Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

warning template for Hurricane Gustav

During Hurricane Katrina, Wikipedia had this warning template on the top of the page

ATTENTION: Residents of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina are advised to seek advice and information from local authorities through television and radio. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your area. Do not decide whether to leave your house, shelter, or vehicle based on Wikipedia information.

I placed one on the page for Hurricane Gustav but someone removed it. I think it should be there and want an admin's opinion on the issue. It may be against the rules but I think the rules should be allowed to be bent in an emergency situation. The page on Katrina had the warning up for days with no objections. One can see so in the edit history--Ted-m (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for medical advice, and I think in the same vein we shouldn't serve as a PSA system. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. But that's the whole point of the template. So what's the objection?Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how come it was allowed during Katrina?--Ted-m (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause we made a mistake in allowing it. We have this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer NonvocalScream (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be up there. Privatemusings (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:CrazyC83, who just reverted my re-addition of the box....)

On principle? How about the one that your opinion isn't the only one that matters Lar? I especially like your comment on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert you, Crazy.. but I do think that it's worth having that box up there for a while. I certainly wouldn't worry about the Manual of Style in this context, because I think it's appropriate to bend the rules a little once in a while for strong reasons.... and our article is the second result in Google, so could well get quite a lot of traffic. Follow your conscience... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)this has been mentioned on WP:AN too, so I'll copy this note across there as well....

:o) I think it should not be up there.  :) :) Speaking of which, we have an applicable content guideline... over here! :) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I see it now:

ATTENTION: "Those contemplating Liposuction are advised to seek advice and information from true medical professionals through their websites and in-person visists. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your procedure. Do not decide whether or not to get liposuction or other cosmetic surgeries based on Wikipedia Information".

Yeah, let's not. - auburnpilot talk 03:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

um.. Auburn... you're comparing a liposuction disclaimer with a note about a very dangerous Hurricane. I see a difference. Privatemusings (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PrivateMusens, you are ignoring the content guideline I cited above. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipo is a very dangerous elective surgery (1 death per 5000?). [1][2] In all seriousness, it was just an example of what some may see as equally valid, but most will see as showing how equally unnecessary such warnings are. - auburnpilot talk 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; part of the point of removing these things is that even at the most narrow scope there's a lot of articles that can be argued to be life or death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Or worse:

ATTENTION: "Those considering a conversion to Catholicism are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted spiritual adviser. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to change your religion based on Wikipedia Information".

-- Mr.Z-man 03:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How about a reminder of/reference to the disclaimers added to {{HurricaneWarning}}? WODUP 03:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That still seems pretty ridiculous, I am sure that those affected are very aware of the storms in this date and age. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be... the risk disclaimer is already linked from {{HurricaneWarning}}. WODUP 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And another...

ATTENTION: "Those considering a smoking cessation are advised to seek advice and information from a licensed practioner. Statistics on Wikipedia may not be current. Do not decide whether or not to change your smoking habits based on Wikipedia Information".

NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not weighing in on the opinion at hand, but I think the main concern is that a Goggle search string for "Hurricane Gustav" shows it's Wikipedia page as the 3rd result. It seems that users are just concerned that someone may stumble upon the article and may take the information as fact, which could be true or false. I have a feeling that the concerned users are just wanting to make sure that the poor souls who are having to leave their homes, their jobs, their lives, and who could possibly get injured or killed understand that we are not a reporting service and that our content should not be mistaken for advice. This is an extraordinary case that is not easily comparable to other issues, beliefs, or surgeries. I respectfully ask that editors stop making parody templates of the above template and please be respectful so as to not mock the original poster of the template. Obviously s/he had the best of intentions and the joking and comedy over a very serious matter is of very poor taste. Can we please get to the issue at hand and seriously discuss whether the template should be placed or not? Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is making light of "the poor souls who are having to leave their homes...". The template should not exist, and we've shown why through the use of examples. - auburnpilot talk 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not parody. It is contrast and comparison. Additionally, I don't think anyone will decide evacuation on this article, the PSA/EAS is the responsibility of local city/state and federal authority. We are building an encyclopedia, let us not lose sight of that. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, why add it it now? Gustav already hit Cuba quite hard and no one seemed to care. Because its entering the United States? What about WP:UNDUE? Its clear that all the commotion its because of the actual state that its going to hit, because I don't see such a haste when they go over Florida. Some users are being influenced by memories of Hurricane Katrina's destructive pass. Sorry it that seems harsh, but I call a spade a spade. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ecX3) Guys! All I am asking is that you just talk about it without being dicks and take the request made by the original poster as a serious request. Just be respectful of the situation. All I am asking is for comments like Caribbean's, which address the issue at hand without mocking the template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a fucking douchebag. - auburnpilot talk 04:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thiz iz seriouz buzinnezz. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Mr.Z-man 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: Am I the only one irritated by edit conflicts? The software really should resolve this automagically. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In any case, I personally do not believe the template should belong. I understand the reasons for adding it, but making this a special case just doesn't make sense to me. I have a feeling that the template would just be an eye-sore, and it could be argued that this is just systematic bias. Why don't we add templates like this to every big event? I think that the encyclopedia is fine with just reporting the information in an encyclopedic manner, and we should just let our disclaimers do the disclaiming. And yes I am hating the conflicts (especially the one I just had with your comment ;) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use one of our other "current" templates, that already warn of such things? -- Ned Scott 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because we have content guidelines that should generally be used. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The current templates are article issue templates, not disclaimer templates. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I am very clear. I am very clear that the pink boxes in this section of AN are in fact... disclaimers. Even if in the loosest form, they intend to warn and caveat. Don't call me confused please. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, I think Ned is referring to the {{current}} templates. - auburnpilot talk 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors of articles such as Hurricane Gustav are advised to seek advice and information from ArbCom before placing a template such as this. Information in Wikipedia: space may not be current or applicable to your ArbCom's current mood. Do not decide whether to place a template on the article based on Wikipedia policies.

--NE2 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: There are hundreds of stupid arguments on AIV, and this is one of them.

Word. --mboverload@ 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Particularly when this was the shape of {{HurricaneWarning}}, a template that survived TFD several times, until September 2007. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're churning out silly disclaimer templates, how about one for Wikipedia:

ATTENTION: Those considering using Wikipedia are advised to seek advice and information from a trusted reliable source. Information on Wikipedia may not be current or applicable to your personal circumstances. Do not decide whether or not to use Wikipedia based on Wikipedia information.

It just had to be said. MER-C 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier for Wikipedia to consider a help page about its own articles and making decisions based on one's trust in their accuracy. That's a question for the offices, most likely.Miquonranger03 (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

prelude to edit war

You lot are debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and thus miss the actual point. The style guide matters not, the general principle against disclaimers matters not. They're good ideas, but blanket prohibitions are bad. This is a situation where we may well be getting a large influx of readers who have no idea what WP really is about, and haven't the time or energy to go to the bottom of a page, and then realise they should read a general disclaimer to see if maybe there is something there they ought to read. IAR and add the damn warning template, and stop standing on formality about whether it's in accordance with general principles about not having disclaimers. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR only works when it improves the pedia. I would posit that it does not, so IAR is not applicable. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So, how does this help improve or maintain Wikipedia? It doesn't. We don't add such templates to articles, and this doesn't deserve an exception. - auburnpilot talk 05:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Don't stand on rules. And don't revert me for the sake of some principle. ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. Privatemusings (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of it being there, either, but I think this is one of the cases where we can and should ignore the rules. People have the capacity for incredible stupidity. While I'm generally against the idea of keeping this like this around, not everyone is intelligent enough to realize that at any given point in time, Wikipedia could be hosting information that could result in some bad things if people were dumb enough to use it as a guide for emergency procedures, and that's really not something I want to think about. Remember that Wikipedia does exist in the real world. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would posit that it does improve the pedia, by sending away the users who really need the info to the proper place, hence making us be a more reliable source of info. That said, please don't edit war over this. This is an extremely unstable article, and hence protections are inappropriate here; I'll be handing out blocks instead of simply elevating the protection level of the page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

echo Lar. WP:IAR. Do what you feel is right. --Duk 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lar makes an excellent point above. Putting that up there, is simply the right thing to do. SQL^{Query me!} 07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you're worried about people who run around the Internet randomly trusting sites, and you think they should be warned away from Wikipedia so they find some blog to trust? You can't honestly say that you're helping people who can't be trusted to use the Internet wisely by warning them away from an updated fairly reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so we note, this box violates some of our principles, UNDUE and NPOV. Also, the guideline is a good guideline, this is not what we do (PSA/EAS). NonvocalScream (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A guiding principle is "do no harm" and people relying on this article for decisions on evacuation can clearly lead to real harm. The disclaimer should be on the page. Apparently it is presently unprotected so that IP editors and newbies can have their way with it. An Ip editor changed the windspeed in the info box from the correct 115 mph to 390 mph, and it stayed that way for 26 minutes until I restored the correct information. The disclaimer should remain on the article. It is about a pending natural disaster affecting millions of people and tens of billions of dollars property damage, and if a vandal can introduce incorrect information, or if stale or incorrect information is in the article, it could lead people to take actions affecting their safety adversely. And the article should once again be semiprotected, because sufficient established and registered users are working on it that newbies and IP editors are not needed to keep it up to date while the storm is a few hours from landfall. Let the IPs back in when it is a historical matter in a day or so. Edison2 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated on that talk page that protection would be extremely inappropriate in this case, but like I said above, I agree with the inclusion of the box. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I semi'ed it but feel free to undo that, I won't consider that any sort of wheeling. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We have principles, we strive to be an accurate academic institution. This type of thing should no go into our articles, for neutrality, and other reasons as echoed by me above. Incidentally, why are anons not permitted to edit that article? Please undo the prot. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question, how does this violate undue or npov? I don't see it but I might be missing something ;) RxS (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As above. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the only reason that all this argument is going on its because Gustav will hit New Orleans, which received a lot of destruction with Katrina. The decision to add it is directly influenced by the psychological effect of the horrible events seen three years ago. If that wasn't the case a template would have been added when it passed over Cuba, which by the way has also been heavily affected by tropical cyclones in the last years. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. And perhaps it should have been added earlier. Better late than never. (and I'll say that I don't necessarily have a lot of confidence in the governments of the area and their ability to have learned from Katrina, but I digress). ++Lar: t/c 06:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So we if we didn't do something in the past (rightly or wrongly), we can't do it going forward? I know that's not what you're saying but that's the practical effect. Shouldn't we decide if something's a good idea and then work out the application afterwards? Anyway, it seems like a good application of IAR, and it's been worked out so it's all good. RxS (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a good principle. But sometimes exceptions are needed. This is one of those times. The harm to the encyclopedia from having this disclaimer for a day or 3 is slight. The harm if someone got hurt and it got into the media is immense. No brainer. All principles have exceptions. That's the real world. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll compromise here. Lets make sure the template goes away after the disaster subsides. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Back when it used to be a proper template, that was always the case. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

NVS, 4 days from now (or whatever the right time is, it should be short, I agree) I'll baleet it out of there myself... This is a temporary thing only. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The other option would be not to pretend to be posting "Current storm information" as if Wiki was providing the latest and greatest. Maybe Wiki shouldn't be a newspaper or public notice system? --Pat (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is not going to happen unless you intend to kill WP:WPTC and break my third law. Wikipedia has been lauded previously over our hurricane coverage, and even cited in government tropical cyclone coverage, so I don't think we're interested in changing that any time soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I myself find it interesting that there has only been interest in putting up this template as the storm hits the United States. I guess the human beings in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican, etc. just aren't as important? Perhaps the current hurricane template should have a link to the risk disclaimer, but putting up this red template only when a disaster happens to the USA looks very unpretty. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is the perhaps relevant fact that Cuba, the Dominican Republic etc. are Spanish -speaking countries, Haiti is French-speaking, and we are the English Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But Jamaica and the Caymans are English-speaking. Eleven deaths have been reported so far in Jamaica. -- Avenue (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps the notice should be affixed to the article on Hanna now, as it seems to be aimed at the Bahamas. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no ulterior motives here. We used to have it last year; only this year it got edited/redirected to the bland current version (which was being used, by the way), {{current tropical cyclone}} due to the ambox change. As people remembered Katrina, they remembered how the red box, and asked for it back. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps {{current tropical cyclone}} should itself have a link to the risk disclaimer- maybe even highlighted in red. That way anybody in the path of a storm would be warned not to use Wikipedia for life-safety decisions and we wouldn't be in the position of having to judge when the people affected are "important" enough to warrant a red warning banner.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That box does include such a link, but we Americans are now in danger so it much be enormous and clearly visible. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So... by that interpretation you're saying that we Americans are too dumb to heed the regular disclaimer used for the rest of the world? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be making light of things, but speaking as an American myself, I'd say better safe than sorry to your question. That can be read many ways, I know. rootology (C)(T) 06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do feel it's important for people to be reminded not to base life-safety decisions on our data, however things should be the same if the disaster hits Mexico or New Zealand as if it hits the United States. This red banner is a bad idea, the proper course is to make the standard current disaster template a bit clearer about our standard disclaimers. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not opposing this because of any guidelines, I'm opposing it because of the precedent it sets. Nobody bothered to respond to my question above, so I'll ask it again down here. And why only hurricanes? Do we do this for other events? Floods, tornadoes, blizzards, forest fires, riots, wars, chemical spills? At what point is a disaster significant enough to merit a warning? Do we put one up after an earthquake warning people there might be a tsunami? Why wait until there's a tornado warning, by then it may be too late, do we put up a warning for every severe thunderstorm watch? What strength of hurricane warrants a template? Do we put one up for a Category 1? A tropical depression? I normally agree with Lar, but I'm disappointed to see him simply dismissing all the opposition as based on formalities. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)... I'm sorry if it seems like I was simply dismissing opposition, if I acted brusquely and more forcefully than I normally would. But I came to this discussion and what I saw was a lot of tomfoolery. Sorry, but that's what it looked like to me, despite those pointing out that the stuff being shown was shown to bring forth counterexamples... sure, maybe they were, but they were also funny. That to me suggests this matter wasn't being taken seriously. So I acted. That's what we are supposed to do, after all. Know when deliberation is needed, and know when quick action is needed, and know how to tell the difference. The subsequent discussion seems to show that the consensus, or at least a majority of voices, was in the end, OK with this temporary measure. (and it should be temporary!)

Now, I think our general rule against specific disclaimers is good. But I think maybe for anything that is worthy of a "current event" tagging, we need a more bold pointer to that disclaimer, right at the top of the article, where it is seen by everyone visiting, rather than buried in fine print towards the bottom (It is on the very bottom line of the page, in small print, after other stirring reads like the Privacy Policy and the About Wikipedia prose... how many people coming to a site when they're in a hurry are going to read that??? NOT MANY.) So I think after this tempest in a teacup about this specific box blows over (sorry!), we need to revisit the design of the current events box. Even if it just points to our general disclaimer, it's good to have that pointer at the top for current events. Tornadoes, fires, bridge collapses, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, you name it. Anyone using Wikipedia for their first source for advice about hangnail cures is a fool. And the buried disclaimer is fine for them, they have time to regret their foolishness. But people in emergency situations, with not much time? They need a more clear reminder NOT TO TRUST this source for life and death info. What if the vandal who set the speed to 300+ mph for 20 min last night had set it to 15 mph and people made decisions based on that? Do you all standing on policy actually want that on your conscience? I don't. So let's work together to get that box changed while still hewing to our spirit.

I apologise to anyone I gave offense to last night. It was not my intent, and I'm sorry. But I felt this was important enough to override some of the norms I usually go by. Heck I even reverted something... once. That's pretty shocking behaviour for me! ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual disaster warning box

<-- Whats the actual "live disaster" template? I didn't know we had one? rootology (C)(T) 06:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Current disaster}}—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is all silly then. Just to mock it up quick I flipped that to be the speedy type graphically instead of the notice type, and changed the image, to make this:

visible on this diff

Isn't that better? rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Anyone object to its use on the article now? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors considering sticking beans up their nose are advised to seek advice and information from medical professionals and/or horticulturalists prior to attempting to do so. Information on Wikipedia may not be applicable to your nostrils or the type of beans you may have in your pantry. Do not decide whether or not to shove foodstuffs in your bodily orifices based on Wikipedia information.

Had to be said... caknuck _° is geared up for football season 08:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me... Kevin (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... you may wish to link pantry, unless you enjoy resolving pulse (legume)/lingerie issues (I know I do!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_tropical_cyclone&oldid=236230043

--Random832 (contribs) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Looks pretty similar to what WP:SEVERE puts on severe weather outbreak articles (and I'm blanking on the template name there). Rdfox 76 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Editors seeking medical advice on Wikipedia are advised to remember the old saying,
"He who doctors himself has a fool for a patient."

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: All the above warnings are in Wikipedia, and therefore unreliable. Waltham, The Duke of 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Still at it?

See this discussion, above, regarding a user who was blocked for Incivility and wilful disruption, and then unblocked with a promise to behave. Several of his edits since the unblock have been problematic, as discussed above. The following series of edits are disturbing in that regard: August 31, adds ref to WP article. Another user leaves him a message on his talk page explaining that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles. Sep 1, restores removal of inappropriate source. Sep 1, restores again, with the edit summary "oh yes I can."

Now, while I think this user wants to contribute usefully, I also think that he's been given an awful lot of slack, and I'm wondering whether it may be time for another block. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1 week block, and a suggestion they re-examine the way in which they are interacting with other contributors. As usual, I am not so wedded to my actions to need notifying that they may be overturned - but I would hope any unblocking admin ensures they understand that a resumption of the previous mannerisms will not be tolerated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So the record's complete, we have two edits from this morning [3] [4] illustrating a similar attitude. Specifically, after being asked not to, he's re-adding links to myspace and imdb that's the same name as the article's subject but different people, and to a mirror page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I think he is trying to contribute usefully and is simply incompetent; at other times I think he's being intentionally disruptive. His behavior at Rhíannon Thomas has been exceedingly bizarre from first to last—especially when he started readding the MySpace link after admitting in the AfD that he was mistaken in identifying the article's subject with two other women. And it's hard to know what to think about this edit (note the article's topic). Deor (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and does anyone other than me find his very first edit (after some messing about in his user space) kind of suspicious? Deor (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note his unblock request reason: "The reason I find it difficult to be civil is because of the fact I have aspergers. I recommend you read the article on it." This screams troll. As an aside, on his talk page he claims to occasionally use this ip, but he has only used it once, and not since the block. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find he's got a bunch of socks either. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aspergers my Irish Ass!! Aspergers Syndrome is a high functioning form of Autism where the person who has it cannot understand word play, speak in literal terms only and usually are not capable of lying.

I'm thinking troll here. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...er, Kosh? You might want to do a bit more research on Asperger's Syndrome before making that sort of claim. (I speak from personal experience; I've been recently diagnosed with it, and I love wordplay and am an accomplished liar when it comes to convincing the boss to give me a day off.) More accurately, it's something related to autism that may or may not be a form of high-functioning autism (the jury's still out on that one), and is characterized by severe difficulty with social interactions.

That said, it still sounds pretty troll-ish to me; I've yet to encounter an HFA or Asperger's person who simply uses it as an excuse for being uncivil to people instead of warning that they just may not be very good at civility. Rdfox 76 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Libro0

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

This is in dispute resolution; any more comment on an admin noticeboard by either party may result in a temporary block of both. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Libro0 has been constantly attacking me, telling lies, making sockpuppet allegations and deliberate attempts to drive me off of Wikipedia. He will not stop and needs to be dealt with. He has engaged in vandalism of several baseball card images, which I had to fix. He does not listen to others. He gives ultimatums and threats. He is a major problem. He needs to be dealt with now. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan shows that you guys are clashing over some baseball card images, correct? Please provide some DIFFs for what you're talking aboout, right now this seems retaliatory over him telling you he would report you to WP:LTA. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You want DIFFs showing Libro0's bad behavior? Here are some of them. Think of it as a sampler.

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

Of course there is more of Libro0's lies, disruptive behavior and other assorted nonsense. Finding it all would take a great deal of time. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guys disruptive edits include but are not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75. These are mostly unwarranted reverts, removal of verifiable info, inclusion of unverifiable info, foul language on user talk, etc. He also has a problem with discussing issues on the talk pages. Any attempt made to find resolution on content are met with pointless and argumentative comments as can be seen here and here. He is a convicted sock puppet as can be seen here. Recently as of 03:54, 3 September 2008 to 04:12, 3 September 2008 he removed a number of "No source" tags from image pages without providing the proper information requested by the tags. Libro0 (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I did say I would report him to LTA on account he has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages for quite a few months now. He has prevented me from adding any encyclopedic content yet has contributed nothing to the pages himself. Libro0 (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More lies. There was no sockpuppet proof and if anyone has been acting like a guard dog on the baseball card pages it is Libro0. I have contributed images (which Libro0 claims are not sourced, yet a proper source is given) and organized the pages. All Libro0 has done is deliberately make edits to get me to revert them since he has provided strange sources.. Basically everything Libro0 says is a lie or is in some way to further his agenda. He is the one who is driving others away from the baseball card pages. He has a vendetta. He has an agenda. He is a problem that needs to be dealt with. He is the one that ignores other user's attempts to solve problems. He is the one who screams sockpuppet at those who disagree with him. He makes passive aggressive personal attacks. He is the one that is the instigator. He is the one wasting people's time by insisting on keeping this feud going. He needs to be stopped! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guy also has a tendency to blank his talk page of any warnings he has received by mediators or admins. He basically ignores any warnings given to him. A, B, C, D, E. Libro0 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They were all done by Libro0 and his allies. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of you should read WP:TLDR. You've given far too many examples and absolutely no context to work with. I've clicked on 6-8 of each of your DIFFS, and I can't understand what you're trying to show the other editor is doing. My random sample just turns up discussions and reversions, with no context to explain why they violate wikipedia policies. My advice to you both, if you want to show the other editor is violating policy, give three DIFFs and explain specifically the problem with the edit. Show us very specifically what the problem is. Dayewalker (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will offer three particular situations that should be clear. 1. I remove the 1968 OPC CFL sets on account there is no verifiable proof that they belong on a Topps page. I. I also changed an invalid citation about the type of ink used and provided a valid reference for it II. He then replaces the OPC CFL set without showing any source for its inclusion as well as replacing the ink statement with the invalid citation. III.

2. I removed a needless Hockey section from both 1982 Topps and 1983 Topps since Topps did not produce Hockey cards in those years. IV, V He then replaces the sections. VI, VII In an attempt to accomodate him I decided to write the information in the sections instead. VIII, IX. He again removed the information. X, XI. I finally decided to place the information on the talk pages instead.

3. With regard to his recent images problems: I placed some tags on images that did not properly state the source of the images or who made them, etc. XII. The info he has used is not valid. Nevertheless he removed the tags without supplying the info. XIII. There are, of course numerous images with this problem.

These are just a sampling of the problems that I was trying to display. Another area that is troubling presents itself above with his DIFFs. I browsed though most of them and found mostly legitimate discussions that I had with him. Hardly bad behavior. Libro0 (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have you considered a request for comments or other dispute resolution? Stifle (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC cannot be used since it requires two users to have tried to resolve a dispute. No one has been willing to offer any assistance. Yes, I have asked for assistance. Other DRs like Wikiquette alerts also went ignored as has this board. The only place that did anything was SSP, which blocked him for 24 hours. He has ignored everyone else and the discussion pages have proven pointless. Libro0 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• As someone who has had problems with Libro0 after having him accuse me of being Baseball Card Guy's sockpuppet after trying to get the two of them to stop their schoolyard bickering, I have been watching these two. Their recent exchanges at Talk:1950s Topps and Talk:1960s Topps show that they both seem to have some ownership issues and the two of them can't seem to have a any sort of proper discussion. My attempts to contact both of them in the past were rebuffed in the case of Baseball Card Guy and resulted in attacks from Libro0 including two unproven sockpuppet allegations, with me keeping an eye on what he is doing to nip any further false allegations in the bud. This ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [38] [39] that Libro0 is a prime example of the bad faith on his part. On the other hand Baseball Card Guy is trying to bait Libro0 [40] with a trap [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] using Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for all those.

I have held off doing any editing of the baseball card articles because of the antics of these two. I have wasted enough time energy and effort here dealing with the petty bickering between these two and have had enough of it. This is another escalation. How many others have they scared off into editing not wanting to get caught up in their little war?

The two of them will not listen to reason and I think that any attempts at a request for comments or mediation will fall on deaf ears from both parties, or at least lip service being paid to it.

Both users have made some good contributions, but that is really offset by this epic battle between the two. We would probably all be better of banning both Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy. They have wasted people's time with their bickering, allegations, playing of the system and other bad behavior. It would save everyone a great deal of time and effort just banning these two problem users! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason I accused Your Radio Enemy of being a sockpuppet. I have provided evidence of Baseball Card Guy's disruptive behavior while he has provided no evidence that I am disruptive. For some reason YRE wants both of us banned. It looks suspicious. It looks to me like you are willing to lose a sock as long as I go down with it. Furthermore, how do you know that he was trying to bait me with a trap? I never even realized that was the case. I just thought he went on a crazed rampage. You seem to know precisely what his intentions were. Both of you contribute no content and are both resistant to my contributions. I explained three distinct situations above yet I have not seen you support me in any of those. Can you explain why? Libro0 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If you two can not work together leave Wikipedia. I don't care if I get in trouble for being uncivil. You two have finally pushed me to the edge and have become a huge nuisance. Your squabbling is disruptive and unproductive. You are running low on the communities Good Faith and again frankly I have none for you two. Quit, be blocked or not go near each other. Those are your options. Rob^{Not an admin}  23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to provide DIFFs in context. I did so. It would be appreciated if that was acknowledged. If you have nothing constructive to add other than an emotional outburst then I suggest you leave Wikipedia. I fell off the edge long before you ever got there because it appears to me that policy and guidelines are just a bit of decor on this site. My faith in this place has diminished tremendously because people like Rob here want to take the easy way out. Just 'Quit'. Sorry Rob, but there are standards to upheld. On principle I refuse to simply just let people intimidate me. So don't come out here and pretend you are suffering and threaten to block. I am a part of this community and I am following the rules. I don't need you to tell me how ridiculous this situation is. I have had to watch the rules be ignored and watch this community ignore the rule breakers. If you are a real community then act like it. Get some focus and address the actual problems. Do not undermine the integrity of this encyclopedia or these notice boards by acting like you can just blow people off because you are annoyed. When you do this you are as much a nuisance as all the troublemakers out there. Libro0 (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You two have just been wasting the communities time and you have drained the community of it's Good Faith. A lot of us have tried to mediate me included. But those mediations fell on deaf ears and at times were taken out of context. You have done nothing but fight. I could go through the archives and pull up more stuff on you two than Grawp and that is saying something. You two only have 4 options on retrospect. Here are your options, Quit Wikipedia, Be Blocked for disruption and incivility (I can not block, but I bet there are a few admin out there debating), Just stay away from each other, or work together. I honestly do not want to see another report here or anywhere filed by one of you against the other. This is not what the noticeboard is about. This is for the community at whole to be informed of problems. Not for a couple of good editors to fight. We have lost a lot of good people because of issues like this. Do not become like them and choose the best option. The one that will help you two and the community at large. Rgoodermote  09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Libro0, at first I did not support you because you were wrong. Then after your continuing false allegations, it would be impossible to support you. I tried offering an olive branch to both of you. Baseball Card Guy flat out rejected it. You on the other hand spun it off into a series of sockpuppet allegations filled passive aggressive attacks. You have done nothing but engender bad faith through your actions.

You have intentionally engaged in actions that have egged Baseball Card Guy on and he has done the same to you in return. As for how I knew he was setting a trap for you I mentioned it above, but I take it you aren't a Star Wars fan or have no idea of the meme that is Admiral Ackbar. Basically it was said here [48] and he used Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for the edits I mention above. What is the relevance of Admiral Ackbar with regard to a trap? The character's most famous line in Return of the Jedi was "It's a trap!"

We have progressed beyond a petty argument about baseball cards into two users who seem hellbent on fighting to the death. I spend most of my time on here now seeing if Libro0 has made another false sockpuppet allegation against me and seeing if Baseball Card Guy is out setting traps for Libro0 which will make me or someone else look like a sockpuppet. (Although thanks to this I found a couple of problems with some articles and was able to fix them, so at least some good has come out of this idiotic nonsense!) This has devolved into a Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck cartoon - Duck Season. Rabbit Season. Duck Season. These two will never stop by themselves. Can we just ban these two and be done with this massive waste of everyone else's time? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I chose the best possible option which was to expand the base of editors for the baseball card pages. I have asked people to join in and lend their expertise. Several hundred at least. This community was lacking in knowledgeable people on this subject. Libro0 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So the best possible option is to harass and falsely accuse others who contribute? That is what you did to me. You have driven me away from editing the baseball card pages with your childish behavior especially this ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [49] [50]. That was uncalled for. You state "You clearly want me to leave. I will, if you can complete one of the two following tasks in 24 hours of the posting of this message." Up to that point, I didn't want you to leave, I asked nicely for you and Baseball Card Guy to stop and take a time out and then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Neither of you listened and then you posted your ultimatum. You eventually said the following which basically accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy: "Given that you did not complete the tasks I suggest that you step aside and allow people who have the information to edit the page. Keep in mind that you have been warned about unwarranted reverts. Further disruption will result in a disciplinary report and any sock evidence will be posted." [51] You dragged me into this mess. Your opponent has dragged me deeper. I have had it with you two. Is it any wonder why I want both of you banned? The two of you have wasted my time, have wasted several other users time, several admins time with your back and forth wars. Libro0 keeps making these passive aggressive and somewhat pompous statements claiming that he is following guidelines and trying to work with the community, yet his behavior reveals the opposite. His opponent Baseball Card Guy seems to do the same thing, albeit on a less grander scale than Libro0. The two of them are dragging the community down. They are both instigators and are both trying to play the system to get what they want. They need to be stopped. I am sick and tired of defending myself against Libro0 and his accusations. The two of them need to be banned so the rest of us can stop wasting our time. It is in the best interests of everyone in the community! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should I be banned? it is Libro0 who is doing all of this. I just want him to stop attacking me. I just use the same tactics Libro0 uses. Libro0 is the problem ban him. Libro0 says he is following policy and consensus when he is not he is a liar who just wants his way and acts like a big bully if he doesn't get what he wants. He needs to be banned. I am not some big sockpuppeter. Libro0 probably has been running sockpuppets to make it look like I am running sockpuppets. Libro0 seems to do anything and does things like a sneaky person. Ban Libro0! Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is insane. I'll block both of you if either of you whine about the other one again. We have an encyclopedia to write, and you two are getting in the way. Either take it to dispute resolution, or shut up; AN has no more it can do for you except remove you as annoyances. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Libro0 has already escalated things with this [52] and this [53]. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is called Dispute Resolution. Something I am very happy to see being done. Rgoodermote  02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that that is going to devolve into yet another shouting match like this wasting more people's time effort and energy. Libro0 has gone to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to complain about the notice boards [54], boards that that he himself has made use of several times. [55] [56] [57] [58] He seems to be playing the system wasting even more people's time complaining in his typical passive aggressive way [59]. We have wasted enough time, energy and effort on these two and their petty bickering. It is time to say goodbye to both of them. Just ban them both since it is like dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians nobody is going to listen. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no more sweeping accusations without providing diffs. Any such claims are useless when you are involved in the conflict yourself. Clicking on randomly selected diffs of Libro0's edits provided by Baseball Card Guy I don't see anything wrong. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An other note: Your Radio Enemy seems to be deeply involved in this conflict, and not a neutral mediator. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Third note: I am not involved in this dispute, but I have been trying to figure it out now. What I can find is:

1. User:Baseball Card Guy has been harassing User:Libro0 using gross uncivility ([60],[61],[62]), using socks ([63]) and Tor proxies ([64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72]) to revert Libro's edits and make comments like [73].

2. User:Libro0 has been fairly civil as far as I can see, but started accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy ([74],[75]). Some are indeed socks, but User:Your Radio Enemy is probably not. Baseball Card Guy has been intentionally editing the same (unrelated) articles as Your Radio Enemy in order to make Libro think they are the same user ([76],[77]).

3. Both Libro0 and Your Radio Enemy has attempted to get outside help with dispute resolution, but has received close to none (sorry, no diffs). Comments like "Stop it, you two!" (to Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy) isn't going to help at this point. I know that digging into this kind of stories is not very rewarding, but this conflict could have been handled months ago if they had received dispute resolution help.

4. In my opinion, Baseball Card Guy is clearly being intentionally disruptive. He should be blocked or banned from baseball card related articles and from interacting with Libro0. If Libro0 acknowledges that Your Radio Enemy is not a sock puppet, I believe that those two will be able sort out the content disputes. If Baseball Card Guy stays away that is. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to state for the record that I accused people of being sockpuppets for "suspicious similarities" not for disagreeing with me. Plenty of people have disagreed with me elsewhere in WP and interactions with them have been most amicable. As for Your Radio Enemy, there are suspicious actions on his part he has as yet been unable to justify. Libro0 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-standing attack articles

• Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Sylvia Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Tony Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Traian Băsescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Criticism of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just pretend I'm stupid and explain to me really slowly why the articles listed above don't fall under criterion G10 for speedy deletion. At first I thought, "Surely criticism is being used in the sense of analysis and commentary". But no, these really are just lists of negative stuff that people have said about these people. Needless to say, there are no matching Praise for ... or Agreement with ... articles.

The only thing stopping me deleting these is that I have enough sense to know what a storm this would create but, after thinking about it for the past couple of weeks, this increasingly seems a cowardly excuse. CIreland (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a "cowardly excuse", it's a recognition of the nature of the project. If you did something that you know is going to be disruptive, without taking steps to minimize the disruption by obtaining a consensus for the action, that's tantamount to being disruptive yourself. I think you did the right thing by holding off and posting your request here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Because criticism of these figures in mainstream sources is widespread and of encyclopedic concern. Also, because treating that criticism appropriately requires (sometimes) that we split out a section from the main article. An "attack page" is a page that serves only to defame the subject. In this case, these pages serve to give a tertiary look at criticism which already exists. They do have the added unpleasant outcome of being harder to maintain NPOV than the main articles (partly because they don't see the same amount of traffic and partly because their "baseline" POV is a little slanted). But they should certainly not be speedied. Protonk (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with, for example, Commentary on Tony Blair or somesuch. The trouble is that most of the above receive a good deal of equally verifiable praise in equally reliable sources yet this is barely represented - making our coverage of these people unbalanced. CIreland (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason they are not called Commentary rather than criticism is that the NPOV tendency would be to "balance" the negative criticism with positive adulation... which is frequently even less analytically based than the negative stuff (and far less common, which ironically leads to a bias upon sources if they are presented "equally"). While positive criticism can be appropriately placed within an article with criticism in the title, the nature of the beast dictates that most content will be negative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We also have Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Criticism of Ellen White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Criticism of Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Criticism in a sense includes positive criticism, so it's possible to include them as well. Cenarium ^Talk 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize we also have those articles but I singled out the ones for living people, for obvious reasons. Also, you are correct that "Criticism" can include positive criticism - but in the articles in question it patently does not. For example, this is the lede for Criticism of Tony Blair:

Criticism of Tony Blair includes accusations of dishonesty, authoritarianism, and subservience in his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush. Tony Blair has faced particularly severe condemnation for British involvement in the Iraq War, earning him the disparaging moniker of "Bush's Poodle."

CIreland (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Preface the above with "Negative", and tag "Positive criticism includes..." with a couple of examples from the main body would result in a NPOV and comprehensive lede (why do we spell it like that?) Ho, you should have seen the barrage of negative criticism that socialist Prime Ministers used to get - often from fractions within their own party! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

{Sidebar) The spelling "lede" for the leading sentence, paragraph or section is a journalistic invention designed to differentiate it from "lead", as in the hot lead used to make type. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever"[78] Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. Atom (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Public figures can sue for defamation, and most of these are forks to deal with bloated criticism sections into which every single tine adverse comment is obsessively added by those who have an agenda against the subjects. WP:BLP does not get shelved for public figures. Having them renamed to "discussion" or some such title, which is less readily misunderstood by those who fail to see the difference between critique and censorious criticism, would be a good idea I feel. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, BLP does not get shelved, which is why I said the BLP has a policy for public figures. We should apply it, and adapt it as needed. I personally don't see the difference between calling the article "criticism of..." and "discussion of...". The content would be critical in nature, and allowed if it is cited, verifiable and from a reliable source, and not allowed otherwise. If it is criticism, let's call it that. By allowing people who are extremely critical to have a place to put it (but still following WP:RELIABLE), it gives a safety valve that should keep some of that out of the primary article. Atom (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A "Criticism" article must still remain NPOV and balanced, within its narrow topic. I've preferred the less negative term "Controversy." And then what is notably but controversially asserted about the topic is reported, neutrally, and with attempts to balance it with specific fact or assertions. For example, if a critical comment was that a figure had allegedly embezzled funds, court or other findings or public commentary on that specific point would be apposited with it, so that the reader may make a judgment. Such a format may consist of a list of criticisms, since that is a convenient way to organize it; it's important to find consensus among those who criticise and those who support as to what is really out there in reliable source. Because criticism is sometimes directly verifiable and usable, if from a notable source or recognized expert, sometimes blogs and other sources normally rejected can be used, subject to the policy of verifiability; often this would be where the "positive" material would come from. --Abd (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but these pages seem to be large POV forks. People got sick of being denied the privillage of posting negative POV information on the standard BLP's and have simply created articles under the guise of notable media reaction.. when in fact if it was notable enough it should stand on it's own two feet in the namesake's main article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism of" articles are inherently POV. It's almost as if we're including an implicit comment in the intros of these articles that says "The following is a list of negative things people have said about this subject". These articles make no more sense than an article called Praise of Windows Vista. While important criticisms do have their place, creating separate "for" or "against" articles is antithetical to our goal of creating an NPOV encyclopedia. Perhaps if we decide opinions/commentary should have their own article (that is an entirely different debate), they should all be united in something like Opinions of Windows Vista. Or perhaps use "criticism" in a more general way, as in the way the term is used in the phrase "art criticism" in that it includes general independent commentary in addition to any positive/negative comments. Not everything is black-and-white, but this is the kind of thinking that this type of article structure encourages. It is absurd to me that we have this type of structure here when it should be clear to anyone that this is so blatantly against one of our core policies. Did I miss the memo that says we're supposed to overlook this POV nonsense? Wickethewok (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront

I found a link to the domain crusader.net which turns out to redirect to Stormfront. I believe that this is not a wholly reliable source... More to the point, there are a few links in debates about the place and we might want to be on the lookout for this. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Normaly it's stormfront linking to us that we worry about. Irony perhaps.Geni 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad checkuser access

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) has requested and been approved for Checkuser access. This is in order to allow him to more fully review Committee cases, and does not impact on the current Checkuser appointment process.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought all arbs had CU privileges? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is given on request, some arbs opt not to request it. NYB had not requested it until now. MBisanz ^talk 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

All arbitrators automatically receive Oversight access, but not Checkuser. I had not previously requested Checkuser because I don't have the technical background needed to do sophisticated checking. However, I've decided that access to the database and the checkusers' mailing list will be helpful to me in connection with arbitration cases and related matters. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their approval of my having this access. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor correction. As with the case of CheckUser, the oversight access is not automatic. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Automatic AFD closing script

As I noted here, I've been working on an automatic AFD closer script. Instructions and usage notes are at User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. Direct any bugs/feature requests/comments to my talk page. Mr.Z-man 02:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeays!! This rocks most seriously. Add a "relist" button and you have made me (and, I'm guessing a lot of other editors) happy! — Coren ^(talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wicked awesome. Once you get the relist function working I can start using it to clean up the notorious backlog. :) Protonk (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A day late and a dollar short, at the request of Cirt, I just updated the old CloseAFD.js to support non-admin closure. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD is absolutely incredible - many thanks to Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs). Someone should buy him a round of Duff beers. Cirt (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of that I've given him a barnstar. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Omai, I'm utterly impressed, good work —— RyanLupin • (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Holy... that's awesome! Second the barnstar - excellent work! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I LOVE it. So much easier to use than the old one, and works like a gem in FF3 on my Mac. TravellingCari 05:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisting added - you may need to bypass your cache of the script to get the newest version. Mr.Z-man 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Support}} {{Oppose}}

Hi, Is there any reason not to have templates for  Support and  Oppose? I really struggle to accept the 'server load' argument that seemed to dominate the TFD. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They have them on lots of other projects. I'm sure someone will soon complain about voting, but I don't see the harm unless someone can prove there is a technical science/server reason not to. They were deleted by an ancient and probably not valid consensus from 3+ years ago: [79] I'd say its overdue for review. rootology (C)(T) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a valid consensus at the time. But I suspect that attitudes have changed. I should probably be taking this to WP:DRV but I just thought I'd solicit some opinions here first. Thanks, Ben Aveling 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the main reasons was because it encourages the notion that we're voting on issues, when we're really trying to develop a consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how these might enhance debates and discussions on wikipedia? You ask "is there any reason not to have..?" can I ask "is there any reason to have.."". This is a genuine and not a polemical question.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Consistency with other wikis; it's annoying to type {{support}} and have to change it to support. Also ease of vote counting. There are decisions made here that look like votes but aren't (AFD, for eg). But there are things that genuinely are votes. Maybe a compromise would be to have the templates there, minus the symbols. Personally, I like the added colour, but I understand that there are people who don't. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, looking over a discussion with those templates makes it easier to read, especially if we don't split into support and oppose sections. — Werdna • talk 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Easier to read"? Methinks, you mean "easier to count". Can't see how it helps me read the actual discussion.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also easier to read selectively. Suppose one is closing an AFD, has made a decision, and wants to be sure that all the opposing arguments have been dealt with. Symbols make that easier to do. Cheers, Ben Aveling 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fun to have, but ultimately detrimental. We have enough knee-jerk supports and opposes breaking our processes without providing a set of templates to encourage more. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Redvers. Don't see a benefit for it (just my opinion). -- Alexf⁴² 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Er - do the little plus and minus symbols really impact how people participate? I see plenty of Support and Oppose comments without detailed rationales, is there is any reason to think we'd see a storm of such comments if we enable the templates? Avruch ^T 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If people from other projects are having issues I probably wouldn't be opposed to a template being created that consists of:

'''Support'''

that wouldn't change much from what people do anyway. –xeno (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have to say I like the look of them and the general idea behind them but, I think they may actually make things harder to read/understand if abbused in the same manner as '''support'''/'''oppose'''/'''keep'''/'''delete'''/'''don't delete'''/etc are at the moment. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a DRV not too long ago for them, and consensus there was still pretty clearly that we don't want them (but that they're kosher in userspace, so feel free to steal my versions at User:Lifebaka/+, User:Lifebaka/-, and User:Lifebaka/=). I'll go dig up the link. lifebaka++ 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Link is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 17. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone with templatre Clue can code it so that there is an argument |reason, and if it's missing then the !vote is not bolded and a comment "(no rationale is given for this comment)" then I think it would add some value. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try User:Ben Aveling/support. For eg:

• {{User:Ben Aveling/support}} gives support (no rationale given)
• {{User:Ben Aveling/support|Reason being...}} gives Support: Reason being....

The equivalent templates for Oppose, Neutral and Question can be created once the inevitable bugs are worked out. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Report on User:Bart Versieck

Some history on this report. From November of 2006 through June of 2008 User:Bart Versieck has continually engaged in disruptive behavior, resulting in 11 non-overturned blocks and an ANI thread (and I think one more started by me too... but I can't find it) before it was proposed that he be banned from Wikipedia. The final consensus was that he would be unblocked from his latest block on the condition that he "may no longer edit another accounts contribution, no matter the reason, and they will seek a third party to act upon any potential vandal comments made by others." User:LessHeard vanU was going to act as a sort of mentor to him and, by all accounts, he has done a fabulous job at his side of the bargain and I have great respect for his efforts.

In the two months since, however, there have been almost weekly incidents they are summarized here:

1. two edits of other people's talk page comments (July 1) - suggestion and clarification issued by LHvU
2. minor editing of other's talk page comments (July 7) - 3 hour block issued by LHvU
3. more talk page editing, followed by a string of incivility and personal attacks (July 17) - 24 hours block issued by LHvU
4. a one week block and a long thread of personal attacks (July 21) - I admit that issuing the block myself was a mistake, and I did apologize for it afterwards, but the block was upheld in the end. At this point I made it very clear that I was recusing myself from taking administrative action against him under any circumstances. In addition, there was one very uncivil message that was removed, but should none the less be considered in all this.
5. Even more talk page comment shifting (July 27) - Nothing too major, aside from it being another violation of the terms
6. Three posts for a user who was, at the time, indefinitely blocked (August 12) - No consequences, as there was disagreement that the policy against posting for banned users was applicable for indef. blocked users and because Bart agreed not to do it anymore
7. Another spat (August 18) - I declared my intention to seek a ban for Bart if there were another incident, but LHvU asked me to consider bringing it before the community and letting them see what they thought without suggestion a consequence. I agreed, mainly because of the respect that I have for LHvU, and that brings us to...
8. Four talk page edits of other people's comments in one day (August 26/September 3) - And that is why I am here today

Many of these edits would be acceptable to users in good standing, but it was a strict condition that he not edit talk page comments under any circumstances. Furthermore, not all of them are innocent either, as noted above.

Some people have pointed out that all of these things are little things and that these violations should be ignored in light of his regular contributions. Again, I ask how long do minor things keep adding up and how many must there be before they display a lack of respect for our policies and our project? I also ask if people can provide evidence of these good contributions that should be taken into consideration, because I cannot find any. At worst, his edits are subjective juggling around of article contents, at best some good, gnomish work. While these types of things are very essential to the project and should be regarded as useful editing, they simply do not outweigh the massive amount of disruption required to produce them.

I feel that action should be taken; I do not, however, have the desire nor neutrality to suggest what steps should be taken, as noted above. All I feel, however, is that this user has violated the terms of their "probation" to unacceptable levels and that their level and type of contribution to the encyclopedia does not warrant a "let it slide" policy towards their disruption.

I will notify the following users about this discussion so that they may be involved in the discussion if they so choose. I hope that uninvolved community members will come in with some suggestions, but I do plead that the entire situation is carefully reviewed. Even at the last administrator's noticeboard thread, many people felt that a big deal was being made of nothing because they did not see the entire picture. I have chosen only those who were involved on his talk page since the last ANI report, so as not to bring in every person who might have had beef with him. If the list is felt to be too biased against Bart, please let me know who else it would be appropriate to notify: User:Ryan Postlethwaite, User:LessHeard vanU, User:Xenocidic, User:Blueboy96, User:Postoak, User:Jauerback, User:Ultraexactzz, User:Boneyard and, of course, Bart himself.

Cheers, CP 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bart seems to be quite obsessive and/or compulsive about how talk pages are laid out, most of his (at least recent) edits have been stuff like fixing datestamps to be more accurate when the user added their signature after the fact, adding signatures, moving stuff to the proper chronological order, and the like. While these actions are usually permitted when done by users in good standing, BV is under restrictions not to edit other's talk page contributions. I believe CP's main concern is that allowing these "minor"/"gnomish" touchups may lead down a slippery slope towards the more serious/major modifications of other's talk page comments that was the original issue that lead to Bart's blocking. –xeno (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Does somebody have the link to the other, more in depth discussion? As I recall, BV was prohibited from altering other's talk page comments in terms of spelling, grammar, capitalization, and the like. I don't recall there being a widespread ban on all edits, such as rearranging talk page banners or putting comments in chronological order. I'd need to reread the discussion, but can't find it either. - auburnpilot talk 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive152#A compromise? I think is what you're looking for. –xeno (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that is the one - although I would note that that was the concluding sub-section, and persons not previously involved (or simply needing memory refreshed) should read the full section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. There was obvious opposition to an outright ban, but fair support for the editing restriction proposed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs). I think this is one of those cases where the restriction should have been more explicit, so I can't really comment on whether or not he violated the terms. Oh well. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I note he was meant to be reblocked "if he touches anyone else's Talk page comment in the slightest way"; and his pointless mucking around other editors' comments' look like trying to toe the line being as annoyingly disruptive as possible while weaving around the restriction so as to not be blocked. His cries of "are allowed" are particularily telling; there would be little point to argue the fact when simply desisting would do.

In other words, I beleive he is being disruptive on purpose, that he has willfuly violated the editing restrictions under which he was allowed to return to editing, and that he should be blocked indefinitely: we have no need for editors who make a hobby of disruption. — Coren ^(talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,: I don't think Bart is being disruptive "on purpose"...it seems that as Xeno has said, these are obsessive-compulsive behaviors: Bart believes it is his right and duty to "correct" "mistakes" (i.e, anything not the way he wants it to be). I have dealt with him since 2002 at the www.grg.org website and he has a long history of annoying behaviors, such as e-mailing the same message several times (even after advised not to do so), using extra punctuation marks (!!!!), and sending additional messages asking why the previous messages were not replied to. Yet he also has a long history of making small positive contributions, such as locating missing articles, references, or photos. At times, it appears that he is willing to listen/obey, before he returns to doing things his way. Ironically, this seems to be an issue of policy; often Bart's edits are technically correct. Perhaps I shouldn't be commenting but I feel that "annoying" and "intentionally disruptive" are really two separate things: Bart's goal seems not disruption but order, his inability to accept things out of order being the real issue here.Ryoung122 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• From review of the block log, past discussions and Bart (and my) talkpages, I note that Bart was released from the indef block (by me) with an undertaking not to blank other peoples comments - this has been, as I recall, adhered to except in one case where the removal was technically correct. However, a period of short blocks and localised discussion then occurred with regard to Bart editing other persons contributions, which resulted in various promises and undertakings not to do so again. However, this behaviour has not ceased and complaints to Bart are now being met with responses that what he is doing is permitted (which is open to question, as editing other peoples contributions without permission may be considered bad faith and is also regarded as uncivil) and in any case "minor". I would draw the communities attention that it was precisely those kind of minor, technically allowable edits that resulted in the previous Noticeboard discussions. I would also comment that, other than the matter of disregarding promises, undertakings and the like, and me performing some short blocks on him, that Bart and I have a decent working relationship so, given that this discussion will possibly result in him continuing to edit the encyclopedia, I shall not be partaking in this debate over what actions the community should decide to take. I will, however, be available help execute any decision, including blocking, or mentoring, or otherwise assisting, or going away and letting him get on with it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• This case has already used a lot of admin attention, and a lot of mentor assistance. Having reviewed the case in detail the last time around (22 June), and having observed what happened since then, I'd now support a block for at least three months. There is no data to suggest that any further patience will be rewarded. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary protection at Political positions of Sarah Palin

GRBerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected this article unnecessarily. If there are editors that are edit-warring, warn them and block them if they persist. Let others that are pursuing consensus via talk-page discussions, and editing sensibly continue unimpeded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you take this to RFPP? Your continued bashing of any sort of protection to any article relating to Sarah Palin is tiring. seicer | talk | contribs 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Jossi is being quite disingenious - he specifically warned a respected editor for edit 3RR, when that editor was citing WP:BLP in their edits. He was also edit warring himself. Rather than blocking them both, and possibly others, I choose to shut down the page. GRBerry 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, please? I did not edit war, so your point is moot. If there are editors that are edit warring such as User:Kelly, actions should be taken to afford others to continue editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts re to Jossi) Of course you think this is unnecessary. You are the one that unilaterally reversed my consensus/AN-based protection of the parent article, without discussing with me, the protecting admin. You didn't show up on my talkpage, as the acting admin, other then to tell me that you undid what I'd done. Had you simply discussed my action with me rather than deciding, by yourself, that you "knew what was right for Wikipedia", we wouldn't be in this mess. Shame on you, Jossi, for now dragging something here that goes against what you think is "right". If another admin makes a decision, you get to reverse it? You have an obvious bias about what you think is "right" for Wikipedia. Others disagree. You are abusing your admin tools. Keeper ǀ 76 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, he also made no prior attempt to discuss with me - but if he used his tools I haven't yet had time to notice. GRBerry 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC) expanded 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely, ain't it? Jossi posted to my talk page to let me know, post fact, that he'd undone my admin action. Not before. After using the tools. Completely out of bounds. Keeper ǀ 76 21:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that Jossi has become far too involved with the whole drama, and needs to take a step back and let others in. seicer | talk | contribs 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. Enough is enough. Keeper ǀ 76 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Necessary or not it isn't much of a solution. Constructively editing an important article under full protection is almost as impractical as editing an important article that's getting reverted too fast. Anyway, given the arbitration case, talk page, etc., and if we can get past administrators complaining about each otehr, is this the correct place to discuss whether the article should be protected and would a discussion here lead to a sustainable decision to unprotect or leave protected? Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This protection is 24 hours only. If there is a consensus to do something different before that time period is up, please do it. But I think blocking the involved editors would be dumb, so I choose protection. Getting close to the end of the day here, and I want some time with my kids before we rip out the kitchen, so I won't be around much longer. GRBerry 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind then. We can all survive 24 hours without editing that article. Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With all the wikidrama over Palin in the last 30 hours or so and the events on the article, I support this protection. We really don't need an RFAR/Political positions of Sarah Palin protection wheel war to go along with freshly opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts later)Can we set up a sub-page just for admins to argue with each other? This would have the benefit of freeing up this board for more constructive material. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed information from the page per WP:BLP. There is an off-wiki meme that the article subject is a Dominionist and POV-pushers keep bringing it here. The basic subject of the meme is that her political position toward Israel is informed by her religious beliefs, when there's not a scrap of credible evidence for that. Trust me, I've gotten very familiar with the 10-15 different memes that POV-pushers keep bringing here. Kelly ^hi! 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of protection is to prevent disruption and edit warring. Once that war abates in a few days, it could go back to semi-protection. It's mostly the POV-pushers that are anxious to unprotect it, and pose excuses about it being too much of a "bother" to discuss changes first - that is, they want to be free to edit-war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

↔ OK, Jossi is probably not the best messenger here. That said, the BLP issue here is that Kelly thinks that a story in the Washington Times is "complete and utter bullcrap". In other words, there is no BLP issue here. There is a legitimate content dispute as to whether the Washington Times article should be cited and, if so, in what context.

I'm not opposed to the protection, since it is a reasonable response to a content dispute which has spilled over into back-and-forth editing: there is ongoing discussion on the talk page, which may be able to resolve the issue amicably, and there is no deadline. I prefer protection to blocks where longterm good-faith editors are concerned. But let's also be clear that there's no way that this falls under a BLP exemption from 3RR. Several editors have added content sourced to the Times and been reverted by one editor - Kelly - inappropriately citing WP:BLP. I think lots of reliable sources print "complete and utter bullcrap" from time to time, but that alone doesn't justify edit-warring. Anyhow, a day's worth of protection won't kill anyone. By the way, everyone, please feel free to drop by the talk page and comment. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There were no "multiple reliable sources". See Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin#Israel, and then view the cited source for yourselves. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is only one user edit warring and that is User:Kelly. Other editors are discussing in talk, providing sources and engaging in constructive discussions. As for Kelly's comments above, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, and other such sources are not to be dismissed on the grounds of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This particular article aside, how are you feeling about calling another admin "an edit warrior" when you personally, Jossi, reversed my admin decision to protect a highly vandalized/POV page, namely Sarah Palin, without discussing with me? Why do you get to throw rocks at others and yet seem to think you are somehow innocent from your own actions? Keeper ǀ 76 21:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think its worth noting, without pointing any fingers, that any time that administrators begin conflicting with eachother using administrative access, it makes the entire project, and administrators as a whole look bad. This should be more important than any one article.--Tznkai (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• [ec] I wonder how a single person can edit war? Regardless, I think the comment above is good evidence for protection; Kelly has done fine work in resisting the onslaught but is clearly losing objectivity - if X major sources says Y, then we can WP:ATT it - but at the same time Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to provide blow-by blow accounts as the punches are thrown, that is firmly the job of Wikinews, we are supposed to wait until the dust has settled and reflect more analytical sources. Since a huge number of people seem determined to ensure that we act instead as some kind of ticker, protection is amply justified. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A single person can edit war by undoing the work of several editors, deleting content repeatedly. I am sure that you have seen that elsewhere as well, JzG. That is why we have the electric fence of WP:3RR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war has just opened. I suggest we all take a nice break for a few days from worrying about this, and go write a few articles. When we come back, efforts can be focussed on resolving this dispute. Taking a break won't make the problem go away, but it will make things way calmer. Cool heads, clear thinkers. Anthøny ✉ 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And keeping it blocked will help enforce that good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are constant attempts to post POV-pushing stuff in the article - inferences, misquotes, synthesis, original research, etc. It will spin down in a few days as she fades from the front pages and the focus returns to Obama and McCain. The lockdown is appropriate and necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Protection is the only way of stopping this form being a blow-by-blow tabloid frenzy. {{editprotected}} will ensure that anything genuinely uncontroversial gets in the article promptly, and anything controversial can wait for the Sundays rather than our amateur efforts at second-guessing the quality fo the competing primary sources. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, JzG. Just take a look at the mess: Wikipedia:AE#Massive_change_to_Sarah_Palin_made_without_consensus were editprotected is bypassed and an involved admin making edits to a protected page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is a good argument for opening the article to even more opinionated editors. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Nigzakilla

Resolved

The user name rings alarm bells and contributions indicate this is a troll from encyclopedia dramatica. — Realist² 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Garden-variety troll, nothing to see here. Grandmasterka 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward Sanchez

A prod tag was put onto Edward Sanchez. User:Toussaint, who created the article, then moved it to his User space and removed the prod. I suppose this is an acceptable action, since that means Toussaint can work on it in his User space, but that leaves a redir from article space to User space. Should the redirect be deleted? I don't want to put a db-redir on Edward Sanchez if the move wasn't the right thing to do from the beginning. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CSD#R2. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also the move was fine. A good faith attempt to improve an article in a users own namespace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Opinoso

User:Opinoso continues with disruptive behavior and edition war in Italian_Brazilian and other topics. It is the same in Portuguese Wikipedia.

Take a look.

--Quissamã (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre block

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

Resolved. Looks like just a mistake based on a simple misunderstanding or misinterpretation of WP:AIV processes, there's no crisis or ongoing problem, closing thread. Dreadstar † 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Please don't inform the stewards of this thread. They've heard already, thanks. Kylu (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of this 'warning': User talk:THEN WHO WAS PHONE?#Warning

Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandolism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist. I know you meant well but it was a mistake, just do not do it again. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i.e. THEN WHO WAS PHONE was warning IP vandals, Slrubenstein blocked THEN WHO WAS PHONE for 15 minutes. This seems completely bizarre to me. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is bizarre, and seems to go entirely against common sense. Every IP vandal had to make their first edit at one time or another, and putting a warning on their talk page helps to establish the record of their activity (and warnings) in case it is needed in the future. What policy does this go against, exactly? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking is completely inappropriate for the perfectly normal process of issuing warnings to IP vandals; if we don't issue warnings, we shouldn't block. Bizarre. --Rodhullandemu 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an entirely improper block, and Slrubenstein should resign his adminship. How else is any IP who repeatedly commits vandalism supposed to get through the warning tree before they can be listed at WP:AIV? There are so many things I want to say in outrage that I've redacted here. Gaaaahhhh. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A very unhelpful and disruptive block. The notion that an editor could be blocked for leaving warnings on IP talk pages is unsettling. Moreover, many IP editors do read their talk pages and answer notes left on them. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein just placed the same warning at User talk:WadeSimMiser. Corvus cornix_talk 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And to User talk:Canis Lupus. Corvus cornix_talk 01:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like every week I say "that's the worst block I've ever seen", but wow. Awful. Anybody mind if I note in his block log that the previous block was not supported by policy? - auburnpilot talk 01:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do, I had the same thought. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Unfortunately, somebody needs to counsel Slrubenstein. See the message he/she left on my talk page. Wow. - auburnpilot talk 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have engaged User:Slrubenstein via talk page, and several have piled on, and of course there is this thread. Let's try to keep the discourse to policy and away from statements which can cause tempers to flare quickly. We've had enough wheel-warring for one week (at least), and that's coming from someone old enough to remember what "wheel" originally was - like my age has anything to do with it :-)

I think we can mostly agree that the warnings regarding editors who place warnings IP vandal talk pages are not in keeping with common practice, and that blocking an editor who does so is even less in keeping with common practice. We've alerted the admin in question...let's see what happens from here.  Frank  |  talk  01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Cenarium ^Talk 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have to agree this was a bad play. I warn IPs all the time, because if they're vandalizing *right now* then they get the message and hopefully stop. That's how I was taught to do it, and that's really the right way to do it. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a block and emergency desysoping should be considered - I can't believe any admin would do something like this, which suggests the account may have been compromised or the admin is acting in bad faith. --Tango (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that, and I'm sure we're not the first to think of it. However, this is a long-time editor whose granting of admin rights doesn't even appear in the user rights log, and there isn't really anything unusual to be seen in the pattern of contributions of this editor. I'm certain there are a dozen people watching very closely; we can request more drastic steps when necessary - but I don't think that is required now.  Frank  |  talk  01:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Another problem seems to be that Slrubenstein is targeting and deleting IP talk pages where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) has left warnings. [80] That's not good. - auburnpilot talk 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a link to this discussion on Slrubenstein's Talk page, but instead of responding here, he's only dealing with people on his Talk page. His most recent edit on this subject: [81] indicates that he has no interest in actually stopping this bizarre behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my god. In that case, this seems to be a either a compromised account or worse. Should I put in an emergency desysop request on Meta? (actually, where do you do that?) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It would appear Slrubenstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) either has an incredibly bad misunderstanding of official policy in regards to WP:BLOCK, or this account has been hijacked. Either way, the safety of the project looks to be in danger and we should move accordingly. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible the account is compromised. Either way, this kind of violation of policy/common sense from somebody with admin tools calls for desysoping. Jamie^☆S93 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You think this block is bad? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_again_and_again_and_again. Outrageous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, then contact a CU to see if it's compromised. But it may very well be a misunderstanding. Don't go summon the dragon yet. Cenarium ^Talk 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account has not been compromised, it's just an admin with a poor understanding of policy (to put it mildly). Back in February, Slrubenstein delete several talk pages where an editor left warnings for IP users. Tonight, he/she deleted another 10, where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) left warnings. - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, bureaucrats can't remove sysop access. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(cross posted from user page) Please, folks - calm down. Slrubenstein has been engaged, and please note that none of the behavior in question has occurred since it was initially questioned. We are poking at a sore wound right now, and that is not going to help. If Slrubenstein begins taking actions again that are against policy, we can deal with it then, but there is no point in continuing to discuss it at this point. The behavior has - at least for the moment - stopped. Let's leave it alone for now.  Frank  |  talk  01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, there is no emergency. Calm down all. Cenarium ^Talk 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that admins blocking other admins for stupid reasons is so commonplace as for you to retain your composure.... (striked since TWWP is not an admin, much to my surprise) --mboverload@ 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

After I read more about this situation, it really does not appear that his account is compromised. And although I agree this isn't exactly an emergency, I still would support removal of the tools if he really plans to continue these actions as an administrator. Jamie^☆S93 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubenstein does have a point regarding the difficulty of meaningfully communicating with shared- and/or dynamic-IP users (not that warning templates are meaningful communication, mind you), However they are obviously not within the going definition of "nonsense pages" and this is a very stupid block, and I can only hope PHONE-guy doesn't take it personally. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This was a bad block, no doubt about it. But let's get one thing straight, while it's come up--Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been. WP:AGF means of course that warnings must be given before a block if there's a reasonable chance of a person changing their behavior, but in cases where there is no such chance (such as renewal of a previous pattern of vandalism on a new IP), blocking on sight is not a problem. That doesn't mean that Slrubenstein is right here, it just means that the extreme opposite point of view is not right either. Chick Bowen 02:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Slrubenstein has been engaged on this subject here, here, here, and elsewhere. What seems very much like closure from Slrubenstein appears here. Activity has stopped, and clearly a number of editors below will be watching. It does not appear there is any compromise or need for panic, and if it turns out that such is the case, we can panic later. Otherwise, nothing to see here (anymore).  Frank  |  talk  02:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

HOLD ON a second

Why are we discussing meta-wikipedia viewpoints when an admin is pulling this shit? Maybe I'm the last person who things that BLOCKS ARE NOT SMALL THINGS. They are HUGE. I've been blocked once and I still regret it 3 years later. Someone tell me I'm freaking crazy, cause I sure feel like it. --mboverload@ 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're freaking crazy. (hey, you asked for it!)Seriously, though, can we cut it out with the over-reactions and the RANDOM CAPS? Things are happening. The wheels of justice grind slow, but they can grind mighty fine. SirFozzie (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread closure

I'll note that there are two editors attempting to mute discussion. I will not revert another closure, but it is disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will also note that topics can change in any given thread, however, templates tend to disrupt the normal discussion flow. Off topic (or change-topic) discussion is not a good reason to add these templates. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I wasn't concerned about a compromised account, I was concerned because putting a warning on an empty IP talk page is something I do as a matter of course numerous times almost every day, and I don't want to get blocked! I'm glad to see that most folks here seem to agree that this admin's take on it is not normative. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For my own part, I reject the characterization of closing the discussion as attempting to mute it. The point of this thread was to discuss the specific warning and block actions of a specific administrator. That issue has been resolved and deserves to be listed as such. If there is subsequent wikidrama debate about what the exact correct procedures are or should be (good luck with that), even if it was sparked by this thread, that doesn't change the fact that it is peripheral and doesn't belong as part of this thread. This one deserves to be closed as resolved simply for the sake of organization.  Frank  |  talk  03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question has agreed to stop these actions, so I think the matter is closed unless he decides to try and change the policy, but that wouldn't happen here anyway. I think this thread can be closed for good now. --Tango (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response to Chick Bowen's comments in the section above

Please read WP:AIV:

Important! – your report must follow these three points:

1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.

2. Unregistered users must be active now.

3. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

If I (or anybody else who is not an admin and is reporting vandalism at WP:AIV) list a currently-vandalizing user on WP:AIV, if they have not been given the sufficient number of warnings, the listing is always removed with no action being taken. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That applies to AIV. In any case, AIV is not a policy page. Wikipedia:Blocking policy does not specify that warning is necessary. Once again, if there is evidence that a new IP is actually a returning disruptor with a new IP, there is no need for a warning, nor is one routinely given. I'm just describing current practice here--I'm not stating an opinion or, really, anything new. Chick Bowen 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So how do I get a new IP blocked without going through the warning tree? Post it here or on ANI? You get told "take it to AIV". If I take to AIV without going through the warning tree, the listing gets deleted. Should I admin canvass? Corvus cornix_talk 03:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is usually best for the clear-cut stuff--our friends who like to put filthy pictures into prominent articles, that sort of thing. I admit I haven't worked on AIV for quite a long time, but I believe the idea there is that for ordinary schoolboy vandalism the warnings should be gone through. Chick Bowen 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I am thoroughly confused. You yourself said above Corvus comix and others have stated a couple of times that warning an IP before a block is required: that is not true and never has been. Now you tell me that I do have to go through the warnings. I think I'll just continue what I've been doing, since to do anything else will just cause me too much frustration when my listings at AIV get removed without the vandals being dealt with. Corvus cornix_talk 03:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is my perspective as an admin who has processed AIV reports nearly every day for the past nine months ... WP:BLOCK's statement that "efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines" meshes nicely with both WP:AGF and WP:BITE. When it comes to unregistered users, if we do not warn them that their vandalism will not be tolerated, how will they ever learn otherwise? In my experience, a very large fraction of anonymous users receiving talk page warnings quit vandalizing after their first or second warnings. Since most of these "experimenting" vandals are scared off by the warnings issued by our dedicated vandal patrollers ... Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best. As if admins are not already busy enough (to say nothing of the fact that is would idle one of our most powerful anti-vandalism tools: our corps of patrollers)! --Kralizec! (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just add that as far as I am concerned, there is far too much assumption of bad faith on AIV that the people listing vandals are the bad guys, and that the vandals themselves are just misunderstood. Corvus cornix_talk 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that's true. Chick Bowen 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, that's not quite true. Whilst I'm less likely to block an IP that hasn't been warned completely, if I look at the contribs and see that it's clearly an IP on a vandalism spree and isn't likely to contribute positively any time soon, then I'll block anyway [82] [83] [84] [85]. However, what I won't do is block if an account is insufficiently warned and appears to be a clueless newbie editor or content dispute (in fact sometimes I won't block these even if they have 4ims). I know a number of other admins work like this too.

Whilst 90%+ of reporters on AIV are good, there are always people, especially those with semi-automated tools, who are too quick to judge things as vandalism. For example, I have seen reports for people "vandalising" the sandbox, or their own user pages, and once for someone who put "I f*cked up that last edit" in an edit summary. A lot of AIV reports could be prevented by instead of a massive automated boilerplate on their talkpage, just a "Hi there - it's probably a good idea if....". Just my thoughts. Black Kite 12:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does Kralizek misrepresent me? She writes, "Slrubenstein`s idea that only admins should deal with these IP users (and only via blocks!) is laughable at best." which not only sounds snide, insulting, and an attempt to bait me, it is just not true., Nowhere have I ever written that onlhy admins should deal with IP users, and only via vlocks. In fact, my position is the opposite. I have stated that when the vandalism is of the juvinile sort, and is a case of one or a few edits ove a very short period of time from a public, shared adress, editors 9any editor) should just revert the vandalism. Please tell me where I said only admins should do this, and only via blocks. If I expressed myself unclearly or incorrectly I will apologize immediately. Otherwise apologize for lying about what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad-faith accusations of me being insulting or lying ring rather hollow as we can all readily see the proof in your edit history:

• • At 19:24 you said [86] to THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, "Please do not leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses. Many IP addresses are public computers used by many people, and a warning against vandalism is pointless as it will never be read by the vandal. Moreover, all you accomplish is to create a new talk page for a user who does not really exist." Note that you made zero distinction between static, shared, or public IP addresses in your instructions to this editor.
  • Then 56 minutes later, you said [87] on your own talk page, "If it is an obvious case of vandalism, and it is a shared address, an admin can block the address for six or twelve or twenty-four hours without giving a warning."

Taken together, it appears that you pretty clearly told a vandal fighter to stop warning IPs and that admins should just block the vandals without ever trying to educate them. I am sorry if this is not what you were meaning, but all we have to go on is the face value of what you wrote, and what you wrote is dangerously out of step with current guidelines, policies, and community consensus. While I have the utmost respect for your long history of contributions to the project, I suspect that your dated understanding of our guidelines and policies means that you would have great difficulty passing a modern RfA. (And for reference, my username is Kralizec! and I am a "he" - and have the wife and three kids to prove it!) --Kralizec! (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I appreciate the chance to clear up the misunderstanding. I fear you took two statements out of context. The first statement was indeed a criticism of the creation of new pages for IP addresses. But I did not say that non-admins should not deal with vandals. In fact, I have on several occasions applauded PHONE and others' vigilent reversion of vandalism. That is a way of dealing with vandals that is necessary, tedious, and valuable and I am grateful to any editor who does it, and I certainly do not think that one has to be an admin to do this.

The second comment was a direct response to another editor who claimed that policy required that one provide a warning before blocking. I quoted the policy that stated that one need not provide a warning before blocking a vandal. That was my only point: that the editor criticizing me was misquoting policy. Note: the issue has to do solely with whether a warning is required prior to a block (and policy explicitly says not always). The issue did not have to do withe whether only admins can block vandals, or whether all editors can block vandals. I simply did not address this particular issue. Now, Wikipedia may have a policy that only admins can block, and if you do not like that policy you can propose to change it. But I di dnot create that policy, and nothing I wrote was a defense of the policy. The conversation at that time was not over whether admins or non-admins could block, it was whether Wikipedia policy required a warning. One editor said it did, and I quoted the policy saying it did not.

I now understand why you misunderstood me and am willing to grant that you did so with good intentions but you were not assuming good faith on my part. In both instances, I did assume good faith - one can assume good faith in another editor and disagree. In one case I explicitly said I knew the editor was acting in good faith but I though what s/he was doing was a mistake. In the second, I simply assume that the editor was acting in good faith when s/he misquoted policy; I did not question his/her intentions, I just asserted that s/he was mistaken and quoted policy.

So with all due respect, and acknowledging now your intentions were good, you were mistaken to take two different comments I made to two different editors concerning two different matters, and infer by connecting them that I think only admins should deal with vandals.

You are right that my view about the pointless or even counter-productive creation of new pages by warning IP addresses is out of step with the community. I hope you will acknowledge that once this was clear to me I stopped doing what I was doing. I do this to defer to the will of the community, not because I agree. But i do agree that neither i nor anyone else should revert these warnings unless - if ever - the community consensus changes. I think there is a need for new discussion on how we handle vandalism, especially from IP addresses. I mean just what I said and i am sincere and it in no way means I question the value of the hard work many editors do in reverting vandalism. I hope it is crystal clear to you and everyone else that I appreciate any editor who reverts vandalism, and thank them for their efforts. Is it possible for us to open up discussion on our policies in this regard while assuming good faith on one another's part? I certainly think someone can disagree with me in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective; we all have a much better understanding of your intentions now. Please accept my apologies for being unnecessarily snide, as I see that your intentions were good. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kralizic, I canot tell you how much this means to me - thank you. I hope everyone else who was active last night understands that I really thought it was clear that my actions were well intended and I deeply regret the grief I caused so many people. I will wait for things to cool down a bit more before inviting a discussion on our vandalism policy, but when I do it is precisely because I do respect and value the views of the community, and respect wiki process enough to think that we can have a frank discussion while assuming good faith on the part of peoploe with whom we disagree. I realize that people may feel it is noit worth discussion, or the discussion may lead us right back to what I know see is the status quo. I have always valued in Wikipedia the hope that, however difficult, consensus can be balanced with an open, never-ending discussion about a work that will always be "in process." Anywa, I apologize to you and others if I expressed myself unclearly or inappropriately - I know that at least a few times I was curt and eliptical and I know that didn't help things and I regret that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but I don't think I have seen either an apology to TWWP for the block, or an understanding that blocking someone for issuing warnings was clearly contrary to policy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like a straightforward explanation as well, and a clarification of the policy on warning vandals. This vandalism fighter is chilled to the bone by Slrubenstein's action. I thought I was doing the right thing. This could have been me. I could have been blocked. This is not minor, despite the premature archive and the "move along nothing to see" attitude shown by many on this thread. I've never been afraid to edit here before now. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree Cannon (talk · contribs)

I posted a report on this user on WP:AIV, but I also wanted to bring this here because this user's activity is giving me bad vibes.

Tree Cannon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, from what I can guess based on his user page and contributions, a Japanese user who is unhappy that the English Wikipedia has fair-use images and the Japanese Wikipedia does not, and think it is "discriminatory". About a month ago, they decided to act like a sort of copyright police for Japanese media and removed fair-use images that were Japanese in origin ([88], [89], [90]). This got him blocked for 72 hours.

The account remained silent until now, when the user began adding random Japanese and some vandalism to his previous targets ([91], [92]). When other editors informed them that their edits were undone, this user began replying entirely in Japanese ([93], [94]). One of these replies, [95], appears to be inflammatory as the text for it translates to: It is from the English [wa]. Another calling and. Already immediately September 11th, the party of arrogant America and the European person died the multitude. It is very happy important commemoration day. The exemption [ji] [te] permitting to that. The [ze] which probably will celebrate that day together. Toast! Another inflammatory comment, this time in English, was added after he was blocked by User:VirtualSteve for the previous edits.

Though he's been blocked for a week, I think the inflammatory nature of some of his user-space edits and the incivil way he carries himself when commenting in general should warrant a somewhat longer block. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

wow. That sounds like some pretty serious rage. Indef block, anybody? Corvus cornix_talk 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The text of [96] reads, roughly, "I don't know English, but whatever. Soon it'll be September 11, when lots of arrogant Americans and Europeans died. It's a joyous, important anniversary. In deference to that, I'll forgive you. Let's celebrate that day together. Cheers!" Exploding Boy (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to refer him/her to Wikipedia:Dude, it's a frickin' online encyclopedia. Chill out, already! (WP:DIAFOECOA for short). caknuck _° is geared up for football season 04:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And I thought I'd look at some of the others as well. The edits to (92 above) are just "also known as [name]" and "from a foreign-language DVD version." (93 above) is obviously silly as it's a random Japanese section in an English article. {94 above) is just a question about some edits to Miyazaki Hayao. (95 above) is getting silly. He says that Miyazaki is Japanese, and that he has been familiar with his work since childhood, so the other editor should more or less butt out. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a chuckle of out his comment on his user page: "I talk in Japanese also to those who cannot understand Japanese." So, here's my take on this user. He's obviously got a bee in his bonnet about what he seems to see as theft or unjustified use of images taken from Japanese works. Some of his edits could be seen as constructive, but adding Japanese language sections to English language articles is just silly, and the fact that he's added emoticons to at least one of them suggests that he knows he's being disruptive. Still, he's no worse than some other users we've yet to indefblock, and he's not being unbearably disruptive (yet). His poor English skills (he seems to be using an automatic translator) mean that he'll never be able to contribute very much here anyway. We just need to give him enough rope to hang himself. If he comes back after his block expires and continues to be disruptive, we can simply block him again. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded.--Tznkai (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am not comfortable with having an editor here who calls for the celebration of the murders of over 3000 people. Corvus cornix_talk 05:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a native speaker to look over his edits and leave him a note. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A block of 7 days for incivility is a slap on the wrist and a tacit agreement that their disgusting comments are somehow acceptable. We should make a stand that any such behavior, celebrating the Holocaust, the Madrid or London bombings, the Dresden bombings, any such activities, is not acceptable. Period. Corvus cornix_talk 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we are sorry about Dresden. _{A sincere personal note, it was my grandfather's only regret in life.} Keegan^talk 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that a 7 day block is a tacit agreement that someone's comments are acceptable. And Wikipedia is not in the business of saying what is or is not morally acceptable, just what is or is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Quite frankly, if he doesn't cause any more ruckus, I don't care what he thinks.--Tznkai (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't block people for having distasteful opinions. The 7 day incivility block is the appropriate response to his behaviour to this point, most of which hasn't really been that awful. I see no particular reason to come down particularly, disproportionately hard on this user, annoying though he may be. Chances are he'll either get bored and stay away, in which case we don't have to worry about it, or come back and pick up where he left off, in which case we can block him again. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We require people to remove swastikas from their User pages. We block them when they refuse. Corvus cornix_talk 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this user refused to remove swastikas from his user page? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, don't be intentionally dense. Apparently it's ok to celebrate the murders of Americans, but not to celebrate the murders of European Jews. Corvus cornix_talk 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be unnecessarily sensational. Wikipedia isn't Germany or Austria; Holocaust denial is not a crime here. —kurykh 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is exhausting its usefulness. You don't like it Corvus, complain to Jimbo.--Tznkai (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I wish our rules permitted me to block every user with distasteful opinions, but they don't. In my opinion, this user has not (yet) done anything that warrants an indef block. I endorse the 7 day block, and support further, longer blocks if he continues the behaviour, or an indefblock if escalated disruption warrants it. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Should_we_allow_an_editor_to_edit_here_who_calls_for_the_celebration_of_the_deaths_of_thousands_of_people.3F Corvus cornix_talk 06:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What does Jimbo have to do with it? He is not a court of appeal for AN... Anyway, personally, I would indef block him since there is no point someone that says they can't speak English having an account on the English Wikipedia unless they are involved in some kind of cross-project work which this user doesn't appear to be. Short term blocks are for when we think the user might make useful contributions when they come back, that clearly isn't going to happen here. --Tango (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. You don't like it Corvus, complain to Jimbo. Corvus cornix_talk 06:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, the question was really intended for Tznkai, but the thread had been unindented, so I didn't want to reindent it! --Tango (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that this user's words have been pretty awful - hate speech, pure and simple, which does nothing but harm our collaborative efforts - and that he shouldn't be permitted to contribute to this project unless we're sure he won't continue his tirades. krimpet✽ 06:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the drama. As I said above, some of his edits could be seen as constructive. Also, we don't prevent people from editing because their English isn't good. A note in Japanese with English translation has been left on his talk page, which reminds him that there are rules here which he must follow, including being civil to other editors. In my view, the issue has been resolved for now. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel silly for making that suggestion, because I never meant it as such, so much as a way of saying "This is the way things are, you don't like it, too bad." And i agree with Exploding Boy--Tznkai (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, stfu? Corvus cornix_talk 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try it this way. WP is an encylopedia governed by certain policies. One of those is a commitment to neutrality. Another is a commitment to civility. A third is a principle to avoid making gestures, but to concentrate on the encylopedia. None of the policies we have allow us to punish someone just because he said something patently terrible. And finally a 4th is to assume good faith and that everyone has something useful to add, unless they have proven otherwise. That is not just my opinion, that's the way things are (within how I understand them.) I am unwilling to extend the block without further provocation. It seems Exploding boy is also. However, if you really think its a Really Big Deal, your option is, as always, to escalate it to a higher authority, and around here, that's Jimbo. I don't think its a particularly good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting blocking him just because of his English, I'm suggesting blocking him because he's being disruptive and making it indef because there is little reason not to (cost-benefit analysis and all that). --Tango (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Corvus Conrnix (and Tango) here, about the severity of the prolem, although with some qualms; ultimately I basically support the current block although I can see some cause to extend it another week. I highly prize the value of free expression of views, especially offensive views, at Wikipedia because we need to create an inclusive environment for NPOV to work effectively. So this is my standard. It leads to three question I think in this case: (1) would banning this user drive away editors whose points of view are so different from our own, and so offensive to us, that we actually need them at Wikipedia, to ensure that all notable views are included in the encyclopedia? (2) would the continued presense of this editor drive away other editors who make valuable contributions to the project? Finally, (3), does the specific behavior in question contribute to the improvement of any article? This in the end is what it is all about: improving articles. Now, from what i have read, my poiints 1 and 2 do not really apply here or cancel each other out, though I wonder if anyone disagrees with me, i would like to hear it. So I get stuck on my third point. This guy is not calling for the inclusion of an alternate (however offensive) view in an article. he is simply using his own user page to spew hate. This is why I lean towards Corvus Cornix. We should not let anyone hijack Wikipedia to spew hate speech. I have seen other suers make no edits to articles because their edits would violate our core content policies; instead they just edit talk pages or their user page - pages where NPOV and NOR do not apply - and in effect they are making a mockery of our core values. User pages have a value in introducing enough of ourselves to facilitate collaboration. That is there purpose. This is not My Space or Facebook or a blog, user pages do not exist just for individuals to have their own web-page on the web, they serve a function in Wikipedia. Again, this user seems to me to be perverting that function. I am not sure I would ban him but I would consider a long block. Remember, blocks are NOT punitive. They are meant to stop disruptive behavior and provide time for a person to reflect on and reconsider their acts. I would support a block that was long enough to throw a wrench in his disruptive behavior (one week would obviously be reasonable) and also enough to give him time to study our content and personal behavior policies so he can learn the error of his ways - if English is not his first language, two weeks may be called for. This guy is a newbie, and has made some valid edits, so I oppose an indef. ban. I really think we should try a rehabilitation through a block first, and make it clear to him that he cannot abuse his user page or talk pages, and needs to learn our core values via our policies. A block sends the message and provides time for education. Is my reasoning off? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At least two of the diffs above are not vandalism. One is an edit to the article that did add some relevant information (albeit in Japanese). The other is a request for explanation (again, in Japanese) on a user's talk page. What seems to have provoked the outburst about 9/11 is frustration. Now, I'm not saying I like this guy, and I'm not saying his behaviour is acceptable. This is the English Wikipedia site, and contributions need to be in English (and some of his have been), and civility applies even when there's no reasonable expectation that the target will understand what you've left on their talk page. But as I said above, for now the steps we've taken seem sufficient: we've given him a week-long block (quite proportionate to his behaviour), and we've left messages on his talk page. We've even taken the additional step of leaving a message on his page in his language so that there can be no doubt that he understands it. I still see no reason to upgrade this to an indefblock, yet. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Current wikipedia policy is that we do not block people for their opinions, whatever they are but only for their behaviour.

Celebrating 9/11 (as a positive event) is not acceptable behaviour because it is not related with writing an encyclopaedia and because it is not wp:civil, particularly in a project where the majority of the contributors are US citizens or live there.

The current consensus is that 7 days is a good period for such a vandalism, which remains, in my point of view, a provocation.

If he goes on, the block will be increased, for the same reasons that the people who refused to remove swastikas were undefinitely (?) blocked.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Background and updates

This reminds me of the banned Kanabekobaton (talk · contribs)/Euroleague (talk · contribs) and this long recent thread. The CU could not confirm Tree Cannon as being Kanabekobaton though. That said, it could have something to do with this 2007 incident instead.

Anyway, what we got for sure is that 0oors (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Tree Cannon (talk · contribs) and has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry. A week for TC (the master account) is reasonable. We'll see. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree Cannon has left a longish and rather polite post on his talk page in response to the message left in Japanese yesterday. The gist of it is that he is aware of the rules and promises to abide by them from now on (and a bunch of other stuff about different rules for different Wikipedias being unfair, and some other, somewhat more esoteric complaints). Exploding Boy (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese but I do believe you. And, does he say he's got something/nothing to do with the cases I mentioned above? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You keeping on eye on him?--Tznkai (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked for a couple more days isn't he? Exploding Boy (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

fayssal: he doesn't mention anything, but he acknowledges that he was being disruptive, and apologizes. He has also been warned that other users have found some of his comments offensive. My guess is that he'll be ok from now on, but if he isn't he has no excuse: he's been made aware of the rules and has acknowledged that he understands them and that his previous behaviour was unacceptable. As a side note, another user has also explained to him that copyright policies on the various Wikipedias (one of his major complaints) are based on various countries' laws rather than on the whim of the various language editions' editors. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EB. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now Tree Cannon understands the copyright policies and realizes that he was barking up the wrong tree. I was asked to post his apology. To those who I hurt so badly. I am fully aware of what I have done is indefensible. I am ashamed of my thoughtlessness and filled with remorse. Please accept my apology. Oda Mari (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with that. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Malfunction on User:BJBot

User:BJBot appears to be tagging non-free images incorrectly as being orphaned despite them actually containing proper citations and not being orphaned such as Image:ALW-Uniform-OAK.PNG. Also it appears other pages are also being tagged by mistake. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:BJBot: "Read this first Sometimes MediaWiki will report an image not being used when it really is, and the bot will tag it in error. If this happens, revert the bot's edit to the image, and make a null edit to the article containing the image (click edit, then save without making any changes)" ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

BJ should fix the bot, users having to do that is some hack job. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case it was triggered by this page blank vandalism, which for a short time, made the image technically orphaned. MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That is actually much more complicated that it seems to appear. What happens is that the tables in MediaWiki do not update when there's high server load; instead, these entries get moved into the job queue. There is no way for a bot (or an editor, by that matter) to know that an image is included in a page because neither the "used in" list at the bottom of image pages, as well as Special:Whatlinkshere shows the image used anywhere. The only way to flush these tables is to force pages through the save parser, which updates all the links tables that point to any given page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but... the description page for a "fair use" image is generally expected to link to the article(s) where it is used. It would be easy for a bot to follow these links, do a null edit, then reload the image page and decide whether it's actually orphaned. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated the message earlier, if isn't done manually two different bots remove the template. BJ^Talk 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Now theology now a target for the Palin POV pushers

Resolved

I'd like to request semiprotection on the page as it's getting hit by rumormongering IPs...Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I put in a request over at RFPP and pointed them to this discussion. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did a partial protection of the article, which should provide time for people to work it out on th talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Total of 4 IP edits in the 12 hours preceding protection. *awaits chorus of impassioned "it's a wiki" objections that are de rigueur when reg editors find they can't edit* 86.44.29.35 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? Regular--that is, logged-in--users can edit. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was drawing attention to how amusing it is that a decision to semi-protect of any sort rarely draws any scrutiny from reg users, whereas full protection is routinely railed against on these pages using arguments that apply equally to both protection types. 86.44.29.35 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Query about User:Crommorc

Hi! I'm a newbie admin, so I would appreciate advice as to what should be done here. I was patrolling the New User's contributions, and I noticed one name cropping up time and time again, that of User:Crommorc. This editor's actions appear to consist soley of removing references to anything barefoot, and the edit summary is almost always the same: Removed barefoot fetish vandalism.

I have no experience of the topics of any of the articles this person has edited, so I don't know if this is genuine vandalism revertion (although there doesn't seem to be any pattern to it), or if this is someone going through censoring Wikipedia from anything to do with bare feet. I know WP:BITE and WP:AGF should apply, and if this is genuine reversion, I don't want to stop it. If it isn't, I would like this nipped in the bud before there is too much to do to revert it all. What should be done? StephenBuxton (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I saw someone else going through and starting to revert the edits, having dropped a query on the talk page. I then decided to help go through the list, and then drop a level one censor warning on the talk page. I'll keep an eye on Crommorc, I think. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is, apparently, a "barefoot fetish vandal", indefinitely blocked for disruption, who launches socks from time to time. If someone could provide the SSP link, and review the accounts that Crommorc was reverting, it may be that these are more of the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Reflist

The template is not working properly. The columns options is no longer working. I believe this edit [97] messed up the code. Please fix this a.s.a.p. — Navy  Blue  14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The multi column support for Safari was turned off after extensive discussion, as Safari does not render multiple columns correctly. Please see Template talk:Reflist for more information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So that it? It's going to stay 1 column? Ok never mind. thanks. — Navy  Blue  14:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Until either Safari is updated to stop the links breaking, or someone can design a reflist that works properly (or degrades gracefully in Safari) I hope so. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind, it still shows up as two columns on Firefox. It is regrettable that editors using the template from other platforms will be unable to see the precise results of their work. bd2412 T 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg

Hey can someone update the meta wiki logo on Template:WikipediaSister to [[Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg]]. Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct of administrators on Sarah Palin

Since protection, numerous administrators edited this page without talk page consensus. This of course led to heated discussions, reverts and so on. I had to admonish four administrators until now. I request that other administrators help to take care of this issue. I may report this to the current arbitration case on Sarah Palin. Thanks, Cenarium ^Talk 16:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war could apply loosely to your claim. Though maybe it doesn't, I havent followed this super closely. Wizardman 16:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium, providing diffs would be helpful to understand what you find objectionable. Ronnotel (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already submitted possibly incomplete evidence on this to the current case. Please feel free to use my talk if you wish anything to be added to that evidence. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[98], [99], [100], [101] and others more minor or older. Discussion on this happened on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Massive change to Sarah Palin made without consensus. I won't be around until tomorrow. Cenarium ^Talk 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Since the full protection was last reinstated 2 days ago, there's been more than 50 edits. That's about 50 times more than most full protected articles. If this isn't a sign that extended full protection of high-profile current event articles is a bad idea, I don't know what is. Mr.Z-man 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A few of the cited edits are minor proofing edits, and while probably not a good idea, also not a big deal. People need to step back and calm down--Tznkai (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cenarium. Looking at the diffs one by one, 1) i'm not sure about the state of consensus at this time 2) already listed at arbcom case 3) without reading up, my instinct is that rmving blatantly nonconsensual edits is fine, even if it feels a bit disruptive on the talk page when modification of the addition is approaching consensus 4) seems like an honest mistake. Further discussion welcome tomorrow, of course, should you wish it with me. 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, people do not need to calm down, people need to get very very concerned as this sets a very very very very very very bad precedent for wikipedia editing on contentious articles. These admins need to be held accountable for violating Wiki policy, and their admin privileges stripped. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've requested the arbs put in a temporary injunction to stop admins from just arbitrarily editing this extremely contentious and hostile protected article here. There's not really any other way to get everyone to calm down besides telling everyone by force to stay hands off that I can see. rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we start taking bets on when the devs will implement a new protection level? [edit=crat], anyone? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:15499. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG!!! Now we can officially kick those pesky habits of self-control and critical reasoning! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that Kevin chose to revert Bogdangiusca's, but not Moreschi's nonconsensus edits. Bogdangiusca actually put back material Moreschi removed. I would very much like to be informed of how I, a non-admin, can go about requesting sanctions against Moreschi. I feel that when the dust clears, Moreschi's edits will not be viewed favorably even in the context of this fiasco. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • You can propose sanctions or anything else here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Moreschi altered her political philosophy to say she was a "classical libertarian" who was endorsing the "minimal state" which is a redirect to Night watchman state. Read what it says at Night watchman state! Moreschi's synthesis is a worse violation of BLP than people recognize. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • If she is indeed a classical libertarian, then she does indeed believe in the Nozickian concept of a night watchman state. Nothing wrong with CM's edit. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

It appears unprotection has now been requested.... D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the reason for forking my request here? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

To keep others above updated. I noticed you hadn't left a note above saying "I've requested unprotection", so I thought I'd better do it, for clarity. D.M.N. (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had not planned on a note here, unprotection requests belong over there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I declined the request, as more wheel warring is not the answer. Any admin who unprotects this page will be subject to sanction. - auburnpilot talk 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make a point now, that is is not fair that I can't edit, yet the administrators can. What kind of message does that send? That admins are better judges/editors? No self control here. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is not to wheel war but rather to build a consensus around whether now is a good time to try reducing the protection level. During the initial AE, today was suggested as a target date and a number of people agreed with that. Given the current state of affairs, it might still be too early to unprotect, but since we need to do it eventually, it is worth discussing what the right time is. What the right forum for that discussion is, I'm not sure, but I think it is premature to say that unprotection is not an option. Dragons flight (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be unprotected, as it is profoundly unfair that only admins are allowed to make complete and utter fools of themselves on that article. We are getting a very limited view of the lack of responsibility of Wikipedians, and the impossibility of achieving consensus by restricting editing to trusted and respectable editors. Why not let us untrustworthy and irresponsible ones see if we can do an even worse job? I know the bar has been set to a very high level, but I'm sure there must be one or two non-admins up to the challenge. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

*lol* I laughed, at least :-) henrik o talk 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Any and all dicussions on protection or non protection should take place here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC) _{Subscript text}

Cascading protection?

Should we set the cascading bit to stop vandalism? ffm 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem going on now? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be a preventitive measure. ffm 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need as of now, welcome to explore it later. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looked like it happened. ffm 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me semi-protecting all currently unprotected templates transcluded on Sarah Palin? I did this with John McCain and Barack Obama, and no one challenged me, but in light of the current ArbCom case surrounding this article, I would like to get a second opinion before acting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, two more templates got vandalized, so I started semi-protecting. Then Mr. Z-man cascade-protected Sarah Palin. Should I semi-protect the templates anyway so that when the cascade-protection is removed from Palin's page, we're still good? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:138.251.242.2 Concerns

First, a quick Google search of 138.251.242.2 shows this is the IP of known spammers [102]. Next, you have personal attacks against other users: [103] ("incredible narcissism") and [104] [105] [106] (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: [107]. Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. Buspar (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

protection of User_talk:Peter_Damian

Jimbo recently banned PD, and his userpage and talk page are currently protected. I think the talk page would be a good location for discussion of issues related to this, and think it would be a good idea to unprotect. I've dropped a note on Jimbo's talk page, and am inviting feedback (and hopefully a small 'unprotect' action :-) ) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Damian is not welcome to post. Also, we should not be taunting him by posting to the talk page. If you wish to propose an unblock, do so here. I endorse the talk page protection. Incidentally I've asked Wales to clear up the blocklog. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

discussion with the protecting admin indicates that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course). I still think it's a good idea to unprotect the talk page. Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The user is no longer welcome to commit posts to the wiki. In this way, the talk page can remain protected. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BAN: "Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages". - auburnpilot talk 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding to that from Wikipedia:BAN#Decision_to_ban Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users., and since Jimbo is our Constitutional Monarch/god-King, I'm really really not seeing the point in trying to push an unban dialogue at this time. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is still policy, untill Jimmy abdicates that authority or the community takes it. Which will not happen anytime soon - no need. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, ok! - I see PD's very very banned! :-) I still think it'd be healthy to unprotect, and for reasons beyond an 'unban' discssion, but will think on it a bit more... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Healthy for who? Certainly not for whoever does the unprotecting. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 05:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

for the wiki of course! :-) (your comment made me smile though - and seems accurate at this point!) - my views on this relate to the thinking that 'we' (the en wiki community) are depressingly good at creating, and sustaining 'enemies' in all sorts of ways that we really don't have to pursue.... that, and the fact that it's almost always good to talk :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

<- While we're here would someone be kind enough to add him to the list of banned users? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :) NonvocalScream (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The community needs to discuss this openly, and it won't do to simply say that Jimbo does what Jimbo wants. We need an explanation about this block, and we need to discuss whether we, as a community, feel it was the appropriate solution. Many people, myself included, admire Peter's article work, and that alone should be enough to cause us to a consider other approaches. Even though Peter left of his own accord immediately before the ban, he might decide to return if this ban wasn't in place; furthermore, to slam the door behind a contributor like this adds insult to injury and denigrates all his work. Everyking (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to him, he scrambled his password. The chances that he will return again as Peter Damian therefore seem low. He's demonstrated in the past that he's capable of registering another username. Maybe what you should seek to clarify is whether he is allowed to do so, and under what circumstances if any. It appears as though its left to ArbCom to determine that, so perhaps RfAr is what you want? Avruch ^T 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please be so kind to explain (NPOV'ishly?), to an outside sometimes-journalist observer, just what this guy did so as to suffer The Wrath Of Jimbo? Note I'm not taking sides at this moment as to whether the action was right or wrong, only trying to figure it out -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He had been in a dispute with FT2 on some content matters. And he posted this which there was some off-site speculation may have been an aggravating factor--threatening to go to the Sloan Foundation in regards to their pending donation of funding to the WMF, or something like that. rootology (C)(T) 06:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A good guess, but the block log leaves us in the dark: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom." Not only does it not give a reason, it's insulting. Everyking (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - is there any evidence other than speculation, that the donation was a factor? The comment also discusses other issues. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was entirely unaware of that comment, and so it was no factor whatsoever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. I know Damian had a bee in his bonnet to make the Neurolinguistic programming and pederasty related articles totally compliant with WP:NPOV. Your guess is as good as mine otherwise till Jimmy says whats up, since you know as much as I know. I just know this guy was a far above average content editor. rootology (C)(T) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least in this instance there is no question about Jimbo's ego being involved; he is demonstrating no fear of appearing very uncool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need most of all is: A) an explanation from Jimbo about why he imposed this ban; and B) community discussion of whether Peter should be allowed to edit in the future if he wishes (under whatever account), and whether this ban was appropriate. Everyking (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely disappointing to see Jimbo making such bans (explicitly invoking godking authority in the block notice) but not even posting any explanation anywhere. That's not something the community should tolerate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, knowing Jimbo, that he will make some kind of statement when he feels able to phrase it without compromising the privacy and dignity of those involved. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm constantly surprised that people seem to assume there is some sort of God-given right to edit Wikipedia and that the removal of said right is potentially a major outrage. The fact is that we are all here by permission of the management, and if the management - in this case Jimbo - decides to withdraw that permission, they have an absolute right to do so, for any reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo will explain when he has worked out a reason that he thinks will satisfy just enough people. I have no opinion about Peter Damian, but I do feel that it is time that Jimbo started acting like a constitutional monarch (something he has claimed to be) instead of acting like an autocrat. DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DuncanHill, it is one thing to disagree with my decision. It is another thing to claim that I am working out an explanation that will satisfy "just enough people". Please Assume Good Faith, eh?

Please review the users' block log, history of harassment, and off-site attacks. I am drawing a line here in the very strong hopes that the rest of community will feel supported to follow suit and insist that such behaviors are always unacceptable. When we tolerate people who engage in bad-faith personal attacks and sniping and off-site attacks, we poison the goodwill of the community. We are a simple charitable effort to share knowledge, and as such, we often allow ourselves to be victimized by people who are here more to attack us and sow discontent and drama. Let's all get together and say: enough. It's one thing to say "I don't agree with this decision, can we talk about it?" It is quite another thing to say things like "All hail, chief of security and protector of the community, FT2. The bodies of the guilty and the innocent burn together with that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning." Such behavior is absolutely unacceptable and people who do things like that are, quite simply, not welcome to continue in the community. There is a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists, and let's keep this community healthy by insisting that people who behave that way are not welcome.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did he post that rant you're quoting? Didn't see it anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did Jimbo state to be a constitutional monarch? I totally love that idea! Perhaps admins should be renamed 'Lords of the Wiki'! :) --Cameron* 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He (=Peter Damian) posted that on WR. – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see here. - Face 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that does make it appear in a different light. Still, I'll echo DuncanHill's comment below; I'd expect some explanation for such a step to be given without prompting, at the time it was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example (of Jimbo using the "constitutional monarch" phrase) from Wikipedia, [108]. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very recently, there was In the English Wikipedia we have a system of "constitutional monarchy,". Actually, English Wikipedia is more like a barbarian kingship, where the tribal chief occasionally personally puts offenders to death. Constitutional monarchs don't go around dispensing King's Justice. This is not to assert that "Jimbo I" :-) is a bad king, per se. But the system sure isn't one with much check on supreme executive power. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That comment is pretty disgusting. If Peter Damian had a less problematic history I guess there might be more of a tendency to forgive or at least try to understand and de-escalate, but his behaviour over the NLP business, over which we assumed good faith, combined with that kind of comment, gives a strong appearance of being here solely to pursue a vendetta - and God knows we have quite enough trouble without that kind of thing. So, for what it's worth and to the surprise I guess of nobody, I support the ban. And yes, I feel rather let down here as well, since I had engaged with peter over the NLP issue and generally supported is attempts to scale that back somewhat. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh bollocks, Jimbo. It was not only quite poetic, but was heartfelt and in line with what his view in how best Wikipedia should be served (that would be Good Faith comment, that it would). Not only that, but he later apologised to FT2 - publicly, in the same forum - for his language. Nor did I see FT2, to his credit, take any offence at the language but rather seek to explain further his position. At that place, at least, there is an ongoing dialogue. For what it is worth, I too have been arguing over there against PD's viewpoint; as ever, I am in the minority and am being refuted - but always politely (within context) and in the expectation of being allowed further dialogue. Perhaps you may wish to join the debate? You certainly are more likely to be allowed to express your opinions there than some, many or most of the correspondents there would be here...

By the way, "bollocks" is simple British English usage meaning rubbish - not vulgar or derogatory. Ask Guy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Which bits are poetic? The WR comment quoted above? For what it is worth, some people may be missing an undertone here. When I read "that sweet sickly smell of death, in the pit, in the morning", I think of bodies in pits, and book-burning, and I think of the Nazis and the Holocaust (where bodies were cremated in open-air pits - I should say here that I'm no expert on the Holocaust and my Googling unfortunately brought up a mixture of Holocaust history site and Holocaust denial sites). Not quite sure where the "in the morning" bit comes from. Now, if some of the people here are reacting that way (interpreting this as Holocaust imagery), they should say this upfront, and not just call it "disgusting" and assume people know why it is possibly more disgusting than using other imagery. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a healthy community would be in the position of having to ask for explanations of your actions - a healthy community would be one in which explanations of extraordinary actions were seen as routine. Both you and arbcom should be aware by now that unexplained acts of this nature serve only to stir up discontent and make it harder to trust people. If you feel the need to exercise your powers as an autocrat, OK, but at least explain at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed Damian's entry on WP:BANNED to something more descriptive, see here. Cheers, Face 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether Peter Damian was justifiably angry or not, I doubt that somebody who threatens to use his off-wiki influence to prevent donations to WP because it's a place filled with "book burners and hooligans" can be expected to contribute constructively from that point on. justinfr (talk/contribs) 12:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Very few websites would welcome into their community someone which is actively trying to undermine their funding efforts. But that's not the real issue here, it's more that he has essentially declared himself at war with another contributor, one who is in good standing. We have enough disputes already without people coming back after absences to stir up new ones. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment linked above (see here) was made 8 days (over a week) ago. Why is it only being brought up now? If the block is justified, then those who saw the comment at the time, and did nothing, should be apologising for their inaction. And Guy, people in good standing can both lose and regain that good standing (cf. WP:CCC) and those who come back after blocks shouldn't have that fact alone held against them. It is their actions now that matter. Whether they came back after a break or not is irrelevant. And please, can the article issues be resolved? The important things here is to not ignore valid criticisms (if they are valid) merely because the person who raised the criticisms has been banned. If the criticisms are not justified, can we please have an open and clear response explaining why the criticisms are not valid? And I agree that Jimbo's wording in the block log "User says he is leaving. Good timing." (he went on to say more) is open to many interpretations, not all of which will be charitable. Maybe it would be best if Jimbo clarified what he meant there? Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo, or anyone else in this thread, has said Peter's criticism of some articles were not valid. Consensus on the deletions has shown that they are. But valid criticism in that instance doesn't excuse behavior beyond the pale in many others, which is I think the point Jimmy is trying to make. And the book burning comment above is from a bit ago, but the comment from Peter on WR further up (bodies burning, all hail chief of security) is from yesterday. Avruch ^T 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Jimmy to unblock and reblock with a clear reason... of course I don't think any admin will be desysopped for unblocking and immediately reblocking indef with a clear reason AND Jimbo's instructions. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like process-wonkery to me. Simpler to just wait for this discussion to be archived and then link to the archive from his user page. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This will be the second time in a week I have been told that I was process wonking, I'm sick of it. Waiting for a discussion to conclude is more wonkery than actually going and doing it, no? Please be more careful in the future, calling someones good intentions "wonkery" is offensive. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would add that adding links to a user's page is less useful than the block log. User pages of banned and indefinitely blocked users are routinely deleted. Admins (and this includes Jimbo) really must give reasons in the block logs and deletion logs for their actions. Failing to do so makes it harder for people to carry out independent reviews now or later. Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To Jimbo Wales: (previous three words added by comment mover) Well, thank you for the response ... But ... THAT WAS IT??? That's a key reason you cite? The 265th post, on a site which often has a large amount of ranting and raving in discussion threads (sorry WR'ers, it's true), significantly moves Jimmy Wales, (co)Founder of Wikipedia, President of $70 million valuation Wikia Inc., to personally ban the supposed miscreant? i.e., a trivial flame-war, which the guy says he's apologized for. I'm not sure which is worse - if that's a real reason, or if it's a poor excuse for a poor excuse (tedious point - this sentence is an attempted humorous commentary on logical possibilities, not an accusation). And before you call me a troll, I'll note I've repeatedly said Wikipedia group dynamics fascinates me, and in fairness you should see why from such a perspective this is simply amazing. Look, I know we often disagree, but take this in good faith - what you're doing comes across as because-I-can, just plain random craziness against some unfortunate minor offender who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Godking is in a churlish mood. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got that completely backwards. If the victim of Damian's attacks had been a plain ordinary user, he would have been booted out of here long ago for sheer nastiness. I would have done it without a second thought, were I a simply an admin; I might nor might not have bothered to post on ANI about it. But because it was FT2, a fellow arbitrator (and of course a rather controversial one at times), I knew that if I had blocked or banned Peter, the masses would have yelled "abuse of power", "cronyism", "bullying", and so on. It was hardly one post that caused the banning; it was a long crescendo of ugliness. But FT2 didn't ban him, and neither did I, and I know a number of admins also demurred, which is why we asked Jimbo to take a look. Does the community feel we should have acted without waiting for Jimbo? Next time, because of what Jimbo has said here, I know I'll be less tolerant of continuing vile attacks here or elsewhere. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"We asked Jimbo to take a look" - are you saying that the Arbcom requested Jimbo to look at the editor and do what he thought fit? DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No. FT2 did, and then I did a while later. It was not in any way an official ArbCom request; I don't know what FT2 said, but I said "please take a look at FT2's request" when Jimbo took a little while getting around to it and FT2 mentioned it to me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How we treat long time editors - make the effort to inform the community

Jimbo's block may have been perfectly reasonable - but an uninvolved admin would have no way of knowing without spending a lot of time hunting through links and diffs. Peter Damian worked on this project for over five years - he create a lot of quality content. Jimbo, you owe him and the community better. If you want to ban him, take a few minutes and explain to the community why. Have the courtesy to use an accurate and informative block summary. Make the effort to start a note at WP:AN. Don't conduct court behind closed doors. Don't sit around and wait for people to ask. Is this too much to expect of you? Your actions here are nothing short of slovenly. Really, it's not like we're expecting you to break a sweat or anything. --Duk 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Jimbo citing personal attacks that occurred on a different website, but Peter subsequently acknowledged that his attacks were excessive, apologized, and even had some kind things to say about FT2's work. I strongly agree with Duk above—long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment, and this is nothing of the sort; furthermore, the community is entitled to explanations (at the very least) when such bans are handed down. I also think it reflects very poorly on Jimbo that he cannot give his explanation without insulting other people discussing the matter: "a small group of very vocal users (a few of whom you can find in this very thread, complaining about this ban) who seek to defend every trollish user, no matter how bad, to the point that good admins have at times lost the patience or courage to do what needs to be done. I am here to say: ignore the handful of wikianarchists..." This kind of thing seems unfitting for a "constitutional monarch". Everyking (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Long-term, hard-working editors are particularly entitled to fair, reasonable and polite treatment..." Yes, that is exactly right. A good summary of why people believe Peter should be banned. Avruch ^T 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good point, Everyking, about the "complainers". To be clear, I'm not complain about this ban. I'm complaining about an hour of my life wasted hunting through logs and diffs and histories, all because Jimbo is too lazy to write a note. I wonder how many other administrators wasted their time doing this too. And what about other long time editors who may have respected Peter, only to see him banned without explanation - what do you think the effect on morale will be? --Duk 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An hour of your life wasted? Well, Damian's block log has quite some info. One log entry contains this diff, and another one reads: "Last chance at WP, no more harassment or disruption will be tolerated". - Face 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Damian's block log has quite some info. Ya, too bad the log itself notes that it isn't trustworthy.--Duk 18:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that Jimbo's comment there might have, um, discouraged people from participating in this thread! Devil's advocate is a better term than wikianarchist, I think. But I get Jimbo's point. He doesn't want to stop people disagreeing with him (far from it), but he wants discussion to be logical and centred on the specifics of this case, not merely principled opposition. I think if people concentrated on what happened here with regards to Peter Damian, and thrashed out some agreement, then Jimbo might listen to that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I must be misreading you here because you seem to state that principles have no place on Wikipedia. Hiding T 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice, I think, for Jimbo to acknowledge that Damian has made some valuable contributions to the project. It's wrong to suggest that he was just here to troll. He's made hundreds of valuable mainspace edits. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this discussion through WR some minutes after wondering why he was banned. WR is pretty nice for determining why someone was banned when the block log and user and talk pages don't say. --NE2 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is not what a constitutional monarch does, Jimbo. Seth is right about this being more "barbarian king" behaviour. Secondly, although Damian had clearly lost his mind as regards FT2, this does not necessarily mean he was incapable of being constructive elsewhere, so long as he is kept away from FT2. As to what he posts on WR...well, who cares? That site has no credence except that which we lend it. Bless their little hearts, all the people I block can rant and rave about me all they like over there. I don't care, that damages nobody except them. They just wind up looking small. Unless Damian had been involved in "outing", this may be excessive. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by the quasi-official status WR is coming to have here. Should we just fold it into project space, make their admins sysops here, and give them two or three seats on the arbcom? Or would it be better to just redirect ANI to their site? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

problems with an archive bot

Re: MiszaBot III

To a helpful administrator who has time to help: I think that the bot at the top of my talk page has stopped archiving my talk page as it is coded to do; perhaps there is a problem in the code. Also, I cannot see the names of my archive pages in the archive box in "show preview" mode; if I want to have chronology in the names and to have a chronological archiving bot, I don't know how to do that either. I did contact an administrator who seems familiar w/ such a bot, but have had no response to the request for assistance yet. Perhaps another admin. could take look at the code in "show preview" mode in my current talk page, and see what the trouble might be (if there is one). It is set to archive after 2 days48 hours and after 2 time-stamped signatures, but I don't think it's doing that anymore. I like the way the archive box shows up, but I can't see the names in the archive pages there, only numbers. Is there any way to include chronologies in archive pages 1 to 22 and to have automatic chronology set for the future (23 on) with a different bot? Thank you if you can assist. --NYScholar (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place for this. Try the Bot's talk page or the IRC channel.--Tznkai (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mertozoro

This is a category for a users subpages. It seems a bit unusual but I really couldn't recall there being anything saying you can't do that. Any opinions? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, not, but I do not see any reason for such category, with this page existing (and the links already on his/her userpage). I'd say you ask the user to convert the category to a sub-page list and if he/she refuses, to take it to WP:UCFD. SoWhy 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gorby2 / 87.251.111.207

I'm not sure what's going on here. Massive (massive) re-cats of chemical articles with no edit summaries by the anon user, and some similar behaviour by the named user. It seems fishy, and SpyMagician agrees, but we're not sure where to put this. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to backup this assertion. It's baffling and seems robot assisted. All from one IP address and all in one category of articles. What to do? --SpyMagician (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the user Gorby2 has now come clean and outlined what he did and explanation why, but does not cite who/what/why he decided to do a massive bot-assisted change to Wikipedia without going through proper channels for a structural change of this level. --SpyMagician (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

European National Front#Program

Am I missing something here? 78.149.130.209 (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some fan/member of that party added it to the article to promote the organisation. I have removed the section completely as POV and will watch this page for changes. SoWhy 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion skirmishes over Kashmir

Right now, there's so much irregularities going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir that I want to bring this discussion to the general attention of the administrators. I am not going to provide any examples as interested admins may inform themselves by looking at this page (and its history). __meco (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I (who myself is an active party in the debate) would say that there are problems on two fronts. On one hand Nangparbat (talk · contribs), who represents a pro-Pakistani POV in the debate, is constantly disrupting the discussion through various IP number edits. On the other hand, there are canvassing and sockpuppeting cases amongst pro-Indian POV editors. My suggestion is that a the AfD be semiprotected to weed out Nangparbat and the socks from the discussion. --Soman (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kashmircloud has already been blocked for sockpuppetry and canvassing. Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a PoV fork of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir has been heavily votestacked towards a keep, but as a content fork the article should either be deleted or merged. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Soman. What we need are constructive inputs and it's being hampered by Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani elements. Please semi-protect. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 12:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No protection necessary, the socks are transparent. It may have been votestacked, but there does appeear to be a legitimate difference between Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, the latter consisting of five territories while the former consists of only two. They both seem to have sources, perhaps the solution is to attempt to gut both articles to get rid of POV? GlassCobra 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Improper protection of a PRODed article

The article Semih Aydilek is currently up for PROD. After an anon had repeatedly removed the PROD tag, including once with the summary "please keep" (contesting the deletion), Daniel Case protected the article with a summary which clearly indicates his awareness of the anon removing the PROD tag. As it seems from WP:PROD that anons are allowed to contest PRODs, and this anon was clearly trying to do so, I think the page should be unprotected, and the PROD tag removed as a contested PROD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD indicates clearly, that removing the PROD-tag needs to be done with a statement, as to why the PROD is contested. As the PROD will go on until Sept. 11, you should notify the IP of that and once he/she explained the reasoning, the PROD tag may be removed and the article unprotected. Just removing tags is considered vandalism and may lead to protection of articles. I would suggest though that if you disagree with the PROD, that you open a AfD-discussion to determine the fate of the article. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD does not require a reason to be given, nor does the instructions on the tag itself. WP:PROD says you should leave a reason and the tag says that "it helps." WP:PROD also says: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article)." That's obviously not the case here. Not should the PROD tag not have been re-added, but semi-protecting the page to force the anon out of a content dispute is a blatant violation of the protection policy. What the hell happened to WP:BITE? Mr.Z-man 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Z-man. The contested PROD should be taken to AfD. GlassCobra 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article, along with some others, because the anon who had already been blocked and whose unblock I denied, had already threatened to use a different IP. As we usually do in such cases, I protected the pages he had been targeting as well as extending the block.

Yes, the contested prod should go to AfD, but I was giving the original tagger the opportunity to do so as it's really his nom to make. Since he has not done so, I will. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears it is now on AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fuller response with relevant diffs

I did not protect the page for any reason connected to the PROD.

• First, the anon, having been previously blocked by someone else, had requested unblock. I declined, since he had previously declared it was his intention to edit-war. He responded to the decline by threatening to evade the block.

• So, as we usually do in such circumstances, I decided to protect the pages he had been editing disruptively, rather than leave some other admin the headache of possibly having to rangeblock. There were three, of which Semih Aydilek was one. The possible deletion of the article was not an issue to me; the PROD tagger is supposed to start the AFD if the tag is removed, instead of just reverting it back. In addition, I do not believe from his edits above that he would have participated in an AfD. Therefore, the protections were an overall response to his disruptive editing and threats, not an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute in which I was not a participant at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

RBAG Spam

Per WP:BOT

	Chris is currently being considered for BAG membership. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Chris G.

--Chris 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP harassment

User:Christianthelion/90.201.182.141 is leaving me rude messages on my talk page and now doing the same to degenerate discussion. I translated the first one using google language tools. Wasn't kind. I'm sure the rest aren't either. I've attempted to entract him into a civil discussion for many days but it simply keeps coming down to personal attacks and now its just getting bizarre.Yeago (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre block evasion

Per a private request, I ran a CheckUser enquiry into the edits of Z388 (talk · contribs) and a possible relationship to Sceptre. This relationship is  Confirmed. I do not have any doubt at all about the link between the two. The check also revealed that the following accounts are also sockpuppets of Sceptre:

• TUATW (talk · contribs)
• Gridlocked Caravans (talk · contribs)

I have blocked all of these as abusive sockpuppets -- although there does not appear to be anything wrong with their edits in themselves, this is block evasion.

Moreschi recently changed Sceptre's indefinite block to one of two months' duration (block log) as a "final chance". Given the above findings, this probably needs reconsideration.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in effect, Sceptre is basically banned, not just blocked? how do you turn this on 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't considered a community ban, it probably should be. The block should go back to indefinite IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving it back to an indefinite ban. Evading blocks and bans is a no-no.--Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask: what is the difference between a block and a ban? how do you turn this on 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A block is directed against an account, a ban against the person. A block is a purely technical matter, a ban is a somewhat esoteric social construct (which is enforced e.g. through blocks). See Wikipedia:Banning policy. user:Everyme 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ermm No, a block is against the person also, it would be pretty pointless otherwise. You've been disruptive so we'll block this account, feel free to continue with another account... See WP:EVADE your definition of being against the account would make this pointless as it would be impossible to evade a block just directed against an account. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So basically there's no difference? how do you turn this on 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The ban is the social construct, blocks one mechanism for enforcement of a ban (though blocks will be used other than for ban enforcement), see WP:BAN. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So if you evade a block, you get punished for the same reason as evading a ban? They sound basically the same to me, except a block is the technical part of it and the ban is the part that says that person can't edit. how do you turn this on 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? user:Everyme 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd be inclined to simply reset the clock. Scepte is an annoying immature individual but they do make good edits when they have a mind. Indef and permaban seems a little kneejerk right now but given our history I'm not going to fight in the trenches for him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre was on an indefinite ban for harrasment, so resetting the clock brings us back there, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Also, an administrator who understands the autoblocker will want to review the block.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At least one of those "harassed" (I would have called it childish name-calling, myself) put it down to childish behaviour and asked for an unblock. Something those who were here for the original discussions might remember. The block log entries rarely tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse the stated relationships (among Sceptre, Z388, TUATW, and Gridlocked Caravans) as  Confirmed, I ran checks myself. At the very least I think a reset to restart the 2 month clock is justified. I leave the rest to the community's discretion, for now. Oh, and thanks again to Risker for some spadework in this matter, and to the WR poster who first spotted the possible connection. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what "stated relationships" means, and what the checkuser confirms, for those of us who have never filed a RFCU and have no idea what that entails? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam said the other accounts were "sockpuppets of Sceptre". That's the stated relationship. I ran similar checks to what Sam ran, and my interpretation of the results is that they indeed confirm the relationship Sam stated. (i.e. that Sceptre was the controlling account). I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I'm talking more about the technical details- how the stated relationship was established, what the evidence was. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that you already knew that a checkuser isn't going to tell you that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I'm surprised that a user who has been around as long as David has would even ask, actually. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just haven't been in many drama-fests in my time. So how are these socks proven then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's the same question. There are a number of ways of telling, but a CU isn't going to tell you which one was used in this case. Black Kite 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Augh! (head hurts) I must not be making myself clear... what exactly does the checkuser action spit out and how do we determine the likelihood of socks based on it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically? Checkuser can reveal IP range similarities and suspicious timing. That combined with shared interest, tone, and other suspicious activity can reveal a series of logins to be the same person.--Tznkai (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is other technical information that CU can pick up as well. Black Kite 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I support resetting the block to 2 months. Sometimes long-time contributors who end up with a block like this don't have the patience to sit it out. A few resets should be used to get the message home before moving to indefinite. And with respect to User:Tznkai (who I am not familiar with), they have recently returned from a two-and-a-half year hiatus. An edit on 8 February 2006 was followed by an edit on 4 September 2008. I can see from User talk:Tznkai that Tznkai has recently been reaccepted as an ArbCom Clerk, but I would reiterate what has been said elsewhere: it is best to ease back in gently. At the very least, reading the threads around the Sceptre block should be done, and not just going by what is stated in the block logs. For the record, Tznkai has said "I am unfamiliar with the details". Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a reset. Sceptre is a valuable content contributor, and I think this block may just have been a clear note to him to shape up. The socks' contribs were not abusive, as has been pointed out. GlassCobra 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support an indef block now. It's pretty clear cut that his final chance is gone, no need to AGF anymore. Wizardman 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: it turns out the relationship between two of them is obvious. I've also blocked sleeper sock Paracetamoxyfrusebendroneomycin (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that these socks are not new. Sceptre has been dropping sleeper socks for quite some time now... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In his favour, there is no evidence that he was editing abusively and I see nothing from Moreschi to Sceptre saying this was a final chance. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi's entry in the block log says "final chance". I'm hoping Moreschi also left a note on Sceptre's talk page, as not everyone reads block logs for messages like that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not good, is it? Setting up sleeper socks, while still in good standing, for later use? That is troubling. But I'd still give him a few resets. At the very least, this thread might shock him into realising that if he continues this way, he is very close to a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I oppose a reset. Sceptre knew what he was doing, I'm tired of giving people chance after chance when they blatantly take advantage of it. Wizardman 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to anyone changing my block action, but I will note that block evasion to me justifies not only reset, but escalation to the next interval.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We should give him a second chance now so that we can give him a second chance later (not really). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What if, in three months, Sceptre turned up all apologetic, saying he has stopped using sockpuppets, promising not to use sockpuppets again, and asking for an unblock? That is probably what the two-month block was meant to do. People who use sockpuppets to make constructive edits are more likely unable to disengage, rather than abusive. Setting up multiple sockpuppets is more worrying, but it was done so naively I'm almost tempted to say people should look further and see whether this is a smokescreen for something else? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like what? naerii 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to speculate. I would hope that the checkusers have picked everything up. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what should be made of this? An at least one of these points to this redlinked cat.

I did a quick look at the live links where they exist, and they, by and large, look unrelated to this, but... - J Greb (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Sceptre has been working at WP:ACC. The accounts created in May and earlier are likely his, though. – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am actually quite opposed to a reset as well, but as a compromise - reset now, and make it clear that any more block-evasion will result in an indef. Fair? Black Kite 17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

how about resetting to three months with further evasion leading to indefnite? Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that as well. Black Kite 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this. naerii 17:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 3 months is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this post and replies to it. WR is not a substitute for WP dispute resolution (nor should we negotiate or whatever there) but the information may be useful. I think someone should undo the redirect of his talk -> user so any conversation that Sceptre chooses to initiate there could flow unimpededly. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done [109] NonvocalScream (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions: where is the best place to leave the message that this really is the final chance? It should be put in the block log for future admins to see. It should also be placed at User talk:Sceptre (which as Lar says should be un-redirected). Is his e-mail address still enabled? To what lengths should people go to ensure that the message has got across? Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been chatting with him, I can relay the "ultimatum" if necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He says he already knows. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WR shouldn't be used instead of talk pages, either. Some on-wiki statement from him (on his talk page) would be nice, but unlikely I suppose. Anyway, let's leave this to develop a bit more and see what consensus emerges. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think spectre should be brought into this conversation, on wiki. I personally refuse to take care of administrative business on an off site forum--Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm willing to dialog with people but will make no official representations of how I will or won't act, nor will I claim any sort of agreement has any standing. Here is where we do our own business. Not on WR, not on IRC, not on sekrit mailing lists. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to pulled into real life at any moment, so I'm going to go on record with something so there is no confusion. I am endorsing a reversal of my block of Sceptre by any administrator (upon some decision being reached).--Tznkai (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that going to a block of three months, with the explicit warning that this will be his last chance, is the best idea. He has made positive contributions, which I think could continue to do if he were so inclined. Hopefully three months distance from the project will help him regain the perspective necessary to edit in a more constantly productive way.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

He has stated in email correspondence that he is amenable to three months as the upper limit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could relay to him that he doesn't get to "be amenable" to anything. That sounds very much like "anything more than three months and I'll start socking again". Black Kite 18:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amenable may have been David's choice of words, who knows. user:Everyme 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I still believe that the initial ban for those "harassing" edits was totally overblown in the first place. user:Everyme 18:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've a problem with Sceptre's user page being deleted. Is he invoking WP:RTV or something? Since when do blocked puppeteers get to request that their user pages be deleted? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that, either. I've long held that userpage and user talk deletions, as opposed to courtesy blankings, should be reserved for RTV situations. David, would you consider reversing your deletion and restoring the history? — Satori Son 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have more of a problem with Sceptre calling User:Kmweber a stalker. See his talk page (transcluded below). But I'm going to be charitable and put that down to residual anger. I would hope that, three months down the line, Sceptre might not do that sort of thing, or, if he has genuine concerns, to learn the right way to state them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the extension to 3 months. I would also strongly encourage offering Sceptre a one-time-only no-penalty opportunity to provide the names of any other alternate accounts to one of the checkusers involved in this case, either Sam Korn or Lar, with the understanding that any further use of alternate accounts at any time in the future will result in immediate indefinite blocking. Risker (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you're waiting for an apology from Sceptre, don't hold your breath. He's too busy calling me an idiot. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page

Transcluding Sceptre's talk page here. Please copy in text when discussion finished. Carcharoth (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Some handy links

I'm still around, pottering away, editing where I need to.

---

The current local time is: 00:53, 5 December 2024 (GMT)

---

• .JS
• .CSS
• 1A
• AFC
• DW
• ESP
• ETP
• FAC
• GAC
• MATH
• PC
• PLUSING
• RC
• RM
• TSPACE
• USPACE

---

Only 51746 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

---

Sceptre's talk page

Archives

Current talk
Bot			IP				RfA
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65

Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --TedEdwards 20:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

RM of 90377 Sedna

Hello Sceptre,

Thanks for taking the time to assess the RM of 90377 Sedna. Please don't forget to move back Quaoar. Renerpho (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sceptre, Please could you reopen and relist the RM? There wasn't that much participation, !votes were pretty split and I think there was a lot more to be discussed about the matter, warranting a relist. I would certainly vote in favour of the move, as the WP:COMMONNAME in sources is not "90377 Sedna" as far as I can see.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: FWIW, there's a larger discussion over whether Sedna is definitively a dwarf planet or not going on at the talk page, and I didn't want to tip the scales one way or the other with the closure. The predominant view in the RM was against moving, so I could've closed it as "not moved", but "no consensus to change how we've done stuff, therefore we stick with the status quo ante" is also a valid closure, and FWIW, I don't think another few days of discussion would've created a consensus. Sceptre (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to our latest newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since October. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: Our October Copy Editing Blitz focused on July and August 2022 request months; and articles tagged for c/e in December 2021 and January 2022. Seventeen of those who signed up claimed at least one copy-edit, and between them copy-edited forty-six articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: In the November Backlog Elimination Drive, thirty editors signed up, twenty-two of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Both target months—December 2021 and January 2022—were cleared, and February was added to the target months. Sixteen requests were copy-edited and 239 articles were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our seven-day-long December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz begins on 17 December at 00:01 (UTC)*. It will focus on articles tagged for copy-edit in February 2022, and pending requests from September and October. Barnstars awarded will be available here. Progress report: As of 22:40, 8 December 2022, GOCE copyeditors have processed 357 requests since 1 January, there were seventy-four requests outstanding and the backlog stands at 1,791 articles. We always need skilled copy-editors; please help out if you can. Election news: Nomination of candidates for the GOCE's Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2023 is open and continues until 23:59 on 15 December. Voting begins at 00:01 on 16 December and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Coordinators serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on June 30. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, please nominate yourself or any editor you consider suitable—with their permission, of course!. It's your Guild and it doesn't coordinate itself. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers and best seasonal wishes from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu, and Zippybonzo. *All times and dates on this newsletter are UTC. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error

The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus close

Hi, I must take issue with the recent close. It states:

the closer stated the discussion and arguments were fairly balanced when what the closer actually said was

While the discussion and arguments seem fairly balanced in number.....my decision that those who support the move have a better understanding of the article and what its title should be

Furthermore, the review closure also stated

Please do note that the community takes issue with UtherSRG's method, not his outcome. It will be in order for someone else to re-close this requested move as move if that is their assessment of the consensus

Afaics, the current close amounts to a vote count that takes no account of the quality of the arguments in support of either the original or the proposed title, the "better understanding", I request that you take another look.

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: At the same time, I cannot create a consensus where there clearly is none. Nothing happened in the RM after it was re-opened. At the MRV, overturning to no consensus was supported by a good proportion of people, and I agree with them. Sceptre (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Selfstudier, Sceptre, because far too many editors agreed that the first closure, which did find a consensus to move, was correct. You say you did not see a consensus, but you don't say why? The support args far outweighed the oppose args, which is the main reason the first closure's review ended in "vacate" rather than in "overturn to no consensus". Please reassess the arguments to find what we say here is true. That article needs to be renamed as proposed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I noted at the MRV that there was consensus to close, just that the previous closer gave a spurious reason for seeing consensus there. Closure is supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy, not by counting heads, and in this case there was strong evidence by those in support, invoking the WP:NPOV policy, that the term "expulsion and flight" is better and more neutral wording than the status quo. I wish I'd cast another "support" !vote at the discussion now, because the arguments to move were vastly more persuasive and rooted in evidence than those in opposition, and I didn't really expect a no-consensus closure after all that had been said at the MRV, it was simply that a more clear close was required than that previously given. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus move

Your close doesnt seem to address the merits of the arguments at all, and ask that you reconsider by either relisting (it had only been relisted for three days prior to your close) or address the merits of the arguments. When one group provides sources and the other side just says POV that should not result in no consensus. nableezy - 14:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I see this has already been requested, if you are going to refuse can you say so in order to open a new move review? nableezy - 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth, Amakuru, and Nableezy: Hey all. Having a second look at the RM, although the arguments to move were more detailed than those opposing the move, I still cannot create a consensus where there is none. I'm sympathetic to the argument, and personally I believe the people arguing in favour of a move are right. But as a closer, my role is to evaluate the discussion, and I cannot see a consensus either way. Nor was it likely that a consensus was going to develop; there was no participation in the RM after it was reopened. In such circumstances, I can't do anything but close as "no consensus". Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can, you can not close a move that was relisted for 3 days, especially when experienced closers and admins are telling you that you are incorrect in your reading of the discussion and of "consensus". But fine, Ill open a move review. nableezy - 17:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Move review for 1948 Palestinian exodus

An editor has asked for a Move review of 1948 Palestinian exodus. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. nableezy - 17:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure of Maori Party RM

Hi,

I request that you reopen and relist your recent closure of this RM. To close this RM based on counting !votes is inappropriate. Consensus is not based on just counting the number of heads.

In addition, in my opinion your closing statement does not address the arguments raised during the RM. Did you consider WP:CRITERIA-based arguments? Did you consider that the party does not use one name over the other on it's website, when at least three support !votes stated that they do? -Spekkios (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Spekkios: I did consider WP:CRITERIA, and found arguments for "Māori Party" and "Te Pāti Maori" to be relatively equal in weight. At such a point, I have to fall back on the direction of the discussion, which was clearly in favour of the move. Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If the arguments are relatively equal in weight, that would imply a "no consensus" closure instead of a "move" closure. How does the discussion "direction" or the number of !votes matter if the policy based arguments are equal in weight? --Spekkios (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

==Move review for Te Pāti Māori==

An editor has asked for a Move review of Te Pāti Māori. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Spekkios (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Introducing arguments in closures

Hi, um, slightly awkward to pile on like this, but I don’t actually have any issue with the decision of your closure. Rather I came to advise on a less central detail: you should avoid introducing new arguments in your closures. In this case, the point about NZ English being quick to adopt Māori vocab seems to come out of nowhere and doesn’t reflect the discussion. I think a better summary would have mentioned something like “proponents emphasised that the party refers to itself as te Pāti Māori (in English)”, which seems to be one of two dominant arguments (along with commonness). — HTGS (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@HTGS: In hindsight, you're right about the wording. I didn't think the comment came out of nowhere; there is a propensity in NZ-related RMs for people less familiar with NZEng to treat Māori vocabulary as "not English enough", which I felt was being introduced in this RM. But yes, the key point is that the use in English, not the use of English (see also also: Senedd), for which I was satisfied "Te Pāti Māori" was common enough to be a COMMONNAME. Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Day of reckoning

I don't notice any objection to moving that to Day of Reckoning (disambiguation). I think that could have been the outcome, rather than "no consensus". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Should no consensus mean reverting to previous title?

I see you recently closed a requested move as no consensus. I agree there wasn't any consensus. Should this mean that the article should revert back to its previous long-term and stable title? the article was called "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" from 2008 to May 2022, when it was moved after this discussion. But this discussion doesn't seem to have enough participation to constitute consensus (2 supports and 1 oppose). This rationale was also mentioned by Paine Ellsworth. VR _talk 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, move requests don't need to have a certain magnitude of participation for them to be regarded as legitimate (vide WP:RMNOMIN), as decisions are made by a consensus process, which factors in the policy-based reasoning of participants, and not vote-counting; and an absence of objection does contribute to the consensus too. As someone who participated in the discussion, I find the above bid to solicit a move indirectly without notifying the editors on the talk page to be quite discourteous inasmuch as the magnitude to which it was vehemently opposed (being eloquent of disagreement) by a laundry list of long-term contributors (including Andrewa and Amakuru), who argued against the move on policy grounds, in contrast to the support it garnered from a considerable number of SPAs, block-evading socks, and topic banned users who trivialized the consensus process by construing the discussion to be some sort of a votestacking contest; not to mention the fact that the title had been stable for about half a year until a block-evading IP began, and thereupon tainted the RM with more socks. In my view, the foregoing quite clearly forecloses the possibility of a revert back to old title. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To editors VR and MBlaze Lightning: might have handled this differently; however, the outcome in this case is a reasonable one. And this due to ML's argument above for a set new consensus being in place long enough to matter. And I trust Andrewa's and Amakuru's opinions beyond words. So in the end there's a good possibility I would have closed the same way Sceptre did. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On an incidental note, Sceptre, and I say this with all due respect for your prior experience in evaluating consensus-building discussions, and having elucidated the context above, I am curious to understand how you construed the discussion to be resulting in a no consensus. The chief argument of the chief proponent of the move (also the OP arguing for the restoration of old title above) was that the existing title adverted to more than a solitary subject, which was debunked by a reference to WP: PRIMARY TOPIC categorically by at least three editors (who had to presuppose that this was the case in the first place in view of disagreement on this contention). Amakuru, who chimed in late into the discussion and who would have been on the mark and justified in closing the discussion to boot, encapsulated his recapitulation of the discussion as:

Oppose - it has been clearly demonstrated above, using Google hits as well as G-books hits, that the common name for this group is "Pakistani Taliban". It's also clearly the primary topic for that term, compared to the topic of other Taliban who hail from Pakistan or other groups operating there. Although the !vote here looks split, I think this is a "consensus against move" scenario because the policy arguments for the present title are a lot stronger than those for the alternative
— User:Amakuru 12:00, 28 November 2022

Likewise, Andrewa reiterated the underlying essence of his argument, when he proffered: .. If that term is ambiguous and the current article is not the Primary Topic (about which I am not convinced), should it be a DAB? Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC). I too had recapitulated the essence of my argument a day before your closure[110]. In consequence, I don't think putting these quality arguments grounded in policies upon the same footing as those advanced by proponents of the move (whose chief reasoning was debunked, with the residual taking the form of rehash, primarily from socks and SPAs) was justified or meticulous. I did give it a food for thought before voicing my dissent, because a few months down the road this is likely to become an issue again with socks crawling out of the woodwork all over once again, and some of us may not be around (as much) on Wikipedia for it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks @MBlaze Lightning: for this thoughtful response, and that would be my viewpoint as well. There are two separate issues here, firstly whether the May RM was sufficient to establish a "new status quo" to be the baseline default in the event of a subsequent "no consensus", and secondly whether the close of no consensus was itself valid. On the first, I'd say it's borderline; if the RM was very recent, I'd probably include its findings in and amongst the !votes for the second RM; but 6+ months, for an RM which was conclusively decided (i.e. not just moved without discussion) is getting to the point where it should be binding. So (with my obviously biased hat on) I wouldn't fault Sceptre for not moving back to the original name. On the second issue, I agree that it definitely should have been a "consensus against moving" close, when evaluating through the strength of argument, WP policy and evidence. Furthermore, in a contentious and close RM such as this, I would expect a summary from the closer as to why they've come to the conclusion they have... not just a single-line "no consensus"... as indeed was the case at the Talk:1948_Palestinian_exodus#Requested_move_8_September_2022 RM mentioned in the sections above and now at move review. WP:CONSENSUS is formed by viewing !votes through the lens of policy, and both supporters and opposers need to know why a closer reached the conclusion they did. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: this is a rehash of the argument in made during the RM, but you are confusing two different topics here. Just because a title has a WP:PRIMARY TOPIC doesn't mean that that topic unambiguously refers to only that primary topic. A great example is given in policy itself[111], at WP:COMMONNAME, and that is Heart attack. The Primary topic of Heart attack, and the page it redirects to, is Myocardial Infarction. However, heart attack can also refer to cardiac arrest. VR _talk 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Vice regent, yeah, thanks for recollecting that you conceded to Amakuru on their primary topic contention in the discussion ([112]). This consensus then should have informed Sceptre's close, for the policy left no room for doubt that the title had to reflect the primary topic (as discerned by common usage in English RS). The guidline is perspicuous: if an expression has a primary topic, then that is what it leads to, per its dictates. This is not to say that its application is ubiquitous: as with any other MOS, exceptions do exist; and medicine domain embodies the niche where the nomenclature is conditioned by the scientific or recognised medical name commonly occuring in "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or an historical eponym that has been superseded" (vide WP:NCMED). This is why the colloquial term, Heart attack, redirects to MI, despite being the primary topic. However, such exceptions do not impeach the rule itself; the latter is the established norm; whereas the former, a narrowly carved out exception to suffice the specific needs of a niche community. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, I think you're mistaken about Primarytopic. You seem to implying that if a title X has a primary topic Y, then our article on Y must necessarily be called X. But that's not true. The only thing the primary topic implies is that X must point to the article Y, whatever it is called. In fact, we have a whole template (Template:Redirect) that deals with such cases. Besides the "heart attack" example above, other examples include:

• The primary topic for "Soccer" is Association football. And "soccer" has 647M google hits, vs only 10M hits for "Association Football", yet we pick the less common name.
• The primary topic for "Western Allies" (2.3M hits) is Allies of World War II (0.2M hits), but we avoid the title that is ambiguous.
• The primary topic for "Midwest" (171M hits) is Midwestern United States (only 1.2M hits), but again we avoid the ambiguous title. I could go on and on with dozens more examples.
• The primary topic for "Pakistani Taliban" is indeed "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan". In this case too, we should avoided the ambiguous name even if it gave somewhat more google hits.

Likewise many times during the discussion I argued that "Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan" was more precise, because scholarly sources used the term "Pakistani Taliban" to refer to groups/individuals that were not TTP ([113][114][115]), for example splinter groups from TTP, groups similar to the TTP but never a part of it, as well as Pakistani members of the (Afghan) Taliban. VR _talk 00:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Merely rehashing that some expression is ambiguous doesn't cut it for an argument where you have acknowledged that there is a primary topic. Matters end right there for all intents and purposes. The redirects embody an exception scenario to the aforesaid guideline, and they occur when any of the conditions set forth in WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT hold good, which wasn't remotely the case with this article; indeed, it was no one's argument, forget an effort that convinced others. The results were lopsided and weighed in favour of the existing title. Your filibustering to derail the efforts to solicit Sceptre's construction of a "no consensus" (which didn't account for the strong policy and evidence based reasoning in oppose) is getting to the point of being unconstructive; this isn't a new RM, where you rehash and even dwell on the issue anew with previously unmentioned examples; desist, please. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorbonne

Please fix the many incoming links to this dab page, which previously pointed to the page now at "(building)". Thanks. PamD 05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doomsday (Doctor Who).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --TedEdwards 03:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sceptre!

Happy New Year!

Sceptre,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Closure of Prinz von Preussen RM

Hello!

I was curious to know why you closed the recent RM [116] on Franz Willem Prinz von Preussen in favor of the move? The majority (albeit 7-6, by my count) were opposed to the move. Further, the official website of the princes of Prussia [117] refers to "Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia" not the current article title. I would suggest revisiting this RM, as it does not even seem reliable english sources use the title. I would also argue the discouragement of hypothetical titles in WP:NCROY doesn't apply because reliable sources do in fact use the title. Here are some: [118] [119] [120][121] Estar8806 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

I have nominated Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Mergers

Hello @Sceptre!

I had never proposed mergers until recently, and most of my proposals haven't been gaining much traction. I would appreciate your insight on these 3 proposals of mine: 1, 2, 3

Any insight is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time! Mooonswimmer 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mooonswimmer: If nobody objects to the proposal after a decent amount of time, just feel free to do the merge yourself. :) Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian exodus close

Why would you close this when you were involved with a previous near-identical close that was challenged and which came up with no consensus on the quality of your close? Part of the complaint was that you did a vote count and didn't expand on the arguments or policy. Now you have closed an almost identical RM (with yourself now arguably involved in the overall imbroglio) and performed what appears to be another vote count without any mention of the arguments or policy, and in part referred to the previous close with which you were involved. In the most unflattering light, this close could even be interpreted as you returning with the specific intent of reiterating your own previous, challenged verdict to make a point. I would strongly suggest that you re-open and leave it to a closer that is more obviously uninvolved. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED explicitly does not apply to actions taken in a purely administrative role. As I've said, if there was truly a consensus to move the article, I would be perfectly happy to do so. But if anything about the past six months of discussion over three extended RM periods and two MRV periods has shown, it's not only that there isn't a consensus, but also that there won't be a consensus forthcoming. If you disagree, you can go for a third move review of this RM, but honestly, I think we'd all be better off if we let the matter rest for a while. Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the letter of the law, your involvement at this stage was unwise to the say the least given your past involvement in a similar case and the subsequent contention. In addition, the combined lack of policy/argument reflection and similarly off-topic reflections on past closes used to justify the close (again) was of course almost guaranteed to raise recurring questions. If you don't have the energy to engage fully with a subject of this nature, don't engage with it. The handling of contentious topic discussions is often best left to administrators. I think you closing this almost guarantees another move review, but if that is an outcome you are happy with, so be it. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an absurd close, and you emphatically do not have authority to impose a moratorium. nableezy - 16:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#1948_Palestinian_exodus nableezy - 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2023

Thank you for undoing my edits. Yes, at the article Royal Rumble (2023), WWE officially lists Rhea Ripley as staying in the women's Royal Rumble match 1 second longer than Liv Morgan, although other sources say that the match ended as soon as Morgan was eliminated, and Ripley and Morgan set the record. If you have further issues, please discuss it in the article's talk page. GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page Membership news and results of elections Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who series 2 soundtrack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent move

Hi there,

How did you determine that the consensus for this move was not the proposed title? Spekkios (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Spekkios:: HTGS's argument was the most persuasive, both to me and other editors in the discussion. When it comes to NZEng, there's no bright line to go to for the English, Māori, or dual names and it ultimately comes down to which has the most evidence to go with. In this case, based mostly on HTGS's comment, I determined it was the Māori one. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

How are you determining that the argument presented by HTGS was persuasive to other editors? Unless I am mistaken, no other editors are referencing their argument. --Spekkios (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Since you haven't clarified further, please see here. --Spekkios (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at WikiProject Ukraine

Regarding the close at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine#Requested move 7 February 2023. The statement about the decision completely ignores the important point about the difference between the names in article titles and parenthetic disambiguation strings, as well as the cited precedent, citing examples that are not analogies for this at all (on top of that, Istanbul and Constantinople are completely different names, not just a spelling variation in a city name that hasn’t changed in over a millennium). It seems a completely unsatisfactory rationale, as in it gives no indication that you read the proposal or considered the points made in it.source] ]]  —Michael Z. 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: although Constantinople may arguably be or not be an adequate comparison, I believe that Calcutta/Kolkata is; they’re both changes in (Western) English orthography to the local orthography, where the local orthography is more common. However, it’s not always the case that the change is consistent when talking retrospectively; although "Mumbai" is almost universally used these days, usage is split on the 1993 Bombay bombings. Regardless, there isn’t a consensus for a move anyway, and the retrospectivity (or lack thereof) of COMMONNAME was brought up in the discussion. Sceptre (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s all academic because the change was to the parenthetic disambiguation text, not the name. COMMONNAME doesn’t apply to disambiguation text.

WP:PRECISION says to use the least-precise version sufficient to disambiguate. The main-article-title spelling of the city is good enough, and there’s no point in narrowing it to a historical spelling that is only used in restricted contexts.

WP:TITLEDAB reinforces the idea: “use only as much additional detail as necessary.” The examples there make it clear to use the broadest term possible, not one that applies only in a specific context, like a historical one.

And WP:CONSISTENCY is violated, because the new decision conflicts with the precedent cited in the proposal: the consensus move of a similar article to Folkstsaytung (Kyiv).

And there is no consensus to use the dated spelling Kharkov in historical contexts.

It’s not the end of the world if these are not moved, but it seems to be contrary to best practices. I urge you to reconsider the decision or even reopen it to get more input, but I’ve had my say and I won’t belabour it further if you choose not to. Thanks for closing the RM anyway. Cheers. —Michael Z. 04:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Maize -> Corn RM

Thanks for taking the time to read that novel. I'd just like to know what arguments you found most compelling, so I can understand more about Wikipedia guidelines.

Your reasoning on the talk page itself is that the common name may change from Maize to Corn, but it hasn't yet, similar to Iroquois → Haudenosaunee. However, the arguments used to show that Iroquois is still the most commonly used name is the exact sort used to show why Corn is the most commonly used name. Most relevantly, even in scientific and scholarly papers Maize is used about 1/3rd as much as Corn, as shown in the RM.

Could you explain the differences between the two situations? Without knowing more about your point of view, one could look at these two examples and assume that the default is 'no consensus' when a tough decision needs to be made. OuroCat (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. nableezy - 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

RM closure

Hello, Sceptre. Regarding your closure at Aguascalientes City, I notice you wrote that "documentary evidence has been provided to the contrary" only for Chihuahua City, which you exempted... but an even greater volume of documentary evidence was provided for Oaxaca City, which you didn't. Was that intentional, and if so could you share the rationale? Thanks for any clarification. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that a lot of evidence was introduced for Queretaro City, as well. Red Slash 17:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Huwmanbeing and Red Slash:: It was completely unintentional, but from looking further at the discussion, I can see there's no reason to not apply that exemption for Oaxaca and Querétaro. I'll happily reverse those moves and amend my closure in those cases. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Chihuahua City, Oaxaca City, and Querétaro City were the only ones actually tested for evidence of common usage; that they all showed it suggests the others are likely the same. I feel like it would've been preferable for the nominator to investigate this before making the bulk proposal, but it sounds like individual RMs or a second bulk RM will be needed for these now. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't test all the other ones, because it would have been exhausting, but I think you probably would've found the same for all the others (possible exceptions might include Colima, which is--slight exaggeration--basically a microstate, or maybe some extremely small cities/states like Aguascalientes itself that don't have much of any English-language coverage at all, but no evidence was offered in the move request whatsoever). Thanks for putting the accent in Querétaro City, btw--my bad for being lazing and omitting it. Red Slash 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

RS: Yes, I think it just comes down to the original bulk request being poorly formed, in that it wrongly assumed that none of the listed cities commonly use the "City" form, whereas spot checks showed that wasn't true for several (and suggested it might not be true for any). I think ideally those that haven't been checked wouldn't be moved until they have, but it's not the end of the world either way and I'm fine with whatever solution's easiest. Recommendations, Scepter? ╠╣uw [talk] 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sceptre, I must applaud you for your efforts. But I think there’s a bit of confusion lurking here. There is no community consensus, nor local consensus in this RM, that says that demonstration of some common usage of a given natural disambiguation for a topic means that this natural disambiguation, and not parenthetic disambiguation of the undisputed most common name, must be used as the title. As noted in the discussion, NATURAL merely notes that the natural disambiguation may be preferred. Well, in all of these cases, without any exceptions, consensus in this RM clearly prefers the parenthetic disambiguation. Please close according to community and local consensus. Thank you. —В²C ☎ 02:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sceptre, hello? Would you prefer to address this in an MR? —В²C ☎ 06:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was considering a move review as well, since no evidence was provided for the vast majority of the cities that the X City name was not common; I provided several counterexamples for Chihuahua and Queretaro specifically (and I believe Huw did the same for Oaxaca), and I think I provided enough evidence to show that if those two or three were off, than everything was off.

Frankly, I think the move request should've been dropped as no consensus, and then people individually could've made proposals at each one to look at how much English-language usage the X City form had for each one individually. Most likely Chihuahua would've failed (stayed at City); perhaps Aguascalientes itself would've succeeded; in any case, I was thinking of a move review. (Also, B2C, I have so much respect for you, even ywith this disagreement, but like... you gave Spectre 28 hours to respond, give her a bit more time ) Red Slash 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, even if evidence of common usage of Name City was shown for every city on the list that wouldn’t be sufficient to override the consensus to move them all to parenthetic disambiguation, as proposed, nonetheless. While lack of common usage is sufficient reason to not use a given alternative name, evidence of common usage is not sufficient to use it rather than parenthetic disambiguation. There are other considerations to be made and ultimately it’s decided by consensus, not the closer. The closer is only supposed to decide what the consensus is. Otherwise it’s a WP:SUPERVOTE. Here, the closer’s unilateral decision to exclude first 1, then 2 then 3, from the list, when consensus for/against the move of each was equal for all, is a super vote. —-В²C ☎ 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre as it may seem, I'd say exactly the opposite. Got lots of respect for you, B2C, but to me, saying "yeah the amount of supports for Durango City vis-a-vis Chihuahua City were the same, but Chihuahua City had actual evidence presented and Durango didn't, so I'm going to treat them differently" sounds like something a good closer would do.

But of course that ignores the more important point that there was no evidence provided whatsoever that Durango City isn't a common name for the city. Which is why we're going to go to Move Review. Red Slash 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Born2cycle and Huwmanbeing:: I think this is a problem with these multi-page RMs; indeed, I went into the closing process hoping that I wouldn't have to move the pages. But as it was, the RM was balancing on the scales of "move" vs "no consensus"; the consistency argument isn't as strong given the examples of other cities (in Mexico, Japan, and of course, Cork). I also agree that "X City" would be a decent enough NATURAL disambiguation, were it not for the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL"; except for the three cases I exempted, I didn't see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that argument. With all that said, I don't oppose starting new singular RMs if the evidence for "X City" can be shown for the other cities in the list. Sceptre (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If you don’t see anything in the RM that adequately rebutted that, it’s because you’re ignoring my rebuttal (in the last comment in the RM discussion) which points out that the "don't use natural disambiguations that are obscure" part of WP:NATURAL simply points out an extreme limit to where natural disambiguations are not to be used. It’s quite a leap not supported by local or community consensus to interpret that to mean, “if the natural disambiguation in question is not obscure then it must be used.” Yet you are inexplicably interpreting it to mean that. The key question here is not about whether the natural disambiguation may be used. I mean, in those cases where it’s obscure it may not be used, of course. But in any case where it’s (at least arguably) not obscure that just means it may be used, not that it must be. So, in those cases where the natural disambiguation is not obscure the key question is which disambiguation form is preferred. And, again, consensus was the same for every city in the list: parenthetic disambiguation is preferred to Name City disambiguation in each of these cases. Whether natural disambiguation is allowed or not by NATURAL due to level of obscurity is entirely besides the point. Yet you chose to take that into account. That’s a SUPERVOTE. —В²C ☎ 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Aguascalientes City

An editor has asked for a Move review of Aguascalientes City. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Red Slash 19:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi @Sceptre! I landed on your userpage following a recent ANI post of yours and I just wanted to say that I am really quite impressed with the visual structure. I am sure you get this a lot, but it's such a pleasure to read through. I've probably spent more time editing my userpage than I care to admit (lmao) and it's always nice to see some inspirations. Ppt91^talk 20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Michelle Confait

Hi. I would ask you to reconsider this close. The nomination and support votes were based on a flawed premise, that Confait identified as a trans woman. As I said in the discussion, there is no reliable evidence for this. An editor added it to the article a few years ago and the editors who supported the nomination clearly just supported without checking the evidence (or lack of). In any case, this is a well-known murder in British criminal history and the victim is invariably referred to as Maxwell Confait. We cannot apply modern ideas to something that happened fifty years ago. The rename is a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: The relevant guideline here is MOS:GENDERID, which applies to anyone whose gender might (operative word) be questioned. There's no dispute that there's a question about Confait's gender, and furthermore, it's not disputed that they preferred to be known as "Michelle". Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME allows divergence if the most common name is problematic; the amount of "per nom" comments indicate a general agreement that that's the case. Sceptre (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but, as I said, the whole nomination seems based on an unsourced edit made to the article some years ago that has clearly been taken as true without any evidence. The supporters have merely accepted that it is true without any knowledge of the situation (note they all came before I pointed this out). Nobody fifty years ago would have referred to themselves as a trans woman. We cannot change history to what we think it should be. We can only report what it was. This is a famous murder case and is invariably referred to as the murder of Maxwell Confait. How is it helping our users to use a name that was never actually used in the many reliable sources on the case? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Whether Confait would've used the phrase "trans woman" or not isn't within the spirit of MOS:GENDERID; indeed, I have a suspicion that the "might be questioned" line was to catch historical cases such as Sylvia Rivera (et. al) where the line between "homosexual transvestite" and "trans woman" are blurred. I've found two other sources further to what was mentioned in the RM which also talk about Confait in the context of being transgender: Reclaiming Genders by Whittle et al, and this Salon article about Amanda Milan, which talks about Confait's murder being at the top of a long list of murdered trans sex workers. As far as I'm concerned, the Gianassi book, alongside those two sources I've listed in this reply, should be enough to meet the "might be questioned" part of GENDERID. Sceptre (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Murder of Michelle Confait

An editor has asked for a Move review of Murder of Michelle Confait. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Talk:1896 Summer Olympics#Requested move 9 February 2023

Please rethink or undo this close. Closers ought to know how to intepret policy and assess arguments under the lens of policy, but your closing summary indicates you don't know how to do that, and instead ignored policy based on the local consensus. TITLECHANGES can't be used to oppose change just for the sake of opposing change, and all the other policy-based arguments (COMMONNAME, CONCISE) supported the move. Avilich (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Avilich: I did take those into account those policies, and also the previous RM. I did not see a consensus to move the article, just like the previous RM. I'd be happy to relist if you'd like, but in my opinion, it'll probably be closed again in a week with the same result. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I won't ask you to relist since it has been a while already, so I'm posting this on move review Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 March#1896 Summer Olympics. Avilich (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December and our Annual Report for 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members, including those who have signed up for our current March Backlog Elimination Drive. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2022 coordinator election, Reidgreg and Tenryuu stepped down as coordinators; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo were returned as coordinators until 1 July. For the second time, no lead coordinator was chosen. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 21 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 14 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 170 articles totaling 389,737 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our February Copy Editing Blitz focused on October and November 2022 requests, and the March and April 2022 backlogs. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine claimed at least one copy-edit; and between them, they copy-edited 39,150 words in 22 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up now for our month-long March Backlog Elimination Drive. Barnstars awarded will be posted here after the drive closes. Progress report: As of 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 73 requests since 1 January 2023, all but five of them from 2022, and the backlog stands at 1,872 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Proposed deletion of Combat (Torchwood)

The article Combat (Torchwood) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Combat (Torchwood) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Combat (Torchwood) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combat (Torchwood) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DonaldD23 talk to me 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Weapons of resident evil 4" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Weapons of resident evil 4 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Weapons of resident evil 4 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since March. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Fancy helping out at the Guild? Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators are open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC)*. Starting immediately after, the voting phase will run until 23:59 on 30 June. All Wikipedians in good standing are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed; it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, nine editors completed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 24 articles totaling 53,393 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 51 editors signed up for the month-long May Backlog Elimination Drive, and 31 copy-edited at least one article. 180 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are posted here. Blitz: Sign up here for our week-long June Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 11 to 17 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 03:09 on 6 June 2023, GOCE copyeditors have processed 91 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,887 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybongo. *All times and dates in this newsletter are in UTC, and may significantly vary from your local time. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Move review

I strongly disapprove of your move of a relatively unknown person to Albert von Sachsen. That person is by no stretch of the imagination the common name or primary topic for such a term, and if the move is not reverted, I will be taking it to move review. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay: I think you've got things backwards here. As there isn't another article that should be at Albert von Sachsen (other than the 18th-century Duke of Teschen, where NCROY applies differently), then the man born in 1934 can be assumed to be the primary topic.

On the subject of COMMONNAME – as has been brought up in several German ex-nobility RMs since the abortive coup attempt last year, the use of princely titles in pretence is a WP:POVTITLE issue, and NCROY's discouragement of the use of such titles has particular weight; the use of these titles has gone from harmless althist nerdery to a far-right shibboleth.

NPOV – as a fundament of the encyclopedia – clearly requires that in the that a POVTITLE's COMMONNAME status is evidenced. It is not enough to say "X is the common name" to oppose moving away from "X" when it has problems; it must be demonstrated through evidence that the name is overwhelmingly the most common name to the point where POVTITLE is met, and in the majority of these RMs, not even the "evidence it's the common name" bar is met. Sceptre (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ouch, I have to confess I'm a little baffled here. How can you possibly find consensus for a move in such a discussion, when the voting numbers are so clearly not in favour of a move, and the overarching policy argument of WP:COMMONNAME a powerful rationale not to move. Your rationale for closing this, and indeed the previous RM (which I voted against, but then didn't notice it has been closed as moved) rest on the assertion that the long-standing names were "problematic", but the participants in the RM were far from convinced by that argument. As such, your determination as closer doesn't override multiple opinions that thy weren't problematic, which unfortunately makes your close against the numbers a good faith WP:SUPERVOTE. The whole thing is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in a way that isn't supported by sources. Please could you look at both of these RMs again and consider objectively whether there's any way it's a consensus to move?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: COMMONNAME is not an absolute. As I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere, COMMONNAME allows us to use other article titles if the most common name is problematic, and in none of the ex-German nobility RMs that I’ve closed since then have I been convinced by the arguments the princely titles are not problematic. Mostly, it’s a sea of “per COMMONNAME” arguments without evidence. The onus is on people to prove that COMMONNAMEs pass the higher muster if they’re problematic, and that proof hasn’t been met, and numerical majorities are not a substitute for proof in that regard. Sceptre (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"COMMONNAME is not an absolute" - of course, there are some exceptions but on the other hand, COMMONNAME is listed on a policy page and is widely accepted in countless RM discussions down the years as the standard we use, absent strong reason against, and is a close proxy to Wikipedia's philosophy that we reflect the world as it is, through WP:V and WP:NPOV, rather than attempting to chart a course that editors think is more "correct" than real world usage. In this case, where (a) the common name was clearly for the old title, (b) the numbers in the discussion were clearly for the old title, and (c) the old title was the longstanding status quo, there can be no objective reason for choosing something else. Your interpretation of what's problematic above is your opinion, but you know it's not one of which other editors in good standing such as myself and others share. As such, it is your duty to either close in line with consensus, or simply cast a vote yourself. You don't have the right to impose an alternative view on us in this way. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and NPOV – as one of the five pillars – overrides the "use the common name" shorthand. Like I said, in the case of non-neutral titles, it is incumbent on those wishing to use them to provide evidence that it's the common name – as POVTITLE says, in a "significant majority of English-language sources" — and in the related RMs that I've closed, the evidence – when provided – is sorely lacking. Sceptre (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, what do you mean by "German ex-nobility" which I've seen you use here and there about people whose families were royalty, not nobility? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Albert von Sachsen

An editor has asked for a Move review of Albert von Sachsen. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. DrKay (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@DrKay: it would be useful to let the discussion above play out before starting a MRV. I also think we should include the December 2022 RM in the mix too, as that also seems to lack consensus and is probably sufficiently recent to challenge.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sceptre:, are you sure you can !vote on your own contested move? It seems to me that your explanation should be prefixed with "Closer's response" or similar, not "Endorse"... Rosbif73 (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Cult of Skaro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cult of Skaro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult of Skaro until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

There is no longer any ambiguity regarding the surname when it is at "Oppenheimer (surname)". The primary topic does not need to be mentioned in the lede. The thing you're referring to would apply to Oppenheimer (disambiguation), which I already changed. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: At the same time, JRO does need to be in Oppenheimer (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm relaxed on where it is, but given the prominence of the primary topic… the lede seemed more appropriate than buried in the weeds; some people might still get to the page by that page! Sceptre (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Minor request

Hello, I'm cleaning up the dwindling number of fostered content WP:LINT errors on Wikipedia, and only 8 remain within user talk space. One of those is on your User talk:Sceptre/Archive 13 within the "Awww Will!" section. If you would be willing, would you please make the following adjustment?

portion to change

Change this {| style="vertical-align:top" | <div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; float:right; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to<br />[[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]]<br />'''<span style="font-size:1.1em;">'''Will'''</span>'''<br />for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most.<br />Thank you! :)<span style="font-size:1em;"><br />[[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#009900;">P</span><span style="color:#00AA00;">h</span><span style="color:#00BB00;">a</span><span style="color:#00CC00;">e</span><span style="color:#00DD00;">d</span><span style="color:#00CC00;">r</span><span style="color:#00BB00;">i</span><span style="color:#00AA00;">e</span><span style="color:#009900;">l</span></b>]] </span></div> |}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#00BB00;">Phædriel</span></b>]] <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">♥</span></b> [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''<small><span style="color:#22AA00;">tell me</span></small>''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC) to this: {| style="vertical-align:top; float:right;" |<div id="Awardbar" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #000000; background:#fff; margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:6px; font-size: 0.9em; width: 110px; ">This Barnstar is presented to<br />[[Image:Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png|110px]]<br /><span style="font-size:1.1em;">'''Will'''</span><br />for always being close to me and willing to make me smile and cheer me up when I need it the most.<br />Thank you! :)<span style="font-size:1em;"><br />[[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#009900">P</span><span style="color:#00AA00">h</span><span style="color:#00BB00">a</span><span style="color:#00CC00">e</span><span style="color:#00DD00">d</span><span style="color:#00CC00">r</span><span style="color:#00BB00">i</span><span style="color:#00AA00">e</span><span style="color:#009900">l</span></b>]] </span></div> |}That's ''such'' a beautiful cat, my dear Will - thank you so much! My talk page seems to be filling lately with pictures of lovely cats, how did you even knew I love them? Anyway, hun, I didn't want to go to bed before thanking you - the 4th of July has been tough on me, and I've hardly had any sleep in the last day; but in the meantime, beutiful messages have appeared in my talk page and I "always" reply, even if it takes me some time. I hope you're doing great, and enjoy this - you deserve it! Hugs, [[User:Phaedriel|<b><span style="color:#00BB00">Phædriel</span></b>]] <b><span style="color:#FF0000">♥</span></b> [[User talk:Phaedriel|'''<small><span style="color:#22AA00">tell me</span></small>''']] - 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This will correct this fostered content issue, and replace the fonts for span style to address the neighboring obsolete tag issues. Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: The page is full-protected so I've added a FPER tag so an admin can do it instead. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Legoktm (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that you weren't able to access the page, Sceptre. Thank you for the assist, Legoktm. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

RM close

Your close at Talk:Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) was way too early; it has literally been only a day and a half since the indictment, which is not enough time for discussion to evolve. Furthermore, the existing !votes don't support that there is any consensus either way yet, especially since the original proposer stated that they no longer exclusively support their original title and is open to further discussion. Please reverse the close and let the RM play out over a normal timeframe. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Antony22: From my reading there's a general consensus that the articles about the two indictments should be similarly titled, and I have no opinion on what form this should take, and no objection to an immediate further RM encompassing both. That said, I don't think the timing of the election interference indictment is that relevant; it had been inevitable for some time, and I don't think there was a dearth of discussion warranting it being deliberately kept in the RM backlog. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your close that the consensus only applies to there being a parenthetical "government documents" to "classified documents" while discussion was actively ongoing between the two possibilities, and if there was no consensus, then that change shouldn't have been made. I'd rather not have to do another RM over that if possible. Thanks. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Llywelyn ab Iorwerth

Please review your close here. It does not seem to me reflect the actual consensus or evidence. Srnec (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec: See the discussion section of the move request. It's very clear from the evidence provided by Ham II that the version with the patronymic are the COMMONNAME. The English form is very slightly than with either of the Welsh forms alone, but I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the English form "wins" because of people having different opinions on how much the vocal folds need to vibrate before you use a specific consonant. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Page move

you closed the moving discussion thing in Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi but the page didn't get moved Abo Yemen✉ 16:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User category renamed

Hi, please update the category code in your boxes.css page from Wikipedia AfC reviewers to Wikipedia Articles for Creation reviewers. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles. Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Revolution (2024), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Bennett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

March 2024

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dustin Poirier, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 02:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sceptre, you are welcome to put back the info if you can provide independent, reliable source to support the claim for verification. Cassiopeia talk 02:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Edelman Family Foundation

Hi @Sceptre

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors

Please would you update your relevant user sub-page from Category:Wikipedia Good Article contributors to lowercase? – Fayenatic London 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to Category:Wikipedia good article contributors – lowercase g too. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

A continuous map f:X->Y between topological spaces is said to be null-homotopic if it is homotopic to a constant map

Hello there.

It's been a strange year. I let our relationship lapse and I'm sorry. It's mostly, but not entirely, because I abjectly refuse to use Discord anymore and I forgot my Matrix credentials.

Email would be good. Jitsi coffee dates would be good. I still think of you. But if you don't want to anymore, I completely understand.

Sasha foxxo (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

secondhand notification

Per a request by SnowFire (talk · contribs), because of your participation in Talk:Michael Larson#Requested move 22 March 2024, you are being brought up to date on developments. After the article "Press Your Luck scandal" was written, "Michael Larson" was turned into a redirect. That redirect has since been undone (though mischaracterized as a "stealth copy & paste move"), and there are now two active discussions in which you may wish to participate, but might otherwise be unaware of:

• Talk:Press Your Luck scandal#Separate articles is discussing WP:BIO1E, the article title, and more.
• Talk:Michael Larson (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 May 2024 is discussing which page should be the primary topic and more.

I'm certainly involved in these discussions and will be happy to converse with you there if you're inclined. My apologies if this is undue, but it was implied that I have been negligent in my canvassing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RMNAC explanations needed

Sceptre, at Talk:1933 NFL Championship Game#Requested move 3 May 2024 and Talk:AFC Championship Game#Requested move 29 April 2024 you simply said "not moved", without saying how you weighed the arguments, and without indicating whether you saw a consensus for uppercase, versus no consensus. Could you please expand on those closing statements? Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: et al had the correct interpretation of MOS:SPORTSCAPS. The pre-Super Bowl championship games (and the conference championships, for that matter) are more often capitalised than not, especially as they're trademarked. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Will you be adding those rationales to the close statements, please? Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Is NFL Draft trademarked? Not that I'd necessarily reopen that can of brain-worms (and, importantly, and unlike the conference championship games, uppercasing does not "lead" in its n-gram derby). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sceptre: I don't think the trademark rationale was used by anyone, was it? And I have some doubt whether it really is trademarked. Consider striking it from your close.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sceptre, I think I'll need to call a move review if you don't re-list these. Your reasoning sounds too much like a super-vote based on non-facts and unsupported opinions, as opposed to a reasonable weighing of the positions articulated. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I see you haven't edited since before this; I'll be patient (sort of). Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Apologies, I was off-wiki yesterday. I've added the above rationale to each closure, but I strongly dispute the idea that they're supervotes. Sometimes, the consensus just isn't there. Sceptre (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sceptre, I've no problem with your closures & will endorse them if they're challenged. But, I recommend that you elaborate on your closures at the two RMs, to avoid it being challenged. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Move review for AFC Championship Game

An editor has asked for a Move review of AFC Championship Game. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Move review for 1933 NFL Championship Game

An editor has asked for a Move review of 1933 NFL Championship Game. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dicklyon (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page. Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Our June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Updates to Brookfield Properties Locations

Hi Sceptre, I work for Brookfield Properties, and I am trying to update the page to include that the company operates in 9 locations. You made helpful contributions to the Brookfield Properties article a few years ago, and I'm hoping you will take a look at my edit request and consider making the edit . Thanks for your help, Claudiailagan (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing redirects (re-creating pages)

There is an ongoing discussion taking place at the following articles, regarding whether the current redirects should be removed, which may be of interest to this user:

1. Talk: A109 road
2. Talk: A110 road
3. Talk: A111 road
4. Talk: A112 road (England):
5. Talk: A124 road:
6. Talk: A129 road:
7. Talk: A134 road:
8. Talk: A157 road:
9. Talk: A159 road:
10. Talk: A177 road:
11. Talk: A182 road:
12. Talk: A189 road:
13. Talk: A1011 road:
14. Talk: A1066 road:
15. Talk: A1151 road:
16. Talk: A1200 road:
17. Talk: A1231 road:
18. Talk: A1260 road:
19. Talk: A1303 road:
20. Talk: A213 road:
21. Talk: A222 road:
22. Talk: A225 road:
23. Talk: A227 road:
24. Talk: A230 road:
25. Talk: A235 road:
26. Talk: A236 road:
27. Talk: A237 road:
28. Talk: A2217 road:
29. Talk: A346 road:
30. Talk: A3400 road:
31. Talk: A425 road:
32. Talk: A435 road:
33. Talk: A461 road:
34. Talk: A472 road:
35. Talk: A480 road:
36. Talk: A484 road:
37. Talk: A488 road:
38. Talk: A497 road:
39. Talk: A4012 road:
40. Talk: A4037 road:
41. Talk: A4040 road:
42. Talk: A4067 road:
43. Talk: A4110 road:
44. Talk: A4133 road:
45. Talk: A4173 road
46. Talk: A4212 road:
47. Talk: A4217 road:
48. Talk: A5183 road:
49. Talk: A828 road:

Please see the necessary talk pages for more information. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place centrally at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Removing_redirects_(re-creating_pages) rather than at each individual article talk page. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here. Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2024 Newsletter

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff. Articles for deletion Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as Time War (Doctor Who), and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up. Notice of Draft Articles A new Doctor Who spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called The War Between the Land and the Sea, and will feature old and new Whoniverse characters working for UNIT as they battle the Sea Devils. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is currently underway in a draft article. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at WP:NTV. There is also a draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome. Doctor Who News A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of Doctor Who News. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the Appreciation Index of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith. A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A sub-page has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards. Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows: 1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD. 2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit. 3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue. If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on the article's talk page. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) "I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"Template:Test3a" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Test3a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Template:Test3a until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Contesting Grooming Gangs "Moral Panic" Closure

I'd like to initiate a contest of this closing decision: Talk:Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom#c-Sceptre-20241007193500-Requested move 3 September 2024

That does not appear like consensus. The reasoning was very weak. The subject of "Moral Panic" is a separate issue from whether these incidents happened, which they did, and which the well published facts show was actually suppressed by both media and law enforcement. If there should be a page on moral panic. It should be a separate page, not a very clear re-characterization of the facts themselves. Bluetik (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

While the discussion was heated, I disagree that there was no consensus. It seems that the consensus was to rename it to something more accurate. The vast majority of the disagreement seemed to devolve rapidly into irrelevant discussion on the topic itself. --Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't edit this part of Wikipedia, but the argument that there was a consensus for this move doesn't look compelling to me. I count 21 "support" and 9 "oppose". I have seen move requests rejected with even larger majorities. I think there was at best a consensus for a move, but not *this* move. I think Sceptre should reconsider and give several options for a new title. The current title looks very biased and I would have opposed it. Concerns about grooming gangs were legitimate; labelling them as moral panic is a gross exaggeration. There was some kind of a paranoia with racist elements--of course--, but this should be developed within the article, as a section of the article. T8612 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@T8612 I understand your concern, but discussions are a debate, not a vote. I will note that there is a misconception about the article in question: it is about the media focusing on a specific type of case. The events themselves are covered in their own articles, largely linked in the talk page. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the arguments are brigaders

It seems like most of the traffic is coming from this tweet: https://x.com/jackguyanderton/status/1843631695037378628?s=46

from a right wing account with of course right wing followers who have been brigading the pages including the talk page of the article. Canvassing for more “votes” per se is what is happening to try and force a move. 12.39.17.119 (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please change your close at the talk page of Eurasian Plate

Hello, and happy upcoming Halloween. Would like to request that you change your close at the lowercasing RM of Eurasian Plate, possibly to "no consensus", as the uppercasing has many secondary sources accepting it as a proper name. The opposition to lowercasing from geologists and other long-term editors seems to easily balance out the arguments about it not being a proper name.

In particular, you base much of your close on the AGU style guide. The guide accepts uppercasing as a proper name, and specifically states: "The following may be either capitalized or lowercase except as indicated below: anticline, arc, bank, basin, butte, channel, crater (e.g., on Earth, the Moon, or Mars), fault, fold, formation, geyser, glacier, mount, plate, plateau, ridge, rill, strait, syncline, trench, trough, volcano. Be consistent throughout the paper. (...) plate (follow author within paper for capitalization)". AGU upper or lowercases, dependent on the author's use in their paper. In other words, a proper name is fine, just that the caps stay consistent within each published paper.

Uppercasing is the style of, among many other sources, Britannica, Encylopedia.com,The Free Dictionary and, importantly, Geology.com. Uppercasing the names of tectonic plates is not a miscapitalization, but is a normal proper name casing for these topics, which have been uppercased on Wikipedia for well over 20 years. Since a reconsideration seems reasonable on a close re-reading of the discussion, I hope you would ponder this for a few hours, or a day or two. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I think you may be misreading how much stock I'm putting in the AGU style guide. In actual fact, I put more stock into the ngrams results (and other sources as provided in the RM), which don't show the level of capitalisation that would indicate that something is a proper name. Where the line between what Wikipedia should treat as a proper name or not is up for interpretation, but I don't think half-and-half is the "consistent" capitalisation in as asked for at MOS:CAPS. The use of capitals in respect of tectonic plates is not incorrect, but the weight of evidenced arguments in the RM was in favour of decapitalisation even though the numeric weight was the other way. Sceptre (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and I haven't forgotten this discussion and will take it up again at some point soon (maybe it will move at the speed of plate tectonics). The n-grams are analyzed well during the discussion as being inaccurate. You did mention the AGU stylebook in particular, which is why I point out that AGU views them as proper names as well as allowing lowercasing on particular papers (but a proper name is always a proper name, as the song goes). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Bangalore

I disagree with your close here and would like to urge you to stick to WP:STATUSQUO. Many of the recently published news sources are still using "Bangalore", not "Bengaluru".[122][123] - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the results for these two sites since October 31, 2023 are 4,880-562 favoring Bengaluru for Outlook India and 1,750-958 for Bengaluru in Telegraph India, since neither of them were included in the dataset of sites provided. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@User:Ratnahastin, I am not sure if it is relevant but both the sites you mentioned are not listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. Manthara^talk 14:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you even read the opening line? The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. Whether a source is mentioned there or not has no bearing on its reliability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Manthara^talk 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to Skarmory for basically taking the words of my mouth here. Whilst I recognise some sources still use "Bangalore" instead of "Bengalaru", we can't base everything on just one or two sources, which is why analyses like Skarmory's are incredibly useful in these discussions, especially for the closer, which showed that -- in the round -- "Bengalaru" is now favoured in quite a lot of RSes. Sceptre (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We need a clear case here. The results are still divided with many sources still using "Bengaluru" thus the status quo should be maintained. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

With Reuters and AP, it's 20:1 in favour of "Bengaluru". In South Asian sources, the ratio is 10:1. Even in Western sources, "Bengaluru" is now preferred (although with the standard "formerly Bangalore" construction, in some cases). Only two sources provided in Manthara and Skarmory's analysis preferred "Bangalore": The Irish Times, which is now 8:7 in favour of "Bengaluru", and The Gleaner, which is entirely because of the IPL team, and they've since switched to "Bengaluru" for the past season. I don't know how much more clearer you want it to be. Sceptre (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

My take on this is that post closure discussions like this should focus on the close itself, rather than relitigating the discussion (as seems to be happening here). I have no issues with the close and think it's an accurate reflection of the discussion, so it should be seen as settled and the move implemented. Great job on this one, Sceptre. Turnagra (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Winter Is Coming (2024)

Please cite reliable sources when adding matches, like you did in the article Winter Is Coming (2024) per the hidden note at the top of the results table. Also the event has not aired yet so please do not use past tense when referring to future events. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonademan22: I don't think you should be upset at me specifically, because the net result was actually cutting down some of the unsourced information (i.e. they haven't actually confirmed Rampage is under the Winter is Coming label). I think it's pretty clear from a cursory glance of the page history and seeing the matches were added during Dynamite that they were announced on the broadcast. Sceptre (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sceptre: You are mistaken, I'm not upset with you, merely pointing out the errors you made in the editing. Rampage has actually been confirmed but that is my bad for not sourcing that. On the topic of sourcing matches, even if they are announced on the broadcast, reliable sources must be utilised and cited on all articles, I mentioned the hidden note in my first reply and that states not to put unsourced material in the results box and to use high quality sources when adding them. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Bare references

Remember not to use bare references like you did in Winter Is Coming. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's nice to see that double standards are alive and well

If this was an ordinary user that no one knew, they'd be blocked indef, no questions asked. Jtrainor (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I do have sympathy for that view. However, we also have numerous previous examples of blocks being lengthened for sock-puppeting block evasion, both with "high profile" editors and others that "no one knew" as well. Black Kite 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre is not an ordinary editor that no one knows. Plain and simple. GlassCobra 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sceptre has made numerous positive contributions in multiple areas over a long period of time. That's worth making the investment in trying to turn things around, up to a point. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are people arguing that we don't have different standards for established users who have been with the project for a long time? I thought this was a well-known fact. Mr.Z-man 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Not) resetting block to 3 months

Unless anyone else has any major objections, and Sceptre is aware that any more socking will lead to an indefinite block, I am going to reset Sceptre's block to 3 months shortly. Black Kite 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. I see no consensus for anything, except possibly for a ban at this point. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm endorsing the 3 month--Tznkai (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object too, and would rather support an indefinite block at this point. As much as I want to AGF, Sceptre has been given so many chances to reform yet has continued to be erratic and a net drain on the project. Jimmy Wales himself said in 2006, in an incident where Sceptre was harassing an underage female admin, "If he does ONE MORE LITTLE THING, he is gone from wikipedia *poof* just then, no arbcom, no nothing, just me banning him myself." He has done many more "things" since - I think the project has had enough. :/ krimpet✽ 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still iffy on this as well. IF consensus shows that a 3 month block is accepted by most then I'll be fine with it, but right now I'm not sure yet. Wizardman 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Indef is totally appropriate at this point. Per Krimpet, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Clearly no consensus at this time, so I will leave as indef, something I'm not unconvinced by myself anyway. Black Kite 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I object also. How many chances do we give him? He was indef blocked and then his block was reduced as a last chance. He has now used that last chance and still is unrepentant about why he was originally blocked. Why keep wasting our time? KnightLago (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I believe his last chance was given AFTER the sock edits but BEFORE they were discovered.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The one sleeper sock was created and edited within the last few days. The sock that created that sock also edited on September 1. Sceptre's block log clearly says Moreschi's "Final chance" was in August. Which last chance were you referring to? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending his drama-mongering or his mistakes, but some points. First off, what Jimbo says should not be any reason to conduct our affairs in dealing with users in any different way. We're the community; we decide. Secondly, I disagree with the assertion Sceptre is a "net drain"; he's nominated five successful AfDs and has been an extremely positive asset to Doctor Who. What I've urged everyone to do (and no one has listened) is to try and come to common ground on editors clearly intent on improving Wikipedia but who have caused drama in doing so (Sceptre, Giano, et al). This isn't just one editor, it's an offshoot of a continuing issue. I'm just hoping that we can address this so we don't waste our times in threads like these over each individual user. Also note per above Sceptre has good reason to want his talk and user page salted, as the trolls at Encyclopedia Dramatica already have a sizeable article on him and its unethical to provide them more ammunition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let's not compare Sceptre to Giano. Giano has pointed out what he - and quite a few others - feel are injustices. If he wasn't so dramatic and biting in his choice of language, he'd get a lot more official support. Sceptre is turning out to be a vandal, a harasser, and an abusive block evading sockpuppeteer. No comparison. It's only now that he's been unmasked. Next, what good is there in deleting his user page? It's just a sockpuppeteer tag that helps the community here understand what happened. What information is contained there for ED? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's interesting timing. I believe the "last chance" comment was placed at the end of a block log. I haven't seen any evidence that Sceptre was given the courtesy of being informed on his talk page that this was his last chance. I also don't think dredging up things from 2006 is completely fair, nor is appealing to Jimbo's authority. As can be seen above, Jimbo is quite capable of stepping in when he wants to. What I really want to see here is an acknowledgment from Sceptre that he really is going to step away from Wikipedia for a few months (it can be done, and I believe Sceptre has stated this), and then Sceptre make a statement after those three months in the form of a block appeal. This gives people here a chance to calm down as well. In principle, I think all indefinite or long-term blocks should be reviewed a few months later, merely because people may change opinions they expressed in the heat of the moment. Maybe what I'm arguing for is to leave indefinitely blocked, and to revisit it in three months time? People may feel differently then. Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I'm looking for is a slight hint of repentance. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse a reset. Frankly, anything that has been stated here is not even near bannable. The socks weren't abused. Normally, only the socks are blocked due to block evasion. — Edokter • Talk • 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

changes to the templates for Birth/Date age - Still unreseolved

I previously wrote up this issue and it was archived without resolution so I am writing it up again. The linking for birth date and age templates has been removed which is causing the dates to not link within templates., Infobox military person for example. Although I see under the WP:Dates where someone changed the wording I cannot see where the change was determined through discussion or consensus and therefore should be corrected. If the decision is to not link dates in general fine but it should still be linked in templates such as infoboxes. Additionally,if this is the desire is to not link dates then the bots and AWB that correct dates need to be reviewed (because they are still changing date formatting) and the millions of date links on pages that currently exists needs to be removed. Until somone can show me where this has been changed based on a majority decision and not just a user thinking that its wrong then I am going to continue linking dates.--Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask User:Tony1. He has a page explaining where consensus was reached. See User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA. Earlier thread was here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot reverts valid edit but its PHP page to revert invalid reverts is broken

I attempted to inform Cluebot that it had made a false revert but on submitting my report at http://24.40.131.153/cluebot.php the response page showed just:

> POST: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php?action=login (0.239742040634 s)
> GET: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/query.php?what=content&format=php&titles=User%3AClueBot%2FFalsePositives%2FReports (0.188697814941 s)
> Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/apache2/domains/default/htdocs/wikibot.classes.php on line 78

While it says warning rather than error it's hardly the kind of response that would lead one to believe one's submission had been successfully made.

I was making the report as cluebot reverted my revert of a huge number of edits (over 150) made by Arilang1234 to the article Boxer Rebellion in the last 4 days. My explanation of my actions in my Cluebot report were as follows:

"This looks like a mass delete but I am reverting over 150 revisions made by Arilang1234 between the 3rd and 7th of September. While not simple childish vandalism these revisions are bizarre and are not the stuff of a coherent Wikipedia piece. Some of it appears scholarly but in fact reflects the personal assertions of an individual (on dates etc.) rather than established historical fact, some reflects non-mainstream opinion on historical events and groups and most is just rambling and irrelevant." 84.74.150.48 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. It wasn't really even broken, it just wasn't posting it to User:ClueBot/FalsePositives, but it still records the information to the server. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

STILL at it.

Please refer to [124], above.

This morning I left a note on blocked user Andy Bjornovich's talk page with concerns that he was continuing to edit using IP 212.159.64.14. This IP was only editing user and talk pages, but I still felt that, with 2 days left of his block, this was unnecessary (it's worth noting that another admin disagreed).

Just now, however, I noticed another edit to Andy's user page, this time by a different IP. I checked that IP's contributions only to discover 5 article space edits from this morning, so I left a message on Andy's talk page requesting clarification. Following another edit, this time to a template, I have indefblocked 79.73.71.54 for evading a block.

Andy has just admitted he is using that IP. I have therefore indefblocked his other IP as well.

Now I propose to increase Andy's original block (already his second) for this evasion. I'd like recommendations on the increase: are we going to give this clearly problematic user yet another chance, or just say goodbye? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you indefblocked two IPs? Are they static? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The blocks can easily be changed. I indefblocked for the very reason that the block is...indefinite. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I've reduced the blocks on both IPs to 3 hours. That should give us enough time to discuss what to do with Andy. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This started with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive166#User signature. Based upon that incident and the conduct since, I believe an indef block is now warranted. We have already been excessively polite and patient with this user, but there has been no improvement in their behavior or attitude. It's time to move on. — Satori Son 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With this editor I'm continually going back and forth between whether he's just not getting it, or deliberately trying to test others' boundaries. Even though today's IP edits from 79.73.71.54 were innocuous (except for this one maybe-- does anybody know what this is?). My suggestion would be a last warning to AB with indef ban immediately upon any further edit. At some point, disruption is disruption, regardless of whether the editor seems well-intentioned. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is especially strange. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, 5 edits from that IP today are to article space, and this user is currently blocked. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my comment too--sorry, yes, I think this is a definite problem. The userspace edits and bizarre comments (e.g., [125]) make me think he just doesn't get that he's not supposed to edit at all, under any form, during this. Maybe I'm being naive though. If the consensus is that we've given enough warning I have no problem with that too. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And to add a little more weirdness, please see this latest edit by Andy in which he admits to editing article space and says he's incompetent (!??) Exploding Boy (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd support a reset of the original block, per WP:EVADE, which seems pretty straightforward. I don't see a very good benefit/drama ratio in extending the block to indef. If I am dead wrong about this, then I think we need to consider updating WP:EVADE to reflect what the community considers appropriate in such circumstances. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, WP:EVADE seems quite clear, so reset. I don't think his IP edits were 'blockable behaviour' on their own. justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Contracted editing

Earlier I deleted James F. Reda & Associates, LLC which had been created first by the now blocked JFredaLLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and then by Swiggins2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The first first creation was deleted by Jj137 (talk · contribs) as spam followed by a username block. I deleted it a copyright violation from here.

I now get an email from the user which indicated that they are the webmaster and creator of the companies website. They also indicate that they are "...contacted by this company to add the material..." and they have released the material under the GFDL.

Normally I'd just point them to the contact at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and keep an eye on it. However, the "contacted by this company" bothered me. I read this, perhaps incorrectly, to read "paid to edit", and, if so, should they just be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Their company's google results list dozens of self-generated sites, making me believe they're just trying to advertise in as many ways as possible. That being said, why don't we refer them to the process at Wikipedia:BFAQ#COMPANY? We'd also need assurances that they're not account sharing. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Evasion of AfD results by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

All articles speedied except for Weapons of Gears of War, which there is a running AFD on because it is significantly different than the previously deleted content. LGC blocked 24 hours due to edit-warring on this page.--chaser - t 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) has begun to move articles, which were apparently userfied for him by kindly administrators after they were deleted at AfD, back into mainspace as redirects. I've only checked one of them at all carefully—List of fictional aircraft in Ace Combat, which was deleted per this AfD and the history of which LGRdC moved into mainspace as a redirect to List of nations of Ace Combat, with the edit summary "Creating redirect following discussions to merge and redirect". I can find no DRV discussion of the deleted article or any other "discussions to merge and redirect"; nor can I find any evidence that LGRdC has merged any material to the article that's the target of the redirect. This, and his other recent moves of userfied material, seem to be nothing more than end runs around AfD consensus in an effort to get the articles' histories back into mainspace. I have no idea how this matter can or should be dealt with; but the editor in question will clearly do anything in his power to disrupt and negate the AfD process, and it seems to me that something needs to be done here. Deor (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to tenuously assume good faith. LGRdC seems about to invoke his right to vanish and is clearing out various user pages. One relatively easy(?) solution might be to delete the histories of these moved articles and restore the redirects he's created. If under a new identity he wants to start/resume working on these materials, he can request an admin. restore the edit history to his user space. In the meantime, Le Grand, rather than creating redirects and moving them to article space, it would be a sign of good faith if you were simply to go to the mainspace area and create the redirect there atop the redlink. Then just request db-user for those articles sitting in user space.

Meanwhile, though, someone might want to "help" LGRdC with this limbo-RTV status. He twice blanked this section and posted to Deor's talk page citing RTV and harassment as a reason not to write to/about him -- yet LG continues to participate in AFDs, posted welcome messages, etc. Something about cake and eating it. I dunno. --EEMIV (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, LGRdC has now blanked this thread for the fifth time. I'm now requesting that the account be blocked for a 3rr violation. This thread wasn't indended to be about him so much as about what to do with the redirects he created, but it's becoming personal. Deor (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to go that route? You initiated the thread (which for some people counts for 3RR) and you've restored it three times. That is effectively adding the same (or similar) content four times. Why not talk to LGRdC about this? The thread can be restored later if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I left a stern warning on LGRdC`s talk page. If he choses to ignore that, then so be it; however unless that happens, I am not willing to block him yet. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)I've already blocked LGRdC for edit warring (he claims to be invoking RtV on an account "not used in many months," a falsehood, since he's edited actively until today) - however, I also caution Deor not to fuel the flames of edit warring like this in the future. krimpet✽ 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I don't know how familiar you are with LGRdC communication habits, but it sounds like you never tried to actually talk commonsense with him. He regularly blanks and stonewalls or otherwise disrupts everything that is in the slightest critical of any of his actions. Moreoever, Kralizec is right that RTV does not include the right to remove this section from AN. user:Everyme 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To the best of my knowledge, blanking other users' discussion-page comments falls within the definition of vandalism, and reverting such blanking (as I was only one of three editors to do here) can hardly be considered edit warring. Anyone have any ideas about what to do with the deleted articles that LGRdC has placed in mainspace? Deor (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged three Ace Combat-related "deleted" articles for speedy since they included AfDed edit history; PhilKnight erased them. The other things he's created, as far as I can tell from the article history, are just redirects he made in user-space and moved to article-space. So, the AfD-evading thing I think is settled, unless I missed an article/history. --EEMIV (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question regarding non admin closure of AFD

Is there any issue with myself closing AFD's as no consensus or any other close other than delete? This is more of a sanity check, I want to check my thinking. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NAC is clear; Non-admin closures of XfDs should be limited to the following types of closures:

• Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period absent any contentious debate among participants.
• Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
• Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible.
• Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.

• Now NAC is an essay, however I don't see many situations where it would be wrong.

Black Kite 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• If as a non-admin you wish to close AfD's as no consensus you are free to do so. Just ignore that rather patronising essay. RMHED (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought Hammer was correct to reopen this AfD. The others you did today were ok. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had Hammer give it a second look on IRC, we decided that relisting it won't hurt a thing. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The burden of correcting a bogus keep/merge/noconsensus/wrongvenue closure is an order of magnitude less than correcting a bogus delete closure (because the latter requires admin rights and is unfortunately considered "wheel-warring" until proven innocent). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, non-admins should not close AfDs unless the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no desysopping to threaten them with if they screw up (duh... ). — CharlotteWebb 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They haven't gained community trust most of the time, ergo I'd be uncomfortable with them closing afds. (Plus, a lot of them have failed RfAs, which shows a lack of community trust.) Wizardman 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, (not in reference to you because you're a former admin and I'm sure you'll get them right) there have been a number of cases where non-admins have closed non-obvious AfDs and got them wrong, which wastes everyones time. If there's not a horrible backlog (which there isn't at the moment), I don't see the point. Black Kite 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What a ridiculous answer, closing an AfD as No consensus is no big deal. Deleting is the big deal and that is where the trust is required. RMHED (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no consensus is a big deal. That's an interpretation in and of itself, as other admins could see a case as no consensus where others see delete. Wizardman 20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the outcome would be either nebulous to determine or controversial, I would be fine with a non-admin closing the debate if he conferred with an administrator or two, just to be sure of his judgement. —Animum (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as the closing non-administrator has clue aplenty, I am happy with him or her dabbling a toe in "no consensus" deletion discussion closures. I advise an abundance of caution to be used when making these closures, however: I've seen contentious non-administrator closures result in some nasty head-biting in the past (mostly justified—non-sysop closures have been known to go poorly—and sometimes not). It's your head; you decide whether it goes on the plate or not! Anthøny ✉ 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seen this?

Consider me chastised if I'm in the wrong place, but have you seen Kerala tourism lately? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what is going on here. I just checked and it's ok. Ten minutes ago when I went to the article it had a large photo of McCain on it, accross the actual Kerala page. I saved it as a web archive if anyone is interested. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That was likely transclusion vandalism, which can be fleeting. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)There has been some template vandalism involving a picture of an old man, I suspect this is what happened here. There is a report at AIV about it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)