Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

WP:RFPP[edit]

WP:RFPP needs a little care from the wielders of the mop, AKA admins. There are now 26 open requests. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's now somewhat under control with 8 requests pending; it could use some clerking though. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Back upto 20 now, we really do need more admin eyes on RFPP given there's a backlog there every few days. tutterMouse (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.

2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.

3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Regarding the indef block of User:Paul Bedson[edit]

I noticed that the user conduct RfC about the mentioned user was closed; based on the nature of his edits, I think that a block was appropriate and that the closing admin's rationale is completely correct. Having participated in an AfD involving Paul Bedson, I feel that, though his contributions have not had an entirely positive effect on the encyclopedia, he has the potential to use article-writing skills in a more positive way. I was wondering if such a hefty block is necessary; perhaps if he's gone for a year or so, he'll find better forums for his fringe ideas and add appropriate content to Wikipedia. As persistent as he's been, I think a reduced block would lessen the chance of potential IP or sock activity; as mentioned above, I think it would lead to more positive contributions later. dci | TALK 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment -- Paul clearly does have enough writing skills to be able to add useful material if he wishes to, and second chances are always worth considering. However, based on the conduct described in the RfC/U, I think the indef block is appropriate. His behaviour is long-term, persistent, disruptive and extremely time-consuming for other editors. I would rather not see this weakened at all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
His unblock request states "I am quite willing to change, have never been resistant to it, take all the advice suggested and edit according to guidance." This just isn't the case as you can see at the RfC/U. Those of us who have been engaging with this editor for some time haven't seen him change. I have seen him agree to my advice but he hasn't followed it, for whatever reason. In fact if anything he's worse, looking at the recent AfDs and article talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Alas, it seems his recent comments on his user talk confirm your rationales. My only request would be this - if he shows himself, at some point in time, genuinely willing to reform his activities, could reducing the block be considered? dci | TALK 22:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how he could show that. I do note that his unblock request now reads "This block is for no good reason and demonstrates a systemic anti-European, anti-British and anti-Lebanese racism sadly inherrent within Wikipedia. I am quite willing to change, if there was anything required to change and have never been resistant to it, take all the advice suggested and edit according to guidance." He's added the racist attack and "if there was anything required to change". He is still offering to confine himself to translation but he's been criticized for using a source in a language he doesn't understand, so... Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just declined his appeal - didn't see this thread, sorry. His claim that blocking him is anti-European, anti-British and anti-Lebanese suggest he's not gaining WP:CLUE at much speed but folks are welcome to counsel him as to how he might make a successful return to editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
All right. I suppose there's no point now in arguing over whether he ought to return anytime soon, but I'd be happy to provide advice to him in the case it's ever brought up. dci | TALK 22:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic trolling by a sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 06:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following derives from a discussion at WP:AN/I. It is only loosely related to that which is above. dci | TALK 02:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. No one welcomed him in 4 years!! @Ian.thomson: I will block anyone who tries to commit vandalism. First warnings, then block--Rrodic (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
You're not an admin, and you responded on the wrong page. I'm over at WP:ANI, this is WP:AN. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that's a now blocked sock not related to Bedson but taking Bedson articles to AfD - the no welcome message post was about someone else. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparent threat from Bedson[edit]

Threat of socking made known to community; detailed discussion will not be of net benefit. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:00, 21 December 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.

A few minutes ago on his talk page he wrote "No reconsideration? If that is your final judgement, with no discussion, no negotiation. Then you leave me no choice, you will need the time and expense to employ more than that moron Agricolae, who doesn't even have a grasp of basic English, yet along know the sources of history of correct king lists, to stop me fighting this hate-mongering, Wikipedia:WikiBullying goon-squad. You will need telecomminications professionals, like me." This looks like a threat to use telecommunications skills against Wikipedia - I don't know what he means, anything from socking to something more aggressive, but I'd think that would require computer skills which aren't the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Telecommunications always sounds like a euphemism for either telemarketing or answering phones, but a threat's a threat, no matter how subtle. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
What a shame. I had a proud career in telecommunications, and, to this day, there are many sections of the world where all voice communications pass through pieces of equipment I helped design. As for the threat, though, I never worry about people that can't spell a specialty they proudly proclaim to have.—Kww(talk) 01:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In this edit Paul linked the phrase "telecommunications professionals" to CheckUser. So that's a clear signal that he intends to create sockpuppets (which is what I thought he meant even before the link). Is it time to remove his talk page access? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He's linked to CU, so I'm guessing he's planning to sock. The conversation isn't productive, it's just going off on attacking tangents, so I'll remove tp access if there aren't any objections or someone beats me to it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, most socks return to edit the same articles. Bedson is an article creator, so he will be trying to create obscure articles which makes him harder to detect. Note that he is probably reading this conversation. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 21 December 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.

Proposal to extend Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting semi-protection[edit]

Extended for 1 month from now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:53, 21 December 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.

The semi-protection is due to expire 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC). Drmies did the original protection, I added a week, so I think it needs to be reviewed here and a consensus formed well before it expires. It is my opinion that we should extend the current semi-protection for another two weeks, which would take it until a few days after the Christmas holiday school break. I don't see this as preemptive, as we already know what the problem is and it has already proven to be a target for abuse, even with the semi-protection. I would also be very open minded to an indef time, as we really do not know exactly how long it will be until the risk is at an acceptable level. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Two week minimum or indef. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Protect until sometime in Jan 2013 - the kids will be back at school, and the Xmas holidays will be over meaning more admins will be about to deal with any issues . Once it's unprotected there should be a zero-tolerance approach with a look to indeffing i.e. we re-protect as soon as any vandalism starts happening. GiantSnowman 14:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Two weeks agreed. I would be quite happy with a month. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Two Weeks, fine with a month, not fine with indef.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support at least two more weeks. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one month so we don't have to come back here in two weeks. Oppose indef.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Treat as any other page. I don't see any reason why we should prot by committee in this case. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a minimum of two weeks due to holiday period. I have a feeling based on past events like this that a flurry of investigation information will hit the week after next and with the holiday, we'll want the protection then. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Two weeks seems reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A month is OK as well, if that's the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support anywhere from 2-4 weeks. I do think the amount of attention this will get will evolve quite a bit, I don't see a case for indef at this time. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not Support keeping this protected for at least another month. I find it tragic that a page about a tragedy is abused like this.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It certainly seems like they are supporting the proposal. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought so too ... but starting it with "Oppose" made so little sense... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, cyberpower does the same thing at RfAs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I do. But they are more intended to be humorous. There is nothing humorous about this so I have changed it to say support.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one month Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one monthEdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one monthChed :  ?  00:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one month - I agree with Dennis, we don't know when it is safe to un-semi. Two weeks seems too short, and indef is infinitely too long. Literally. I think a month is a good time. Vacationnine 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss semi-protection[edit]

  • To Nathan: The reason I brought it up here is because it has been protected twice, and there is the potential for contention involved. While I could just jump in and extend the protection unilaterally, and likely wouldn't get a lot of flack over it, I think it is appropriate that I ask the advice of my fellow editors. This isn't just another article, due to the attention it has attracted. Over 1 million views in the first three days, and 4000 edits. It is an exception to the rules on many levels, and I'm asking here because I respect the opinions of others, not because I think policy requires it. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    I think asking was prudent. It's just my opinion that it doesn't need to be treated any differently than other highly visible articles. A view which appears to be in the minority. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The difference between "rolling two-week period" and "indefinite" should be academic. TBH we'll definitely still be talking about this matter in two weeks, so it's not as if anyone is going to forget to review the protection status. I'd rather just indef it with periodic review. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 21 December 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.

Block review[edit]

Consensus is that the merits of the block are valid (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 22 December 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.

I invite review of my indefinite block of Varlaam (talk · contribs), a longtime abusive and combative editor with a block log to match and no indication of having learned anything about collaborative editing. I've given an explanation on the editor's talk page with diffs pertaining to one particular conflict, on List of World War I films. Should there be a consensus that the indefinite block is too long, I have no objection to it being shortened. Incidentally, the user has a history of (undisguised) socking while blocked; time will tell whether that will continue also. Thank you for your attention. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no concern, indefinite is not infinite or forever. The user has called positive sources vandalism and repeatedly made personal attacks on something that in no way shape or form constituted vandalism. Removing additions of sources and material while pushing a POV is unacceptable. He was warned on his talk page to. So it does seem fair, the intention to continue edit warring seems clear enough to me. (Non admin comment)ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse Looks reasonable enough to me. Note though that I don't want to turn it into a defacto ban, and so normal appeal methods, including a regular unblock via template request should still be available at the discretion of a reviewing admin. Monty845 16:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure--I don't mean for this note here to read like a ban request or anything like that. I just think it's proper for an indef block of a longtime editor (without adjectives this time) to not be kept out of the public eye. I see now that my "consensus that the..." phrasing can suggest "ban", but that was not my intention. Of course any individual admin is welcome to disagree with me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind, Doc, I've boldly put up a hatnote to this effect, just so no one in the future can argue about what the meaning of this thread's outcome (whatever it should be) was. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment from the editor at the wrong end of Varlaam in this case. I would be extremely disappointed to be the cause of this editor becoming indefinitely blocked. A similar situation occurred at Hedd Wyn itself, the subject Varlaam disputes. Varlaam chose not to comment at the talk page at all, but (what appears to be) due to other editor involvement Varlaam hasn't edited against consensus since June 2012. From my experience of this editor, if enough editors watch a page he disputes and actively defend its consensus, Varlaam appears to accept the inevitable. Would any admins be willing to keep an eye on that page? It may be as effective as a block and allow a productive editor to continue adding good content. Daicaregos (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Mind you, I didn't block Varlaam for just edit warring on this article: it's the pattern of edits and behavior, including the abuse and the lack of (civil) engagement on talk pages during edit disputes. The edit warring alone warrants a block (certainly considering the editor's history); it's the combination of that and other things that I believe warrant an indef block. Going through the editor's history and following a couple of the links on their talk page provides sufficient indication--the editor just doesn't seem to be able to collaborate, and any dispute seems to be followed by abuse. If Varlaam stops acting like this on one article (like Hedd Wynn (film), it just seems to shift to another. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse As an editor who has been on the receiving end of this type of behavior and worse from Varlaam more than once, to the point I was too afraid to report it, this is long past due. I find what underlies Varlaam's conduct is the belief he is always right coupled with a fixation on numbers of edits and the labels that accrue to him as a result (thus is constant reference to himself as a Master Editor and a top IMDB editor) rather than any betterment of the project. One needs only look at his user page and talk page to see the pattern. It's not a disposition that leads to collaborative editing, but rather a collector's mindset: get the most edits any way necessary. He has no respect for the project except as a vehicle for his collecting, and sees any editor who reverts him an obstacle to accruing edits. Until that mindset changes, the battleground mentality that accompanies it won't change either. --Drmargi (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing at all controversial about this block. This is a prime example of the general failure of time-limited blocks for sociopathic conduct to have a corrective effect. The user should not be unblocked without firm consensus to do so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse V's pattern has not changed. He receives a block, he socks during the block, the block expires and he edits calmly for a few days/weeks and then returns to contentious behavior. The current unblock request shows that he has no understanding about how his behavior towards the community is the problem. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like a solid block. Maybe we could convince him to let someone archive his talk page though..... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    On his talk page he says "I have never deleted anything from my talk page or archived it, because that is dishonest". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I've had a look over Varlaam's editing history, and the ownership, personal attacks, and edit-warring have been going on for years. Many people have tried to explain the problem, but his unblock request shows that not a single thing has gotten through to him. I've had a go, as an uninvolved observer, at explaining the problems. Maybe coming from someone who had never heard of him before today and has never even read the articles in question it might make a difference. But I'd say there would need to be a massive change in attitude for him to be unblocked, and I really don't see that as very likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 21 December 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.

User:JaviAdamou[edit]

User blocked in commons and [here]--Musamies (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So? We do not block based on being blocked on another site, even another WMF site. Is there some reason the user should be blocked here? Please present diffs demonstrating why or drop it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, he did insert an obvious copyvio image (File:GEORGIA.jpg) here on his en-wp page draft, after using one of their socks to upload it on Commons, so some disruption has been happening here too. Fut.Perf. 18:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I have found them to be socking here and have given them a time out as well as blocking the socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible quick closes related to Sandy Hook[edit]

Howdy--can one of you pop over to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 21 to see if the discussion on the redirect to a father can be speedily closed? There is broad consensus that this is a BLP violation and all this is happening right now. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Both  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
[1], [2]. -- KTC (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Fixed [3] [4] [5] by Bwilkins. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, and I cannot say I'm impressed by the the wikilawyering and tone of the discussion at User_talk:Ahnoneemoos (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep. There's a right way and a wrong way to challenge a close you don't agree with. Anon chose the wrong way, big time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • And for the record I do of course realize that was an unusual close. This is an unusual circumstance. Th feeling so far has been to take a cautious, conservative approach to it until time grants us some perspective on these events. That (and WP:SNOW) is the reason for the speedy closes, protections, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD table[edit]

For any admins who work at AfD regularly, you might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Fake article[edit]

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.

I believe User:Ali Limonadi's user page as a WP:FAKEARTICLE example. I have informed him about my notice here. I recommend speedy deleting that page. 156.111.133.110 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Then nominate it as one please. If you can find your way here, you can figure out the ins and outs of WP:AfD. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But IP editors can't create pages for deletion pages. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Sure you can--it requires only one extra step. Or you find an editor, any registered editor, and ask them there rather than add to this already-long board. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 23 December 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.

move needed[edit]

in some strange move-war, somebody pointed moved a page to Montenegríns (note í) and somehow messed up Montenegrins, the English spelling. Needs to be moved back by admin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. And move-protected for a fortnight. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I also warned two of the editors involved. I wondered at first whether Montenegrins (ethnic group) wouldn't have been the more correct page to move back to, having been the status quo immediately prior to the move war, but on closer inspection I agree Montenegrins has had the longer stable history and the prior move (in October) to the "ethnic group" title was also likely contentious, so this is probably the best solution for the time being. Fut.Perf. 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

request admin help to close improper AFD[edit]

DRV is not for cases where the closing admin agrees to the demands of the petitioner. King of ♠ 07:33, 25 December 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.

An uninvolved administrator's help is needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scheduled Castes to fully close this improper AFD. Basically, an editor who just "lost" an AFD on the same article, as part of a 2 article AFD, has immediatelyt re-opened a 2nd AFD, choosing to reinterpret the closing decision as not addressing the second article. If the editor disputes the close, there is a process for that, Deletion Review, which could reopen the 2-article AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Other Backward Classes. It is wrong to start a new AFD from scratch, seemingly ignoring well-considered judgments of participating editors.

I started to close the new AFD, with note of "close in process" in version as of now but I see from guidelines on AFD closures that I should not complete it (as I am involved).

This is about a list-article that I created, and that editor Orlady is seeking to delete. I don't know how to get Orlady to stop following and harassing me, e.g. by opening AFDs about articles that are clearly wikipedia-notable. This is perhaps a continuation of recent ANI, also involving editors Orlady and Sitush. Anyhow, could someone please fully close the new AFD. --doncram 02:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I started the new AfD discussion (which is a proposal to userfy, not delete) after consulting with the administrator who closed the other two-article AfD, but only tagged the other article. That consultation confirmed that the closing administrator had, like the discussants, overlooked the inclusion of this article in the other AfD, and resulted in the suggestion that it would be sensible to open a new AfD for just this article. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a Request to Userfy process. It is an AFD. There are no new arguments to make about the list-article. If you dispute the close as you believe the closing administrator did not adequately consider the opinions of participants, the process is Deletion Review. There is no value to be added for Wikipedia to having this re-opened. Editor Orlady fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic. Just stop, please.
And, Season's Greetings everyone! --doncram 02:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Stop. It. Now. When the closing administrator says "I would re-AFD it", Orlady is not disputing the close improperly, as you say at the AFD. Let me remind you that WP:WIAPA says that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a personal attack, and you've presented no evidence that "Editor Orlady fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic" and is thus doing this in bad faith. What will induce you to stop violating WP:WIAPA? Nyttend (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
What lack of evidence? It is obviously a fully valid Wikipedia list-article topic, and is a fully sourced article. Orlady's AFD proposal is weird, claiming not to be an AFD but rather a request to formally userfy it, why? Because Orlady recognizes it is a valid topic. Orlady just doesn't like the list-article as it is now (for no reason clear to me, and for reasons that were rejected by others in the closed AFD).
The AFD was closed with The result was keep. Consensus is to KEEP with a promise of FIXING the issues noted. I don't care what Orlady and the closing administrator discuss elsewhere, it was closed. If that conversation elsewhere is evidence that the closing admin did not pay proper attention to the contents of the AFD, then take it to Deletion Review. You don't get to trample over all procedures and keep on hammering forever and forever.
I repeat I would like for an administrator to close the new AFD and leave it to Orlady to open a Deletion Review. I think the close was valid, but it would be another option to reopen the old AFD. --doncram 07:25, 25 December 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.

Request to review arbitration enforcement appeal[edit]

I blocked User:Mor2 for a violation of WP:1RR at Operation Pillar of Defense. Mor2's last unblock request was declined because they didn't follow WP:AEBLOCK. Mor2 e-mailed me and asked me to help him because he was having trouble with the procedure, specifically {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. So, I did it for him and then posted a comment on their talk page explaining what I did.

I'm not sure how we expect the average user to comply with the procedure at AEBLOCK. God knows it wasn't easy for me, and I'm not an average user. I finally edited the template and copied and pasted the text onto Mor2's talk page. Some of the "parameters" worked fine; others didn't. I monkeyed with it as best I could so at least it looked reasonable if not exactly right.

Request. Please make sure I did it right. I know it's Christmas Day for many, but any help would be appreciated.

(Given the unusual circumstances, it made no sense to me to notify Mor2 of this discussion. If someone thinks I should, I will, or anyone who wishes to can do so.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The format is correct, the template needs to be copied to AE for discussion, which I have just done.

That particular template is a big pain, but since AE appeals are relatively infrequent nobody bothered to revamp it. One big problem with using substituted templates is that certain typos can confuse the parser enough to stop the substitution altogether, and it is hard to figure out exactly what messed up the parser. (The template for AE requests used to be similarly painful, until it was revamped a while ago by yours truly to use a preloaded form. Now it's significantly less painful, though people still mess up sometimes).

I'm actually working on a Javascript-based AE filing system, modeled on the one used at DRN, that should allow appeals to be filed more easily. With any luck I'll have it done before the New Year. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the template automatically get copied, or did you agree that Mor2 had done enough to warrant a community review ("You are not entitled to a community review of your block. The reviewing administrator may decline to initiate a community discussion if you do not prepare a convincing appeal before making your unblock request.")? If it was a decision on your part, I'm not questioning it, just trying to understand how the hell this works. :-) I'm assuming I fill in my part at AE, not on Mor2's talk page - right? Last but not least, thank you very much for helping out here and for working on a script to make the process more straightforward. I'll wait for your answers to my questions before completing my section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, usually it gets copied unless it is patently frivolous, and yes, you fill out your statement at AE. (I actually spent the past 30 minutes or so working on my comment at the AE appeal, and it's still not finished, but as it turns out, I don't think the appeal is groundless at all.) T. Canens (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I've been working on my statement also during this time. I saw your comment here before I posted it, so I did read your statement, but I decided to post mine without any changes as it at least reflects my thinking, even if others, like you, disagree. Besides, it won't bother me if there's a consensus for lifting the block (obviously it can't be "struck" as requested). Moreover, if there is such a consensus, I need to take the reasoning into account in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors[edit]

Would any admin with a little extra time please bookmark the MP:ERRORs page? This page is for reporting errors directly on the Main Page. As all the MP pieces are generally locked to admins only, the Errors page pretty much requires an admin bit in order for someone to be able to respond usefully.

Over Thanksgiving we had an issue of monitoring of the Errors page being spotty, at best, and an issue languished there overlong. With the coming holidays, now is the time to get additional eyes on the page, especially eyes that are more likely to be around during the holidays. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a recurring problem, with no solution other than to beg more admins to watchlist this page, I've been thinking if there's any better one. And here's what occurred to me: A week ago or so, I had to get my talk page semi-protected; as one is advised to do, I created a sub-page for IP/new user comments. But sometimes I didn't notice comments, since I wasn't getting a "New messages" banner. So I convinced Legoktm (talk · contribs) to get Legobot to leave a little note and TopIcon at the top of my talk page whenever someone commented at the IP comments page. (Including a hidden-text note that prevents it from leaving the message again until it's removed.) Now, MP/E has 376 active watchers; AN has 1735. So why not get a bot to leave a message here saying something like There is one or more outstanding error report at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Please do not remove this message until the report has been responded to, and the error has been corrected, if necessary. (Please reply before removing this message, so as not to trigger it again unnecessarily.)<!-- (Some hidden-text note to the bot) -->, whenever someone edits MP/E. Where that message would go on this page, and in what form, would obviously have to be decided, but what do people think of the general idea? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That seems like an intelligent idea. Alternatively, would it be possible to transclude a list of errors to AN or ANI, with a quick easy way to determine if an issue is resolved included in the transclusion? Just tossing a related idea. --Nouniquenames 05:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not against the idea of transclusion, but IMHO it does not solve the problem. Familiarity breeds complacence. How many people actually look through the huge list of items at the top of WP/AN these days. I don't. If it was always transcluded, I would think that it would be just another thing to routinely scroll past. OTOH, figuring out some way to have a bot realize that MP:ERRORs has not been handled is a reasonable amount of time would be nice. I know we already have a bot sticking notices if AN/V is backlogged and if C:CSD is backlogged. Hmmmmmmmmm.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The issue with transclusion is that it doesn't pop up on any watchlists (unless people have the subpage itself watchlisted). And while on busy days a bot update could get drowned out in normal AN business, it's slow days that we should be worried about the most, anyways. I'm not super-knowledgeable about programming, but it seems to me that short of setting up a complicated filter, there'd be no real way to program a bot to know if an issue's already been dealt with; so I think the solution is to have it leave a generally non-intrusive message at first (e.g. a little box at the top of the page, between RfC/U and the archives), and start a thread if no one's removed that message within half an hour or so. Shall I go get someone who knows how to actually program this to draw up a proposal? Oh, and incidentally, would there be any reason not to add MP/E to {{Noticeboard links}}? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC complicated articles[edit]

Admin Nathan Johnson closed this proposal on largely procedural grounds of me 'switching' the question midway through the RFC. I requested a review from him on his talk page, where Osiris also shared the same question as me. To this Nathan said that he was busy but open to anyone reviewing his decision on the issue.

Can an experienced admin please review this closure and check if it was correct or not? Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say that within that discussion, there is consensus for the idea that link to Simple English should appear at the top of the language list. There are however several problems or potential problems. First, as mentioned by the closer, a significant part of the original RFC was withdrawn midway through. That in and of itself is not fatal to a consensus forming, but it is problematic in that it transformed a more general discussion into a specific discussion on moving the link to the top of the list. If the change is made, it will impact how a great many articles are displayed, and it is likely that additional voices of objection will appear one the change is made. In light of the topic change, and the somewhat limited participation in the RFC, objectors could argue that the RFC was not prominent enough to justify such a change. That said, there was little or no specific objection to the change in the RFC, which certainly weighs in favor of implementation. Implementation is a problem to, if we accept there is general consensus for the change, there is clearly not consensus for a specific method of implementation. There is already a sound objection at WP:BOTR to using a bot to implement the change, and there was very limited discussion of that in the main RFC. To avoid controversy, it may be better to hold a 2nd RFC that includes specific proposals on how the change could be implemented, making sure its clearly labeled, and probably included in WP:CENT. This would also give those who missed the first RFC, or didn't understand what it proposed, a second chance to object to the general idea. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 14:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Procedural question, now resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just curious: why is this a subsection of the arbitration enforcement request? It looks like a minor error, but I don't want to make it a separate section if there's a good reason for its current location. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it was mistakenly added as a subsection when it was moved over from WP:AN/RFC. Osiris (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to start that discussion up here, but I don't think it should be done by bots either. Getting the software to automatically sort it at the top would be excellent if it's possible, though the most important step in getting it done would be to alert the Wikidata developers. We don't even really know whether it would be possible under that scheme, so it might be a moot point as to whether it needs to be done; can it be done is the most pressing question. Interwiki bots won't be around here much longer after all. Osiris (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision page inconsistency[edit]

On revision and log pages you see (latest | earliest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) for toggling between revision stratum. The arbitrary choice to go with latest and earliest instead of oldest and newest goes against the principle of least astonishment. If there are any admins bold enough to right this UX wrong, MediaWiki:Histfirst MediaWiki:Histlast are the respective pages to do so.

It would be nice if this change were done to all the wikis. I filed a bug report on this at Bugzilla eons ago and nothing was done about it. It's a darn shame since this should be so straightforward to fix. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed your links. What bug was it? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. I suppose everyone will jump on my back now, but at least I linked to WP:AN in the edit summary. Thanks for pointing this out. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
By eons I meant six months ago. Bug 29444. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you meant "a year and six months ago" unless my eyes are going bad...
I've tagged your bug with the easy keyword, as it's just a minor change to a language file. If I get a chance, I'll change it and commit it. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 10:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Political AfD[edit]

AfD closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Ziabari (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know if anyone else is watching this page, but it continues to be a political/ethnic battleground. I've removed some of the most egregious material, which is saying quite a bit for an AfD, but the mud-slinging continues. More eyes would be helpful. And more !votes from experienced editors would also be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise closed the discussion as delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 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.

Van Rensselaer[edit]

An apparent stalker[edit]

Seems that there is someone stalking nearly every edit I make especially on Van Rensselaer, this page should have never been a disambiguation page (which makes all the sense in the world--who would actually be confused between a Philip and a Stephen for example? Which by the way each have disambiguation pages for a good reason). Now let me start by saying "yes, there was a LOT of noise on that page, much of it put up by ME and seeing THAT gone is NOT was is getting to me. [[Van Rensselaer and Rensselaer are obvioulsly more of a "who's who" of van Rensselaers and really does not disambiguate much, so it makes little sense designating it as a disambiguation page.

When running the dragnet through the page at least one editor sees fit to totally delete information simply because it either looks unpleasant or does not fit perfectly as that editor sees it. The minor one was about a character on Archie Bunker's Place whose name was Van Ranseleer I added it to the list as 'Van Rensselaer'. Sure I get it, My bad a minor error that could and SHOULD have been fixed instead of being arbitrarily deleted without any regard to the editors effort in addition to ZERO attempt to using Talk:Van Rensselaer. I can live with that one I made a reasonable fix. Here is where the neglect is obvious in removing useful information simply because it does not look right.... 'Don't fix it, get rid of it all together' (single quotes do not reflect ANY direct Quote!) 2 perfectly reasonable entries that were arbitrarily disregarded and deleted for no apparent reason other than appearance on a page that should neither be titled nor tagged as a disambiguation page.

And this statement of fact (that I agree should NOT be on a disambiguation page, But this is not one nor is Rensselaer

+ (Undid revision 529553687 by JGVR (talk) this is the pattern)

The above edit demonstrates the above mentioned stalking These people have a title (regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with their views) Their PROPER title is Representative NOT the misogynistic 'CongressMAN' Where is the "PATTERN"??? JGVR (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Here is the deleted statement I mentioned and forgot to add here:

  • Note: When researching as a surname, the vast majority of 'van Rensselaer' surnames are properly spelled with a space. Consider Vanrensselaer a possible anomaly, such as limited space for typeset or in cases where it is known to be 'correctly' spelled without the space, the person may have had their name legally changed and omitted it as one of many possibilities.

JGVR (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is related to the "Copy&paste/pagemove chaos" section currently at WP:ANI. JGVR was introducing a lot of problematic formatting into these pages and ended up getting blocked when he kept going. Looks to me as if Kraxler, whose edit summaries JGVR quotes, is simply enforcing WP:MOSDAB in these pages. Note that there's nothing wrong with "congressman"; we can be informal here, and there's no requirement that we be politically correct. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
So it looks like there is agreement that the edit I made had no need to be undone and as for the continuation of copy/paste AFTER the ban?? no such thing happened. To see there seems to be no contention with the rest of my concerns as of yet I would still like opinions on wy thought of those 2 pages having the disambiguation tag removed for obvious reasons.

PS I thought people were supposed to be notified when their name is discussed here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGVR (talkcontribs) 21:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC) JGVR (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they are. Why didn't you do it? I ended up having to notify Kraxler, since you didn't. You brought up the thread in the first place, so I had no reason to notify you. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
As Kraxler notes, you keep moving the furniture around. There's no stalking, you just need to discuss your changes with Kraxler nicely, and sort it out, assuming good faith all the way. Use the talkpages of the relevant articles. Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
User JGVR arrived on Wikipedia 5 days ago, and has no basic understanding what Wikipedia is, and how it works, and managed to be blocked right away. He has not read any guidelines, and although he has been asked to discuss issues on the talk pages, he does not. Most of what he writes is incomprehensible, his not being a native speaker of English contributing to the chaos. So, I'm a bit wary to debate with somebody who does not understand what I'm saying. I'm not stalking anybody; I'm a member of the WikiProject New York, and have created about 1,000 New York related articles, so I have a few Van Rensselaer pages on my watchlist. Anyway, Rensselaer and Van Rensselaer are ordinary dab pages, like thousands of others. And by the way, the Rensselaer Westerlo revert was because of the abbreviation "(NY)" which should be avoided on dab pages. Kraxler (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
someone seems well prepared pre-concieved notions of my membership (Registration time: 04:02, 11 October 2010), but ILL prepared to address the concerns mentioned above. I thought this was a place to hold serious conversattions about real concerns which have gone totally un-addressed by those who felt they were mentioned.JGVR (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand where you're going here; could you rephrase what you're writing? Basically, you've been adding content to disambiguation pages that doesn't belong on disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously it was a totally needed thing after I changed a near bigraphical page title from Jeremias Van Rensselaer (sixth patroon of Rensselaerswyk) to Jeremias van Rensselaer (sixth patroon) Wiki Just wouldn't be as dependable without changing it to Jeremias Van Rensselaer (sixth patroon) is it that imperative to incorrectly capitalze this surname??JGVR (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

REALLY? How does this article Hendrick K. Van Rensselaer lack citations?

JGVR (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Obviously someone could not read the 2nd paragraph or use ctrl+f to search "Hen" to find the mentioned name cited in the article to which THIS CARELESS notation was made on article update. "‎(I expect this to be moved around a bit more, since none of the sources so far mentioned in the article actually state his name...)"

So, now that the stalker allegations have been dealt with, can the style and content issues be taken to the article talk pages? Tiderolls 23:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that the Stalker issue has NOT been dealt with, I would like the vindictive editing to stop
  • (removed irrelevant image[citation needed], and redundant cats, needs to be moved back, this is NOT the Dutch wikipedia). Image replaced[1] See page 35 and others

JGVR (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand, JGVR, possibly due to my attempt at being diplomatic. Allow me to try again; the stalker allegation has been dealt with. Your next move is to the article talk pages. You should also acquaint yourself with the applicable MOS and talk page guidelines before you start. That last part is a suggestion, but the first part is not. Tiderolls 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Are snide comments needed in edit notes?[edit]

My only real problem is the continuation of the snide comments in the edit notes. and deleting things without bothering to read the references. the things that are actual mistakes I have no problem with corrections being made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer_(colonel)&action=history

16:20, 24 December 2012‎ Kxxxxxr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,360 bytes) (-183)‎ . . (→‎External links: wow, this user is quite a bit misguided....) (undo) Is totally uncalled for...JGVR (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you learned a bit about how Wikipedia works, other editors won't have to revert your edits and point out how misguided your edits are. In fact, if you don't stop posting on the noticeboards in lieu of getting a clue, I'd suggest that a block might be in order for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
where were the disruptive posts?? JGVR (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
You're soaking in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Continual abuse of editing[edit]

I need an unbiased administrator to please take a look at Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) History and the related talk page and please do something about Kraxler who I just cent notice to about posting this here.

  • He has a problem with the correct spelling of a surname and has wasted many article titles simply on his view of name spellings regardless nearly every article I created with the correct lower case "v" is now a redirect page. It is plainly obvious his edits are in some way vindictive by virtue of the fact I informed him of the very same pattern in names such as von Richtofen (which for some reason he chooses not to "correct" them to conform to his view.
  • Although I clearly mentioned to him in the talk page and provided him links, he is determined to delete "red links" which are allowed and encouraged for potential articles. plenty of explanation and links to my reasoning in the talk went ignored.

JGVR (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Please notice it is not a DAB page but a list of surnames which he conveniently deleted from the top but forgot the tag on the bottom JGVR (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unbiased administrator, please see the unresolved "An apparent stalker" section higher up on this page, as well as the "Copy&paste/pagemove chaos" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779. JGVR was blocked over this issue a few days ago and has received comments from lots of people encouraging him to heed layout conventions and WP:RM more consistently. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I was blocked copy/pasting articles back to articlenames they had no need to be moved from in the first place

So in a way it IS a continuation of vindictive editing as previously stated AFTER the ban JGVR (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:STICK is all that needs to be said, I believe. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree HE absolutely should!!...JGVR (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

JGVR, you've been mucking around in front of a lot of administrators on two noticeboards for about a week, now. You've been warned not to go around hysterically characterizing things as "vindictive", "stalking", "sabotage", and "abuse", and yet you're still doing it. Stop behaving so foolishly. Try to behave like a rational adult. People are not vindictive or stalkers. What they are are simply trying to cope with bogus copy and paste "moves", and disagreeing with you on two points. Those two points appear to be (a) that Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, contrary to your attempts to write zero-information articles about everyone merely name-checked in the single family tree that perhaps-not-at-all-coincidentally happens to match your user name, and (b) whether van Rensselaer (surname) is an anthropnymy article or a disambiguation article. On the latter, it is a reasonable contention, given the existence of the van Rensselaer disambiguation article, that it is indeed an anthroponymy article. But my goodness you don't appear to be able to make it in a sensible, coherent, and mature fashion. Stop this nonsense, please. Because the end result, I predict right now, will otherwise be that a lot of sick and tired people will just decide to topic ban you from anything whatsoever to do with van Rensselaers, you'll be unable to stay away from the family tree vanity regardless, and you'll end up with your account's editing privileges pulled permanently. It has happened to other editors, unable to focus on anything but their own family trees, several times over the years. It will happen to you. Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is my HUGE list of all the tons of articles that are being imagined i've created
Pages created by JGVR:
  • Van_Rensselaer_(surname)
  • Henry_van_Rensselaer_(disambiguation)
  • Van_Rensselaer's_Regiment
  • Johannes_Pieterse_Van_Brugh
  • Nicholas_Van_Rensselaer_(military_figure)
  • Philip_S._Van_Rensselaer
  • Philip_van_Rensselaer
  • Philip_Van_Rensselaer_(author) (to create a DAB)
  • Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer
  • Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer_(colonel)
  • Philip_Kiliaen_van_Rensselaer
  • Nightcall_(disambiguation)
Hardly an entire family tree oh and can someone tell me which ones would have no value whatsoever?
JGVR (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Uncle, would there be precedent to simply ban JGVR from starting any AN threads on this or any related matter (including the conduct of users with whom he's in dispute), to encourage him to settle the issue through the normal channels? That way he can go back to editing this topic, and if he gets blocked for edit warring, or topic-banned for disruption, later on, so be it, but at least we're giving him a chance to keep on editing his favorite topic. I haven't been following the content dispute itself, but I'm just thinking in terms of leaving the door as open as possible for constructive contributions. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I would tend to agree with you... for the moment. However JGVR needs to actually discuss with an open mind and courteously. His latest addition to Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) indicates a fair degree of "I didn't hear that" and a continuation of characterising edits with which he disagrees (despite his rather poor knowledge of various style and naming conventions here) as "done out of spite". His continual blanking of his own talk page [6] makes it virtually impossible for other editors to carry out a meaningful or helpful dialogue with him. I hope he changes his tack soon, because I suspect he's heading down a road to a topic ban or even block. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • JGVR just inserted at Van Rensselaer (surname) again a red link to an article which was deleted for lack of notability with this edit summary : "(Vandalism repaired and reported to - info-en-v@wikimedia.org)". I agree with Voceditenore that this is a case of "I didn't hear that". Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • And here you are talking about disambiguations right below a big notice that says "anthroponymy" in boldface, and here you are waving around a style manual guideline that explicitly says that it doesn't apply to anthroponymy articles. So there's a bit of "I didn't read that." going on here, too. Go and read Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#surname and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
          • ? This is a disambiguation page with a lot of material that doesn't belong on it. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
            • No, it wasn't. See the style manual guidelines mentioned above. It's actually stated at least four times, three in boldface, that anthroponymy articles aren't disambiguation articles. See also the notice in the first revision of the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Uncle G, your link points to a project page with has a boldfaced list of notable Spencers. So, do you think a red link to an article which has been deleted for lack of notability should be added there?

              Besides, the content dispute should be resolved (if possible) at the talk page of the pertinent article. I posted here an edit summary by JGVR which calls a bona fide clean-up edit "vandalism" after he received several warnings to cease attacks and disruptive editing. Should something be done about it? Kraxler (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

              • Something has been done about it, both above and on JGVR's user talk page. Pay attention. We're also doing something about you, since you're the other half of the problem where a MOS-waver who hasn't read the style manual that xe is waving meets a family tree vanity editor. We're pointing you to the MOS that you're waving around, and the notice at the top of the article's talk page, explicitly telling you about anthroponymy articles — an article that JGVR was actually encouraged to create, moreover.

                And don't mischaracterize this edit of yours as simply removing a redlink. You did much more than that in that edit, as we can all see, waving around the MOS in the edit summary even though it explicitly said otherwise and also arguing on the talk page about disambiguation articles immediately below where there was a big banner saying "anthropnymy" in boldface. And to top it off, you also accused JGVR of trolling. You don't exactly come off as whiter than white, so don't attempt to play the "But xe called me a vandal!" card. As I said, a MOS-waver has met a family tree vanity editor, and we have to deal with both of you, because you've both contributed to this situation.

                To address a final piece of the mess that the two of you combined have brought about: Philip P van Rensselaer was speedily deleted because JGVR (the creator and sole content editor) blanked it, and Martha van Rensselaer was speedily deleted because JGVR just nicked someone else's writing wholesale. Neither page was actually deleted for notability reasons, and neither speedy deletion precludes the future existence of an article.

                Uncle G (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

                • Thanks for the clarification, Uncle G.
                • Philip P van Rensselaer was proposed for deletion for lack of notability, and the proposal was endorsed by two other users before JGVR blanked the page.
                • I have edited Wikipedia for 6 years now, and have routinely removed red links from dab and other pages which remained there after the articles had been deleted, speedily or otherwise. Nobody ever even noticed, nobody ever complained. I'm at a loss to understand how anybody could make a fuss about this non-issue. Kraxler (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CP[edit]

Hey, could someone please take a look at WP:Copyright Problems and see if they can find a way to reduce the number of templates on the page? The page has reached the template limit and therefore, in addition to causing the page to load ridiculously slowly, the functions of some templates are not being performed. For example, the footer section currently reads "Wikipedia's current date is CURRENTMONTHNAME CURRENTDAY, CURRENTYEAR. Put new article listings in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/CURRENTYEAR CURRENTMONTHNAME CURRENTDAY. Images should be handled by speedy deletion, possibly unfree files or Wikipedia:Non-free content review.[[Category:Wikipedia deletion|PAGENAME]]". I'd do it myself, but I thought a WP:CP regular would have a better idea of what can be removed or streamlined. Cheers, — Oli OR Pyfan! 04:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, one quick and dirty fix would be to subst the notation templates that use {{SCV}}. There a great many of them transcluded in the SCV boxes. Perhaps a bot substing just the SCV uses that are older then a week would be enough? Monty845 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't {{SCV}} supposed to be substituted anyway? — Oli OR Pyfan! 05:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Just clear the backlog and the problem will solve itself. MER-C 13:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with MER-C. The main problem is the size of the backlog. If we fix that, the template overflow will go away.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Did my part; I got rid of a couple days today. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nyttend :). If there's still a massive backlog when I get back from holidays in a couple of days, I'll try to lend a hand. — Oli OR Pyfan! 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot? Babel AutoCreate[edit]

Resolved: These aren't the droids you're looking for. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Babel AutoCreate seems to be an unauthorized bot since it says it automatically creates categories under certain situations. It's created a number of deleted categories and I can't figure out who the bot owner is. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Its user page was created by SPQRobin, try them? — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I've left a notice. Ryan Vesey 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
As the userpage makes it clear, the user in question is not a bot, but rather a token username used by a MediaWiki extension to perform certain edits. As the deployment of MediaWiki extensions pertains to developers (and only in portion it is of concerns to the community), unless there are issues, don't worry about it. If there are issues, report issues to bugzilla. Snowolf How can I help? 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Whether it is part of the extension or not, the thing is making botlike edits. I don't know if it is doing anything outside of that (the portion that doesn't concern the community), but I fail to see why it should not go through a BRFA like any other automated editing bot would. Ryan Vesey 18:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, we don't require on wiki approval of extensions or other software updates, which this essentially is. Maybe we should, but I don't think this falls within the remit of BRFA. Monty845 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
<bag hat="on">That is correct. It is outside of the scope of BRFA and the bot policy.</bag>. Snowolf How can I help? 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
As Snowolf says, it is indeed a fake account used by the software (implemented similarly to e.g. User:MediaWiki default). The Babel extension was enabled Wikimedia-wide, and categories were defined for a number of wikis, on which the AutoCreate account creates categories automatically. On some wikis the account was misunderstood as being a bot, which it isn't, so I created the user page to try to explain what it is. I also had done some coding in the Babel extension to fix some of the bugs that appeared, but the extension is still not perfect. SPQRobin (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

AGK[edit]

Arbitration motion regarding Jerusalem[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Errant AfD[edit]

NO ACTION TAKEN
possibly due to this very posting, the AFD has now attracted a few comments in favor of deletion. SNOW or speedy keep closures are therefore no longer on the table. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 28 December 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.

Would it be possible for an admin to pop over to this AfD real quick and determine if it should be speedy/snow kept? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Essien Etok. My apologies for the inturruption. Thank you all and be well. :) --Sue Rangell 23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Has 3 keeps, no real reason to rush it at this point is there? This time of year, participation can be slow, so I would be hesitant to snow keep on 3 keeps. Of course, another admin may see it differently. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There's nothing errant about the AfD. As far as I can tell, the claims of celebrity and a connection with Michael Jackson are extremely unreliable and are based on gossip, hearsay and the subject's own blog. Shritwod (talk) 00:55, 28 December 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.

WP:Featured picture candidates[edit]

We're a bit low on reviewers due to the holiday, and even with a five-day extension, we're still running rather behind. If anyone would like to participate, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria is the criteria featured pictures are evaluated against, and anyone may vote. You may want to review some of the pictures already promoted to get an idea of the quality we're looking for for certain image types. Cheers! Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Username policy question[edit]

Can someone have a look at Vietnamesefreedomflag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), I am not sure this is an outright username policy violation, but the username is clearly one intended to either promote a cause/soapbox with. Also likely to be a sock or bad hand account of an MMA editor so maybe a CU might want to have a look to. Mtking (edits) 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The name itself isn't terrible and block worthy. The only thing I can suggest is to keep an eye on the account and see what goes on from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A Formal Report on Schappelle Corby[edit]

Let's not do this on two noticeboards at once. You all know where Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Schapelle Corby is. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Momoka Ariyasu (urgent!)[edit]

Dealt with, apologies provided, things learned, stop going on about it :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:32, 28 December 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.

Please do something quick. I'm the creator of the page Momoka Ariyasu, so I can't remove the speedy deletion notice. The page in on the top of DYK right now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I contested the CSD because the article makes a credible claim of notability; however do note that I doubt any admin would've CSD'ed that page as it currently stand despite the request. Salvidrim! 09:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've left the tagger a note, he appears to have done similar with related articles. GiantSnowman 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I should have contested the deletion before writing here (just in case). I will contest other speedy deletions made by the same person now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
(Other notices have been removed already by GiantSnowman.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Not resolved - do we have potential Twinkle abuse here? GiantSnowman 10:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it. He's still a relatively new editor. Nevertheless, I've warned (and trouted) him twice, but it appears he's willing to tag more. Despite the article making very evident claims to notability, he believes that the articles should be deleted because "they will be forgotten in 3-4 years," even though notability is not temporary. If he does it again, a block might be the only solution. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears the user's understanding of CSD criteria is flawed. He needs to understand that being notable and making a claim of notability are two different things, and only the latter is covered by CSD. I'm willing to give some leeway here and would rather see this used as a teaching experience than see him sanctioned. Salvidrim! 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I tagged those articles because I believe those bands and singers are not notable, and that the articles are basically frivolous, fan-written hagiographies. It is not because they will be forgotten in three or four years (I believe I prefaced that comment with “besides,” which should make it painfully obvious that it is not my primary reason.) As to whether I’m a relatively new editor, perhaps you should check my background. IIRC, I made my first edit in 2005. Meanwhile, I will review csd to see whether I understand the criterion properly. If I do, and I decide these articles meet the criterion for deletion, I will continue to pursue their deletion in spite of your mobbing—which, given the tone of these messages—is what are least two of you are engaging in. Best regards, and have fun Jim_Lockhart (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is criticising the fact you want to get some articles you view as non-notable deleted; it is the fact you attempted to use CSD to do so when they are patently not eligible. Review WP:N (particularly WP:MUSICBIO) and then use WP:AFD if you wish to start a deletion discussion. GiantSnowman 10:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I feel compelled to reiterate my earlier explanation -- CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of notability. These articles obviously do. Whether or not such claims of notability are verifiable and correct is another matter that can usually be dealt with at AfD, if you truly believe that these articles do not pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. Salvidrim! 10:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
And please don't tag something for deletion, whether speedy, prod, or through AFD, while the article is currently linked from the Main Page. KTC (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I find something fundamentally wrong with the fact that editor Jim_Lockhart lives in Japan (since 1981, see his userpage) and wants to delete the pages. To do it, you need to be completely withdrawn from society (or hate the group). By the way, I find it very interesting that Momoiro Clover Z has surpassed AKB48 by the number of views in the Japanese Wikipedia. And AKB48 was the most viewed article back in December 2010 (not counting the main page and a list of pornographic film actresses.) See the December 2010 statistics and the latest statistics: Momoiro Clover Z, AKB48. (It's not related to notability. It's simply an interesting fact.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I have reviewed the criterion at CSD and see that I was wrong in using the Speedy Delete tool, so I rescind my posting of the request for speedy deletion. I also see that it is against convention to tag for a deletion an article that is linked to the Main Page, and apologize for that offense. I appreciate the points that Giant Snowman and Salvidrim have made and thank them for their patience.
That said, I do not appreciate the attacks on my person and attendant innuendo about what kind of person I am made by Moscow Connection. I will admit that Japanese pop culture—especially of the [Name your locality abbreviation]+48/54/69 ad nauseam type—is not exactly my forte, but perhaps it is because I’ve lived in Japan since 1981 that I want frivolous stuff like this deleted. It is, as Wikipedians used to say, unencyclopedic; how many hits a page gets on the Japanese Wikipedia is immaterial to the noteworthiness of the subject to English speakers. In any case, Moscow Connection’s tone and insinuations are offensive. I believe that sort of thing also violates several Wikipedia conventions, not least of which are the one about no personal attacks and the one about assuming good faith. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Moscow was quite correct in his tone. It may all have been just a simple mistake or misunderstanding, but he simply said something relevant. If a page is one of the most searched on that encyclopedia, it is very likely notable for other pedias too. A person from the same country might be expected to know more about the notablity than others.
All in all, There was no bad faith or personal attacks from his side. Just an observation. An interesting fact, as he put it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry. I didn't want to imply that you were actually "withdrawn from society" or that you actually "hate the group". I was just a way to put my amazement into words, to show that I thought there was no way to not know about them skyrocketing to the top right this moment. Sorry. I assure you, no personal attack was intended. I hope you re-read the sentence and see that the words "something fundamentally wrong" indicate that I was simply wondering how could that be possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Moscow Connection. If it wasn't intentional, then I apologize for over-reacting. But I disagree with TheOriginalSoni's assessment, so in future I recommend that you work to avoid expressions that could be construed as calling a person's integrity or motivations into question, or their degree of familiarity with a subject as broad and deep as Japan. As I've admitted, I'm not real familiar with popular youth culture at this point, because I'm not as exposed to it as I was, for example, when our children were living at home. If you were living here, you would probably be unfamiliar with numerous aspects of this society, too—like, say, which enka singers are popular or on their way out the door right now. This would be because you weren't focused on those areas, whereas your antennae for what's going on in youth culture would be very sensitive. In any case, best regards—and thank you very much for your kind words. :) Jim_Lockhart (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. When I'm re-reading what i wrote, I don't think you overreacted. It can be understood as being very impolite. (It looks terrible, so I better not re-read it again.) I understand 100% what you are saying. I know that I don't know much about Japan apart from idol groups. I recently met a group of people, none of who had heard about "Gangnam Style", and I wasn't amazed. Some people are interested in pop culture, some aren't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a note about "CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of notability": The bar for avoiding A7 is actually lower than that, it is "CSD A7 applies when the article makes no credible claim of importance", and a claim that stands up to Notability standards is not required. As it says at WP:CSD, "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As that article stands, if it went to AfD I suspect it would probably be merged to the band - she doesn't appear to have much, if any, independent notability. That should've probably been picked up at WP:DYK. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the poor English and lack of MOS. DYK really needs to look at more than just "interesting" facts.
  • If they can get past the poor English on this one, let's just hope they don't click on the band article. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There are two reliable sources that discuss her in detail: [7], [8]. The latter is actually dedicated fully to the DYK fact, so it must be an indication of that the fact is important. She alreasy meets the basic notability criterion. There's also Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. At least one movie, Shirome, stars all Momoiro Clover members as main characters. They regularly rank in the top 10 of BIGLOBE polls, which indicates a cult following: [9]. --Moscow Connection (talk)
The band article is yet to be expanded (fivefold, to meet the DYK criterion). I'm planning to do it in a month or so. There are virtually countless sources, Natalie writes about the band virtually every day, Oricon every few days. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't read Japanese, but from the way the article reads it appears that those sources are about the band, but happen to mention facts about her. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Read the section Momoka Ariyasu#Image, after that Google Translate will work with this one: [10]. The other article is maybe just about an event, but still about her. There are also many interviews. For example, in this interview there are sections where they discuss each member individually. I didn't use them yet. I can't comment on the language because the article has been rewritten already after it appeared on the main page. It looked like that at the time: [11]. And it had been reviewed prior to that: [12]. If the article wasn't good enough, I can ask someone to review my DYK articles in the future. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
There's also a straight-to-DVD movie called "ももドラ momo+dra" (you can search YouTube for a trailer), where all the Momoiro Clover Z members appear as the main characters. That makes it 2 movies at least, enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. Anyway, they are big. The group also has its own TV shows, but it may not count towards their notability as individuals. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I read the article now and in its current version it misses some of the points that were there originally. For example, there's a sentence in the Image section that looks completely random, while it had a meaning before. I will fix it later, but not now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Another thing: Momoka is a member of Momoiro Clover Z and she was a member of another notable group, Power Age (see the Japanese Wikipedia article). That makes her notable as "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. She was also a member of a unit called Sisters Rabbit (sic!) (Sisters Rabbit in Japanese Wikipedia). The unit is most probably notable, it originally featured Namie Amuro. But Momoka was a second generation member, I couldn't find sources for that period. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:26, 28 December 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.

Review requested[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Mis-use_of_User_Page NE Ent 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

Hello. Anamasry contribute in Arabic Wikipedia (I leave study now), not good at only Arab (so use automatic translation by Google), but I want to take part in the English Wikipedia because it sister major and leader of our major, so I want to introduce my service to administratorsin the English Wikipedia: This is a list of the pages you've created in the Arabic Wikipedia, but some is not in the largest electronic scientific encyclopedia, I want create a project to translate the articles we present in Wikipedia and Arab non-existent in the English version --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You should put your ideas at the bottom of this page, not here. If you ever need help with Arabic to English translation, check out this coordinating page. dci | TALK 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Andybrevard and Badboyzshop[edit]

Can someone handle this to show the accounts are linked, and probably deactivate the old one? Badboyzshop (talk · contribs) has changed his name from Andybrevard (talk · contribs) to Badboyzshop, per details given at user talk:Badboyzshop diff.

-- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as he's not attempting to evade sanctions or scrutiny, I don't believe there's anything an admin could do, even if they wanted to. I'll advise Badboyzshop to throw up an {{Altuser}} on the old account and a {{User previous account}} on the new one.
If there's a concern that Badboyzshop is not the same person, you might want to ask him to confirm it through the old account, but otherwise I'd encourage you to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT, 70.24. Yes, Badboyzshop should have requested a name change, but as far as I know there's no rule against changing usernames "oldschool." — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I was operating under the impression that when you switch usernames, an admin was supposed to block your old account? -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is overlap in a way that means it is unlikely they are the same person. Very likely, they are working in tandem. As long as it isn't abusive, then it isn't meatpuppetry, although any time you see this kind of editing on a new article, it is worth monitoring. They both should not be voting at AFD for instance, since it is obvious they are two people but acting as one. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Diffs, please? If it is two people, they've done a very good job making it look like one - even pretending to forget to change accounts, after I suggested to Badboyzshop that he use the old account for his updates to his old userspace, to verify that he's the one operating both. Either way, if Andybrevard doesn't edit any more, this shouldn't be an issue. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
70.24, you're allowed to request that your old account be blocked, but no, I don't believe there's any policy that old accounts should be blocked. It's good to declare them, so that no one can accuse you of trying to sock if the old one is compromised someday (indeed, this is what I've done with two somewhat less benevolent accounts I made once upon a time), but I think the general idea is that if you have reason to believe that an account will not be editing, you want to know if they start editing again (e.g. why we don't block users who've been confirmed dead). Furthermore, occasionally one does want to use a secondary account to test things out - for instance, I use FRC&AND (talk · contribs) to experiment with Pending Changes in the designated sandboxes, occasionally. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting Reviewer permissions[edit]

I don't mean to be picky but I submitted my request to to be a reviewer 5 days ago here and I haven't got a accepted or denied and I was wondering how much longer is it going to take? I don't mean to be rude but is my nomination to be reviewed thoroughly or something otherwise I don't know why the long wait. I also noticed there is a backlog notice at the top. Hopefully things can get cleared up, cheers JayJayTalk to me 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing having to do with you more than likely, it's just backlog. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've cleared the backlog a bit, and got up through your request. Seems PERM could use some more attention. Monty845 01:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you much Face-smile.svg, cheers JayJayTalk to me 01:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 124.188.33.97 (talk · contribs)[edit]

124.188.33.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is vandalising Beijing–Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong_Kong_High-Speed_Railway persistently, claiming that the article is biased. The user has reverted changes at least five times (most likely more by the time this is posted) and threatens to do so until the article 'includes factual details'. Thanks 86.151.98.79 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User is also posting comments on my talk page, about the article being biased and they will continue to say its biased until something is done.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA SPA's/Socks