Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249

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

Noticeboard archives


CSD question[edit]

Ex post facto. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 01:15, 19 May 2013 (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.

In considering {{db-g5}} which states "as a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of his or her ban or block", shouldn't that only apply when the pages were created after the block or ban was imposed and not for pages created by a sock who had not yet been banned? My76Strat (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an example in mind? Note the word 'blocked' as well; any article created by a blocked editor during attempts to violate their block can potentially be deleted if there are no other significant contributors to the article. There's no need to wait until the editor is formally banned. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This IP, whom I'll notify spawned my question, The tagged articles were created before any block or ban was placed and may be more aggressive that the criteria prescribes. My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that does seem to be the case - (talk · contribs) is asking that pre-block articles by Dbromage (talk · contribs) be deleted, which isn't the purpose of this particular CSD. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just declined all the CSD nominations. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2013 (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.

VampireProject's Admin Rights[edit]

You are looking for WP:RFA, although the fact that you have 70 edits means you might want to wait a while. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 01:12, 19 May 2013 (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.

So I would like to request to have administration right on here, it would be awesome if I was one on here and I would be responsible on here and treat it like my own place, I would treat it with respect.

--VampireProject23 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Try WP:RFA and do not add to your user/talkpage/sandbox that you are an admin. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Doing things like this is not going to help you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2013 (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.

The United States Census records[edit]

Already being dealt with at the proper venue, spreading it over multiple venues doesn't help. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 01:10, 19 May 2013 (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.

Many users use the U.S. Census as the basis for the early life of an individual and even look upon it as a undoubtable source for a birthyear debate. However, there have been some mistakes (both explainable and unexplainable) to which must direct your attention;

Therefore pose the question. Are these United States records considered truly a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohist (talkcontribs) 00:30, 19 May 2013

No, they aren't: See WP:BLPPRIMARY. I see you've started a thread on the same subject at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The United States Census records, and suggest that people respond there - spreading the same discussion over several pages is confusing and may be counterproductive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2013 (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.

Is this legit?[edit]

I have worked with BDD some in the past and happened to see this edit on my watchlist. Is this in any way legit? If so, I don't suppose it's my business, but if not it requires some sort of intervention. Thanks! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, just someone screwing with his userpage. He still has administrator rights, according to This. I've reverted. If it continues, let someone know and we can block/protect as needed. --Jayron32 04:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You can also check WP:List of administators to verify any admin in the future. When an IP with no previous edits is the one declaring an admin has been bit stripped, it is likely vandalism. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • List is good but I've been misled by it in the past -- Special:Log [1] or Special:ListUsers is better. NE Ent 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Pop ups is a good tool in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Good to know. I was immediately suspicious when I saw that ANY IP editor was declaring someone desysopped, particularly when I knew he was on vacation. I figured this noticeboard was the only place to be sure. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Own userspace pages protection criteria[edit]

User:Smtchahal SPP'ed indefinitely as per common practice and discussion about the underlying consensus to honor or not these types of requests is being held here. :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:27, 20 May 2013 (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.

After I requested my user page to be indefinitely semi-protected pre-emptively (no one but myself ever edited it), I was declined by User:Bishonen per WP:UPROT, since there was (obviously) no sign of vandalism on my user page's history, nor a good reason to get it protected (or rather no reason at all). However, I have failed to realise why the following user pages got protected:

My question is: why is it that some administrators behave differently from others? It's not that I'm upset why my user page didn't get protected and their did; frankly, I never wanted my user page to be protected in any way (unless it really needed to). But aren't all administrators supposed to behave rationally and all that, following policies and guidelines wherever possible unless their actions reflect broad consensus? Is it not true that User:Mike V and User:Materialscientist's actions I mentioned blatantly violated WP:UPROT? smtchahaltalk 18:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Because each individual administrator is, well, an individual and Wikipedia is an iconoclastic society that values not being a bureaucracy as one of its five highest principles. Rationally, yes, but "lockstep with all the other administrators", no. The important thing to know is that if some IP editing jerks do start messing with your page(s) a responding admin at WP:RFPP will protect it in short order. NE Ent 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It is true though that the caveat that pages are not protected preemtively is usually interpreted more liberally in userspace. I think the reason for that is that there is almost never a valid reason to be messing with another user's main page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
What would you say about the protection of User:WorldTraveller101's sandbox? smtchahaltalk 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, have you asked Materielscientist about it? Sometimes there may be reasons which are not immediately visible....Lectonar (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I would also note that many admins protect their own pages and subpages rather liberally, often times just because they can. Does having the ability to do it yourself override the need? Why shouldn't an individual be allowed to semiprotect or protect their own pages to eliminate or reduce the potential for vandalism. Is there something being harmed? I would think not. Although the exception to that should be the users talk page unless there is a history of vandalism. Otherwise new editors or Ip's wouldn't be able to comment. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess non-admins will never really know if they do. The user page of Edgar181 (an admin), for example, has been fully-protected when it has never edited by anyone but himself. But the problem is, that page also has been deleted by himself several times, so we cannot say there has not been vandalism by auto-confirmed users in the past (which should be the only reason an active administrator could fully protect their user page), before the page was re-created the last time. But I think he should have given it a chance, to see if vandalism still does continue after the page was re-created, before just fully-protecting it. User:Bishonen, as you may have already noticed, told me he cannot protected user pages pre-emptively. But is fully-protecting User:Edgar181's user page, even though we don't know if it has undergone some serious vandalism by auto-confirmed users, not a pre-emptive action? smtchahaltalk 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Funny, I was typing about that....but I would have said that many admin-userpages are not protected :), although they could do it. Lectonar (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Mine is protected, and I did do it myself, but it was in response to trolling and vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
With the request on RFPP, I protected the page for the user because I felt that avoiding vandalism was considered a "good reason to do so". In most cases, IP edits to user pages result in vandalism, some which targets users in an offensive matter. I feel that this may be a good case to invoke WP:IAR. If protecting a user page to avoid receiving personal attacks makes a user feel more welcome to project, then it's likely that the pros outweigh the cons.
However, this thread may suggest that there isn't a general consensus on whether or not to protect user pages simply at the given user's request. It may not be a bad idea to open up a request for comment to gain a wider range of input from the community. Mike VTalk 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
As a relatively new user, I couldn't agree with you more. Psychologically, it does feel good, especially when your are really new, to know that you can get your user page semi-protected. I think it is a good idea to be liberal with new users. I can't think any reason why this would lead to harm and even if a new user is just worried about user-page vandalism, why not give them a week of semi-protection while they get to understand the community? If a liberal policy helps retain and editor now and then, it is worth it.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Smtchahal came to my page and discussed their concerns first, in case anybody wants to see the prehistory of their query here. I don't have anything to add to what I said there. Indeed, it was I who suggested they might take it here, or else ask Mike and Materialscientist directly, if they wanted to pursue the thing further. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC).
  • The whole situation is rather odd. When protecting a page, the dropdown list of options has an option for "protected userpage at user's request". The relevant policy section is vague, saying that pages should be protected on request either because there have been problems or because there is some "other good reason to do so". Basically, the admin who's reviewing the protection request is responsible for deciding whether a request should be considered good enough, and the answer to that question will vary from admin to admin. I tend to be rather liberal in granting protection for userpages upon request; I've done it plenty of times and can't remember declining a good-faith request. To Kumioko — part of the thing is that because admins are responsible for blocking vandals, we often get userpage vandalism. Until I semiprotected it in 2010, my userpage was getting several edits a month from other people, and virtually all of it was vandalism or reversion thereof. Since then, I've had more vandalism at my user talk page (and of course I'll not protect that), but I'm still getting far less userspace vandalism than I used to. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I have requested an RfC on the WP:PP talk page, because I don't think this discussion is going to yield anything. smtchahaltalk 01:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've never rejected a protection request for a user page; to be quite frank, I would not oppose a proposal for them to be automatically FPP'ed, with an exclusion for the user whose userpage it is. User talk page are another thing altogether, but that's not the issue here. What good reason would anyone have to edit another user's userpage? None. FPP would still allow admins to remove problematic materials (spam, attacks, whatever). :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, per Beeblebrox, Mike V and Nyttend, I SPP'ed User:Smtchahal. There is evidently a lack of consensus as to the exact rules about these requests but several admins have chimed in that it is common practice to honor these requests, and I will thus honor this one. I strongly hope there is an ensuing RfC that will firmly establish clearer guidelines. However, I agree with Bishonen's points and am only doing this to resolve this particular case, with the agreement of various other admins. :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:27, 20 May 2013 (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.

Ștefan Kovács[edit]

Folbal1 user always deletes from information from article of Ștefan Kovács. This informations are related his native nation/citizenship (Hungarian) and his family background. The sources are contains this information. Rowiki also contains it. Folbal1 all wiki works is only four deletion from this article. - Csurla (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So just to be clear here (based on the article's history, etc.): 1) You added content to the article without sources: [2]. 2) Folbal1 removes it, asking for a source: [3]. 3) You edit war with him: [4] and [5]. 4) He writes on your talk page telling you not to add unsourced content: [6]. 5) And instead of discussing it with him on your talk page, his talk page, or (ideally) the article's talk page, you bring him to the administrator's noticeboard?? I suggest an admin closes this thread, and that Csurla reads WP:Bold, revert, discuss and WP:BURDEN. (In any event, if this thread does remain open, it should probably be at WP:ANI...) Singularity42 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It's funny! - Csurla (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I rewrite one part of information with realable sources. I wonder when they revert. - Csurla (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He deleted. His all activities in wikipedia is just deletion. - Csurla (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I explained my reason on the talk page and I asked for extra opinions here [7] Folbal1 (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You didn't explain nothing. You just wrote: "There is no reliable source about that (in my opinion)"[8] Pls stop the war. You always delete facts from this article[9]. - Csurla (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for two days. If the edit warring continues after that, you can report it at WP:ANEW. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


nothing to see here Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2013 (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. (talk · contribs) is vandalising pages by inserting/replacing/adding different names. [10] Delljvc (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:, which is currently stale. K7L (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2013 (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:[edit] (talk · contribs) is being uncivil on his own talk page and at Talk:AC/DC (electricity), and accusing me of sockpuppetry without even informing me of that. -- (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This likely belongs on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The 174.118 IP was engaged in a content dispute on AC/DC (electricity) and AC/DC (disambiguation) involving the scope and title of the former; details are on Talk:AC/DC (electricity). Instead of sticking to the issue (whether AC/DC (electricity) as currently titled includes AC/DC universal motors or should be limited to the now-obsolete All American Five "hot-chassis" tube radio) this user attempted a revert war against me on the disambiguation page and made accusations against me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:K7L_reported_by_User: which were dismissed. The same IP then created a spurious sock report at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/K7L which was speedily deleted as (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: frivolous request). The allegation (made without the required notifications) claimed a Montréal Bell ADSL IP was me even though I'm in Ontario with no evidence presented other than the 65.94 Montréal IP having commented on a few of the same Wikipedia:Requested moves nominations. At this point, this is venue shopping. I did ask the 174.118 Toronto IP to stop here on user talk: but was reverted without a response. 65.94 is also trying to contact 174.118... via that user's talk page and being reverted without reply. This is making direct discussion with this user difficult. K7L (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Central Time Zone (North America)[edit]

Black Kite beat me to it. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 23:27, 21 May 2013 (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.

Can an admin close the RM discussion listed here? Seven days have happened and there is a clear consensus. In this case it is needed an admin due to page protection. Thanks Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:16, 21 May 2013 (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.

Requested redirect[edit]

Requesting redirect of epic fail guy and Epic Fail Guy to Guy Fawkes mask as per that article and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture.   — C M B J   10:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There are no incoming links to those; what usefulness would they have? In addition, can you clarify what has changed since the most recent consensus that lead to the deletion of the redirect? :) ·Salvidrim!·  10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not unreasonable, given the subject's popularity, to assume that users will manually seek out an article at that title. As for the above discussion, it pertained to an inappropriate redirect that lacked any supporting content, whereas this target explicitly mentions the subject.   — C M B J   10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(EC) The request to remove the redirect from EFG -> 4chan was based on no mention in the article. EFG is mentioned at the guy fawkes mask article as part of its section on Anonymous usage of the mask, and its origins. The only redirect to 4chan kept in that discussion was one that was used in the 4chan article. No comment on how useful this is to have currently. Although Anonymous is a bit more noteworthy since 2009, I am surprised there is no mention at that article, as while EFG isnt notable in itself as a 4chan meme (there are loads of them) it is relevant to the Anonymous group. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Created. Why couldn't you do it? Is there some blacklist that prevented you? Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't happen to notice what exactly was precluding its creation, but without the admin flag it definitely wasn't happening.   — C M B J   04:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Account with troubling name[edit]

WMF Aware Jalexander--WMF 08:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that an account LETMEKILLMYSELF (talk · contribs) has recently been created. My first thought was to {{usernamehardblock}} it without waiting for edits, but I felt the name was sufficiently concerning to bring it here. Any thoughts about what to do? Does this come under the "threats of violence" policy? -- The Anome (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm might help.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'd've just blocked and left it. Although that's probably why I'm not an admin.--Launchballer 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I've now brought the account creation to the attention of the WMF, per the suicide threat policy mentioned above. -- The Anome (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hatting so that others know we're aware, thank you everyone. Jalexander--WMF 08:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for now. Unsure how to proceed. SQLQuery me! 08:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC[edit]

I have just opened the RfC on the lead of the Jerusalem article that was mandated by this Arbitration motion. If there are any admins around here that aren't too overworked (yes, I know, we need a pay rise), I would be very grateful if you could watchlist the discussion and monitor it for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. The Israel/Palestine topic area is notorious for sockpuppetry, and my experience at the moderated discussion that led to the RfC has made it clear that the editors can easily slip into incivility, so any extra eyeballs would be most useful. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad Bot[edit]

This seems like a mountain being made out of a fairly insignificant molehill. Apparently a set of very specific circumstances combined to trip up the bot. That's regrettable, and if the bot's operators can do something to prevent it from happening again, that would be nice, but it's hardly something serious enough to start geschrying about machines serving man instead of vice versa -- and on that subject, Cluebot does serve us very well, and anyone who doesn't think so isn't paying close enough attention to their watchlists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2013 (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.

Could one of you good folks have a look into User:ClueBot NG? It's left at least two bad warnings in the last two days at User talk:Eric Corbett. I filed the report here, and left a warning with pings here, but noticed that Cobi hasn't edited since the 6th, and Crispy since Feb. I don't know bot coding; but perhaps one of you good folks could look into this before some good faith editors are chased away improperly and needlessly. Thanks folks. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe User:Cobi is the one to poke, alternatively there's a list of contacts at User:ClueBot NG#Team, I don't think people here would know much about the details of its detection engine. Snowolf How can I help? 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems it's all down to Crispy though, who as Ched says hasn't edited since 20 February. That's just not good enough. Eric Corbett 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Crispy hasn't edited since 20 February 2011 indeed, which is why I pointed to Cobi who is the owner of the bot and would know how to fix it :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The problem isn't just that Eric was warned as a new user despite not being one (which is, in thoery, understandable), it's that ClueBot issues rather insistent warnings for alleged vandalism when the edits have nothing to do whatsoever with vandalism. That's unacceptable and I'd support disabling ClueBot until the operator explains or fixes the issue. :) ·Salvidrim!·  20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Mind notifying the bot owner at least once before starting talk of disabling bots and whatnot? Snowolf How can I help? 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The bot owner has been notified, but has so far failed to deal with the issue. Eric Corbett 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, by me a few moments ago. Before that, the only notification was on the bot's talk page which is for less urgent stuff, when you try to reach a botop for such an urgent matter, it's worth actually posting to their talk page... Snowolf How can I help? 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems Ched has decided to unilaterally block the bot. I can't say that I agree, Cluebot NG has a vital role in our countervandalism system and should not be blocked on a whim based on one or two problematic warnings and a report/ping left not more than a few hours ago. Snowolf How can I help? 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No offense Snowolf - but I blocked it temporarily (with notes to both inactive operators) - and left a note at WT:BAG in the hopes that one of them may be able to look into it. I will follow up on it - it's not like we're offending a "real person" with this - rather we're preventing the "bot" from offending. — Ched :  ?  20:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Fundamentally, bots should not have inactive operators, and when they do they should be canned. Eric Corbett 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)And what you've done is show that you have no clue about this. You've blocked the bot while leaving autoblock on, blocking all of cluenet. You've posted on the BAG page while you can see that a BAG member has been here trying to explain to you how to go about this and expect that BAG does what? We don't have access to the sourcecode or the running instance. And FYI, what you call 'inactive bot operators' are generally people who aren't much active as editors but promply reply to urgent issue. I note that you didn't left a message on the user's talk page before blocking even and merely waited a few hours from your report. All of this and you blocked one of the most important parts of the enwiki countervandalism infrastracture for two lousy mistakes. Please, you're being ridicolous and clueless. I have to remove the autoblock and I will take the occasion to remove the block along with it. This is utterly ridicolous. Snowolf How can I help? 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    I see Reaper beat me to it, thankfully. Snowolf How can I help? 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Also, I lurk and fix issues, I just don't edit that often; and I'm in daily contact with Crispy -- I am not unreachably inactive (which is what should be avoided by bot ops). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoa whoa whoa guys, Cluebot catches an incredible amount of vandalism much more reliably than human editors. While I get that it's suboptimal for it to be reverting good-faith edits, the warnings to Eric are the first I've seen of Cluebot screwing up in this manner and I question the wisdom of using blocking as a first step here in response to what's basically a single error on a single user's edits, especially without notifying the community to expect a much higher vandalism load in need of manual reverting. This is not a bot malfunction that's breaking articles and needs to be instantly cut off; we can afford to take more than an hour to figure out what's going on and how systematic it is before we just whack a big ol' block (with autoblock enabled, good grief) on the bot. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I echo the above (!) the bot is designed to achieve a 0.1% false positive rate, MF isn't at risk of being blocked and the fact that predictors associated with his new account form a pretty unique situation likely mean the bot is doing exactly what we'd want it to 999 times out of 1000 (this just happens to be the other time) Jebus989 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Whatever you guys want to do is fine by me .. I took a shot. I agree it's done some great work, but I don't want to lose real people over it either. You folks want to unblock it - then that's fine with me - no objections. Just trying to get a handle on things before we lose real people over a "bot" falsely accusing folks of vandalism. — Ched :  ?  20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW - twice in two days to the same user is a bit more than "an hour" .. but like I say - whatever you think best is fine by me. — Ched :  ?  20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This is returning bad information. Perhaps the toolserver DB is broken. This on the other hand seems normal. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It just shows that what MF (EC) is doing is considered vandalism by an objective observer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    And which objective observer might that be? Eric Corbett 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well to be fair, it was probably caused by you inserting "&nbp;" into an article, which doesn't equate to anything since this was a typo of you inserting a symbol. Since it warned you once before, it probably recognized you as a potential problem editor. Obviously this is in error, but blocking a bot that is not seriously malfunctioning is not the right approach, especially when it's probably the best vandalism fighter we have. It's best just to shrug it off and move on. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, I made a typo, Mea Culpa. That clearly deserves a final warning. Eric Corbett 01:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's slow down and consider the cost/benefit here[edit]

Ah.... I wonder what is actually going on here. Just doing a quick survey of the robot's last edits, it seems to be performing normally -- reverting obvious vandalism, and leaving appropriately mildly-worded warnings on the malefactor's talk pages. Except for Eric Corbett.. With him (and only him, apparently?), it's reverting perfectly unobjectionable edits and leaving screaming red nastinesss on the talk page. I have a hard time believing that this is mere coincidence. One theory: the robot has achieved consciousness (we have been warned that this would happen) and is manifesting a darkly twisted sense of humor or a suprahuman trolling ability, or both.

But nevermind about that. The cause is not important. What is important is what's best for the project. I would say that if it's true that Eric Corbett and only Eric Corbett is the victim of this vicious editing jenny gone awry, and considering the extremely important value this machine adds to the project, then... well, you do the math. I did, and have to strongly object to blocking the device on purely on cost/benefit grounds. This is sad for Eric Corbett, but we're making an encyclopedia not running a middle-school girls' tea party. We need to work that this robot does, and it needs to be unblocked ASAP. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UT

User:Reaper Eternal has unblocked ClueBot NG, Cobi said above that the toolserver database seems to return invalid information (edit count etc.) about some users (User:Eric Corbett) which could have caused this. --Sitic (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If it is just Eric, then I'm sure he's quite capable of laughing it off. He's been victimised far more thoroughly over the years than a mere bot can manage. But if this is a symptom of a wider problem of the bot taking a BITE out of newcomers, then the cost dramatically increases well beyond the benefit. In that case, the strong objection to blocking the bot suddenly gets a helluva lot weaker, doesn't it? --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If it's only me that the toolserver database can't deal with then as you say, that's no big deal. But it's a bit difficult to believe that this issue only affects me. Eric Corbett 21:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of edit count -- the bot chewed a user out for vandalism about edits that were evidently not vandalism; this is what I'd like to see explained. :) ·Salvidrim!·  21:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
To be fair to the bot, whilst it may appeaer obviously not vandalism to a human, it would probably be almost impossible to programme to bot to distinguish it from similar vandalistic edits.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah put down the pitchforks folks, a number of editors have suggested perfectly reasonable explanations of how the edits could have been mistaken for vandalism, so unless a dev identifies a specific issue with the bot let's, erm, AGF? Jebus989 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not ready to put the pitchfork down just yet. While I'm sure that in the future we'll all be controlled by spinning whirlwinds of hyperintelligent dust, until that day, the chance of a piece of code putting off a potentially good new editor like Eric, is too high. It's message should at least be toned down until it learns to behave. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The occasional erroneous false positive is to be expected with any neural network system. The libel and defamation that is guaranteed to be inserted into BLPs if ClueBot is disabled requires this bot to be left running. Go through its contributions. Note the ratio of true to false positives is extremely high. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and the level four "stop it or else!" message was triggered because Drmies flagged Eric as a vandal with his joke level three warning. It would otherwise have been a level one warning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, anyone can tone the warnings down. They were more polite, and someone else made them less so. Here are some links:
  • ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal-common
  • ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1
  • ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal2
  • ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal3
  • ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal4
  • ClueBot NG/Warnings/Warning
  • ClueBot NG/Warnings/WarningData
  • -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'm no expert on the CBNG programming and learning, but it saw a brand-new new editor put in invalid html, repeating characters, and make lots of small changes, and got another warning. If this weren't EC/MF, at least some of that might have been reverted by a person. Perhaps the system could be educated to check for certain user-rights, so that a new editor who has advanced rights is not acted-toward like just a new editor. ~ Amory (utc) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    That is already done. The reason it happened here was because the database knew nothing about the user. This is likely because the toolserver database is broken (see above). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    But how can it be broken when I can see my own contributions here? Eric Corbett 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    I found the issue -- I typoed the link earlier, this is a good link. As you can see, the user has 368 edits, but 72 edits to their talk page regarding warnings. That puts the ratio at 19.5%. That combined with the sheer number of talk page edits regarding warnings probably causes the bot's ANN to consider it vandalism:
    rev_user_text rev_comment
    Bulleid Pacific /* A rather late warning... */ new section
    Malleus Fatuorum /* A rather late warning... */ no deadline
    Bulleid Pacific /* A rather late warning... */
    Bulleid Pacific /* A rather late warning... */
    Bulleid Pacific /* A rather late warning... */
    Malleus Fatuorum /* A rather late warning... */ whaddya mean, can't convert degrees to metric?
    Ckatz /* Date linking */ reply/warning
    Gimmetrow /* Civility warning */ new section
    Geometry guy /* Civility warning */ Please read my comments on Gimmetrows talk page
    Geometry guy /* Civility warning */ Clarify
    Amicon /* Civility warning */ er
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ reply
    Pedro /* Civility warning */ recent?
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ reply to Gguy
    Amicon /* Civility warning */
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ reply
    Gimmetrow /* Civility warning */
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ nothing more to say for now
    Pedro /* Civility warning */ do not
    Gimmetrow /* Civility warning */
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ reply
    Pedro /* Civility warning */ reply (ec)
    Pedro /* Civility warning */ crucial word!
    Pedro /* Civility warning */ btw
    Mattisse /* Question */ @SandyGeorgia - diff you meant to AN/I where warning was deemed unjustified?
    Balloonman /* Continuation of debate from Malleus's oppose brought to talk as it is no longer about candidate */ final warning
    Georgewilliamherbert /* I really wish you hadn't edit warred with me on my talk page */ civility warning for the sequence on Beeblebrox' talk page. that was not treating other editors with dignity or respect.
    Singularity42 /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ new section
    Singularity42 /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ removed unnecessary brackets
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ because you created the redirect
    Singularity42 /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ okay then
    Malleus Fatuorum /* A warning */ new section
    Juliancolton /* A warning */ cmt
    Malleus Fatuorum /* A warning */ how?
    Ceranthor /* A warning */ $0.02
    Malleus Fatuorum /* A warning */ too late
    Chillum /* Civility warning */ new section
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ fuck off
    Fred the Oyster /* Civility warning */
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ my last word
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ idiots 1 ...
    Fred the Oyster /* Civility warning */
    Parrot of Doom /* Civility warning */ greasy ladder
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Civility warning */ gone
    White Shadows /* Civility warning */ please....
    Proofreader77 /* Civility warning */ Time for musical transcendence! ^;^
    Richerman /* Civility warning */ get a life!
    White Shadows /* Civility warning */ way to go
    White Shadows /* Civility warning */ way to go...
    Unitanode /* Civility warning */ oh, goodie!
    White Shadows /* Civility warning */ one last attempt.... /* Civility warning */ c
    Guerillero /* Civility warning */
    Pride the Arrogant /* Civility warning */ cmt
    Jack1755 /* Civility warning */
    Pride the Arrogant /* Civility warning */ What he said!
    Georgewilliamherbert /* Your behavior */ Turian blocked for 48 hrs for having kept it up past warning
    Civility Police /* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section
    Civility Police /* A warning from the Civility Police */ fix
    The Civility Police /* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section
    The Civility Police /* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section
    Malleus Fatuorum /* August 2010 */ please consider this to be your first warning
    Iridescent /* Your advice please on a possible FA */ The usual warning
    Kiefer.Wolfowitz /* September 2011 */ Posting a "warning" 8 hours after R's clarification was multiply problematic
    ThatPeskyCommoner /* Sockpuppetry */ Only ever as a warning not to tolerate injustice against others
    Drmies /* Donner party */ warning: WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK /* Only warning. */ new section
    SineBot Signing comment by - "/* Only warning. */ new section"
    Malleus Fatuorum /* ANI and Demiurge */ necessary warning
    Malleus Fatuorum /* Your back! */ should be a warning really
    Ealdgyth /* That time again ... */ warning
    Drmies /* Sunbeam Tiger */ fictional warning
    This is an edgecase -- apparently the user wasn't renamed, but the talk page was moved, and the user is right on the edge for when CBNG completely ignores them. This would not have happened to a newbie. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    I asked to be renamed, but that was apparently technically impossible. Which once again I don't believe, but there you go. Eric Corbett 01:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've reported a bad edit by ClueBot NG in the recent past. I'm wondering if perhaps it is time to have ClueBot moved to labs and updated to prevent these kinds of issues since toolserver is no longer reliable and causing issues. Technical 13 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    The bot is on labs, but labs doesn't have access to the database, so that one script (which is non-critical, but lowers the accuracy of the bot when it doesn't report correctly) is still on the toolserver, and the bot hits that script for the data it needs out of the database. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Labs actually has access to the database as of today, but of course it hasn't been thoroughly tested. --Rschen7754 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Ched has my total support on this. Cluebot is clueless. Let's see, Eric makes a typo, bot is unattended and making bad postings/warnings, Ched blocks bot, and Snowolfie rants on Ched? Bat bot, Bad Snowolfie....PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Which is more damaging though, reverting the false positive and reporting it, or blocking the bot and leaving vandalism site-wide unattended? Eric is far from emotionally scarred from seeing a bot warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Sure, but his point was that real new users may get unjust vandalism warnings which might put them off of editing altogether. Eric mentioned somewhere that the wording of the level 4 template was a bit strong for his taste--I personally don't subscribe to that since that level 4 needs to be as serious as can be if the previous levels were correctly applied. I'm quite willing to accept that this is a toolserver-related problem, but a. that's above my pay grade and b. Eric mentioned that toolserver, as far as he could judge, seemed to be working--in other words, that explanation does not yet hold a lot of water. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Toolserver – lets better call it toolcluster as it consists of 18 servers – has two database servers for en.wikipedia. It might be that ClueBot and the editcount tool use different database server or the way they request the data is different. --Sitic (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    They do, no question. But then, human editors give out unjust warnings, too; ClueBot is not all that different. Retiring Cluebot would not eliminate unjust vandalism warnings; the number of human-caused warnings would rise, since humans would have to take over all the reversion the bot does (which is a majority of the vandalism reversion on Wikipedia). One important difference is that a human user might have been able to figure out that your joke warning was just that, whereas Cluebot is incapable of doing so. Your joke warning was the only reason Cluebot went to level 4; otherwise, it would've gone to the still-mild level 2. Of course, joke warnings are not a concern for new editors (at least, I really really hope not). Writ Keeper  01:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    But that's somewhat to miss the point. Neither of the edits I was warned by ClueBot for were vandalism, so why was I warned for something I hadn't done? Has this only ever happened to me? Really? Eric Corbett 01:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Like Writ said, the chance of an instance of two false positives with an intermediate joke warning isn't very likely to repeat, so this is a pretty rare occurrence. And, as someone who works in WP:ACC, I can safely tell you that there is a reason that we are transitioning this to labs as well: toolserver is frequently borked beyond repair and is unreliable. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    So, a false positive has been identified, and the community has made it clear it wants the situation addressed. I think that is enough for the moment, ClueBot doesn't actually make a lot of mistakes and it undeniably does revert tons of vandalism. If the situation isn't dealt with soon we can re-examine the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    No, not one but two in quick succession, and what we need to know is why. Eric Corbett 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, two, I guess I was thinking of them both as a single error, and I completely agree that we need to know why and the situation needs to be rectified, I just don't think the bot should be shut off while we work it out unless it is making lots of equally obvious errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    The errors only affect me apparently, so obviously they don't matter. Eric Corbett 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Quite the opposite; false positives happen all the time (for a given value of "all the time"; the threshold is set very low to prevent as many false positives as it can), as with any and all automated non-deterministic processes, and the fact that it happened to you is the only reason this is getting even close to the attention it is. The two in two days is a problem, but people are looking into it. To be honest, I'm not really sure what more you want; false positives always have been and always will be a reality of automated vandalism reversion, and we've historically accepted that risk. Writ Keeper  01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm still not buying it. First of all it was a toolserver database problem and now it's the ability of the bot to connect an account that it doesn't believe exists to one that's had a load of warnings over the last six years or so. Do you really think that's credible? Eric Corbett 02:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    ───────────────────────── Now that someone has mentioned it, moving the talk page over might have been the issue, that does make a bit more sense. I would still like to see some verification that the percentage of wrong guesses is actually 1/1000 or less. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 01:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    User:ClueBot NG/FAQ#False_Positives and User:ClueBot NG/BRFA -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Also relevant:
    CBNG thresholds.png
    CBNG falsepositives.png
    -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    How do you know how many false positives there are? NE Ent 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    I don't know this Eric Corbett person -- maybe they're not a Wikipedian or something so the bot doesn't work right from them -- but we're fortunate they're persistent enough to keep editing despite mindless harassment. How many other new editors would have simply said screw it and left? I'd rather have 20 pieces of unreverted vandalism than one editor lost. If the encyclopedia was, you know, finished or something maybe "protecting" it would be the highest priority, but with a quarter million {{unreferenced}} templates I don't think it is. NE Ent 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    We know exactly how many false positives there are because we profile it against a large corpus of human reviewed edits. I think that is mentioned on those pages I linked above. Also, as I mentioned above, it would not have happened to a real new user. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    So how many times will it keep happening to me, or to others in my situation? Or don't we matter? Eric Corbett 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Until your edit count is more than 10 times the number of edits to your talk page regarding warnings:
                            if( $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_edit_count' ] > 50 )
                                    if( $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_warns' ] / $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_edit_count' ] < 0.1 )
                                            return Array( false, 'User has edit count' );
                                            $reason = 'User has edit count, but warns > 10%';
    However, if you add your name to Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist, it will ignore you. I know it shows that there isn't a list there anymore, but if you click edit on the page, you will see there is still a list. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    I really can't be bothered. You initially claimed that I didn't exist on the toolserver database, yet now I apparently do, but I wasn't allowed to rename my account, so now I'm stuck in this pit. Eric Corbett 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    I said "likely" for a reason -- because I was at work and hadn't had time to do a thorough investigation, and it was the most likely explanation given the quick investigation I did. I've had time to actually log into the toolserver and actually debug it now, and my initial guess turned out to be incorrect. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    You can't get "exact" out of a profile. What's your sample size and how is the sample selected? NE Ent 02:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    The sample size is half the size of it's training corpus. Something like 40k edits or so. The samples set is selected randomly. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    40,000 randomly selected positives have been human reviewed? NE Ent 02:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    No, 40-50k randomly selected edits have been classified by humans. We split this corpus into a training set and a calibration set randomly. We train the bot with the training set and then calibrate it by having it score everything in the calibration set. Then we set the revert threshold such that the number of edits which the bot says is vandalism and humans say are good is less than 0.1%. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Are the raw numbers (counts?) published somewhere? NE Ent 03:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    ──────────────────── Not since the BRFA (linked above). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 03:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, saw the linked section User:ClueBot_NG#Statistics, seeing percentages but not raw numbers. NE Ent 05:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Cobi's explanation for the bot's behavior is correct. The exact theories regarding the bot's operation are public, and how this kind of mistake occurs is clear to those who understand the basic concepts of machine learning. I spent a great deal of time ensuring that the bot is properly calibrated to the specified false positive rate, and it has been properly operating autonomously at this threshold for years. Wikipedia has a large number of relevant articles on machine learning and the specific technologies used in Cluebot NG - if you read them, you will probably have a better understanding of these issues. I would be more than happy to discuss any technical arguments about why Cobi's explanation is incorrect, but it is not productive to say "I think this is wrong but I don't know why", without anything to back it up. Crispy1989 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for posting all that Cobi, it's nice to see it spelled out so clearly and reasonably. ~ Amory (utc) 04:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Another Comment[edit]

    I have a lot of pages watch-listed. Very often, the last edit that I see mentioned is a revert by User:ClueBot NG. In those cases, I have never seen a false positive. I have a very good regard for Clue Bot NG. We need ClueBot NG. It is an excellent vandalism fighter, and it doesn't sleep. Blocking the bot is very undesirable. I will add that the comments about Eric Corbett being a new editor are incorrect. Eric Corbett is a very experienced editor. I don't know why the bot went false-positive, except that he made a typo in markup. I have an opinion that the bot should be tweaked so that it never issues a Level 3 or Level 4 warning. It's a bot. Level 3 and Level 4 warnings should be issued by humans. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Under the circumstances, I don't blame User:Eric Corbett for requesting that the bot be blocked. It should not have been blocked, but it should not have issued a Level 4 warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC) In general, the proper response to a mistake by ClueBot is exactly what ClueBot suggests. The specific issue, however, is that ClueBot apparently should not be issuing Level 4 warnings. It appears that this one was just a blunder. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Feel free to tweak the language of the level 4, but CBNG does a lot of reporting to WP:AIV/AVB where it is reviewed by a human and then the choice to block or not to block is made. The warnings, as I originally wrote them, never directly accused the person of vandalism, but stated that an automated process has flagged their edit as "possible vandalism". But, as I said, feel free to tweak the warnings. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Whoever believed that this was a good idea needs to have his bumps felt:

    This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hengistbury Head, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
    Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted

    I don't see any mention of "possible vandalism" there. Surely I'm not the only one ever to have had this rather intimidating warning? Eric Corbett 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    So go change it, as you have been repeatedly told. SQLQuery me! 05:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    How many innocent editors do you expect have made around three edits interpreted as vandalism, seen earlier warnings which were false positives, continued going to get the fourth and then given up editing while not getting blocked? I'm almost sure most false positives are given at the 1 and 2 levels, not at the fourth warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    What's your point exactly? "No problem with the heavy level-4 warning because the ponces ought to have fucked off by then anyway"? Eric Corbett 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    No, that the level 1 and 2 are significantly less harsh than a level four, and less likely to have "scared" someone off. "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to ________ has been undone" isn't harassing to new editors, even if they are false positives. Considering that out of the little number of false positives that there are, that the vast majority are not level four, it isn't as a significant a problem you are making it out to be. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    What's the mean number of edits by editors after false positives, and how does that compare to editors who contributions weren't flagged? NE Ent 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Proper"? The reasonable response for a new editor curious about Wikipedia whose early edit gets reverted with would be go do something fun. NE Ent 02:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    While Corbett's case shouldn't've occurred for a number of reasons - Drmies, please read WP:DTTR if you'ven't already - I fully protest against the bot not being allowed to issue level three and four warnings. I've seen a talk page with twelve reminders (level one and two) on it and only one warning (three and four), and if a user is to all intents and purposes 'welcomed' too often, they are likely to view vandalism as encouraged. And besides, the bot is instructed to revert the least constructive 0.1% of edits, so this tells me that vandalism is currently very low, which is fantastic news. I suggest that whenever it issues a level 3 or 4 warning, it chucks out a report on a random active admin's talk page and will tell it to keep an eye on it. Thoughts?--Launchballer 08:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Cluebot's response to EC's edits on Hengistbury Head (which generated the 4th-level warning) is distinctly odd. It reverted a group of 4 edits, done within a couple of minutes: the 3rd edit, at 19:14, introduced a single typo of "&nbp;", which was remedied in the next edit at 19:15. Cluebot reverted the 4 edits at 19:15 (and it's that single edit, the typo, which it cites in its "changed" link). Nothing else within those edits looks capable of being interpreted as vandalism. Does Cluebot pick up instantly on every accidental mistyping of non-alphanumeric characters as potential vandalism? Watch your fingers, folk, and use Preview!

    Apart from that, there seem two lessons to learn here:

    • Joke warnings are Not A Good Thing and should be deleted lest they confuse a passing bot. (I don't think we can blame Cluebot for assuming that a 3rd warning was a 3rd warning.)
    • When Cluebot says "If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again." (my emphasis) it means business. If any of us spot a false positive Cluebot report on a new or inexperienced editor's page, perhaps because Cluebot reverted wrongly on a page on our watchlist, we need to make sure that the false positive is reported and the report is removed from the editor's page. I can well imagine a new editor reporting the false positive but not seeing any point in removing the talk page message, or just being overwhelmed by the rather lengthy message and failing to do anything. Question: Is it acceptable for another editor to remove that false warning, now that we know about its implications? (ie that if the editor continues to make misunderstood but constructive edits then Cluebot will escalate its warnings). PamD 10:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course it is. Disagree about the humor thing -- the machines are supposed to serve us, not we them. NE Ent 10:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • If you can get a machine to tell if someone is joking, let the world know. The complexities of humor make it, after love, probably one of the most confusing human interactions. "Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Man in the Moone. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit summary was an uncalled-for attack on a well-respected editor. For all you know, it was Drmies who put that comma in there. Please calm down." is a joke but "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Man in the Moone, you may be blocked from editing" is serious. Humans could easily find those identical. ~ Amory (utc) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is (though this is really just an educated guess on my part; I don't know exactly how Cluebot works) that Drmies's joke included the HTML comment that Cluebot looks for in a warning. So, Drmies (unknowingly) included the bit that explicitly labels his template as a real level 3 warning, and Cluebot cannot but take it seriously. Writ Keeper  13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Until the machines write the articles I think human editors should have primacy ; if Drmies wants to ignore the bureaucracy and slap a template that will be clearly understood by Eric et. al. as a joke that's actually a good thing. We're not myspace but that doesn't mean editors have to be mindless editing drones with no personality or no interaction. NE Ent 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Man, I am so all for jokes and humor that it's not funny (*rimshot*), but using automated tools and/or templates to do so is not the best of ideas, as they come with other, hidden things that they do that only apply to real warnings. If Drmies had noticed and removed the comment from his post (assuming my guess about Cluebot is correct), there would have been nothing at all wrong about his joke, and there isn't anything *wrong* per se about his joke the way he actually did do it. It's just that this is the result, and you can't really blame the bot for thinking the joke was serious when the joke included a part that told the bot "this is a serious warning". Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. Writ Keeper  15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem with the lvl 4 warning was, that ClueBot thought EC was a new user. How many ironic lvl 3 warnings are given to new users? There is no problem using the template as joke for users which ClueBot ignores. --Sitic (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah, that too: I mentioned that somewhere already. Who knows where; I feel like there are 5 threads related to this on 5 different pages, and I'm losing track of which is which. Writ Keeper  16:58, 23 May 2013 (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.

    Missing image[edit]

    Hello all, I do not know who to talk to about this. The image File:Sake barrels.jpg is missing, and I cannot locate it. It is three-time featured image of the day and it is simply gone. It is not on Commons that I can find. Does anybody know where I might find it? --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    The deletion log for the file reads:
    16:21, January 21, 2005 Rdsmith4 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Sake barrels.jpg (obsolete)
    Does that answer your question? Perhaps an admin could restore it for you if you have a valid reason. :) Cheers! Technical 13 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    It was deleted in 2005, I imagine because it was moved to Commons. I'm not sure we can retrieve it at this point, maybe a Commons admin could find some answers? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    The more likely cause for this missing is:
    08:17, 6 May 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Sake barrels.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/packaing violation) (global usage; delinker log)
    Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The deletion "discussion" happened here. :) ·Salvidrim!·  01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I left a message for Fastily, asking him to comment. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    INeverCry is an admin on both projects as well. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    "Discussion" indeed. I've reuploaded a copy locally after Fastily linked to it from his Commons talk page. If there are potential problems with the image, a proper debate on them can be held here. — Scott talk 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    [ec with Scott] Yes, but my question for Fastily was a request for more information on his choice to delete, not simply a "what got deleted?" question. He says: Did some research, thought about it, and at the moment, I'm inclined to stick with the close unless we get some new evidence regarding the artwork on the barrels. Here's a copy of the image. Is the design on the barrels is copyrighted? If it is, then we can't host it because it's definitely not De minimis. Otherwise, it should be fine for Commons, and I can restore it. -FASTILY 06:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps he's right, or perhaps he's wrong, but I'm not sure, so neither will I ask for undeletion nor will I try to get the locally-uploaded image deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    ───────────────────────── What is a "packaing violation"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'm assuming "packaging" violation, where the packaging design would be a copyvio. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Or perhaps there were images of a man dressed in a packa? That would certain violate many people's sense of decency... :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please note that I've nominated the file for delisting from its FP status; this is because of its size, not because of anything discussed in this section. Please go there and offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    File badly captioned.[edit]

    Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere: not a local file

    Regarding, the caption is bad. There is no Vista Avenue in the city of Los Angeles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    It should presumably be Vista Street. See the Google map at 34°06′19″N 118°21′07″W / 34.1053°N 118.3519°W / 34.1053; -118.3519 for the junction of the paved path through Runyon Canyon Park with North Vista Street. Deor (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    That file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to take this up over there. (it doesn't appear to be used anywhere either)Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks to both. I will put the photo back in the article on Runyon Canyon Park and just correct the caption. As for Wikimedia Commons, I try to stay away from that zoo. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    MFD backlog[edit]

    MFD is backlogged all the way to the 9th. Can we get to work doing some closure here? This one seems like a good place to start. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Might take a crack at them later. But highlighting one of your own nominations as something to close first is a bit on the nose, isn't it? Be patient. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    "A bit on the nose" it might be (no offense, I for one appreciate TPH's style), but an MfD opened on May 9th, with clear consensus to delete... yes, it should've been closed already. If I wasn't at work I'd do it right away; I'll try to see later tonight if I have time to gun this one down, and perhaps a few others. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's no great mystery why that is still open, admins tend to shy away from mass noms, too much work. However, I have a few minutes right now so I'll take a swing at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Twinkle's batch deletion works like an awesome gatling gun. I was about to load some ammo into it but I guess I'm too late. I'll see what other MfD targets I can fire at. :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I will admit if User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js these 5 scripts were made Vector-compatible, many admins might be more willing to close non-AfD XfD discussions. Any takers? ;) :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • With extremely thorny MfDs like this one, I can understand the reluctance, however... :) ·Salvidrim!·  03:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    IP vandalism[edit]

    This IP account User talk: and its established account it just created moments ago, User:Erik LMG, are being used to vandalize Wikipedia articles repeatedly, blanking large sections of A-Class articles and adding misinformation that's not consistent with corresponding sources. Examples include: Epic (film) where he/she has continually altered the age of a character that originally stated 17 to 21 even though the corresponding source states it as being 17 as shown here [11]; Stewie Goes for a Drive page where he/she also altered information as of relates to the reviews and has blanked large sections for no apparent reason, as shown here [12] and here [13]. I gave the user several warnings under its IP account, but it has followed up by making similar edits now under the Erik LMG account, created just moments ago. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    {{uw-voablock}} implemented. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    A question[edit]

     Done by User:Nyttend Begoontalk 00:31, 24 May 2013 (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.

    When edits are revision deleted or suppressed etc, and they involve page moves, is there any part of procedure for altering or suppressing the move log entries at the same time? I have a log link which demonstrates the question, but maybe you understand without that (which would obviously involve indirectly linking to a user's contribs here)? Begoontalk 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Can't be done at the same time, but we can do it separately — it's not a one-click solution to everything at once, but unless you're refreshing your browser every ten seconds, you won't catch us in the middle of it. See the deletion log for User:Nyttend/revdeltest — I deleted the page and then used revdel on the log, so you have no way of seeing who deleted it. Meanwhile, if you check my deletion log, you'll see that I've revdeleted the name of another page, User:Nyttend/revdeltest1. Create a subpage in my userspace with the log link, and include a link to my username on the page so that I'll get a notification; as soon as I see it, I'll be able to delete the page, so your message will remain private. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (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.

    CfD backlog[edit]

    Hi. If anyone has a little time and brainpower to spend, there's a bit of a backlog relating to CfD closures. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    Ban appeal[edit]

    Wisely withdrawn by the requestor for now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:27, 24 May 2013 (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 was topic banned for three monthes on April 11 for edit waring. Ever since, I have been editing articles outside of the ones I was banned from and and demonstrating I can be trusted to eventually return to those topics, as requested in WP:Topic ban. On one of those articles, I even settled the issue on the talk page and didn't revert the article once in the meantime. I now want to request that the ban be lifted. I feel I have learned my lesson and won't repeat the mistakes I made in the past. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Support: topic bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The edits that TheShadowCrow plans to make are all perfectly fine, and constructive, as is evident from his sandbox page. To be honest, I really do not see any reason to keep the topic ban in place. I would hope that the fellow editors here will show TSC kindness and allow that his topic ban be lifted early, so that he can keep making constructive edits to articles. Truly ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - The first request to have the topic ban lifted can be found here; I don't know why it didn't get archived. The ANI discussion that led to the topic ban can be found here. BearMan998 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    irellevant text now that the relevant problem has been fixed. Graham87 06:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Whoa, fucking hell. I just crashed my entire browser trying to make a null edit. :) ·Salvidrim!·  04:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm going to go ahead and blame pagesize for everything, although 700K doesn't seen all that excessive. We could manually split the archive to get it to display properly (see User:Salvidrim/ANArchive248 and User:Salvidrim/ANArchive248bis), but I'm not sure how that should be handled; in addition, the archiving bot should properly be set to have some size limit if high sizes break stuff! I'll leave the tag under here so that hopefully someone will fix things. Once done, remove the template and hat everything under Dennis' comment containing the link to the original appeal. :) ·Salvidrim!·  04:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose - At this current time, I do not believe that there is enough history of editing to demonstrate that an early lifting of the ban. I see only a few edits and only recently in the past few days that fall outside of the topic ban. While not a violation of the topic ban, the vast majority of the edits since the topic ban have been in the user's sandbox on the very two topics that are topic banned, Armenia and BLP. Also, a bit off topic but while looking at this editor's recent edits, I would advise that TSC stay away from Azerbaijan related topics such as the one found here considering the user's indefinite WP:ARBAA2 ban. BearMan998 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose - A previous attempt to repeal the topic ban was rejected by the community less than a month ago and I see no way the consensus might've changed since then. There are plenty of other topics to improve, take your pick! :) ·Salvidrim!·  02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment - It's been over a month. You linked it yourself. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Barely, and I don't see how the extra day changes the essence of my point. :) ·Salvidrim!·  13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Support I feel like this user can contribute to the topics he's interested in. I'd give him a try, why not!? Looks like he has understood his mistake. --Երևանցի talk 04:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose A good chunk of the edits since the enacting of the Topic Ban have been related to the topic ban, but in their sandbox. There's little sign of attempting to "get along well" with others throughout other areas of the project - in fact, they had a dust-up recently with an admin related to this very topic ban. This is therefore waaaayyyy too soon to be back in areas where nastiness has a habit of forming to begin with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Bwilkins. No compelling reasons to not let the ban run its course. Bans are not punitive, and they do allow time for reflection on collaborative spirit, and work in other areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) This is very interesting as I've gone back and taken the time to read your original topic ban and your previous ban appeal. What I notice here is the fact the you have declared and offered any demonstration as to your acceptance and understanding of why you were topic banned in the first place as my reading of the other discussions seemed to have a much more detailed reason than simply "edit warring". I understand how frustrating it can be, but you really need to drop the sticks you seem to be holding. Saying you'll never do it again doesn't fly here if you can't explain and demonstrate understanding of what you did in the first place. Please, I encourage you to withdraw this request, come to my talk page, and have a discussion with me about it. You can always re-open a request later (although after discussion, you may realize there is a better plan). Technical 13 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose - for now. Let's wait for a full three months before revisiting. GiantSnowman 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Withdraw appeal --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (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.

    Viva Movil[edit]

    Can anybody create it as a redirect to Viva Móvil? I appreciate it. --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    • I'd say no, suggest reversion of the move and an RM. :) ·Salvidrim!·  03:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've reverted back with instructions to have a discussion. That article is borderline for notability at this point, although I expect that will likely get fixed with time. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

    Backlog - Requests for page protection[edit]

    Bit of a back log going back almost 8 hours over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Anyone care to take a look?Moxy (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is a backlog by definition, if admins are online and monitoring RFPP, it gets done quickly. If not, then asking on AN won't get you much farther. It'll be done eventually. Chill out! (I guess I should thanks you, TPH and Dweller for prompting me to put my thoughts into words.) :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, these sorts of notices are the essentially the only thing I find useful on AN. Wikipedia may be one big backlog, but some backlogs are more equal than others. Danger High voltage! 12:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, User:Salvidrim, but I'm going to agree with Danger. I have no idea if I am a typical admin, but as I settle into the role, I find there are some things I'm better/more interest in than others, so I tend to gloss over those others. For example, I rarely look at RFPP, although I watch CSD 12 more closely. A notice here that the backlog is older than usual does have a chance of catching my attention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Don't be sorry, it's a userspace essay because it is my own opinion, it is made to be disagreed or agreed with. :) ·Salvidrim!·  18:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

    3RR on BLP[edit]

    Discussion is already ongoing @ talk page. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 12:44, 25 May 2013 (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.

    Could someone please review the 3rr report on Rob Ford.[14] Ford is the mayor of Toronto, Canada, who has recently received ongoing widespread international media attention after "it was reported that a group of men involved in the Toronto drug trade had attempted to sell a video clip that they claim shows a man, alleged to be Ford, engaged in an activity that has been described as inhaling from a crack pipe." There are discussion threads about BLP issues at WP:BLPN#Rob Ford and WP:BLPN#Rob Ford -Inclusion of non-available video indications that the mayor smoked crack cocaine. The "news" about this only came out 5 days ago.

    The administrator found "No violation - BLP"[15] The editor has since re-deleted the text, claiming a 3RR exemption.[16]

    TFD (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

    Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention (and sorry I couldn't reply to you earlier). Having looked back over the case, I think it is possible that my judgement was wrong in this instance, though at this point I won't commit myself either way. I am happy for another administrator to review my actions and do whatever they think is appropriate. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 09:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    It was fine. We're not a newspaper so there's no need to include "breaking news" if there's any uncertainty as to the reliability of the sourcing. Not admin Ent 10:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    I would note that my opinion is that the editor could reasonably claim that BLP applies as it is an allegation of a crime based upon a video of uncertain origin. The NYT, in fact, notes that the content is problematic. I would further note that even under Canafain law, possession of crack cocaine is, in fact, a "crime" so the claim that this does not neer WP:BLPCRIME is iffy. Lastly, that this latest post verges on forumshopping, as all of this has already been fully discussed in two venues. Once a claim has been reoved as violative of WP:BLP it requires clear consensus of the editors to reinstate it - the onus is on those adding the material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Concur -- continued discussion should be on article talk or BLP thread NE Ent 10:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    As someone covering this in real time in real life: this has appeared in many many valid news sources, so it meets the coverage requirements. Does it belong in the Ford article? Yes. How it's phrased is important. Saying "Ford smoked crack on video" is not appropriate (yet). Saying "allegations that Ford smoked crack arose when two major news sources reported that..." or something like that is valid as per the sources. This whole event is so well-covered, there's no way it violates WP:BLP - it will forever be a part of any article about the mayor. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:38, 25 May 2013 (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.

    Questionable admin conduct[edit]

    This is more along the lines of opining, or almost soapboxing. WP:AN isn't the place for personal observations, your talk page is. Within the limits of good taste, of course. No specific action was requested, so closing. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 16:03, 25 May 2013 (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.

    During a discussion on the talk page of my friend, admin Drmies, admin Barek advised that I post my concerns here regarding the admin handling of the block of Actually, it's the editor's second block in recent weeks, both involving some of the same admins. Please this message I just posted on the talk page of the blocking editor, Ymblanter, who also gave the first block. Or, see the archived version if the orginal was removed. The other admin involved in the current block was Bbb23, who inexplicably removed a comment I posted on IP 68's talk page after the block. I requested that he please restore it but not only did he not do so, he didn't even reply to my request. As I noted in in my message to Ymblanter, you can read this related discussion on Drmies' talk page for good context about this situation; the discussion about IP 68's block begins in the fifth comment. Or you can see the archived version if the original is gone. Obviously, Drmies did his best to stay neutral in the matter since he is friends with both myself and the admins involved. I hope that anyone interested will carefully review all of the edits and sanctions by the participating admins to see if their reasons for those sanctions are verified by any diffs or policies. You'll find that some are, but some most certainly are not. It's very easy to claim that an editor did something wrong without providing anything to support it. My only goal here is to simply make editors aware of this situation. If something can be done to undo any of the improper actions taken and prevent problems like this in the future, fine. That would be nice, but I'm certainly not expecting it to happen. At the very least, I wanted this matter on the record. -- (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

    Seems like fairly standard Admin Behavior...nothing too crazy here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)(Comment from uninvolved editor) I just love reading about ZOMG!... LOL Thanks, I needed the laugh. Face-smile.svg Technical 13 (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Tecnical, I would ask that you remain civil, particularly since you're currently on your last chance for disruptive editing. I don't mind, or care, if anyone disagrees with my thoughts. But posting an immature comment is unnecessary and certainly doesn't help your credibility. -- (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I'm not sure how you construe my comment above thanking you for making my day a better one as uncivil. That kind of response from you seems fairly WP:BATTLEGROUNDish to me. Good luck with your complaint as I've nothing further to contribute here. Face-smile.svg Technical 13 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    We'll let your comment ("Thanks, I needed the laugh") speak for itself. -- (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    May I comment about this, guys? I will not be especially civil nor am I completely uninvolved, and I’m not a sysop, but I am a… rather experienced Wikipedian. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Regarding Incnis Mrsi's desire to comment here, I would direct you to this discussion he had a few days ago with Drmies, or this one on Toddst1's talk page, to clear up any questions about his motives. Hopefully, we can stay focused on the reason for this discussion. -- (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    I am not immediately sure what I am expected to say here beyond my response on my talk page (that there is no cabal, at least no one I am involved with? that I do not believe that my actions disgrace Wikipedia? whatever), but may be a quotation from WP:INVOLVED would be in order here: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or t