Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224

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

Noticeboard archives


Modify the edittop gadget[edit]

Hi. At the moment, the edittop gadget adds the edit link at the end of the top header. I would like to propose this to be changed to look like the edittop gadget in Meta, which adds the [edit] link after the site's tagline. The reason is right now when you want to select the title of an article, the edit link text is also selected occasionally (try triple-clicking on the title of an article while having the gadget enabled). This change will not affect the functionality of the gadget in any other way and although this is a slight enhancement, there's no reason not to do it. hujiTALK 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This request should go on WP:Village pump (technical) But you could change it for yourself with your own version of the javascript gadget in common.js. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think changing it's location will alter the selection problem. In any case, having different locations for the top edit link and the other edit links is not desirable; not until the other links move to the left as well. Edokter (talk) — 21:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I find that feature useful, it reminds me that I will be editing the lede only and not the whole article. There is a gadget to move other edit links to the left - Preferences > Gadgets, then under "Useful interface gadgets" tick the bottom box marked "Moves edit links next to the section headers". This moves all edit links apart from the lede to appear immediately at the end of a section's title, instead of at the far right of the line. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden[edit]

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden and the other discussions listed on that page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Obama bin Laden. Thank you also to Crazytales (talk · contribs), Thryduulf (talk · contribs), and Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) for closing the other debates on the page. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
you're welcome :) —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on HarveyCarter[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.
I'm technically closing this about 15 minutes early, as community ban discussions are supposed to last 48 hours, but the consensus here is clearly in favour of an indefinite community ban. Should he wish to, HarveyCarter may appeal by contacting any editor in good standing and asking them to start a discussion at AN, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Until and unless any appeal is successful, HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is to be considered a banned user, to whom all the relevant policies apply. As such, any edits identified as being made by one of his sockpuppets are subject to reversion and editors reverting such edits are exempt from the 3RR when doing so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

HarveyCarter is a prolific sockpuppeteer, with over 200 tagged suspected and confirmed sockpuppets, with many more IPs that are not generally tagged due to his high turnover of dynamic IPs. While nobody is unlikely to be unblocking him any time soon, his activity in the Israel/Palestine area makes it difficult to deal with him. The area is subject to a one revert per day restriction, and while reverting edits by sockpuppets of banned editors is exempt from the restriction reverting edits by sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked editors are not. Therefore I believe a formal ban should be imposed on HarveyCarter. O Fenian (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support I thought he was banned already. He without doubt should be. DrKiernan (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It is strange that it is possible to wikilawyer that blocking socks of blocked editors count toward XRR while those of banned accounts do not, but if that is the case then banning a blocked long term abuser of alternate accounts is appropriate. After a couple more instances (or is there any historical examples?) we could then amend whichever policy has this loophole, per the consensus indicated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    It is in Wikipedia:Edit warring, which came up in this discussion regarding a previous sockpuppet. Obviously you would hope common sense would dictate that there is no real difference between a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor and a sockpuppet of a banned editor, but I try and avoid being put in situations like that in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    There is already a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Sockpuppets, to which I have added my proposal to include socks of indef blocked accounts, in case anyone wishes to comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a lifetime ban on this puppetmaster.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I also thought he was banned already. Can't be done too soon. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Better late than never. RashersTierney (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly the best course of action. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

A little help[edit]

How can I reopen the merge discussion at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis? B-Machine (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin) This isn't really the place for this, but you can either follow these instructions or if you'd like I could help you open one (ask on my talk page). Don't just reopen the old one however. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Before anyone else gets sucked into this, I should point out that a centralised discussion on this issue has already taken place at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal and was recently closed as "no consensus" after an nearly equal split between editors (six for, five against (note that the final "support" actually puts forward a proposal that is the opposite of the one under discussion, so it can't be counted)). B-Machine appears to be unhappy with this result but that is not a good reason to re-open a discussion that was closed only ten days ago. Endless re-litigation of failed proposals is not helpful. Prioryman (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
...yeah, I got sucked into a few renaming ones on the plain old Cote D'Ivoire article too... back to back to back to back to back ones. Bah. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me guess, people wanting to rename it "Ivory Coast"? Prioryman (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: I have reverted]] Prioryman's revert]] of Bob House 884's opening]] a new merger/move discussion on the behalf of B-Machine, as Prioryman was involved in the last merge discussion. If nothing surfaces in a week, I will close the new discussion. – AJLtalk 02:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As I've said on Bob's talk page, I'll accept this reopening but B-Machine cannot expect to reopen it yet again if it doesn't go the way he wants. That would be unreasonable and disruptive. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
B-Machine also opened a thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa on 16 May. Since the previous merge discussion was initially fragmented & confused (and this fragmentation is being cited as a reason to open a new discussion in the hope that it will yield the right consensus), I'd recommend that any further comments are directed here. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
As I've said above, it's wrong to say that the previous discussion was fragmented and confused. A discussion before that one did suffer fragmentation and confusion but I went to some trouble to start a fresh, centralised one. That's why I'm annoyed that false claims are being made about that discussion to justify re-opening it only 10 days after it was closed. Prioryman (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete[edit]

Not a picture File:Altoona2.jpg--Musamies (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember what I said at User_talk:Musamies#WP:CSD? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bearian's closure of James Middleton Afd[edit]

Resolved: Clearly a disruptive thread, disruptively re-opened by an editor who should be blocked for disruption should they reopen the thread. Take it to RFC/U or Arbcom if you think you're correct (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a disruptive way of closing this thread, just like the previous one.[1]. It was also an interesting idea to block the OP after all this involvement. Hans Adler 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can I get some feedback on this exchange about this admin's recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James William Middleton. I am minded to take it to DRV, but I'd like further input as to whether people here really think that this admin is entitled to decline offering any actual details as to how he closed this Afd the way he did, ending the discussion after one reply with a simple "no". The only substantive info I received was that the Daily Mail is a "semi-reliable" source, whatever that might mean in terms of BLPs, and which is if you look at recent debates on Jimbo's talk page, pretty far from the current consensus. While DRV does exist to challenge closures, it's not there for admins to send people to automatically if they simply do not have the time or the inclination to justify closures at all. And I can guess just how such a filing would go - DRV is not AFD 2, DRV is not IDONTLIKETHERESULT, etc etc. If I did actually get some specific answers to the questions I raised, it's actually possible it wouldn't even need to go to DRV. But I find his conduct to be completely against the basic requirement for admins to communicate their logic as it relates to the specific decision, rather than simply repeating vauge assertions that he summarized the debate and linked to the (rather obvious) policies and guidelines at issue in the closure. Fair enough if he said 'this point outweighed that one', or 'user x made a particularly good point', or 'this argument wasn't relevant', then I'd have specific points to raise in the DRV if I disagreed, which is a hard enough venue as it is even when you do have tangible evidence of incorrect interpretation or flawed process, but I don't see how he's even come close to that by simply giving me a list of users he respects and suggesting that we could just wait a week or two and renominate (as if, you wouldn't be able to move for NOTAGAIN & NTEMP objections). While I have sympathy for his claims that he has more pressing matters to deal with in real life, this does not mean he can arrive at contentious Afds like this one, and do half the job. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An opinion: a) the AfD shows Borderline notability; the article could possibly be fixed and improved, rather than deleted - despite some sources being less than reliable. I do suggest just waiting a month or so, re-evaluate if this is a notable enough topic (especially when wedding news has calmed down a bit); if not, AfD anew. Meanwhile, by all means remove poorly sourced info, and/or discuss on the talk page. b) I think the admin has already gone to considerable effort to try and explain their judgement call (even if you don't understand, or accept, their logic); and has also agreed to an voluntary two-week break from clsures at AfD (sic). I think the point has been made, and can't see anything productive from pursuing it (personal opinion) hence I'd not bother with DRV; WP:STICK and move along; accept it's borderline but tipped the 'wrong' way (in your opinion). If you cannot drop the stick, then DRV. At least the admin seems aware of the concern, and open to discussion, which is a Good Thing™  Chzz  ►  03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
STICK? Including my Afd vote, this will be just my 4th post on the matter. Do you really think that's excessive for issues over the BLP policy and basic admin conduct? The admin is not open to discussion (2nd reply was "no"), and I cannot fathom at all how you think he has gone to "considerable effort" to explain this decision. He has linked to (clearly outdated) discussions on RSN (and rather than for example the specific wording of the RS policy), and didn't even bother to summarize them (many if not all don't even support his claim that they show the Daily Mail is semi-reliable, or even what he thinks that means for BLP usage). He has given me a list of users he trusts (why?). He has told me he linked to the policies of concern in the closure (for what purpose? my request for clarification was predicated on it, and doing that is not something admins should be looking for credit for, it should be considered basic good practice in any closure, the issue is his lack of willingness to outline how the Afd debate showed with a clear consensus that these policies/guidelines had been met). And he told me there's better sources out there (why? is this just a request that I just take it on trust? bearing in mind the supervote concern, he is unwilling to identify what evidence in the Afd supports this belief, suggesting to me at least it doesn't exist at all. If he had summarised the debate properly, he would have no trouble giving this sort of info barely a few hours later - it would have been quicker for him to recall that, than write about some of the other rather irrelevant stuff that he did). And I certainly don't see what relevance this two week break has on anything. And why is it down to me to now try and clean this article up? Have you seen the grief people are getting for trying to get the other articles up to a basic standard? And by basic I don't mean quality, I mean not libelous or damaging. Not to mention the long term problems saddled onto the site with people trying to add all sorts of crap into them on the basis, backed up by closures like these, that these articles merely exist not to be biographies reflecting the in depth coverage that is apparently just being assumed to exist, but to be holders for all 'coverage' out there, whatever it says and whoever published it (and they are tempted to add it because without it, the article looks completely empty, as the proper coverage isn't out there). Given that this is the real long term impact of closures like this on the site, and that there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd, I don't think my requests for clarification to the admin who calls it as "keep" (not no consensus or even merge, but keep) are remotely unreasonable or STICK like, or can just be ignored on the (completely false) assumption it would be remotely possible to delete the article in 2 months should no other in depth significant coverage come to light, or if nobody gets around to fixing what is already there. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"...there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd..." I think Bearian acknowledged this. In the close he states "While the arguments to merge are colorably good, there is no strong argument to delete outright," and "I'm going to go with a keep, but this does not preclude further discussion about what to do next on Talk:James William Middleton." So basically he is saying that there is no consensus to delete outright (and I agree that there is no valid argument to at least turn this into a redirect, if not merge) and that keeping allows further discussion on whether to merge. Rlendog (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
No, when an Afd is closed as keep, that is a declaration that the article is notable now, and forever more, unless there is a change in overall policy or consensus as to the whole concept of notability. That is per NTEMP and all the Afd closing instructions that I've ever seen. Where this has ever been deviated from as a general principle, those have been extreme exceptions, which this article would likely never fall into, unless of course the decision to keep it with large amounts of unreliable sourcing comes back to bite us on the ass. See Talk:Pippa Middleton#"Personal life" should be removed for an example of what can be concealed beneath the surface of these articles, when the Afd closer has never really had to show whether they really took a good look at the strength or clue of the various claims made about the sourcing that is either already in the article or is supposedly 'out there'. See WP:OTTO too for what might lie in wait if he isn't obliged to explain things like what "semi-reliable" means to him as far as the BLP policy goes and how it informed his closure, if the article never gets 'fixed' (i.e. stubbed in this case tbh). No, if the closer believes there was no consensus to delete or merge or keep, then unsurprisingly, the mandated closure is no consensus, which is still a default keep, but does not preclude further discussion without there needing to be any great change in policy. And while he may have sort of said he's OK with a merge discussion starting, if you close as "keep", then that's all that matters in the ensuing pile-on vote count - see Talk:Pippa Middleton again for a case in point (and to follow that bizarre example, Bearian would then be the one closing the merge proposal too!?!). "I'm going to go with a keep" is the only thing that would be recalled from the closure. That's why it is a fantasy for people to claim that closing as "keep" & suggesting an Afd in a few weeks, or a merge discussion on the talk page, is anything but pointless, both from a practical stand point and from a policy perspective. It's simply wrong. And if he meant it to be a keep, he should be able to explain why in real terms and with real reference to the actual debate. Anything else is also just wrong. You are admins, you weren't elected because you were super-beings, you were elected because you were trusted to make the right calls (wait) ... and you had the required temperament, ability and policy knowledge to be able to explain them to doubters in the way I've described. And you aren't super voters, period. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with the admin's conduct? They explained their reasoning, and based on the argument it's valid. Because they explained it well, why badger them? You don't think the person's notable, or that notability has not been established, WP:SOFIXIT, or AfD it again in a few months. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've laid out in detail what's wrong with his conduct, and how he hasn't explained his reasoning at all. Explaining isn't simple restatement and it isn't any of the other things he did either. And see above for my take on the ideas that it's my or any of the other delete voters responsibility to make this article appear notable if he thinks it maybe isn't but kept it anyway or thinks it is but cannot say how or why; and also on the issue of whether a further Afd has any chance of success or even legitimacy in current policy or practice. These are all conduct issues as regards the role and responsibility of an Afd closer. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would say no consensus was the correct closure for that AFD. As Mick says closing it as keep gives weight to its existence forevermore and a DRV to move it from keep to no consensus seems like an excessive waste of time, so unless the admin is willing to re-close we are stuck with it as keep. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure there will be some BLP or pokemon pages somewhere which had AfDs closed as "Keep" in the dim dark past and deleted in subsequent AfDs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and it may get merged at some point when the issue is forgotten in a few months - I was laughing about the DYK it was on the front page with the hilarious factoid - . that James Middleton, the brother of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, baked 21 cakes for HELLO! magazine's 21st birthday? - Thats not even worthy of inclusion in the article never mind a DYK on the front page. The keep close was the death knell for discussion to merge - there were around fifteen clear votes for merge. No worries the wheels aren't dropping off but administrators need to take more time in closing and throw out any - I like it keep comment unsupported in policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I see that's up on the Main Page right now. I wonder how long it will take an admin to notice that the hook is cited to a Daily Mail "story" with the headline "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". Jesus wept. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh for f***s sake, what next? Why are we putting brainless tabloid trivia like that into DYK? Is someone trying to make a point, or merely exhibiting gross stupidity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the person who filed the DYK is also the person who created the article and argued in the Afd the the subject was "getting coverage for his business activities years ago" and had "notability in spades". He also happens to be one of the closing admin's 'trusted users'. He selected a Daily Mail source for a front page DYK hook, and the closing admin has stated he thinks the paper is "semi-reliable", whatever that means. Maybe that ultimately was the source of this failure. Who knows. Who cares. Not many by the looks of it. As you see, I remain unable to figure out much more about what went into this closure at this stage, or find anyone who thinks its remotely odd that I can't. Bearian has just pinged me on my talk, so maybe he's more willing to explain his logic now that he's seen it's immediate consequences. We'll see. MickMacNee (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you mean User:Colonel Warden. (Grin) Well, he's even more of an inclusionist than I am. I just said (a) I respect the Col. as an editor, and (b) that the consensus appeared to be that the article he created be kept. I never wrote that I like Middleton, nor that I agree to keep it. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Please read WP:NOTBATTLE. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:ADMIN and WP:AFD. Also, get a WP:CLUE, and realise that I'm not interested in hearing a restatement of what you thought the consensus was, I already know that, I want to hear some sort of evidence that you know what you're doing when you close an Afd, that you know what you're talking about when you refer to policies and guidelines like BLP, RS, and BIO, and I would like some indication that you even read the debate for you to have been able to come to the conclusion you did. As you are required to do if you want to call yourself an admin. I'm not battling here, the only one battening down the hatches and playing a game of escape and evasion is you. The only one giving out the impression that they will do anything and everything except give straight answers to straight questions, is you. A recognition of your culpability in placing a massive BLP violation on the front page for 6 hours might also help. MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A lot was said but when one boils it down, it split 30 Keep, 15 Merge and 22 Delete. There was therefore no consensus to delete. Bearian provided a reasoning in his close which was more than many closers do and has responded politely to further inquiries. Even MickMacNee seems to recognise that the close would stand up at DRV. Is there a point to this? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope you remember that consensus isn't supposed to derive from a vote. I didn't vote once in that thread, but I simply raised points and asked people to answer. To me, all too often the people who simply toss in "Keep - per Editor1" or "Delete - per Editor2" are really doing next to nothing. The point of AfD is to identify areas that need substantial improvement or make the article invalid somehow. If those areas are valid and not addressed, then why should such an article be allowed to stay? And if they are addressed, why should an article be removed? THAT is what really matters, not a vote. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, taking a look at many of those Keep and Delete votes just now, a lot of the discussion was improperly focused on notability (which he has in spades) and not on inherited notability, which was the proper concern (and the one identified in the deletion request initially). Since most of the commenters went right off track from the get-go, a neutral observer could conclude that most the debate was largely noise. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, another way to look at the discussion (if you like that vote perspective) is 30 - Keep in place, 37 - Content does not belong in this place. There are lots of ways to look at it, and simply declaring consensus in this case might have been premature, also I notice that Bearian made no mention of the 3 day lock on the article, so who knows if that was considered when choosing a day to close. Incidentally, I don't mind the outcome either way, but we need to be focused on good arguments, not emotional ones. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Where did I way it wouldn't stand up to DRV? And why are you remotely pretending that this should have been a vote count? To hide the fact you made claims in the Afd that don't stand up, that needed an admin like this to be counted (infact, shit, we don't even know if he even counted your opinion or gave it any weight, such is his complete evasion here). MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the closure of this section by BWilkins, who's already stated a position and clearly thinks I shouldn't be asking questions of an "an admin who actually does work" (yes, and the issue is the quality of it). Leave it as is. If nobody else comments, and Bearian refuses to do or say anything else, then I'll see where that leaves me. Never mind Rfc/U, I think the unanswered concerns here are an arbcom issue frankly, there's some very basic principles that need to be reinforced here, or confirmed as no longer having any meaning. And DRV? Sure, maybe that will end in a result that can turn back time and erase the BLP violation from the Main Page. I can't say I'm enthusiastic for that, not least as I'm not a fucking retard, and know exactly what would happen if I turned up at DRV with what everyody will claim is just a dislike fo the outcome. I cannot dislike something I haven't even heard an explanation of yet frankly. What the hell would I even be able to say, other than he refuses to explain the decision at all? Someone please show me where he has explained the decision at all on which I can make a judgement as to the correctness of his closure. I'm not kidding when I say the only thing I've learned in these exhanges with him is that he considers the Daily Mail semi-reliable, yet how that related to the Afd I cannot even say. I don't know if he classed it as part of the SIGCOV, I still know fuck all about his logic process frankly, I could just as easily go to DRV and allege he's a personal friend of James Middleton for all the good such vague suspicions will do. Perhaps Bearian knows this and is banking on it. It's been alleged that he's an inclusionist by others, and he's not leaving me with anything to think that he isn't, with his continued refusals. Sure, I could write a whole detailed rationale stating my suspicions of what's occured here, but why should I have to do that when I can pretty much guarantee the first vote be from someone who will condemn me for coming to DRv with nothign but ABF, and thus won't even bother to read it, or if they do, will ignore it and endorse the closure on some complete irrelevance like the vote count or the "massive coverage". Fuck...that...shit. I'm seeking clueful input on an admins conduct and this is the admin's board. Just as Bearian has a right not to be suspected of being an inclusionist who will simply 'intepret' policies like BLP and SIGCOV to that end, he's also obliged to give others factual information about his thought process in specific situations and in judging real discussion threads discussing real cases, so that others can judge his calls of consensus fairly and objectively. I'm fucking disgusted frankly that these legitimate concerns founded on some very core principles like BLP are dismissed as "whining" by BWilkins. Not to mention the Bearian himself has said he thinks there's a 1 in 3 chance this whole complaint was a "joke". Unbelievable. When issues like basic editors considering the likes of the Daily Mail as a source at all, let alone evidence of coverage, are being said by Jimbo to be beliefs worthy of immmediate removal of rights, then this is not going to fly as "resolution". I'm not eating this sort of shit from someone who's done the exact same thing Bearian did and has a clear admiration of him, and presumes that having a bit means you don't have any obligation to explain your decisions as regards the specific issues and policies, and asserting that simple restatement is enough. It's not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much see this as an issue by which you, MickMacNee, are apparently unable to be satisfied by the fact that an AfD was closed with a result which you did not agree with and with a rationale that you think is insufficient. While that is your perogative, it is a concern that you are seemingly incapable of understanding that most of the community - those minded to comment, anyway - do not share your concerns. While you are a well regarded contributor to the project you are not the community, or even a spokesperson for part of it - you are just one account; you have made your point, and it is not one that most feel should result in either an overturning of the decision at AfD nor result in an examination of the closing admins ability to continue to use the flags. Time to let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If you really believe that's what's going on here then I feel sorry for you. I hope everyone who comes across admins like you and Bearian who feel this way, finds nothing but happiness and joy at being told that they clearly simply 'dislike' whatever it is they are disputing, and take the assertion that the are presumably just too thick to be given even the most basic of respect of an actual explanation that they clearly wouldn't understand, or otherwise are too insignificant as just one man to even deserve, in the heartfelt and collaborative manner it is surely delivered in. You can be happy with the outcome of his actions all you like, but please don't pretend to me you have the slightest idea how he came to the decision. If you think you do, you're fooling yourself. Try it - how about you draft a detailed breakdown of how you would justify the closure in policy, based on the the arguments & evidence that were actually made, and other admins can do the same. If all your drafts even remotely match on the same basic themes, enough to be called a clear keep, and if you can manage to get one out of Bearian, they match his too, then you can lord it over me all you like. Until then, just don't patronise me please. There's admins here who could have just as easily closed that as having no strong arguments to keep, that nobody offered any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. You will presumably think that's nonsense, a completely unjustifiable position, but the issue is your belief that just calling it nonsense or simply a 'dislike' is enough to prove your case, and your belief that others couldn't possibly see the reverse. It's not as bad as claiming a divine right, but it's getting there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"You ever take that test yourself, Mr Deckard?" You miss my point - most everyone else has no issues with the close rationale. You do. That is fine. What is not fine is that you feel everyone should have the same issues with it as you do, and you will not stop pestering this board until you get a rationale that satisfies you (the exception) or everyone else agrees with your viewpoint on the one given. Nothing to do with your perceived deficiencies in the AfD close or the rationale given, but with your conduct and attitude. You are unprepared to accept consensus, which is far more contrary to the project ethos than any "questionable" action by some admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC) ps. Why on Earth would I want to "lord it over you"? I am quite insulted to be compared to a bunch of indentured sheep stealers...
You're misrepresenting me completely tbh. I've found an example of what I consider to be a good close on a very related article, and given it below. Perhaps you should start by telling me how I as a mere single user should not reasonably expect that same standard of close in this instance, before you start telling me I have a bad attitude or am just some bizarre exception. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You have found a close which you agree with, thus you term it "good". The one by Bearian you disagree with, which you likely would call "bad" - although other people think it good. I suspect that if some of those people who call Bearian's close good also agree with the example below that you would not be able to comprehend why. Until you are familiar with the concept that two different people may review the same or similar issues and come honestly to different conclusions, and neither are wrong to do so, then it is pointless continuing this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm realy getting tired of your attempts to paint me as some thick twat who cannot tell the difference between a closure I agree with and a closure I think is handled correctly. If these concepts really are one and the same to you, it's your issue, not mine. Your the one theoretically trusted to be able to close an Afd a way you don't personally like, if it was the correct outcome according to a clueful reading of the debate against policy. You're also trusted to be able to explain how it was a clueful reading if someone challenges it against their honest opinion that it wasn't. You seem to think the former can never happen, and the latter is just an irrelevance. On Wikipedia, it's not true that both can be right. Proper objective analysis will either prove one right or the other. There are few if any situtions where these sorts of disagreements can actually result in a true constitutional crisis causing 50/50 correct answer. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I endorse closure of this string. There's simply nothing here that I can see that warrants its continued presence, despite the detailed postings.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Could someone please remind Mick not to use f-words? That is annoying. Adornix (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another closure, for comparison[edit]

This closure of the related family Afd is an example of what I consider is an admin properly explaining his closure with respect to the actual arguments made in the debate, and how they stood in policy.

There is enough context specific detail in that closure for people to know exactly what he did and did not consider relevant, and how he deliberated over the rest. He has a clearly stated position on each major thread and theme of the debate as regards their policy compliance or weight, without resorting to pointlessly vague generalities. It's not perfect (it never hurts to name and shame the people simply throwing out JN/JNN arguments for example, but there's equally no doubt he didn't give them any consideration whatsoever), but it's good nonetheless.

He's also quite rightly dismissed the argument made by Colonel Warden that there was some 'black sheep' clause in BLP that could be invoked here (a complete irony given he was the person who selected the DYK hook above). That reassures me that he's fully familiar with that particular policy, and has not taken anybody's argument as read.

People who might want to disagree with that closure can clearly do so on specific grounds, and if still not satisfied, they will have a concrete stance with which to open a DRV, giving them at least a chance of an actual review occuring, rather than a tedious re-run of the Afd. Even if the admin completely refused to expand on his rationale on request, which I sincerely doubt given he clearly gave it a lot of thought, the fact that the close is so detailed straight out of the box means the DRV would not simply be a complete farce with people lazily claiming the filer clearly simply 'didn't like' the close.

I have asked nothing of Bearian than to do the same for his closure, which by comparison is so vauge it could almost be transplanted to many other Afd's on BLPs who get 'coverage'. So, what's the hold up here? Why am I being fobbed off as if I'm a lunatic, and my requests were completely out of the ordinary, not something any sane admin would ever do, or even believe was good practice. Is this admin just being too accommodating or over-eager, or is he actually following the guidance you are all issued with once you've been deemed to be cluefull & trustworthy enough to have the responsibility of closing Afds. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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

MickMacNee blocked[edit]

Unfortunately the WP:DISRUPT, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, and WP:SPIDERMAN through this entire process, especially this last post on his talkpage has led to a 2 week block. The length of time is due to past entries in the block log. Comments are welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks? That seems excessive, given that the last block that wasn't overturned was 24 hours and that was nearly a year ago. Besides the duaration, I don't think the block is warranted. It's not preventing any imminent disruption and while he was obviously frustrated in that post, I don't see anything rising to the elvel of a personal attack and at least part of it was a valid point. Suggest unblocking or at the very least a reduction of the duration to be more proportionate to the "offence" and the most recent block that wasn't reversed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
"Bad" block, HJ? More like awful block. Two weeks is ridiculous for that. The block in principle, yes, good block. The actual carrying out of it? Awful. Reduce to 24 hours, as is the standard NPA block, please. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Thirded; 24 hours seems appropriate. --Errant (chat!) 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Object. Sure, easy to support this because it is Mick and he's saying "fuck" a lot and he won't let the issue go - and that becomes annoying. But it takes at least two people to carry on an argument, and it only carries on if people feel the need to respond. The post of Bearian's he was responding to was outragious. An admin he was complaining about (albeit without much reason imho) told him not to reopen a thread on that same admin (COI) and then shouted at him because "non admins can't do that". Berian needs to grow a thicker skin and stop playing God. Of course a non-admin can open an ANI thread. This is premature and unnecessary block--Scott Mac 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with Scott. A two week block for disagreeing with an admin is ridiculous, and just reinforces the us-and-them stereotype we're doing our damnedest to get rid of. – iridescent 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As someone who rarely agrees with him on anything, I think the block was over the top. Reduce to 24 hours. RxS (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Bearian showed very poor judgement in an AfD and then became very defensive about it, apparently trying to stay as vague as possible on all points that could lead to overturning it at DRV. It's absolutely clear why MickMacNee was concerned and wouldn't let this go. Now this edit by Bearian shows that he believes that his formal admin state gives him certain extra rights that in reality are tied to cluefulness and good sense (which he appears to lack, judging from this incident). It's also an explicit invitation for MickMacNee to insult him, apart from the obvious baiting inherent in the attitude. Then, after the predictable reaction – on MMN's own talk page, where we are generally quite lenient – an involved admin reacted with a draconian block. Bwilkins needs to undo this pronto with an apology. Hans Adler 17:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • For the record, after reading that diff I've posted a message to Bearian about it and asked him to retract that ridiculous claim. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


I've reduced to 24 hours. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that two weeks is ridiculously long. I've left the 24-hour block in place for the "civility" element; while I personally disagree with applying the civility policy when a user is expressing stress, rather than clearly setting out to be offensive, I nonetheless can see that most people feel that this kind of block is valid. Note that this amendment is in a personal and not an Arbcom capacity. – iridescent 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and no issues with the reduction: it's easier to reduce than to increase. I was merely going on the concept of escalating blocks, and acted accordingly. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • While I think MMN has really pushed it in terms of WP:CIVIL (especially in light of his RFC/U) I concur with the reduced block. Personally would have gone for 48 hours though--Cailil talk 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I am glad the block has been reduced, as I feel that these types of sanctions are simply signposts of the communities disagreement with MickMacNee's conduct rather than a meaningful way of moderating same. Whatever period of sanction, I would suggest that the same behaviours would restart at their expiry. I suspect that it will require an ArbCom case to properly put in place measures to resolve these issues, and it will be MickMacNee's own actions that will provide that opportunity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In part I disagree in turn, since I believe the failure to drop the stick is a symptom of the underlying malady of MickMacNee being incapable of accepting a viewpoint contrary to his own. Of itself that may not be an issue, even though it flies in the face of WP:Consensus, but it is when it becomes disruptive - as it did above. Much like any purported failure by Bearian in the closing of the AfD, it is not an issue if there is no pattern or perceived habit - but there is a perhaps unfortunate perception that MickMacNee is party to frequent issues brought to the Admin boards. As for the swearing, though, I don't give a shit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC) the kids today would say: "fuckin-A, dude!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the kids in the 80's, today they might say "bangin'" or "kickass". -- Avanu (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think he's incapable of accepting views that aren't his own. I defend him a lot in these boards because for some reason or another I 'get' Mick. I can't even put my finger on what about it it is, but I have a feeling I think in much the same fashion he does. It helps to know that while it seems personal its really not. He doesn't drag up the past unless others are, or if he really does believe theres a systemic issue. And if you speak cluefully about how his behavior in whatever circumstance is actually detrimental (beyond just 'i dont like it') he is more then capable of acknowledging it. See the most recent section on my talkpage for an example him taking advice and backing away. Mick just... doesn't suffer what he sees as bullshit. It's not so much a 'fuck you' but a 'I dont have time or energy for this shit'. Or at least thats what I see. -- ۩ Mask 10:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the initial block should have been of indefinite rather than definite duration, to be lifted only after the community is positively convinced that such disruption will not reoccur. (I increasingly tend to think that this should be the case for all blocks, as thinking in terms of "appropriate" block lengths encourages a punitive rather than preventative approach to blocks.) The comment at issue is not problematic because it contains the word "fuck", it is problematic because it is a series of massive and inexcusable personal attacks. The presence of a person who talks to others like that in the professional environments that I'm familiar with would not be tolerated longer than a few minutes, and neither should it be here. The block reduction by Iridescent was unnecessary at best and encouraging of further disruption at worst, as it reduces the incentive for MickMacNee to convince us that he understands the problem and will not repeat such conduct. (Sidenote: I notice after looking at the block log that I once blocked MickMacNee indefinitely for similar disruption, and Scott MacDonald unblocked him against consensus because MickMacNee had "given assurances". We now see what these assurances, and Scott MacDonald's judgment, were worth.)  Sandstein  21:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm reading all this after a break of a few weeks, and my perspective is somewhat different. What I see is a dispute where MickMacNee was (and is) largely right about the underlying principles, but where others started to arrive once they saw it involved MickMacNee. While reading through this thread, I noticed that both you and LessHeard vanU appeared to take the opportunity to attempt to change the discussion from one about this specific incident into one about MickMacNee's broader conduct. Which doesn't seem quite right. For the record, I agree with Iridescent's reduction of the block length. This seems a classic case of people looking at the contributor (MickMacNee), rather than the actions in question and the surrounding context. Probably best to focus on the articles in question here (the content), rather than the editors. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree; Sandstein, take the hint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


Wouldn't it have just been simpler to address the concerns that the editor raised by simply having another admin reopen the AfD and then reclose it with some further rationale? I see a lot of willingness to say "well, i agree, but what can you do?" It seems much simpler to just do it over, but correctly, than to argue about it so much. It was kind of clear from the AfD thread that there wasn't real consensus, so policy says to leave it running or relist it until the consensus becomes clear. It just seems a bit unflexible to acknowledge something that is a legitimate concern just because something is a "done deal". Personally, I took no strong position in the AfD, because I was interested in seeing if people would provide encyclopedic rationale if encouraged to do so. The admin closer did not acknowledge the concerns raised by the AfD nominator at all, but went off track, like many in the discussion to general notability, which was never in question. So instead of us being flexible, we get hard-headed and an editor loses patience. Not a pretty outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD isn't about consensus building (or voting). It's about laying out a case for or against deletion and then allowing an administrator to review the case and make a determination based upon its merits. Thus, all the Me Too "votes" are pretty much worthless and the keep/delete notes with their unique rationale's are what matter. This helps mitigate the effects of canvassing, puppets, and the like. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree. OK, so in this case, did the admin review the rationale? It doesn't appear he did. Like I said, a LOT of the editors got sidetracked with the General Notability Guideline, when that wasn't the question. -- Avanu (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, before I get accused of actually caring whether this article lives or dies, my point is simply that it might save drama if even a minor issue is raised, that it just be done over, and done closer to guidelines. Not my dog in this fight, I'm fine either way, just suggesting alternatives. -- Avanu (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • comment and people wonder why some folks have this "admin vs. editor" mentality? Pro-tip: Check your ego at the door, and just edit in a way to improve the damn pedia. — Ched :  ?  16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, Ched. But the problem is there are too many people who can't agree on what an improvement is. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Complex merge[edit]

Okay, so we've got a situation here:

  1. I afd'd Major Moves for lack of notability.
  2. After two relists, consensus seems to suggest merge/redirect to Indiana Toll Road.
  3. However, I would also like to move Major Moves (album) to Major Moves once the merge is done, because it will now be the only thing with that exact title.

Is there a way that the merge can be performed and free up the Major Moves name at the same time? Histmerge of some kind? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

History merge needed[edit]

History merge needed from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises to Talk:Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises. Thank you. – AJLtalk 04:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just copy-pasted with an edit summary for attribution. Usually AfC talk pages aren't deleted, so that should be good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the comments are ~~~~ signed right on the page, it's less important to follow WP:Copying within Wikipedia rigorously. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

US Senators[edit]

Someone named "CreatureKawa" done a series of vandalisms in about the one quarter of the articles about current and former US Senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vandalism. I spot checked a random sampling of his edits, and I see an innocuous change to an article link, an innocuous change in a template, and a change to a different type of infobox. I don't see anything I would call vandalism in any of those, this appears to be someone who is trying to fix things, and people acting in good faith should not be called vandals. If you have some specfic changes you found that I did not, perhaps you could list those here? --Jayron32 05:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests for permissions backlog[edit]

There are some requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled which have been waiting for 5+ days; if someone has a moment could they take a look? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 08:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Help for a stubborn user.[edit]

This user (Lalit.mehar) keeps reposting the same article (Super kloud film) for multiple times (More than 5, I think.). I think he should be either blocked or banned. JohnHWiki talk - 10:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reported to WP:ARV as an obvious promo account. Should be blocked momentarily. → ROUX  10:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FAKEARTICLE issue[edit]

Resolved: I got the email and replied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have stumbled across a fairly unambiguously problematic userpage. I am hesitant both to name the user and comment on their talkpage, as they seem to have issues. What is the best avenue for dealing with this? → ROUX  10:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominating it for deletion would be the best avenue, although commenting on their talkpage would definitely be a better starting-point. ╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess you missed the part about the user appearing to have issues. I was delicately trying to say that such brute-force tactics are probably not a good idea. Anyone else? → ROUX  10:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss that part. In fact, I clearly referred to that sentence of your comment in my reply, so I'm not sure why you supposed this. But first of all, deletion doesn't require the person's co-operation, and if they continue to re-create the page it could be protected. But more to the point, if you're unwilling to talk to them and unwilling to nominate it for deletion, there's nothing else you can do other than cope. You're asking the ridiculous. ╟─TreasuryTagballotbox─╢ 12:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
You didn't refer to it at all, actually, especially since one of your suggestions was one I had clearly stated was undesirable. I am not asking the ridiculous; I asked how, under a specific set of circumstances, one should address a specific problem. Thankfully there are people here more helpful than you were in this instance. → ROUX  18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
What kind of "issues"? Civility, personal issues off-wiki, competence? Mjroots (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Roux, just email an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that is a useful suggestion. You have been emailed. → ROUX  18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd leave a gentle message on their usertalk, to open a dialogue. Roux, I find it hard to imagine how bad things could be that this would be over the top. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer[edit]

Requests for the 'Reviewer' permission are still flowing in to this page. A prominent notice at the top says that WP:Pending changes protection is being withdrawn from all articles, per the closure of a recent RfC as of 20 May 2011. I went through and declined a bunch of Reviewer permission requests, but they are still coming in. While it would cause no problem to continue issuing these, since people do request it, it seems kind of redundant, since it will no longer have any effect. Can anyone suggest what to do? Deleting the /Reviewer page would be one option, but this does not seem to be the past practice for obsoleted pages in Wikipedia space. Another would be to leave it there, but remove all the incoming links from WP:Requests for permissions, and undo the transclusion. Someone has already marked the Reviewer page 'Historical'. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done. Possibly the page could have a more prominent notice, and be locked admins-only as well. That way, the history is preserved and the page is there for when/if the pending changes business comes back. (Some of the other Wikipedias have similar restrictions, I think. I met one on de or sv the other day, and had a struggle with a captcha on pt.) Of course, everyone who applies could be vetted and issued with non-existent powers in the expectation of a return. Easier, in my opinion, to close shop (but not to redevelop the premises...). Peridon (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've archived the remaining requests and removed the link for making new requests. Incoming links should probably also be deleted.  Sandstein  20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting hostile attacks an threats by an editor[edit]

Some editor named Elkevbo is not following wikipedia policy on a page, University of Buffalo, The State University of New York, by deleting material rather than requesting citations for it first. He's now getting to revert edits, and posting ominous threats in my talk page. I wish there was some way this could stop, and that the editor could begin following wikipedia policy. (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new Dispute Resolution process[edit]

On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.

Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from admins or from people experienced in policy development, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.

The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's DR? Surely not Deletion Review? Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:DR - Dispute Resolution. Rd232 talk 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an eminently serious proposal that appears to me to have been thought through with extraordinary care. We certainly need something to help deal with the massive problem it addresses. I'd strongly encourage others to review it carefully, i.e. with the attention it merits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Feedback is essential to systems.  This proposal increases feedback.  Suggest that it could start as a totally volunteer basis (like People's Court where all have agreed to be bound by the decision).  That way you wouldn't have to get a lot of community consensus to proceed.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of powers?[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.
No abuse of powers, Kuru, jpgordon and Boing! said Zebedee all acted in an exemplary fashion, with Vintageceilingfans an obvious disruptive sock, and the complaining editor User:Shakinglord mistaken about the course of events. Shakinglord retracted his accusations and comments. Dreadstar 02:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the recent changes a few days ago and I caught sight of the blocking of User:Vintageceilingfans. Kuru apparently blocked the user after witnessing sevral vandalism issues, one being very disruptive, on celing fan, the others being minor annoyances and trolling. I saw that they immediatly blocked Vintageceilingfans by accusing him of being a sockpuppet. VCF then tried to unblock, saying: "I just joined wikipedia and I now understand It is possible to be blocked so I'll never do that again." to which User:Boing! said Zebedee replied: "Blatant disruptive sock". With this, I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, and Zebedee also did not give VCF. VCF then tried to request an unblock again, saying: "What do you mean I'm a sock? I'm a person." User:jpgordon replied: "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts", which I believe to be a lie. Another admin blocked VCF's talking rights, saying: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: enough. I believe this is a possible misuse of powers and should be review by an administrator. Also, in the sockpuppet investigation page, Boing! said Zebedee said: Vintageceilingfans attacked me with a fake unblock signature, which is untrue, his contributions shows VCF did not attack BSZ, which should be noted. Shakinglord (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoa...the "lie" accusation is way out of order, particularly (a) as you have provided no evidence and (b) you've had this explained to you before. You've not provided any evidence of anything: your post just appears to be a series of WP:NPA violations. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Vintageceilingfans (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked as a sock of Rlnthndr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who is blocked as a sock of Ghhgjjf (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I see nothing in the editing history of these three accounts that links them. I see that Vintageceilingfans may have been editing in an area where there is a WP:COI, but nothing more. I'm minded to allow Vintageceilingfans access to their talk page, as I see no evident that this edits has abused the faclility. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
See the sockpuppet investigation for Checkuser evidence. This seems crystal clear to me (unless you want to accuse Muzemike of lying). Yoenit (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Are you a Checkuser? If not, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting, since the sockpuppet investigation was  Confirmed bu MuZemike. Far more interesting, I think, would be the connection (if any) between Shakinglord and the sockfarm. It's now been explained to Shakinglord at least twice that Vintageceilingfans is a confirmed sockpuppet; their continual failure to accept this point is either a matter of self-interest, sticking their fingers in their ears, or inability to comprehend what they are being told, take your pick. → ROUX  20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
mea culpa - I didn't check the deleted contribs. The template created by Vintageceilingfans is the same as that created by BLOCK XCTOME ON YOUTUBE (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Therefore I accept that this is a sock. I'm not a checkuser, but that shouldn't prevent me from contributing on Admin-related matters when they are raised. I'm willing and able to admit when I am wrong. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The fake and tendentious unblock review notice that Vintageceilingfans forged as if it came from me is here. Trying to frame me for something I did not do is something I take as an attack. And shouldn't I have been notified of this report, btw, Shakinglord? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've also informed Kuru and jpgordon of this report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see any merit to this report, User:Vintageceilingfans is an obvious disruptive sock confirmed by checkuser; User:Boing! said Zebedee is most certainly innocent of this, that's an obviously fraudulent signature perpetrated by the disruptive sock. Good block and good actions by both Boing! said Zebedee and jpgordon. Dreadstar 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Appreciated, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you, Boing said zebedee, I agree, Vintagecelingfans was a disruptive sock, ity just worried me, because it looked as if you blocked Vintagecelingfans without an excuse. Now I see that that is false. Im am apologize if you were offended, I just cannot see what you administrators use to "fight" vandalsm and "block" users. Please remeber that other people are not trying to offend you, I was merely pointing something out. I am not attacking you, nor will I ever. Shakinglord (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand how someone came to a decision or what they meant somewhere, have you ever considered politely and civilly asking them first, rather than making accusations of lying and abusing power? Have you ever noticed that people have things called "Talk pages"? They're for talking on (that's what the name means, see?). Try asking there first in future, before leaping straight to making scurrilous accusations -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This is disengenuous at best. You were told all of this information before, and ignored it. Why? → ROUX  00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Does anyone think this needs any action? (I can't do anything myself, as I'm clearly involved) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the information, and understanding that the user was a sockpuppet, and, in spite of Boing! said Zebedee's very rude and juvenile insults, I hereby withdraw my accusations. Shakinglord (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to ensure you are correct with your facts before jumping straight to accusing people of "lying". You will find that particular approach tends to quickly erode good will, and they will not be as kind when helping you. I would recommend closing this section out; it seems to have reached a conclusion. Kuru (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Gonna look after the sandpit for an hour...[edit]

Greetings admins,

I will look after the sandpit for an hour for you, saving you all time to conentrate on other things. Hope this helps :) (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You know we have a bot for this? ;-) Also, it's the sandbox not the "pit". ;P GFOLEY FOUR— 01:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
MAybe but I will give it a personal touch and look out for wrong 'uns :) (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The idea of the sandbox is for people to experiment and yes vandalise a bit if they want to, removing edit attempts seconds after they're made is not necessary or helpful--Jac16888 Talk 01:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Actually, the content should stay in the sandbox unless it is attacking another, revealing one's age, etc. Could you maybe leave the content up longer? Thanks. GFOLEY FOUR— 01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, I will add an ASCII penis to it instead- have a great weekend :) (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. See the hidden text everyone! GFOLEY FOUR— 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC closure request[edit]


Could an uninvolved admin please summarize the views at this RfC? It ended a few days ago.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archives. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've closed it. (Also, I changed Cunard's sig timestamp to what shows in the history for his edit, so archiving can proceed normally.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC Closure Request[edit]

Could an uninvolved Admin take a look at the RFC Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? it's expired twice now although further comments were made after the first expiry. The points made need a neutral summation and proper close. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archives. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I smell or something?[edit]

Resolved: The user's request was handled. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On WP:RFP/R, all the requests were/that were around me have been done! Except mine. Mine has been there for like, 4 or 5 days? Island Monkey talk the talk 07:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think it was a good idea to cite experience on the "nonsensical encyclopedia that anyone can mess up" in support? DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I do see that problem - but we should focus on my contribs here more! Island Monkey talk the talk 08:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PUF backlog[edit]

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

Hi, please could someone close some of the listings at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 May 5? They've been hanging around for more than a fortnight... ╟─TreasuryTagstannator─╢ 08:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone better close this discussion, because TT is now trying to force the issue by slapping a speedy tag on the image, citing "discussion outcome", which I have now reverted three times advising him to wait for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. Edokter (talk) — 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the discussion has resulted in a 'delete' verdict (two 'delete' !votes and no other comments at all) and it is now very, very overdue for closure. Copyright is a serious issue; I don't know why nobody's bothered to close it, but edit-warring valid deletion tags off the file-page is simply disruptive, Edokter. ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
No matter how 'sure' the outcome is, non-admins are not to disturb processes that require admin clusore, not in least in the way as you did. You did right asking for admin attention, but forcing the issue by repeatedly slapping a speedy tag on the image is not the way to push the issue forward; files under discussion are not elligable for speedy deletion, period. It is considered gaming. So just be patient next time. Edokter (talk) — 17:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You know, since what you said to me a couple of days ago, I don't value your advice in the slightest, nor do I trust your judgement, Edokter. ╟─TreasuryTagLord Speaker─╢ 17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to value advice on the person rather then on it's content, then you are proving my point. Edokter (talk) — 17:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
[Personal attack redacted]
A "plummer"? Christopher Plummer? Edoktor is a director/producer? Who knew? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to state, for the record, that my "personal attack" above was not intended to compare Edokter to OBL. I apologise if that was how it was interpreted, but it was in fact supposed to be a simple analogy demonstrating that people usually evaluate advice based on its source. ╟─TreasuryTagChief Counting Officer─╢ 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion.[edit]

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

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Skomorokh 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to create edit notice[edit]

Please add {{British English editnotice}} to George Orwell. I'm trying to bring the article to GA status and I'd like to ensure that anyone who adds to it keeps the English variety consistent. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops It should be located at Template:Editnotices/Page/George_Orwell. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
added. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9[edit]

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, T. Canens, for closing and summarizing the debate. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Fox and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids[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.

Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't delete a file[edit]

File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg is correctly tagged for deletion as a replaceable nonfree image. When I tried to delete it, I clicked the "delete this file after confirming it is not in use" line, and it took me to the standard deletion screen. However, when I clicked "delete", it did nothing, and eventually the browser crashed. Could someone please delete this image and Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 19 May 2011, which has no other contents? Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal from blacklist[edit]

I am requesting that the blacklist on this page be lifted I did not write the original deleted piece nor was aware of it.I have only done a cursory introduction of Mr. masterson but do not wish to include items I personally have not referenced myself. THis article is referenced and you already list Mr. Masterson on a previous article L.I.E., IMDB , yahoo, Rotten Tomato etc. I did not include information like the fact Mr. Masterson will be appearing in a new HBO presentation nor the information about the movie HYST in which he also appeared. I intend to edit as references become availible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaskafamily (talkcontribs) 11:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerks for WP:CP[edit]

I have proposed creating clerks for WP:CP; see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:CP clerks and please weigh in if you have input or ideas. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons[edit]

By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.

The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:

Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Edit requests[edit]

Wikipedia:Edit requests is a new info page I've drafted to cover edit requests (arising from this RfD discussion). Any comments / suggestions for improvement? Rd232 talk 04:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Avinash Patra[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.
This ban proposal gained unanimous support after being listed for more than 48 hours, waiting for more people to support doesn't seem necessary. I'm including Avinash Patra in our list of banned users. -- Atama 17:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose a community site ban on this persistent self-promoter who since January has posted articles about himself under 18 different variations of his name (Dr.Avinash Patra, Sr.Dr.Avinash Patra, Mr.Avinash Patra, Author.Avinash Patra, Sr.Abinash Patra I etc. etc.), using 25 socks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avinashkrishnadasa. You can get the flavour from his Facebook page and the original AfD. Today alone he has generated four new socks, and posted three articles about his (self-published on-line) books; a formal ban will make clear that any more of these can be deleted at sight. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support I thought he'd be back, but not so soon. Another flavour is that it's not only here - I found him claiming to have an invitation to The Wedding on some Indian site that I can't remember. Totally non-notable, and fairly obviously thinks we're stupid. I missed those ones today - wasn't around at the right time. Mind you, if people really are buying 7 page books (download it and print it yourself) for £220, I think I might change to religious writing. At lest I can spel... Peridon (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Enough was enough a long time ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This was archived without any dissent; I have reopened it to ask that someone formally close the discussion and, if agreed, enact a ban. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)----

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

Proposing block of Wicklypickle[edit]

This user (Wicklypickle) keeps reposting the article (I think.) and removing speedy tags of Andy harglesis. I think he/she should be blocked in Wikipedia. JohnHWiki talk - 08:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, they are. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin[edit]

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close a talk page proposal, at "Proposal to stub this article". Though the result of the consensus appears to be unanimous, it would be appreciated for an uninvolved admin to close it, so a neutral assessment of the overall consensus expressed may be given. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Need admin help, issue with the account[edit]

Hi, it's been a while I was not coming to Wikipedia, today I came and noticed the languages section on the left side of my user page. It seems someone has created a userpage in another language with my name username. That is definitely not me. But it is my user name there. I didn't know what to do. Thanks in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a user page - it is a template page on another wiki. That link is being added by the cycling userbox you have on the page (because the linked page is the ar-wiki equivilant userbox). I will tweak the userbox code so it doesn't do that link any more ;) --Errant (chat!) 10:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Making a compare from a history list - "on a new browser tab or browser page" option would be useful[edit]

  • When I have called for a long edit history list display, it takes up my time and Wikipedia's server's time to make the table, if it is long. When I then call for a compare of edits, the compare display overwrites the history display, and when afterwards I click the browser's left-arrow to go back to the history display, I must wait while Wikipedia's server remakes the history display. It would be useful if I could call the compare display to come on a new browser tab or on a new browser page. (I use Firefox.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is something that could probably be done with a bit of JavaScript, but you'd be much better off asking here. —DoRD (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional Account?[edit]

Could someone please review the contributions of Special:Contributions/Rohan11eleven. The User appears to be using Wikipedia for promotional purposes only on behalf of the Singapore tourist board. I've referred him to Wikipedia is not a Soap box but I really think someone else needs to give a view on what is advertising and promotion. Thanks Vrenator (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked them as an advertising-only account. Please note that spammers should be reported at WP:AIV or WP:ANI rather than here. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Need OTRS help[edit]

I deleted File:Therion confidential.jpg as a copyvio (it was marked as freely licensed, but it was obviously an album cover), but Joshua Issac has asked me to restore it because of OTRS ticket 1800191. I've declined, since I don't have OTRS access and thus can't read the permission email (the file description page never had anything about OTRS), so could someone with OTRS access review the ticket and restore the file if the ticket is sufficient? None of the people on the list at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team have edited much in recent days, and I don't know whether OTRS people from Meta or from other projects are able to work with our tickets. Sorry if this is the wrong place (after all, we don't have an OTRS noticeboard), so if you know of a better place, please move it there and please let me know for future reference. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The ticket only applies to File:Harisc_4.jpg MorganKevinJ(talk) 15:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs)[edit]

Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs) attack me here. He wrote "بیر آز فیکر ، بیر آز آناماق چوخ یاخشی شیی دیر" that means, I don't have any think and I do not sense. It's again WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A warning has been given. If there are any further instances, please note them at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:GoRight ban appeal[edit]


The Committee would appreciate any community input. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin requested for page move[edit]

 Done An admin is requested to effectuate the page move as defined by the consensus here. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 01:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Check this, this guy vandalised and wrote a 'message' on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The remark was out of Februari. I have rolled it back to the original warning on his page. Case solved to my idea! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


HXL49 (talk · contribs) is waging a campaign to remove my comments from talk discussions. He removed my comments at WT:RM and my !votes at Talk:Taihu Lake. How am I ever going to get anyone to respond to my concerns if they're always deleted? He removed my tag at Navel lint, calling it "drive by tagging", when I left an explaination on the talk page, clearly not conducive to discussions. (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of either editor, deleting other editors talkpage messages without a very good reason is a no-no. I've restored one thread that was deleted. I'm also concerned by phrases such as "keep your hillbilly/"Speak A-muh-rican" attitudes to yourself; otherwise I will have no choice but to silence you." Exxolon (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ffd backlog getting a bit lengthy[edit]

Anyone want to mop up a bit over here ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tests of new account creation processes[edit]


During tomorrow, we will start a new series of tests of the account creation process. These tests are a little more complex than the previous ones. Take a look at this page if you are curious about what is going on. Or read the update I gave on the proposal Village pump a while ago.

One aspect that will affect the vandal fighters is that many of the new users will get a blue link on their user pages, since their first edit is on their user page. But...

a) their user pages should include some information about themselves (and not only links to Wikipedia's policies) in this version, which we hope will make it easier for you to get to know the new user, and for the user to find something useful to do here on Wikipedia.
b) we have created a new category that vandal fighters can use to check the new users: Category:New Wikipedians 2011-05 (and of course later on in 2011-06. etc). If you search for "Rosie Underhill" across Wikipedia, you can see which new users have only saved the standard text. The standard top part of the user pages looks like this. (And we will test various versions of that, too, just in case you're wondering.)

The goal is to get more people to start editing after they create their accounts. To make sure we make the best process we can, we are going to test it live on English Wikipedia, but this test will not involve every new account. Only about a third of the new accounts will see this new version. The rest will see the version we have now. In a few days' time, we will launch yet another version, in parallel with the then two others, and compare them all.

We are trying to make sure that everything works and that there are no language problems/typos. Should something not be up to the high standard we are hoping for, feel free to correct it, but please remember that this test is only for a short while and that things may go back or change, depending on how the results turn out.

Hopefully, this will mean a greater influx of new users, who also know more about how Wikipedia works. Please make them feel welcome.

As usual, if you have any questions, post them here or on my talk page. I will now go to sleep (it's 2.15 am here), but I will on the other hand not do anything about the tests either until tomorrow :-)

Best wishes//Hannibal (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way for those doing userspace NPP to quickly distinguish pages created through this route, say by a specific edit summary? Also, will you be monitoring the fraction of deletable garbage that will inevitably result from this exercise? MER-C 02:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
On a related note, should we tag the userpages of blatant username violations created through this method for deletion? If so, what tags should we be using? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments.
@MER-C: I have forwarded your question about edit summaries to someone who knows more about those things than I do, because I think it's a good idea. At the moment I don't know if it's feasible. I suspect that if we see enough of a increase in the number of people who actually start to edit, then we will get more support from the tech department, and in that case, this idea is on my wishlist. About the monitoring part: yes, I will try to go through as many new users pages as I can, to try and find patterns there that we can learn from - mistakes many make, things people miss, good ideas people have, and so on. And that's not all, every day, we will get stats on how many visit the signup page, how many create accounts and how many start to edit, from each of the version, so I will be looking through that information as well. Data analyst Ryan Faulkner from WMF will help out.
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: No matter what account creation process you use, some people will always try to create accounts that break the username policy. These experiments will likely have little or no effect on this, so my suggestion is that you continue work through normal channels to deal with those cases. If there should be a dramatic increase in "bad" names, we'll invite everyone to think about cool ways to deal with it.
Does that answer your questions?//Hannibal (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
It appears that it is possible to add an automatic edit summary for new users who create their user pages. Is there some special message that you want there?//Hannibal (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no preference over the exact wording, but the edit summary should explain to what's going on, with some relevant links to (say) outreach:Account Creation Improvement Project and/or an equivalent on this Wikipedia. MER-C 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
How about: "New user page thru Outreach:ACIP"? or "Recently created account"?//Hannibal (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
With a link, the first of those would be perfect. New user page thru [[:outreach:Account Creation Improvement Project|Outreach:ACIP]] should fit. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done//Hannibal (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My question was asking what we should do if users with inappropriate usernames create this default userpage. It doesn't really seem to meet any of the deletion criteria, but we also don't need usernames like User:Muffdiver69 (for instance) to be bluelinked and show up in the search bar; if they've created their default userpage, that's what'll happen. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
To me it seems that any user with an inappropriate username such as the one you mention, no matter if he or she creates the perfect user page, should be blocked according to the policy on vandalism (second case in list of types of vandalism), or at least asked to change his or her user name. So, go on reporting it here.//Hannibal (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Over and out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering one thing, Hannibal, is this testing completely random or will there be a way to make sure users without javascript enabled won't go through (what I presume) to be the new js-utilizing testing? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, the testing should be randomized as much as possible. I don't know about people without JavaScript enabled though. I guess they could be rerouted to the old one.//Hannibal (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we get two closes, possibly a third[edit]

Hey all, there have been some proposals related to Santorum that have recently reached a point of absurd repetition of opinions and forum shopping. Could someone at least close the two proposals at Template talk:Sexual slang and