Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive230

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: Backlog cleared. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is showing quite a large backlog. More administrator eyes would be greatly appreciated - one clear case for a block being this fellow, according to whom Bing Crosby has somehow risen from the dead to become Prime Minister of Austria... SuperMarioMan 22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If a dead pope can be put on trial, why can't a dead singer become a politician? Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Depends on the district, I'd wager. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd vote for a dead guy over many of the politicians we have... Normandie 13:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins, bring your mops and buckets[edit]

There is a backlog of backlogs at Category:Administrative backlog, with 20 items in that category at the moment. I would encourage admins to fill up their mop-buckets (but not to the brim, since most backlogs are pretty short - they're just old items that have passed under the radar) and take a look at some backlogs.

Additionally, due to the current Move to Commons drive, Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons‎ and Category:All Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons‎ are filling up quickly. These could do with a bit of help as well. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yo dawg, I heard you like Backlogs..... no, sorry, can't do it. But I'll dig into this. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

List of modern dictators[edit]

Some people are continously trying to add the PM of Hungary to the list. List of modern dictators Lock suggested. -- (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a fortnight, thanks for your report (though WP:RFPP might have been a more suitable venue for this request. Face-wink.svg). Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry for posting in the wrong place. -- (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical help required[edit]

Can one of you please have a look at User talk:Admiralfilms? Your luddite, Drmies (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There was an autoblock from between the time when you had them blocked with autoblock enabled and when you modified it. I think I got it, but we'll see what the user says. Syrthiss (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I went back and thought I had unchecked that box. Maybe something got lost in that ton of database errors I've seen this morning. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (del/undel) 23:02, 5 January 2012 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Admiralfilms (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) ‎ (unblock | change block)
  • (del/undel) 21:48, 5 January 2012 Drmies (talk | contribs | block) blocked Admiralfilms (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{softerblock}}) (unblock | change block)
Yep, it didn't get checked the first time (database error or whatever). When you went back and reblocked, then it was checked. However, since there was 1 hr 14 m between the two actions its likely the editor tried to edit in the meantime and incurred the autoblock. Syrthiss (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter modification[edit]

I was checking an edit filter to see if a long term vandal has appeared, again, and I discovered that he indeed did. However, I would like to have someone modify the edit filter that catches him (Special:AbuseFilter/213) to prevent an edit that he seems to have performed in the past which can be seen here. Somehow that made it through the filter (I believe it was a misspelling of a critical word). Perhaps this misspelling could be added to the filter, as well as some of the other less than helpful statements he made on the page. No one is ever going to need those words strung together anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and it appears these edits made it through fairly recently, so perhaps the phrasing in them can also be added to the edit filter to stop this idiot from making his opinions known.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone dealt with this?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done I changed the filter in some way, drop me an email if it doesn't suffice and i'll do my option 2 on this filter. -- DQ (t) (e) 08:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like your timing was right.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit in a protected page requested[edit]


My user name has changed from "BernhardMeyer" to "Pevos". Now I am changing all my signatures in past discussions. As Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Comments/William_M._Connolley is protected, I cannot change it there. Could you please help me and replace "BernhardMeyer" by "Pevos" (three times in the source) and put in the edit summary: "Changed user name, see Special:Log/renameuser".

An example is here.

Thank you. --Pevos (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hut 8.5 14:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

UAA backlog[edit]

Resolved: Cleared.--v/r - TP 18:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not as urgent as an AIV or RPP backlog, but still, WP:UAA has a backlog to clear.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Several folks have cleared it.--v/r - TP 18:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U needs examining[edit]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere: these issues should be discussed on the RFC's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a RFC/U concerning me that was recently started. It doesn't really seem to serve much purpose as the evidence seems random, or false and in many cases doesn't make any sense. Anyway I've still gone through and addressed everything and it would be useful if some uninvolved parties could take a look. it can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shakehandsman. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done. That RFCU has been open for 3 days. Once certified, they generally stay open for at least a month, or at least until outside input dies down. 3 days is way too short to judge consensus before closing an RFCU. --Jayron32 06:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't implying 3 days was sufficient at all, just that the whole exercise was extremely questionable in itself, that's not simply my own personal view, but one shared by at least two other editors.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not looked at your RfC/U just yet, but the recent trend in starting lame RfC/U's exemplified by Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hentzer is worrisome. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We close and delete an RFCU when they're not properly certified, and multiple people have alleged (toward the bottom of the page) that nothing was certified by more than one person. I don't have time to check it myself, but another admin should check the certifications and delete if these allegations are correct: the RFC/U policy says that 48 hours is the maximum time to allow before an improperly certified page is deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm one of the certifiers, so you can take my comment for what it is worth, but the dispute here is about this editor's user conduct, ie long-term problems with BLP and POV editing. Multiple different editors and administrators on different articles have noted this over a long period of time, and there have been posts to various noticeboards, and even an OTRS complaint. As User:Youreallycan has pointed out on the RFC[1], WP has recently had experience of negative, POV BLP editing flying below the radar for a long time, that ended with an editor being topicbanned from BLP articles.I guessing he was thinking of this: [2] If RFC/U isn't the place to draw attention to such a problem as early as possible and try to fix it, where is? --Slp1 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Question: It's been my understanding that the Certifying users need to be someone different than the filing editor (for a total of 3 editors who object to the behavior). If this is the case, the RfC/U in question needs to be deleted (procedurally) as we only have DC (The author), and one other user certifying. Could I get a clarification? Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No, proceedurely speaking the filer is the primary certifier. However, if somebody else can not certify alongside them (ie a second person) then the RFC/U is considered uncertified. However, this one, as Jayron32, said is certified & open--Cailil talk 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I am the editor who opened the RFC/U (and the editor who has repeatedly been accused of by Shakehandsman of harassment for using the correct WP mechanisms like RFC/U, WP:BLPN, and AfD to deal with issues with editors and articles). It would have been nice to have been notified of this discussion, but no harm done. I was unfamiliar with Shakehandsman before I noticed relatively minor driving offences prominently displayed in the BLP of a current British MP. That unnecessary negative information has since removed on undue weight and BLP grounds from at least three BLPs which Shakehandsman had edited. I believe all were Labour Party (UK) MPs. Shakehandsman also created the article Driving without due care and attention using as a source a piece in the Daily Mail about charges against Labour MP Harriet Harman, the subject of previous BLP disputes involving Shakehandsman. I wholly agree with Shakehandsman that the RFC/U needs examining. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Song article violations/Tbhotch[edit]

Resolved: reporting user blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reporting Legolas2186 for violations of song articles such as Judas e.g. he has removed music genres without adding a source, and this is not the first time it has happened sadly. I think a block would be very justified.

I am also reporting Tbhotch because he is terrorizing other users, plus he is supposed to be a banned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMARANG -- MSTR (Chat Me!) 14:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This edit and This one, are the edits you should be reporting - even though you made them, yourself. -- MSTR (Chat Me!) 15:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Boomerang indeed. Blocked. Elockid (Talk) 15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Upgraded to a hardblock. This is just CharlieJS13 back again.—Kww(talk) 15:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


Did we get a new sandbox and I missed the memo? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the trouble with Wikipedia: no memos. G2-ed. Edokter (talk) — 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, is that the problem! Drmies (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh indeed. I don't understand what the question is here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
At the time of the initial post above, the content of User:Austyler/SUBP resided at WP:SUBP. The matter seems to have been taken care of. Deor (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay; no wonder Drmies was confused. Hadn't occurred to me to check the page history. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog[edit]

Once again, WP:RPP is backlogged.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup: help desperately needed[edit]

Hi. :) Help is desperately needed in the copyright cleanup department. I try to put hours into WP:CP every weekend and there are a few admins pitching in here and there, but it is backlogging nevertheless. This problem is only going to get worse now that Corensearchbot is back up and running. Great to have it, as it is the first line of defense against copyright problems, but there are only a couple of editors regularly checking WP:SCV, and one of them was just blocked as an impersonator. To boot, I've discovered that my earlier spot checks of his or her work there obviously didn't give me an accurate picture of his or her work.

We are desperately in need of more people to take on the work there. If even a couple of admins could make handling a few tickets a part of their routine, it could make quite a difference. I'm committed to continuing to help out there, but I just can't keep up with it like I used to.

Help? If you aren't familiar with the work and you want "on the job" training, just let me know. I'm very willing to help out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do some, if you train me. Face-wink.svg HurricaneFan25 13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Article Feedback Tool[edit]

Hey guys. We've just opened a Request for Comment on the Article Feedback Tool, version 5. Amongst other things, we're looking at anti-spam and anti-BLP vandalism measures, so as much participation as is possible would be most welcome :). Hope to see people there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Closure request[edit]

Hi all, we have an old unclosed deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 23, please could someone oblige? All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC related help needed[edit]

IP address, in its third edit started merge proposal on Kosovo article talk page. Bit later, User:PersonPaOpinion, (make-believe new user) in its eight edit starts supporting, while citing wikipedia guidelines. While article was carefully spited few months ago, on the agreement of the great number of editors, (with vast sockpuppets attacks), i am asking for admin help in stopping this new line of empty words, wrong unbacked POVs and false consensuses, that may create again. My proposition is that some unrelated admin interfere, and stop the agreement, close it, or guide it. I would close it, and if someone who is not sockpuppet or ip nationalistic warrior wants to propose it, but with arguments and reasons, should do it. As you know, Kosovo is under ARBMAC editing restrictions, and sockpuppets are not welcomed on its pages, because of the known reasons. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

user adding non notable persons to multiple articles[edit]

I am sorry, i just spent an hour browsing internal WP pages trying to figure out HOW to deal with this problem. but since WP is not set up in any welcoming or helpful format, i am putting the problem here. So, someone can slap me around and tell me where i should have placed it. User:Harvardcrimsonfan has been adding names of Harvard students to multiple articles as Notable residents, and notable alumni..note these are merely students who are being listed as Vollyball players or whatnot.HarvardCrimsonfan contribs These are not yet notable persons and are just cluttering up the articles in question. I have corrected the few pages that i watch but I do not want to start an edit war by correct all of their edits. I feel these edits are poorly thought out and not in the spirit of WP. Can anyone tell me where to report what i consider consistently poor editing choices? thank you EraserGirl (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably here, though I don't see much point in moving this report now that it's here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems rather innocent on first look. Harvardcrimsonfan (talk · contribs) hasn't been around but for 7 months and hasn't made but less than 100 edits. Reverting their edits per WP:NNC is the correct thing to do. Going forward, the only thing that appears necessary is leave a {{subst:welcome}} template on their talk page plus add a personal note about adding non-notable folks to articles. -- (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your helpful answer. I have not had good experiences when it came to internal WP issues. I have been keeping myself to myself but this seemed a little over the top to ignore. EraserGirl (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandalism from WMF IP?[edit]

Can anyone explain this edit from an IP that is registered to the Wikimedia Foundation? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, a WMF conspiracy...Doughnuthead is working for the WMF! <laughs evilly> HurricaneFan25 23:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Because User:Doughnuthead is using an XFF. --MuZemike 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought the software didn't believe XFF's except from a carefully-chosen hand-picked and validated set of source IP addresses of ISP proxies? If XFF is being used to forge source IPs, the devs need to stamp on it immediately. Can someone please bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia ops team? -- The Anome (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone contacted WMF about this? LadyofShalott 23:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Let me know if you see any more edits from other WMF IPs. Prodego talk 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Can you tell us a bit more about what the problem was, and how it got fixed? -- The Anome (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That squid server was not added to $wgSquidServersNoPurge when it was deployed, causing it not to be a trusted XFF source. MuZemike's statement above touches on the problem (it does involve XFF), but is otherwise incorrect. It is a much less serious issue, fixed by wmf staffer Reedy by adding the server to the list. Prodego talk 01:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you, that makes a lot more sense. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Attention to Georgian Shepherd Dog[edit]

Would someone please look at Georgian Shepherd Dog. It is an absolute mess and new user ArsA-92 (talk · contribs) is having some problems with copyright and WP:OWN issues. (After I cleaned it up reversion of good changes again). I tried reaching out to this user (who might become a helpful editor with some experience), but that was rejected.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The return of Jason Gastrich?[edit]

Review requested for topic ban closure[edit]

I recently closed an AN/I topic ban proposal as follows: "For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from 'moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles', broadly construed."

Dolovis requested on his talk page clarifications of exactly what he could and could not do. My responses are bolded.

  1. May I create articles? Yes, you may create articles.
  2. May I create redirects for articles which are not diacritic related? Yes, so long as a reasonable person would not view the redirect(s) created as an attempt to skirt the topic ban.
  3. May I create redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics? No.
  4. May I move articles which are not diacritic related? No, but you may request at WP:RM any article move so long as the move has nothing at all do do with diacritics.
  5. May I invoke WP:BRD for articles that are boldly moved other editors? No.
  6. May I request other editors to invoke WP:BRD on my behalf? No.
  7. May I request moves via WP:RM? Yes, but only moves that have nothing at all to do with diacritics.
  8. May I take part in RM discussions? Yes, but only to the degree of expressing your support or opposition for a move, with an explanation/reasoning for it. You may not otherwise debate with the other participants of the move discussion, such as by replying to their support or opposition with a rebuttal.
  9. May I edit articles that contain diacritics? Only if you make no changes whatsoever to the diacritics: no adding or removing any, or, in the case of articles that have a mix of uses, changing the balance of the uses to favor one of the uses.

Dolovis is unhappy with these clarifications. I believe they are necessary to prevent further recurrences of problematic behavior and are quite fair given the consensus at the AN/I discussion. Nonetheless, I have offered to put my closure and clarifications up for review here. If consensus is that the closure and clarifications are unfair or otherwise unnecessarily broad to prevent disruption and gaming, then I will be happy to adjust them accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable clarification to me. What is the problem? Is there some argument that it's unclear/ambiguous, or is there some desire for Dolovis to do a bunch of other diacritic-related edits? (the former seems reasonable enough; the latter is something we ought to prevent). bobrayner (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
28bytes's closure and clarifications appear fine to me. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerning Point #9, Dolovis shouldn't be barred from hiding/deleting diacritics from North American based hockey articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying the closure was incorrect, but it leaves an awkward situation. Personally, I'd like Dolovis to be able to request moves at WP:RM in some situations. Say he creates "John Smith" about an Eastern European hockey player. That person's native name is "Jöhn Smíth" and someone moves the article to that title with the summary "diacritics". Now, even though Dolovis is the only significant contributor to the article, he is unable to revert (fair enough) or even take it to discussion. I'd propose that Dolovis should be able to propose moves at WP:RM when he is a significant contributor to the specific article and it has been recently moved without discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the restrictions, but I have a much different take on the consensus, so I must disagree with the interpretation. The ban concerned gaming more than advocacy. The discussion at the bottom of the ban is relevant (Question on scope of topic ban). Here's my take.
  1. Disagree. Dolovis may not create any article (or redirect) that has a diacritic in its title. This is to prevent gaming. He may create articles without diacritic titles. I am reading no diacritic article creation into the ban. Basically, Dolovis does not like articles with diacritcs, so he would not reasonably be creating such an article (except to game).
  2. Agree.
  3. Disagree. Dolovis may make a nondiacritic redirect to a diacritic article. That allows Dolovis to contribute by making diacritic names accessible. The ANI issue was Dolovits salting diacritic titles; he was not salting nondiacritic titles. The language in the ban proposal can be read either way, but the trouble is "Editing redirects currently at diacritic titles". He may not make a diacritic redirect pointing to a diacritic or nondiacritic article.
  4. Disagree. Dolovis was originally banned from moving any article July 13, 2011,[3]. The ban allowed him to request moves via RM. That ban was modified to only cover diacritic articles on October 8, 2011.[4] If the relaxed modification is in place, he may move a nondiacritic article to a new nondiacritic name without going through RM.
  5. Disagree. Dolovis may invoke BRD on a move when diacritics are not involved. (Same ban modification argument.)
  6. Agree. Dolovis may not use an agent to avoid a ban. Under the earlier ban, if he wants an article moved, he must go through RM. He has no other avenue.
  7. Disagree. Dolovis may request any move (including diacritics) via WP:RM. There was some discussion about Dolovits being disruptive in his advocacy (I made such a comment), but the ANI was not about his beliefs but about him gaming the system by salting moves.
  8. Disagree. There was concern about overzealous advocacy, but no limitation on RM discussions. (Frankly, I think this limitation is a very good idea and Dolovis should follow it.) A comment was that the ban should not prevent Dolovis from civily and constructively participating in discussions. The keys being "civil", "constructive", and "participate". His POV pushing was mentioned at the start, but the disruptive nature of his advocacy was not addressed in the ban proposal nor did it get many comments.
  9. Agree. Changing diacritics in an article is not stated but is implied.
Glrx (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
While Glrx's reading of #9 is not quite so clear from the ban, I fully agree with the rest of it. And given the fact that the history is of Dolovis trying to force his prefered titles by making moves into the diacritic-containing names impossible for non-admins, I'm not sure that this is necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The wording of Glrx's #1 concerns me. The problem (broadly) is Dolovis' stance against diacritics. This restriction (if it allows creation at all) thus needs to prevent Dolovis from creating articles that omit diacritics where consensus holds they ought to be present. First and foremost, the ban should prevent this. I'd have no problem with him doing it the other way (using the accepted diacritics), although it seems unlikely, given past behaviour, he'd even wish to do this. Dolovis should still be permitted to create articles on topics where there are simply no diacritics involved (and "I didn't know he used diacritics" would be a poor excuse, likely to cause the ban's extension). For any articles involving diacritics, known diacritics, or personal names of Eastern European ancestry and a "reasonable chance" of diacritics, then he ought to stay well away. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
@Od Mishehu re #9. I see this as a broad reading about changing diacritics in titles. If there is a wiki-link within an article, that wiki-link involves the title of an article. It seems a bit absurd to say that D must use RM to move an article to his preferred title, but he may change any wiki-links to the title spelling that he prefers. Yes, non-admins may revert those changes, but "otherwise changing titles, broadly construed" may cover wiki-link titles, so 28byte's clarification is reasonable.
@Andy Dingley re #1. I'm sympathetic, but the ban is not about using or not using diacritics -- it is about behavior. The diacritic issue is unsettled, and ANI isn't there to decide the issue. Dolovis should be able to add content without butting up against the diacritics issue or having his nose rubbed in it. Dolovis is probably more clever than I; he is certainly more motivated. If someone is allowed to create diacritic articles, then I can see a way to turn those diacritic articles into salted diacritic redirects without violating the bans.
Glrx (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis was banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". Broadly construed or not, it seems like a real stretch to interpret that editing a wikilink would somehow change that article's title. Jafeluv (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Seeing the games played makes the post "Request for move 'Føö' to 'Foo' as all the articles use the redirect 'Foo'." a real possibility after alld of the links have been edited to use the redirect. - J Greb (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That would fall under "otherwise changing the titles", wouldn't it? In any case, I don't think it would be appropriate to try to interpret the restrictions beyond what the ban actually says -- especially when at the same time people are accusing Dolovis of wikilawyering and gaming the system. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And this is a perfect example of what Dolovis does. He will find any possible ambiguity or perceived weakness and argue about it over and over again in a clear attempt to tire out what he considers his opponents so they give up and stop debating with him. There were a number people in that discussion that advocated for a full out diacritics topic ban. So I believe the restrictions he was given were fully in line with that. I think 28bytes answers were fine, they even allowed him to !vote in RMs which a normal topic ban wouldn't have allowed so if anything they were laxer than people requested. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd made a few comments when this was running on Dolovis' talk page - [5] - regarding providing him an extremely limited venue to use t o try and gain back the community's good faith. These are reliant on WP:HOCKEY/PPF#Diacritics. I'm incorporating those here.
    1. I agree with Glrx. By stated stance , Dolovis does not want articles with diuretics. While it is unlikely that he would create an article with such, there is no reason to leave this as a loophole in the ban.
    2. Agreed.
    3. Mostly I agree with Glrx. The creation of reasonable redirects under titles without diacritics that point to existent article under a title with diacritics is a productive area. "Reasonable" though is limited to needed or likely needed redirects. Based on WP:HOCKEY's guideline, such redirects can, and IMO should, be used in the non-Quebec North American team and tourney articles.
      • Common sense though with 2 and 3 though is that he is not to create redirects with diacritics in the titles. Full stop.
    4. Articles - and I'd say pages - with old or new names with diacritics are off the table for him to boldly move. Full stop. So should article, or pages, that have, or are likely to have, diacritic titled redirects. Beyond that should be fair game.
    5. As with 4 - not with pages with a diacritic title, a redirect with a diacritic title, or like to have a redirect with a diacritic title.
      • Side issue A) I am not too adverse to him stating in a RM request that it is BRD based - as long as he clearly states the move is to be duscussed and that he is using RM as he is under restrictions.
      • Side issue B) I do have an issue with him bemoaning his being curtailed in the application of BRD - an essay that is trated as a de facto guideline - while he has no problem with preventing the use of WP:BOLD - guideline in fact as well as name - by other editors at his own whim. (Yes this was pointed out to him see [6].)
    6. Agree
    7. Also agree with Glrx, though with the same side caveat A as with 5.
    8. I still hold to the statement Glrx quotes. I'd rather Dolovis participates in the discussions and remember how he participates is something others will be looking at.
    9. I agree, to a degree. There is a very limited articles set that currently has any level of consensus about the use of diacritics - see the HOCKEY guideline I pointed to above. GoodDay has pointed out on Dolovis talk page that this is an area where Dolovis can be productive and allows for the removal of diacritics on some articles.
- J Greb (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • J Greb, you seem to be under the misconception that I have been actively BOLDLY moving articles away from diacritics. That would be wrong, as it is others who are moving the articles without consensus. I drew their ire when I reverted some of these moves, as was my right until they successfully implemented a ban to prevent me from challenging their moves. I do not disapprove of diacritics, but I am an advocate for the use of RM when moving articles away from their COMMONNAME. Dolovis (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    Cmt: bold moves by Dolovis to a non-diacritical title not preceded by a move to a diacritical title: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    The double standard being placed upon me is obvious and disturbing. Other editors and bots, such as RjwilmsiBot, continue to make[12] hundreds, if not thousands, of second edits for the purpose of redirect tagging. As has been identified here and in ANI, this has the effect of preventing non-Admin editors from making BOLD moves, and thus (following the logic for my topic ban) is disruptive. I was blocked for one week, and now have a wide topic ban, for placing four redirect tags. What administrative action will be done to prevent those other thousands of “disruptive” edits from being made? Dolovis (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    That bot doesn't have a history of purposefully doing it to be disruptive like you do. You admitted to doing it solely to stop people from making moves. The fact that people can't make moves after the bot edits is a side effect of its edit, not the purpose of its edit like yours were. You were shown you can't be trusted to edit properly thus you are now held to a higher standard, that is how the wiki works. You had a chance to contribute constructively instead you battled with people and ended up with sanctions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    Is there a diff for the "You admitted..."? I missed it in the earlier discussions, and it seems relevant here. Glrx (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    In October 2011: "...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)...". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    Beat me to it. Also relevant is his promise "I have heard the concerns and I promise to not create redirects (see WP:REDCAT) using multiple edits." from his original ban. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The terms of the topic ban remains as clear as mud. Let me try this one question at a time. Am I able to make diacritic related move requests though RM? Yes or No. Dolovis (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No. 28bytes' #7 is crystal clear. Don't play that game here. Glrx (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Response by Dolovis[edit]

I am an experienced editor who makes constructive edits to Wikipedia. Any careful review of my edit history will confirm this. I was not able to actively take part in the topic ban discussion because I was blocked for one-week for making proper redirects that follow the instructions of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT because in four instances two edits were used at the time of creation (seriously). Yes, I had previously been banned from from making diacritic-related moves, but not from creating redirects, and no warning was given in advance of the block, (but I digress from the topic at hand).

When I create and edit articles, I follow the policies of Wikipedia, including the policies of WP:Article titles (which includes WP:COMMONNAME) and the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. There are several editors who have been aggressively pursuing a FAIT ACCOMPLI strategy of moving articles to titles containing diacritics and other modified letters wherever possible and with no regard for WP:COMMONNAME. These editors include User:HandsomeFella, the editor who instigated the topic ban against me, and who is an outspoken editor who strongly favours the use of diacritics in articles titles wherever possible. HandsomeFella has, in the recent past, uncivilly and falsely called me “The diacritic-hating one-man wrecking crew”[13], and he labelled one successful RM instigated by me as “a disruptive RM in violation of WP:HOCKEY and WP:COMMONSENSE”[14], and he is an editor who himself has moved numerous files to articles titles with diacritics including [15],[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24].

On January 5th, 28bytes' placed the following topic ban on my account: You are indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles, broadly construed."[25]. His statement that the topic ban would be “broadly construed” terrifies me as it might mean that I could be blocked the moment that I make any edit to any article that contains any modified letters. Upon requesting clarification, he informed me that I was additionally banned from:

  1. creating English-language redirects pointing towards an article that uses diacritics;
  2. from using the core Wikipedia policy of WP:BRD to contest a controversial move (and even from requesting another editor to undo controversial moves on my behalf);
  3. from even making diacritic-related move requests at WP:RM;
  4. from fully participating in move discussions; and
  5. from freely editing articles (under this restriction I could be blocked if I even add an additional reference to an article which does not further support the diacritic-form of a person's name).

The true fact is that I am being held to a higher standard than any other editor on Wikipedia. This ban prevents me from openly voicing my opinion in discussions, where I have advocated that the existing policies of Wikipedia should be followed. This ban amounts to censorship against me, and must be reviewed by uninvolved, unbiased, and informed editors. I thank you for your review of this situation. Dolovis (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I have serious reservations about your notion of "fully participating in move discussions". Your advocacy is overzealous. Glrx (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    This is an example of my oponents throwing out unverifiable statement about my editing. Show me the dif where my advocacy has been disruptively overzealous so other editors may draw their own conclusions. Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Dolovis, you should probably appeal your ban to ArbCom. If anything is to be learned from this type of community discussions is that they usually result in "no consensus to overturn the ban". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Dolovis, if it was a toss-up between being restricted by means of a topic ban, or an indefinite block, which would you prefer? Personally, I would support you being allowed to raise possible moves at WP:RM. Your past behaviour has led to you being placed under these conditions, so don't moan on here that you are being held to a higher standard of behaviour than other (non-disruptive) editors. The topic ban is indefinite, which means "without a set length of time before it expires". Should you prove that you can edit in a collaborative way and accept consensus over the use of diacritics, then the topic ban may be looked at at some point in the future. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      With over 30,000 constructive edits I have demonstrated that I do edit collaboratively, and that I do accept the consensus over the use of diacritics, which is spelled out at WP:COMMONNAME. If you are aware of a different consensus which has over-turned the policy of COMMONNAME, please point me to that consensus. I have strongly advocated the use of WP:RM for controversial moves. Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      I'll see your 30,000 edits and raise you my 100,000 edits. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Number of edits don't show you edit collaboratively. A person could have 1 million edits and never talk to another user. Editing collaboratively requires discussing topics in a civil manor and not resorting to attacking user and trying to find loopholes to get your way such as your admitted use of double editing redirects to stop others from being able to move articles. Such edits show that you actually go out of your way not to be collaborative. Many users have asked you to stop your disruptive methods and discuss your issues in a centralized location civilly. You did not do so. As such you now find yourself in the position you are in now. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed, he made such a request in the past, and the community agreed to relax his original restrictions. Our trust was subsequently abused, so here we are again. I would add that I endorse 28bytes' interpretations. Dolovis' response is precisely why we use the phrase "broadly construted" on these things, because he is showing he intends to try and wikilawyer around the edges of this as far as we will let him. Resolute 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
        • My stated concern here is that Admin 28bytes has over-stated the topic ban, and that the topic ban he has defined if too vague and too broad. My stated arguments are supported by facts and policy. You don't like my policy-supported logic, so you call it wikilawyering. Even though I disagreed with the previous ban, I followed it without exception. That demonstrates that I do follow a consensus even though I disagree with it. I followed the ban - I did not abuse your trust. I was subsequently blocked for one week for performing proper edits that were not ban restricted. No one else has ever been blocked for creating a perfectly valid redirects, double-edits or not - and I was blocked without warning. In any event, multiple edits to a redirect cannot be considered disruptive because all controversial moves should go through WP:RM. Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
          Dolovis, I once wrote a very short essay, and I think it applies to your approach to dispute resolution on these redirects as well. As for the other issue, complaints that community restrictions are too vague and too broad are not unheard of, and are within ArbCom's remit. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Motion for example. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blue Ivy Carter[edit]

Congratulations to Jay-Z and Beyoncé Knowles on the birth of their daughter, Blue Ivy Carter. Now we have repeated attempts to create an article for the baby, mostly consisting of one line and a link to an article (though NB: One was also vandalism). I've speedy deleted the last attempt and locked the title for 3 days, pending discussion. I'm inclined to redirect to the Beyoncé article, either to the article itself or the section dealing with the birth, but wanted input first. The father's article might be a target (though not a better one, imo), and note that Jay-Z also wrote a song specifically about the birth (and naming the child), so the song's article (if any) might be a reasonable target as well. Should we go ahead with a redirect, or move this discussion to a better venue? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A redir is necessary, but I don't think redir to the song is appropriate, as that makes a minor song article into a BLP. It's mother's song, send the baby redir to her. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 13:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do that. Given the repeated attempts at an article, does anything preclude a protected redirect? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I've created the redir. Personally, now that it's a redir, I'd be inclined to unprotect or at least reduce to semi. As it's an R-to-section, semi would allow regular users to fix that when the Beyonce article gets its sections renamed. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I've semi-protected the redirect. Thanks all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection of Indians_in_Afghanistan[edit]


Hello there,

There seems to be a lot of aggressive editing by IPs on the Indians_in_Afghanistan page, with one IP continually violating the three-revert rule. Can the article be made semi-protected?

Kind regards

--Rvd4life (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - additional test deployment[edit]

Hey guys,

Just keeping you in the loop; we're going to be testing another change to the Article Feedback Tool on starting today, January 11. So far, we've done a bit of small-scale experimentation with the actual design of the tool, as announced on the blog, the village pump, and on various mailing lists. This has all been on a tiny fraction of articles (~22k total articles, about 0.6% of the English Wikipedia), and a lot of really useful data has been gathered without bothering the vast majority of editors or readers. Ideally, that's what we'd aim for with all tests :).

Even with Wikipedia readership reaching half a billion users per month, the feedback form its current position (at the end of the article) doesn’t see a whole lot of activity. In this test, we’ll be experimenting with a more prominent way to access to tool. When a user loads the page with the test version of the Article Feedback Tool, they will see an “Improve this article” link docked on the bottom right hand corner of the page (please see this for a mockup). Since this link is docked, it will stay with the reader while they’re reading the article. The introduction of this link will undoubtedly increase the amount of feedback. We need to, however, understand how it affects the quality of the feedback. We genuinely don't know what the impact will be, which is why we're doing these tests :). As with the last tests, it'll be on a very small subset of articles and probably won't be noticed by most people.

If you do encounter it, and it does bug you, you can turn it off just by going into Preferences > Appearance > Don't show me the article feedback widget on pages. If you've already ticked this option, the new link shouldn't appear at all; please do let me know if it does. We are working on a way to disable it "in-line" as well so you can simply dismiss the link without going to preferences.

We’ll also be doing some preliminary analysis on whether such a prominent link cannibalizes editing behavior. The team is very aware that the new link may compete with the edit tab and section edit links. Since the test version of the tool is deployed on a limited number of articles, we will only get a rough read on how much, if any, cannibalization takes place. Per our research plan, we’ll continue to monitor the tradeoff between giving feedback and editing.

If any of you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me or drop a note on the talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Warning embedded/hidden in edit-text?[edit]

Wasn't sure where to bring this. Can someone go Jim Rome and click edit, and tell me if the warnings embedded/hidden in the article code are normal/allowable? And, if so, under what policy or guideline would the rules regarding this be found. I see the good intentions of doing this, but I also see a large potential for vandalism if it's permissible to "hide" messages in the edit-text. Also, it's kind of bean-y to say what not to do. I mean, if I was a vandal, I would never have thought to change his name to "Pterodactyl" until seeing that. Anyway, sorry if the warnings are standard procedure, I just wasn't sure what I was looking at. Quinn WINDY 21:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, hidden text is not that unusual. Help:Hidden text gives some reasons when and when not to use it. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please create a redirect from Klein–Gordon field (with an endash) to Klein–Gordon equation[edit]

I tried to create

Klein–Gordon field

with the content

#REDIRECT [[–Gordon equation]]

and it said the title is blacklisted (which seems rather unlikely). Note that we already have Klein-Gordon field, a redirect with the same target.

False vacuum (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Note that you don't need the "" business in the redirect; I'm not sure if that's why it was giving you an error message. 28bytes (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The incorrect format is exactly why it was giving the error message: there's an edit filter to prevent that sort of malformed redirect. --Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
As well there should be. Sorry for being stupid. (I've created many redirects before, so why I screwed up this one is a mystery to me.) False vacuum (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

New format opposed[edit]

Sock confirmed and blocked.
Amalthea 12:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was a discussion about adopting a new format at This was suggested by Rademire and was opposed by Mittal.fdk. The reason for the opposition was that "I disagree that this page is better than the former." Lately it has come to notice that the page has been changed to a different format. Can the Admins restore it?Aheadearth (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to Admins, this user passes the duck test outstandingly. Just awaiting CU to confirm as most recent sockpuppet of Chanakya.TalkWoe90i 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting Wingard[edit]

I am reporting User:Wingard because they are continually removing commas from dates from several daytime soap opera pages, claiming they've never seen commas in dates. The commas have always been there, and it's quite disruptive. We've tried being nice, but they aren't listening. Please help, thank you! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

They have been blocked for edit warring by Daniel Case. TNXMan 19:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

review of some revdels requested[edit]

See [26], the revdel done on January 3 seems highly inapropriate, the summary the admin doiong them used makes it clear that they completely do not understand what revdel is for, as they indicate that their edits were "silly mistakes" so they went and removed them entirely, even coming back and removing their own username from the page history. This is exactly what revdel is not for, I can't imagine why he thought it appropriate to use it in this manner to hide his own mistakes. I would revert the revdel myself but I recently had a minor disagreement with this admin so I'd like fresh eyes on this. I did try to discuss this with them first on their talk page but they seem to have taken a wiki-break and have not replied to my inquiries about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation. The very first warning on the revdel page reads: "Redaction to hide block log entries or hide mere poorly considered actions, criticisms, posts, etc, outside these criteria and without required consensus, or agreement by the arbitration committee, will usually be treated as improper use and may lead to arbitration and/or desysopping." (emphasis mine) TNXMan 19:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, that's not what revdel is for. It appears the admin misunderstood RD6. 28bytes (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think what we've got here is a well-meaning admin who took a long break from using their tools and came back to a Wikipedia they didn't really understand anymore. Our initial disagreement was over one revert I made of an edit of his, next thing I knew he was over at ANI accusing me of wheel warring. [27]Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that is not a valid use of RevDel and those 3 entries should be undeleted. GB fan 19:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Would someone care to do that and then inform him of the results? I don't think he is interssted in listening to me so it would be best if someone else handled that end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about RFC/U[edit]

I originally posted this on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, but perhaps I am more likely to get an answer here.

I have recently started an RFC/U for an editor with what I perceive as a pattern of problematic editing (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman). After failing to have the RFC/U shut down with threads on AN and AN/I, the editor has now declared that they have left Wikipedia. I am concerned that this editor may simply wait for things to settle down and return to editing, or just create another account in order to avoid the RFC/U altogether. I suppose my question is this - if an editor ducks out of an RFC/U by falsely claiming to leave Wikipedia, can the RFC/U be re-opened once the editor commences editing again (with the same or a new account)? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I know of at least one that's being put on held indefinitely (though I don't think he'll come back, it's not impossible). There's also an arbitration case in this state as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can put RFC/Us on hold. Despite the number of editors who think they'll just duck out until it all blows over (partly driven by their erroneous belief that there's a strict 30-day timer on RFC/Us, so if they take a 30-day wikibreak, they can ignore the whole thing), it's not commonly done, but the usual process seems to be adding a short note to the page explaining the situation and then removing the link from the list of open RFC/Us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that the same principle applies even if an RFC/U is not explicitly put on hold? If an editor returns after an RFC/U has been closed due to inactivity (i.e., the editor left), the RFC/U is no more or less resolved than one which has explicitly been put on hold. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As the admin who placed it on hold, you might have just asked me or at least bothered to let me know about this thread. If you actually bother to read the statements I made on both the RFCU itself [28] and the talk page [29] you would find that I made all this perfectly clear when doing the close. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I think anyone who looks at the RFC/U which I linked above will see that. I am sorry that I didn't notify you of this thread, but although prompted by the Shakehandsman case, the question I have is more general. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It was also already answered, so I'm a little unclear on why you felt the need to ask it at all, let alone go to arbcom about it, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why you find thread annoying, but read my question above. That is the question I am asking and it has not been answered. If you believe your statements at the Shakehandsman RFC/U answer it, please spell it out for me because I can be a little slow sometimes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There is another example of an RfC/U on permanent hold at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey. Perhaps it would be worth having three categories for RfC/Us – open, closed, on hold. --JN466 20:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but does "closed" mean "closed" or "on hold" if an editor returns to editing? What if an editor is found to have returned to editing with a new username, but their RFC/U was not placed "on hold" because it was believed that they left the project? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any new categories or procedures are needed. If the situation you describe were to come to pass, the old RFC could be re-opened, or a new one with links to the old one, or, more likely straight to arbcom since it would be clear they did in fact leave just to shut down the RFC. Something like that has happened, in the case of A Nobody (talk · contribs). He kept making lame excuses, first for ignoring an RFC and then an Arbcom case. When it became clear he was full of it he was banned. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


I have noticed that many of Matt2005 (talk · contribs) edits have been disruptive, but had not been reverted. I have gone through the United Stated Network Schedules, but there are probably 250 other edits that need to be looked at.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some pending RPP requests[edit]

WP:RPP has some rather old unanswered requests waiting for someone with the mop.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done TNXMan 16:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Community consultation on SOPA act[edit]

Not strictly an administrator's item, but probably of great interest... In order to allow time for the WMF to technologically support any action taken regarding WP:SOPA, we need to be able to begin preparing in advance. For that reason, we are launching a discussion to try to determine what consensus may have developed for community response. Please weigh in on the consultation page, at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Username issue - grandfather rights?[edit]

Today, I came across (talk · contribs). Noticing the username was in violation of WP:UN I gave the user a welcome and issued a warning re the username. I did not block the editor as I wanted to give them a chance to respond. On checking whether or not Teskey had edited since I informed them of the issue, I discovered that this editor had been editing sporadically since 2006. It struck me that this could be another case similar to (talk · contribs), which was also created before the policy was formulated - see (see discussion from 2009). Therefore I would ask that Teskey is granted grandfather rights. A change of name should be encouraged, but it cannot be demanded. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If they've been editing without trouble since 2006, I'd certainly be happy to let them keep their username. 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. I suspect the user may be related to be User:Teskey as there looks to be a similar editing history. If they lost the account there may be a possibility to usurp the account. --RA (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way of searching all registered usernames to find ones that (1) have the @ character, and (2) are not blocked? Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? As far as I know, it is not possible any more to create user names with "@" in them, so all you'd find would be user names that have been created before the rule to forbid them was established. Therefore there'd be no reason for us to do anything about it. --Conti| 18:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any need to go there with this name, but for future reference we do have a dedicated noticeboard for such discussions at WP:RFCN. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
My point was that we could find all the existing usernames and let their owners know that they're grandfathered, lest someone later come along and try to block them because of the policy. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Nyttend had a point there. If all user who have e-mail addresses as their username and are grandfathered in could be sought out, then the fact can be recorded on their talk page so that if another editor stumbles across them and attempts to report them, they will be aware that there will not be any action taken over the user name. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a good idea. Now back to the question of how to do it.... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure its a great idea. Do we have any evidence that such users are being inappropriately blocked? If they are not, I think we can leave well enough alone; this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. I patrol UAA fairly regularly, and I and several other regular admins there (AFAIK) are pretty concientious at looking for grandfather issues and are highly unlikely to block borderline cases like this outright. --Jayron32 03:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a note at WP:UN saying that it is not possible to create such usernames now and any that are found have been granted grandfather rights would suffice to cover the situation? Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
They are grandfathered in. I don't know where that is documented, but I know we don't do forced renames or blocks for this sort of thing. MBisanz talk 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:UN#Exceptions already mentions the idea of grandfathered usernames. I don't know that any more policy guidance is needed; it is not possible to account for every grandfathered username, except to say that blocking someone who has been editing at Wikipedia for years, for a username violation, is universally a bad idea. WP:UAA instablocks should usually be for very new accounts, anything which has been around and active for a long time should, at worst, be taken to WP:RFCN and in most cases should be left alone. --Jayron32 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Could an admin please have a word with this user? I have tried twice [30][31] to speak to this user about using edit summaries, only to be summarily reverted. Given their penchant for multiple edits to a single page, it's rather annoying to have to look at each edit to try and figure out what they're doing. Will notify. → ROUX  17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess my question would be - are there specific issues with their edits that are masked by their non-use of edit summaries? I don't believe that edit summary use is enforceable by any current policy. I didn't see that they have ever used edit summaries, and their blanking of the talk notice indicates that they have read your note. Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I read and blanked the talk notice. Since I don't know what an 'edit summary' is, I am glad to see the use of edit summaries is not mandatory. Victoriaedwards (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For your edification, I present the English Language wikipedia players performance of WP:ES. I do note that Roux's notes did not include a link to that, but at the same time I view the statement of a long-term contributor not knowing what an edit summary is with some bemusement. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Syrthiss. As a long-term contributor, I have been 'briefly describing the changes I have made' using 'Edit summary', and will continue to do so. (: Victoriaedwards (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I see where you have occasionally done so, but it would be helpful to other editors if you did so more consistently. Looking at your last 200 or so edits, it seems like you only do so about once every 25-50 times you edit an article. This isn't really a good thing, you should enter an edit summery after every edit. In the edit summary box below the edit window, please write a brief description of what you do, and do so each time you make a change to an article. Doing so is helpful to other editors, which is why you should do it. Not doing things because they are, in your words, "not mandatory" is not a good way to work in collaboration with thousands of other people. It would be best if you did things that were helpful or useful for others, instead of demanding to be forced to do them. --Jayron32 20:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protection icon[edit]



It's been so long since I last page protected anything, I had to resort to going back to New Admin School! Anyway, I have semi-protected Romania, and added a small pp icon to the page... but for some reason I can't see the icon. What have I done wrong? Stephen! Coming... 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's showing up OK for me. Cache issue, perhaps? 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably. I have refreshed the page on my PC, and it still isn't showing. I suspect that my PC needs to be upgraded to something a little faster - maybe a modem attached to an abacus. Still, at least I managed to do it correctly, even if I did need to check I had done it right! Cheers Stephen! Coming... 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ooooh! A 300-baud acoustic-coupled modem? Awesomeness! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin, please [dispute at WP:TITLE][edit]

Could we have an uninvolved admin, preferably one who has not edited or discussed with the conflicting parties, to close the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording? This is the very start of a policy.

The unhappy brave volunteer who answers this call will find a great deal more has happened since, chiefly bitter protests against the poll, and revert-warring on the page itself. But I do not want to raise behavioral issues; this has had quite enough drama. I think that if we have a closure on the poll, the rest of the matter will go away. JCScaliger (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. That short-lived RFC was started in good faith to resolve an issue that had not been settled in unruly discussion that preceded. It was immediately subverted, in controversial circumstances, and I for one explicitly abandoned any involvement. A travesty of due process cannot be thought to reflect consensus for a major provision of core titling policy.
The accompanying disputes have been carried on at diverse pages (including here, WP:ANI, WP:3RRN, various user talkpages, with related discussion at WT:DAB and several contested RMs). Frankly belligerent and false statements are still being made about the history of the wording involved. As a participant consistently calling for orderly, collegial process and a fresh look at all the issues, I have been intimidated to the extent that I will not post at WT:TITLE until there is a moderation in behaviour.
If the matter is to be reviewed, let it be done thoroughly and let it be done centrally: perhaps here, where we might expect participants' conduct to be better. At least it would be under scrutiny.
NoeticaTea? 00:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Duplicate. This is a duplicate request. Another request for closing this RFC has been listed here since January 4th, above. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I have added a note at that other request, suggesting that it might be considered superseded. This new request supplies more detail. NoeticaTea? 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action & watchlist notification[edit]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action is it possible to add it to watchlist notifications? Bulwersator (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's already a project-wide banner ad, but in any event the place to ask about this would be MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It may be better to duplicate it as maybe somebody disabled irritating banners Bulwersator (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What to do about this AfD?[edit]

I came across this AfD. It's untranscluded, but reading some of the comments I don't think that transcluding it is the right step to take. Could an admin do what they think is the best course of action for this? — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added an AfD header and listed it in today's list so that it gets a full 7-day discussion. --MuZemike 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Transcluding it is always appropriate, unless one of the speedy keep criteria apply. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Improve this page" toast[edit]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Personally, I think the "Improve this page" toast at the bottom right obstructs the text in the article. It would be better located at the bottom of the article or in the sidebar. X-Fi6 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take this issue to WP:VPT, it is not really an administrative issue, and personally I don't even know what you are talking about, so you should probably specify what device and what browser you are using. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this? You can leave a message on the talk page for the people who are developing the tool. --Kateshortforbob talk 12:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfair and shortsighted[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, Please explain me something,

For the last few days I have been trying to add some information about sex toys to wikipedia. All information were significant, not intending to promote brand, but to write about milestones that have been made. And I have add really small information about three gadgets - 2 vibrators and 1 dildo. 1st vibrator is a vibrator that received a very important award for its design - for a first time a sex toy was awarded!, second is a male vibrator (you have not mentioned it in your text, than there was a dildo which is a first art piece design by a street artist that is at the same time fully functional dildo. There is nothing like this in the world.

You ask for references and links to prove a person knows what one writes, yet you reject information from the source itself. If I wanted to promote brand, I would add any photo and any vibrator just to show the brand. I am showing something historical. If you talk about historical thing such as turning original "green outfit" of a Santa Clause to a "red" one everyone knows now, by a commercial company, since it was made by Coca Cola, you reject it in Wikipedia since it's a brand that is being promoted this way? Yes, it's coca cola in their advertisements changed and promoted "new Santa"!

I dont understand why I have to be no-one and have nothing to do with the brand to be reliable source of valuable information. Yes, I do know the brand - I do photos for them and keep Facebook Profile for Polish funs alive. I am a sex educator and had been doing sex education for years before I found out about Fun Factory. For me finding really fun stuff on internet and wikipedia is a great value - I have always appreciated idea to have been able to get to know really hot interesting stuff. When I stumble uppon Delight (Red Dot Award winner first time in history for a sex toy), Jim O. (dildo by Boris Hoppek street artist) and Duke (male vibrator) I was wondering WHY noboby wrote about things like that on wikipedia. As a sex educator I woul LOVE to know these things. I would LOOOOVE to see those gadgets.

I believie this is highly unfair and shortsighted rejecting information just because it comes from the source and only because it comes from a commercial company look at this as filthy self-promoting brand. I believe this kind of information, if it makes knowledge wider, should be desired at any times!

I do not agree with throwing out my contributions to Vibrator (sex toy) definition. They were significant in meritorical sense.

Regards, Anna Moderska (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Read up on original research and reliable sources. These are our policies, and they apply equally to all articles (as best we can). If you can learn to write within these policies, you will more likely succeed. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the difficulty that such articles have had, arises in part from the difficulty of finding reliable sources. It is possible to write them: if, and only if there are good 3rd party sources. If the award was one notable in the mainstream, not just this field, and if it was covered in substantial coverage by mainstream reliable sources, not just press releases or based on press releases, do that one first. Try it as a subpage of you userpage, by starting the page User:Mordovska/whateverthenameis and let someone experience look at it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Old RM never closed[edit]

Could an admin please close Talk:Seattle Sounders#Re-requested move as appropriate? Thanks, Number 57 11:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New method for article quality evaluation[edit]

This was proposed by my 6-year old at breakfast, prompted by my "Ask Me About Wikipedia" shirt:

Whenever I color someone's Wikipedia blue that means they didn't do a good job. They get a zero. Whenever they get a pink circle that means they did really really really bad. If they get this color [holds up yellow marker] they get a one THOUSAND.

Fellow editors, you are placed on notice: the time for screwing around is over. I've notified the Foundation of course, in the usual way. Please, let's make this a yellow day. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything to obtain "OVER 9000!"? Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is probably as good a system as the feedback tool that was introduced last year. Is she open to bribery? Something that would survive a journey across the Atlantic? - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the shirt read "Ask me about Wikipedia."? I don't believe that there is a need for capitalisation and the period is missing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Mine says, "ASK ME ABOUT WIKIPEDIA" (no punctuation). So I guess I'm shouting when I wear it. Any complaints should be addressed to the Foundation, as they ordered the shirts. -- Donald Albury 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Blocked them all. All that shouting is disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have one :) If I did then perhaps "Ask me about Wikipedia?" would reflect my nature best. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC) ::::::You don't have one cause you didn't get to hang with the cool people in Boston, all expenses paid. Kid at the grocery store asked me if I worked for Wikipedia--I guess the proper answer is no, no? Drmies (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia asks me Blackmane (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues[edit]

I am not reporting anyone (just yet) but I've been accused of WP:OWN on Selena and have since left the article so I can be mature about editing on Wikipedia. Now, I have took interest in helping out with Bad Girls Club-related articles. One in particularly Bad Girls Club (season 8) has so many issues with a user, its not even a joke. I'm not sure if its me or him/her but can someone please investigate this and/or tell me where should I go or do about the situation (note: user has been warned by previous admins and myself for several months). If its me who has OWN issues, then I'll gladly back out, just need some helpful advise. Thanks in advance, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

HELLO?????? Anyone here who can help? The user has now reverted back the citation needed tags and yet no one here can help? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I imagine this hasn't been replied to because it is not an "issue affecting administrators generally"; this would be considered an "incident" so probably belongs at AN/I. (But it would have been nice if someone would have told you that right away....) Looking at the accused user's talk page, am I missing something or were their first messages they received warnings and a block? I see no welcome template or (hardly) any other personal notes -- most everything is a warning template. That's disappointing.
I see they have opened discussion on the talk page, but really that should have been your first action. No comment on the {{cn}} tags, but the {{pbneutral}} template goes on the talk page, not the article. And the {{Advert}} template? The article is three sentences, I don't see any weasley wording, so I must be missing some history between you two on that. What I see here is two editors vested passionately in the same article but have different opinions and an utter communications disconnect. To answer your question: This will be best handled at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Rgrds. -- (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the IP. Also, an RFC can be filed on this issue if WP:DRN doesn't work. Hope these links help. As for the issue itself, Junebea1 (talk · contribs), the user in question involved in the dispute with AJona1992 has been warned numerous times in the past for violating WP:BLP and WP:DE. The discussions at ANI, which can be found here and here, are examples of the discussions and issues involving the said users in question. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The advert tag is for the "episode" summaries which displays it as such. Thanks for replying, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No hard feelings. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Wingard (again)[edit]

Once again, he is edit warring. He said he will no longer edit war, but he wilfully continues to do so. 24 hours was not enough of a block. He should get an indefinite block or something. This needs to stop.  MegastarLV  (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC).

Yes. They need to be blocked from these pages. They are disrupting others and are being ignorant to guidelines and want the pages to be updated to their liking/their fitting. Its wrong. SoapJar 20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bocked 1 week for continued edit warring. --MuZemike 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This behavior has been ongoing since 2009. Wingard only purpose on Wikipedia is to slavishly update the episode counts for soap operas, and will revert anyone who tries to do it before him. I'll agree with the one week block, but think if the behavior is continued after the block and indefinite block should be placed on the account. AniMate 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, this would better be suited to WP:AN3 if a three-revert violation occurred, or to WP:ANI if the edit warring were somewhat slower than 4+ per day. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice around proposed blackout re SOPA — from the closing administrators[edit]

To note that Risker (talk · contribs), NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) and myself have closed and summarised the discussion around the proposed site blackout, all revealed at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#Summary and conclusion. Please note our request that all administrative actions that have a time period for consideration be extended past the normal time period for the period of the blackout (24 hours). — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Vandalized[edit]


Some dork vandalized this article. Can someone restore this article to it's pre-vandalized condition, because i don't know how? kthanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed at 10:55 by Shadowjams (talk · contribs) -- Luk talk 11:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Suicide threat[edit]

[[32]]. Possibly trolling, but needs prompt attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed the foundation. In the future, per WP:SUICIDE, we should always just forward on the claims to them and let them figure out what to do (unless we have some reason to believe the threat is very serious, than a brave and committed person might also contact local authorities). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I've already done that. Posted here and the e-mailed immediately - I think the instructions suggest doing both... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout preparations for excluded articles[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Note_on_excluded_pages. If we exclude pages from the blackout, we'll need to protect them in a clean state before the beginning of the blackout. Cenarium (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout preparations: RfA, AfD, PROD[edit]

So, like it or not, we're on strike tomorrow. One question to consider is what about our time-bound processes? That's basically RfA, PROD and AfD. The RfA that is currently ongoing, MikeLynch, there is consensus to extend it by a day, so it'll close on Sunday rather than Saturday. I'm going to suggest that we do the same thing for deletion: let's just extend all ongoing PROD and AfD periods by a day. Admins should just slow down and not close AfDs or delete PRODs started before the blackout for an extra day. That seem like a reasonable solution?

Any other things we need to tidy up before the blackout starts? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually prefer to ignore the lost day on AfD and PROD. It's just one day, I think our processes can survive being visible one day shorter once in 10 years. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
We should at least not close any time-bound process for 24 hours after the blackout ends. -- Donald Albury 11:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence of the administrator's closing note at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action says "Internal Wikipedia processes that are dependent upon time-specific discussions, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion should be considered suspended during the course of the blackout, and their scheduled duration extended 24 hours." - SudoGhost 11:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
@Albury: Apart, obviously, those that are already a day late. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You'll be able to get around the blackout relatively easily (if the implementations I have seen are what is going to happen). So we can still close AFD's and block vandals etc. --Errant (chat!) 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No, you won't be able to edit even if you can read. The write API is going down too. There'll be no edits, no blocking people... and no WP:ANI!Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact, only stewards and sysadmins will be able to edit English Wikipedia during that time. vvvt 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Martijn Hoekstra, we should just carry on as normal here, if a discussion is close then extended it by a day (in the case of AfD, just move it to the next days listing, the one RfA has been sorted already, as for PROD's more offten or not they don't get deleted on the dot of 7 days so use discretion with deleting them. The more we get hung up on the internal policies of this this the less effective it becomes. Mtking (edits) 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Our community and social processes will be delayed by a day, but the technical processes won't as far as I understand; for instance, blocks and protections set to expire during the blackout should still have expired by the time we are back online, i.e. they cannot be extended by a day like our deletion processes can be. Needless to say, we'll have a few more PRODs and AFDs to handle when are get back online. --MuZemike 12:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess that means I'll be adding 24 hours to any blocks I issue today. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Does it, though? If the purpose of the block is to give them a chance to reevaluate things, the reason why they can't edit should be immaterial. Having said that, it would depend on the reasoning behind the block, I suppose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This climbing-the-Capitol-Dome political stunt feels like a 24 hour block for every Wikipedia volunteer and user. Edison (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
We need to make sure that the bots we depend on don't crash when the site gets locked. --Rschen7754 19:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears the bot owners are already discussing those issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys realise that SOPA's been shit-canned right? So all you're gonna accomplish here is pissing off a lot of people... HalfShadow —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

Reasons for concern [33]Nobody Ent 00:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not cancelled and it never was [34]. It still poses the same existential threat to Wikipedia as it always did. (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
SOPA isn't dead, and the US Senate still intends to vote on PIPA. The issue is not dead, unfortunately. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If blocks are extended due to the SOPA blackout please include a note to that effect in the block log summary. Nobody Ent 00:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't bother extending any blocks myself. It seems more punitive than anything to do so. Resolute 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, anonymous editing has been disabled for last-minute cleanup. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout article needs semi[edit]

This is highly visi