit filter for that user, that would spare everyone some work. MLauba (Talk) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Not only he doesn't understand the sockpuppetry policy, but he doesn't understand the legal policy either. Minimac (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: He may be a lot younger than I would have thought. I thought he was an adult. He's evidently not very happy with me for protecting the page about the TV show that is obsessing him. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think he's an adult, if a youngish one. Given his command of English and his vocabulary, he's old enough to understand the fundamentals of consensus (edit/revert/talk), blocks, and similar. The statement on your talk page this morning is typical of him: he becomes more abusive the more his efforts to disrupt Wikipedia are foiled, and his political interests are not those of an adolescent. Anyone who is old enough to use expressions like Wiki-Nazi and "personal fifedom" and who sees himself as part of a political network is old enough to understand the consequence of his/her choices, however juvenile his arguments may be. I'm just sorry you have to be subjected to the RKN/KN end of his nonsense in order to get this resolved. Drmargi (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I have read all of page links the threadstarter provided, and having dealt with another infamous sock myself who uses Australian IPs too, it's more than enough to get him banned from Wikipedia. Like, seriously, 'Wiki-Nazis'? Haven't we heard that before from other juvenile sockmasters? GONE.--Eaglestorm (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Server Upgrade Request[edit]

I am requesting that wikipedia upgrade its servers (or perhaps code base). Why? Because many features are being delivered very slowly and I believe that this is primarily due to insufficient processing power (or perhaps slow storage). An example is when I attempt compare the changes between two revisions of a given page. The time it takes to deliver the comparison webpage is very long. (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that even a server thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I should think so as the server consumes processing power analyzing the difference between two archived versions. A note is that this does not seem to occur on all web pages. Two examples of problematic webpage histories and history comparisons are Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising and Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents. (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An update of this: The long delay occurs when I compare two non-current versions against each other. The problem does not occur when I compare any older version against the current version. This would imply a coding problem. (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One, no one here can do anything, it's the wrong place to ask. Two, if you have a couple million dollars you'd like to donate for server upgrades, we'll be sure to use that. Otherwise you can blame the millions of other Wikipedia readers taking up all the bandwidth. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words: we blame society. I, of course, hold none of this blame, as blaming myself is counterproductive. HalfShadow 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to primarily be on pages with extensive revision histories, but not sure what we here (where administrators != real play with the code and hardware administrators, in many cases) could do about this. Also, I blame Sauron. Syrthiss (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Obama article has been like that for awhile. If you want to see diffs there, start it up and go reheat your coffee. Plenty of time. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Between too nearby revisions or between revisions a long way apart? - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In theory, if the problem got bad enough (to the point of diffs being practically unusable), you could break off the article history to a subpage of the article's talk page. You could also just move some of the history (eg > 1 year old), but that would be a lot more work. It's a solution which is unappealing (because you couldn't easily compare diffs across the history break), but it's feasible. Rd232 talk 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboards and related pages[edit]

This is probably not the right place for this message, but I think it is the best place to get noticed so I'm leaving a brief comment here anyway. I've noticed that the noticeboards are generally a place focused on negativity, and that is understandable considering their purpose. However, we may want to rethink the processes and procedures behind it. One way of doing this is creating at least one additional noticeboard in this related hierarchy that focuses only on positive aspects of contributions, such as starting an incident report about the great edits someone has made, or the compliments they received from another editor; basically this would be a reverse incidents noticeboard, where we can file reports on good behavior. At first it may seem strange or ironic, but I think it would go a long way towards balancing out the dark side that we see around here, and it would allow people to communicate together on an entirely different level. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea, could be good for community spirit. An obvious use would be advertising barnstars, in an "I've just given X a barnstar because..." way. What to call it though? Rd232 talk 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Positivity noticeboard? All I can say, though, is that any such noticeboard would eventually lose participation until it became inactive. A valiant idea, nonetheless. /ƒETCH