Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive155

Falun Gong
This may not be the right place, but whatever. IMO Falun Gong articles have been getting very biased as of late. Examples include Falun Gong itself, Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (there has to be a better title than this), Persecution of Falun Gong, and Criticism of Falun Gong, which doesn't even exist.

Now, don't get me wrong, the PRC government has given Falun Gong a very rough ride for no good reason, but at the same time there does appear to be legitimate criticism of Falun Gong that is not PRC propaganda. This barely gets a mention anywhere. Meanwhile, the PRC government gets heavily bushwhacked in Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, in particular. This is because, I suspect, we have a large contingent of pro-Falun Gong SPAs, including, , and. These guys are not editing in bad faith, far from it, but at the same time they're not helping with overall neutrality. They also have a tendency towards edit-warring. What, if anything, can we do about this? At the least I would like more eyes on FLG articles and a slightly more rational-skeptic approach. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit warring isn't so hard to tamp down, meanwhile you might post this to Village pump (miscellaneous). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not edit-warring that usually involves 3RR, though. It's just very persistent and lowish-volume. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you considered bringing it up at WP:NPOVN? I'm not a participant at that board, but I know that I have added articles to my watchlist that were brought up for recurring problems at WP:BLPN. It's possible that some of the contributors at NPOVN will be similarly inclined. As far as the tendency to edit warring, I'd give them a friendly refresher on WP:Consensus and then follow the steps as necessary at WP:DE. It's possible that editors at the NPOVN will help control the problem. I'd try to pitch in myself, but I have no familiarity with the topic and limited time at the moment, and I'm still committed to remaining on top of the WP:CP page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see a good contributor featuring the digits 1,2,3,4, and 5 in either ascending or descending order in their username. I realise this is not very constructive, so to atone I will watch WP:NPOVN and see if I can help.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

COI
Is it just me, or has there been a spike in COIs lately? I've found myself giving out up to half a dozen COI warnings a day now. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Spike hasn't edited recently, and there are no warnings on the talkpage... Perhaps it was another editor you were thinking of? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In My Humble Opinion, it's easy to broaden WP:COI so it includes a lot of people. To say that people have a WP:COI is often not all that helpful in debate, unless, for instance, they're editing an article about a company for which they work.  A lot of people labelled as COI could just be described as "a bit keen" on a particular subject or something.  Resorting to the three letter acronyms and so on is not always the best way to describe others or communicate, it forms a snap judgement of someone that may not quite be the case. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

moot (4chan)
Hi, it's moot here. I'm just writing to say that I'd like the article about myself to be deleted. Yeah, I did get two articles written about me in major publications, but I'd rather this information was either included in 4chan or not at all.--Christopher Poole (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. The best way to prove you are moot is to send an email to OTRS, requesting your article's deletion in that way. —Giggy 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)There's really no way of us knowing you are who you say you are. On the upside, though, since your biography might fit notability for one thing, it might be okay to simply merge Christopher Poole, moot (4chan), and 4chan into simply 4chan. On a related note, it'd be cool if you guys took a few more steps to banninate people who rally people from your site to vandalize our featured articles, among others. Just a humble request. :P -- slakr \ talk / 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not that much I can do about it. There's so much spam on /b/ these days and when we issue bans the spammers just come back using a different IP address.--Christopher Poole (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I've gone ahead and merged moot (4chan) with 4chan (diffs; ), as it wasn't particularly notable, and was a living person bio. Leave a comment here or on Talk:4chan if you have any issues with the current content, or anything else. Cheers —Giggy 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is something we can do about it. If the mediawiki developers could implement checking referrers then we could deny automated edits (pre-formatted URLs that get spammed in /b/) to any referrer matching 4chan or tinyurl. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't mootykins. Beam 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. The point is moot (pardon the pun) because the article is borderline notable, was tagged for merging, and is a BLP. moot (if he reads this) is welcome to clarify on the situation by emailing OTRS. —Giggy 11:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely not. But yeah it doesn't affect us either way. Beam 11:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * O RLY? -- ɔɹǝɐ ɯ ʎ! Talk 13:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mootykins? On my Wikipedia?  It's more likely than you think.  Celarnor Talk to me  16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * given that the name was published in the WSJ, and confirmed by an interview in Time, I see no reason why we can not make the equivalent. A person responsible for creating something as prominent as 4chan is in my opinion more than borderline notable. I think it would fully justify a separate article regardless of the the wishes of the subject. (I assume that t here is enough information in those sources to write one) DGG (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't really, though... in the two pieces (WSJ and Time) there was enough for two paragraphs before I merged - that was all the biographical information available. It said very broad things like "Poole went to college in 2007". Not the best BLP. —Giggy 08:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Giggy's actions here. the subject is only notable for his hugely notable website.  better to just include relevant bio information there.  Should he do something else notable, we can always add an article.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User repeating same new sections in several articles without any consultation with any other editors
User:Thegone has added the same very long section called Sectarianism and the Dalai Lama's reasons for banning Dholgyal to three articles where it is entirely inappropriate -- the only article this section might possibly be in is Dorje Shugden controversy and he has added it (copying and pasting from an anti-Dorje Shugden website called Western Shugden Society unlocked) to Kelsang Gyatso, New Kadampa Tradition and Dorje Shugden.

He has made a huge amount of edits without any discussion with other editors. He has used language hateful to other users and continually and immediately reverted any of the changes they have made. Please look at the history of these sites for details. All that can be done at the moment is to try to revert his huge undiscussed changes or move them temporarily to the bottom of the article so they are not right at the beginning or in the middle. He has also enlisted other editors to revert any other edits that conflict with his own. The material is by and large all cut and pasted with not alternative point of view. Please ban this user. (Truthbody (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC))


 * For some background to this, please examine this user's language and behavior on the entire Talk:Rime movement, which is where all this started. Things started off quite cordial but then he exploded. Emptymountains (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to bring this to the attention of the administrators:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Coordinated_Stealthy_defamatory_attacks_by_NKT_organization


 * Thegone is engaging in hateful accusations against six Wikipedia editors. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Thegone' has engaged in downright hostile abuse towards me. He repeatedly called me a neo-nazi, Chinese collaborating, devil-worshipping, dishonest, blood-thirsty, murdering cult fanatical liar. Gee, that doesn't seem to me to be Civil. This can be seen in the talk pages of the Rime Movement article. Can one of the WP authorities here please look at these pages and see what kinds of things he is saying. This is poisoning reasonable and rational discussion of what are already very sensitive topics.  --Dspak08 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Stayfi
On. Stayfi is just a very uncivil (I'm really sorry to say that) troll in Arabic Wikipedia. We have blocked him for more than month. Anyways, He started gaming system. Sure, It is early to block him, but please give him a warring.--OsamaK 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say too much about the "troll", you are talking about. However in the diff you gave I can't see any form of obvious incivility. One thing did notice were these  posted by you on the talk page. I think that it might be helpful if you try Dispute resolution. If you need help in this process, I may be of assistance.  Nan oha A's Yu ri     Talk, My master 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch the last part it seems I misread the user names. Nan oha A's Yu ri     Talk, My master 00:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for permissions
After Rjd0060 discussed this idea with me, I was bold and created a new proposed "request for permissions page" which would handle all admin-granted requests for permission here. It would basically keep it all organised onto one page. The page would handle rollback, IPblockexempt and account creator flags. It would be based on the current RfR page and the permissions could be granted by any admin after a flick through a users contribs/logs. Let me know your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Grand Southern Trunk Road
This anonymous user has been vandalising the page already three times today. He has been removing material without discussing about it. Examples 1, 2 and 3. He also vandalised my talk page. I guess the 3RR definitely applies here. Docku (talk) (timestamp for archiving purposes Fram (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

Moval of SP on Portal:Denmark
I have begund the moval of the selected pictures on Portal:Denmark, as per Portal talk:Denmark. Because of that i will create a large amount of moves (in the area of 90 moves) and sequently a similar amount of pages will be tagged with. It will all be with reference to Portal talk:Denmark!. Progress can be somewhat followed on User:Hebster/Sandbox/Portal:Denmark/SP. --Hebster (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia
We are creating  a learning resource at WikiVersity.

Please look at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia. You may wish to add your name to the list of human resources. You may wish to contribute to one or more of the items on the to do list. May I request input on proposed ethical guidelines for management of the English language Wikipedia? or suggestions on a practical objective method of evaluating the same? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... good luck getting consensus to implement that here. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We are creating a learning resource. We are not creating rules for wikipedia to adopt. We have hopes that some parts of the learning resource will find favor with some contributors at wikipedia. That is all we are doing. 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)WAS 4.250 (talk)
 * I hope not. Looking at the brainstorming so far it appears you wish to create a system based false claims and the views of outsiders with an axe to grind. Claims like "more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People."" may provide some emotional release but have no place in rational theory unless you can statistically prove them (which given the number of minimalist sporting bios seems unlikely).Geni 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "Claims like "more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People."" may provide some emotional release but have no place in rational theory unless you can statistically prove them". I agree. Moulton is human. He spouts off like everyone else on occasion. So what? Have you never said anything for emotional release? Chit-chat and learning materials are two very different things. I'm surprised you did not know that. That sort of unsupported unbalanced claim will not be a part of the end product; but uncensored discussion is an essential part of how to get to an honest and useful end result, which is: useful learning resources on the ethical management of the English language Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If any cool headed admins who are familiar with the history here could lend us some eyes, that would be greatly appreciated at Wikiversity. I tried looking into the history a bit but there's only so much time in a day (and between the stuff here on WP, meta pages, seemingly endless blogs, and Wikipedia Review, it could take months to get an understanding of it). There certainly do seem to be some axes to grind and bones to pick, but I get the impression that they also actually have some respectable "academic" goals, so I'd like to help them cut out the garbage and create a learning resource that distills to the positive aspects. Emphasis on cool headed assistance please: right now it's hard to see which "side" is actually intending to be constructive (in fact, I'm fairly certain that the past rew days have seen Wikiversity's very first edit wars). Our equivalent of WP:AN is at v:WV:RCA... some discussion going on there as well. -- SB_Johnny | talk  12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We have just started our first class at.

(talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff. I wish you luck, and it's almost enough to make me figure out how to get a Wikiversity or unified login to participate. MastCell Talk 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfied log-in is a cinch - takes seconds! --Allemandtando (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to be rude here, but aren't at least 50% of your "People resources" indefblocked from Wikipedia for long-term abuse? – iride  scent  19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that. I was encouraged to see a statement at the Wikiversity page to the effect that modeling ethical behavior is far more useful and instructive than criticizing people whose behavior one finds unethical. At least as far as Moulton goes, his approach seemed to be a poor fit for Wikipedia, but it's certainly possible that this is a more appropriate forum for what he has to contribute. After all, being blocked isn't a moral judgement that someone is a Bad Person; it's just a manifestation of a poor fit between their approach and this particular site's policies and expectations. MastCell Talk 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get everything in the link that WAS 4.250 provided but it sounds important. Vivio Testa rossa   Talk Who 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlists
Since this is the noticeboard for admins, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask:

How do you all keep your watchlists down to a manageable size?

I've spent several hours paring mine down, and it's still over 2K items. (most are mainspace and wikipedia space, with category space, template space, and user space close behind.)

Also, any ideas how big the max is for watchlists? (And wouldn't mind knowing how big most everyone else's are.)

Who says that every notice must be a drudgery or work-related? : ) - jc37 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You could say you don't want every page you edit to be watched. My watchlist hovers under 150 pages and it has for quite a while.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mine is around 1000, around 10,000 it becomes hard to load, and somewhere around 80,000 it is impossible to load, I do know of people who have 4000+ that they seem to have no problem monitoring.  MBisanz  talk 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have around 2,300. I have watchlist-cleaning days every couple months or so, which keeps it at a manageable size. 2K is definitely a manageable watchlist size though. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine is usually somewhere between 2K and 4K (give or take a few K). And that's usually not too bad for readability. But I'm wondering what that says about me as an editor (much less an admin : ) - jc37 06:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That you're participating well in many areas? Hell, I'm surprised all I have is 2.3K if I've done all this :p Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 07:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that mine is partially due to CfD/UCfD activity. But there's still quite a bit more. I wonder if my WikiStress should be higher or something... - jc37 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Presently at about 7,000, been as high as 40,000 no problems here. SQL Query me!  08:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we know how many pages we have watchlisted? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's at the top of your watchlist. - jc37 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As Jc37 says, the number of pages watched is shown at the top of your watchlist: its says something like: "You have 400 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages).". Its true that larger watchlists can be slow to load. You can go to your preferences and reduce the number of "Days to show" in your list. This significantly reduces the time it takes to render the watchlist. I have mine set down to 0.4 days, since my watchlist now has over 40,000 pages on it. This loads in a manageable time - My Watchlist usually shows between 1000 and 1500 changes for me. One thing to note is that for very large watchlists (somewhere over 20,000) it becomes very difficult to trim them. Going through and manually removing entries is extremely time-consuming through the "View and edit watchlist" UI and the "edit raw watchlist" option doesn't work. So once you're over a certain size it is increasingly difficult to go down in size. Gwernol 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had heard from "someone" (It was a vandal reverter, probably "Clown"), that over 40k the system wasn't happy, so he would just clear the whole list and start over.
 * I tend to do like someone else said above, pare down every few weeks or so.
 * Also, what happens if you're away for a few days? How do you go about re-reading what you;ve missed? (I'm just having a hard time imagining 40K. Wow.) - jc37 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll find out if there's an upper limit :-) If I'm away, I just have to accept that I'm not going to catch up. It would be really useful to have partitioned watchlists. Some pages I watchlist because they are vandal targets that I keep an eye on, some because they are articles I am actively contributing to, so I want to see what edits go on. I'd love to be able to keep those on (at least two) separate lists. I care less about missing individual edits on the vandal target pages, but I'd like to see every change to the (much smaller) subset of pages I contribute to. I ought to be able to maintain separate watchlists for different purposes so I could prioritize my time between vandal fighting and article building more effectively. I know there have been proposals for better watchlist management tools in the past. I hope that one day one of these will rise to the top of the devs' priority list. Gwernol 07:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I so agree. I find that there are quite a few things I have watchlisted for, well, "admin" reasons. (Or at least not for personal editorial contribution reasons.) It definitely would be nice to have a second watchlist. (At least I can sort by namespace. That's been a real plus : ) - jc37 07:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got an enhanced-watchlist program I use. It keeps track of when I last visited each page, and gives diffs that show all the changes since the last visit.  It also highlights various pages that might need extra attention, such as edits to MediaWiki pages or edits by anons. --Carnildo (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You see, that's what I need. Is this something that is publicly available, or is this a Carnildo-only option at this time? Gwernol 07:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you happen to have a webserver, MySQL, and Perl installed on your computer, I can send you a copy. Alternatively, if you trust me with your password, I can set up a copy on my webserver. --Carnildo (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to trim watchlists (by editing watchlist). If you see a page you don't want to see, you can always go to the page and just click "unwatch". It's much less tedious than opening up the watchlist edit page and going through every item. Most unwanted, but watched pages tend to change seldom and thus always disappear somewhere in the old changes. I haven't unwatched a single page yet, though… Admiral Norton (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply; I apparently have 1,620 pages watchlisted! -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm the odd one out or what; I only have 112 pages on my watchlist, and I'm an admin. — Kurykh  07:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you people are watchlisting thousands of pages, but are you actually watching thousands of pages? I trim my watchlist by removing any page I see pop up that I don't actually want to follow any more. I think mine is at a reasonable ~500 and about half are dead archives. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For me? Yes, actually. For one thing, for quite awhile I had nearly all the policies and guidelines watched (and quite a few essays). I've pared that down some, since most are fairly stable. (Oh no, I've admitted to not watching something... And suddently, the vandals appear voraciously out of the woodwork : ) - jc37 07:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got around 4,000. A lot are image pages and redirects that don't get edited often. Still, it's a bear to keep track of things. Lately I've been using bookmarks and enhanced recentchanges option with recentchanceslinked, to make sub-watchlists. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In a addition to my watchlist (~400 pages), I keep track of thousands of low-traffic pages (disambiguation pages, redirects, obscure vandalism targets) via Recent Changes on subpages, e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Sgeureka/Dab, and check them once a day. Works perfectly. – sgeureka t•c 08:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. "You have 11 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)", and that includes four RfAr pages which I normally don't have but need to at the moment :) Daniel (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gahhh, some of you are insane. I try to keep my watchlist below 125 pages (right now it's sitting at an even 100, 71 in article space), most of which are pages which I have protected, vandal magnet pages, pages to which I have made significant contributions (or created), noticeboards/wikiproject pages, and pages on which I am actively editing. Because I tend to be a bit OCD, I keep the last three days of changes to the watchlist up, and make sure that I review every edit to the pages that are on it. There is no way that I would be able to deal with a watchlist that included every single page I have edited, and that's with the recognition that my total number of edited pages is far lower than many others here. When my list grows to over 150 items, I will go through and clear out pages that no longer need my attention.  Horologium  (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's mine: "You have 269 pages on your watchlist". You guys are insane :) And about half of my watched pages are inactive because they are old AFDs, etc. I guess most of you guys with thousands of watched pages just skim your watchlists; however, I really do read each and every single edit that goes through my own watchlist, which is why I put it on a strict diet every day :) Gary King ( talk ) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You guys will think I'm insane, I've got 6,500 pages in my watchlist, and I've got it set to display for 1.65 days. No problems and I usually have between 900-1000 changes on the watchlist at any one time. -MBK004 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! That is quite a lot! My watchlist only exceeded 300 pages before it drove me up the wall with the amount of things to keep my eye on, and I've since whittled it down to only 158. I can't keep up otherwise! Or at least I prefer to give pages on my watchlist equal and consistent attention.  Lra drama 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto to being driven up the wall by large watchlists. Mine was a couple hundered, but after a break, I came back and just cleared it out.  It's now at 38, which is lovely.  I figure, I'll keep the really important things there, and everything else, if it's important enough for me to know what's going on, I can darn well type in the page name when I feel like checking on it. -- Nataly a  20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I just find it much less stressful with a small watchlist. Otherwise it just starts to get overwhelming.  Lra drama 20:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now, I'm hovering around 2,500, which isn't unusual for me. I've got a ton of articles watchlisted, as well as numerous images that, while they don't see many edits, are still important to watch (it's amazing how neglected vandalism to image pages themselves can be). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Posh, I got you all beat with pages watchlisted. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all huh? I used to have about 2000, but a few months ago I decided a list where I could actually keep track of all the edits and not miss any important ones in the huge list would be better than the huge list, now I have about 260. Mr.Z-man 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have 165 pages in my watchlist at the moment, though a few will get cleared out at some stage. My watchlist page-count has slowly risen over time. Acalamari 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can barely keep up when my watchlist hits ~50 pages. I don't know how you crazy people manage. :) &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like there seems to be 3 "sections" of watchlist usage: The "a few hundred or less"; The "several thousand or so"; and those who just "let it all hang out" : )

Nice to know I'm not the only one : ) - jc37 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the watchlist note from my talk page: "You have 2,928 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)."
 * -- Fyslee / talk</b> 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When I first posted this thread, I was at 2137. Now I'm at 2142. It's already creeping up : ) - jc37 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have 187 on mine, but most of those are talk pages of people I've warned. I usually remove those once a week, or if I don't do a lot of editing for a few days. Normally, I have around 70 or so, and most of those are the Huggle warning templates. I think I have around 30 or 40 on it that ever get edited. I've never liked having a huge watchlist, because I tend to miss stuff that matters in the flood or random edits. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "You have 22,326 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). Below are the last 1,684 changes, as of 07:20, 14 July 2008." Uh-oh, perhaps time I trimmed it down a bit :-) Fram (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have 1,170 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). Below are the last 197 changes, as of 00:46, 14 July 2008. Not as bad... ;) Although the vast majority are subpages of some sort that are only edited once a year by a vandal, then reverted. Although I do have some pages in the Table and Table talk namespaces listed that I can't get rid of anymore, which I wonder if anyone else has. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And 50 more (2192). If I wasn't watching, I wonder if I would have noticed? : ) - jc37 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

''You have 1,976 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages). Below are the last 391 changes, as of 08:12, 14 July 2008.'' And it's getting pretty hard to manage at this size. I usually have a watchlist-midlife-crisis when it hits 2000. (Which takes me down to less than 1000.) —Giggy 08:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "You have 2,982 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." :D I do occasional pruning, but unfortunately, my watchlist is almost to the point where it's not worth the time spent trying to trim it down. Glass  Cobra  20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Two separate watchlists here, one on my main account that covers what I'm working on, and who I'm talking to, and the pages I want to see changes on most frequently; I weed it down when it hits about 700 pages. My alternate account, Risker checklist, has about 3000 non-BLP, seldom viewed pages on it, including an amazing number of celestial objects, and will continue to grow as I get around to it. Thanks for the heads up about the problems with long watchlists, I'll make sure it doesn't grow larger than that. Risker (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Geez, a lot you guys (non-gender specific) have an awful lot of watched pages. I keep mine below 100, by deleting items when the reason I watched-listed them has passed, or when a particular "crisis" is over.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote an essay about this User:James086/Watchlist philosophy. Although admittedly the list has crept back up to 125 pages since I wrote that. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 16:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"You have 647 pages on your watchlist." Wohoo! Back in the days when I had about 200 pages on my watchlist, I used to look at basically every diff. Nowadays, I usually just skim my watchlist and therefore tend to miss a thing or two. If I don't want to miss anything, I use the article history RSS feed for articles and discussions, which works just perfectly for me. Although I'd wish it'd be possible to get more than the last 10 edits on some bigger pages like this one. --Conti|✉ 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

100 even. Only 6 are articles. Most are from user and wikipedia namespaces. Now that I think of it, there are a bunch of user pages I can probably drop, as I have no idea why I'm watching them. --Kbdank71 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm at 2700, and I just started to notice performance problems loading it within the past couple of weeks. Considering trimming it down... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Am down to 2558 myself. It took some work though. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many of us got here because of our watchlists? ;)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I did. I have about 800 in my watchlist (including this one, that's why I went here). I always look at every diff. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noticeboards and large project talk pages change so often that they're worthless for watchlist purposes, in my opinino. I have "an" "ani" and "rfar" for my main keyword shortcuts, with "cvg" and "pcp" as my project talk page shortcuts. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was said above that Edit Raw Watchlist doesn't work. I just tested it, it works for me. As a raw text file, it should load into a text editor pretty quickly. One could have different watchlists, without resorting to multiple accounts, which is how some handle the problem. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I recently posted to the WP:VPT about the trouble I was having editing the raw list of a 9,000+ entry watchlist. Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_41 I suspected the problem was due to the size, but I later realized it was due to editing the file in a text editor. Some illegal characters must have been introduced. The symptom was that the edited file would never load, leaving me at a white screen. I found I was able to edit the list directly in the "raw list" window. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That advice should be listed in a help file somewhere if it isn't already. - jc37 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems with User:Xasha again
They are problems with the user Xasha again concerning this article. He persist to remove quoted data and he prevokes me to an edit war. But an edit war is truly the last thing I want. So please someboy stop this user to continue his disruptive edits. --Olahus (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I echo Olahus' call for restrictions on Xasha's editing. Since June 25, he has been conducting what can be called the "War of the Asterisk" - constantly and disruptively removing an asterisk in a list. It has been explained to him repeatedly that what he is doing is tendentious. First, because even if Moldovans are to be considered a separate group from Romanians, ethnographic texts consider them equivalent, and moreover, in any case, the supposed difference between a Romanian and a Moldovan is vastly smaller than the difference with an Aromanian, an Istro-Romanian or a Megleno-Romanian, yet Xasha's edits suggest they are on the same scale. (Just two examples, for those who are unfamiliar: Moldova is geographically contiguous with Romania, unlike the places where the other groups live, and the "Moldovan language" is identical to Romanian, unlike (say) the Aromanian language.) Second, his edit also leaves a black hole - people in the Romanian part of Moldavia (the dark green portion here) are indisputably Romanian yet also call themselves Moldovan (in addition to Romanian); Xasha's edit leaves no place for them.
 * In short, despite repeated warnings, pleadings, demonstrations of sources, proposed compromises (such as using the more inclusive term "Daco-Romanians"), etc., Xasha persists in the disruptive pattern that has already gained him a growing block log under the Digwuren restriction. I trust administrators will act accordingly. Biruitorul Talk 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, at least 2/3 of the Moldovans (no matter in which country they live) do see themselves as a part of the Romanian people. That's exactly what I already mentioned in the sources that Xasha permanently insist to delete. Xasha also didn't reply my last edit in tha talk page of the disputed article. However, on 28 June 2008 he was alraedy blocked by the administrator Moreschi because of the same article.
 * I reverted Xasha's edit. (see here). --Olahus (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to block both Olahus and Xasha for persistent revert-warring. I don't care who's right or wrong here, they are both warring and both equally motivated by national POV advocacy, that's for certain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be abusive. I discussed the issue in the talk page. Xasha refuses to answer on them. His last answer in the talk page is from 28 June 2008. Xasha is the one who deletes the references, not me. If you feel tired about this issue let another administrator handle it, but don't act abbusive and incorrect. --Olahus (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I too believe a block of Olahus would be misguided, because as I pointed above, very solid reasons for Olahus' and my (and User:Vecrumba's) position have been repeatedly and civilly adduced, while Xasha has ignored attempts at understanding our position and continued reverting using an argumentum ad populum rather than relying on relevant sources. For this reason, I find Xasha's conduct disruptive and tendentious, while Olahus is doing what he can to hold the line against this sort of thing. Biruitorul Talk 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It now appears that Xasha has decided to follow my edits. Having never expressed interest or edited in the Latvian space, he undid my edit on the Latvian SSR with his own substantially less informative version here, then reverted to his when his changes were deleted, accusing Olahus (who did the revert) of harassment. That this was Xasha's first edit on the Latvian SSR, that it immediately followed my edit, that this occurred after our editorial disagreements in the Romanian/Moldovan space, and that he put in his POV including eliminating the change in status of Latvians in their own territory (to second-class citizens)--a fact, not a "peacock" term--can only mean that Xasha has decided to expand his assault on editors who would put an editorial check on his extremist views and edits. —PētersV (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. To suggest both sides (Xasha, Olahus) are motivated by national POV advocacy is a gross misrepresentation of Olahus's involvement. My own participation in the Romanian/Moldovan identity debate has nothing to do with nationalism. If anything, I am pro-Moldovan. But that doesn't mean I support extremist nationalist Moldovan pronouncemnts that ignore historical fact. And if you check my discussions in the Romanian space, you will see that I deal with/dispute Romanian super-nationalists the same way. Olahus has attempted to reputably deal with the issue based on facts and for his proper conduct has been become a lightning rod for Xasha's disruptiveness. —PētersV (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment; the comments above (which are all from parties to the dispute on Olahus' side) strike me as unconvincing. Olahus has now also followed Xasha (who may in turn have been following Vecrumba) into the Latvia article and began revert-warring there too. Olahus' edit summary ("The image of the Soviet opression shoul't be trivialized. It was one of the worst periods in Latvia's history") clearly confirms there is national POV motivation involved on his side too, just as I said earlier. Blocked both Olahus and Xasha for 48h each. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to criticize your block of Olahus, he is not even Latvian, so how on earth can it be called "national POV motivation" to recognize that Soviet repression was awful? Truly mind boggling. Martintg (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How to drive yourself crazy
Believe it is a good idea that: WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) anyone should be allowed to edit without revealing their identity
 * 2) no one should be allowed to act as if their multiple accounts are different people
 * 3) it is important for you to volunteer your time to enforce this

You guys should cut each other some slack. You have chosen to do the impossible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to do the impossible, as long as you can accept a high failure rate. :) MastCell Talk 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Missed the close of Connolley/Giano flap, due to edit conflict.
I have moved this from the AN talkpage where it was inappropriate as that is for the discussion of the page not issues raised on the page. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Allemandtando edit warred to get this here, which may or may not be important. I contend that the Talk page for AN was exactly the right place for the comments, once the section had closed, but, hey, I'm not going to hit 2RR to make that point, I'll leave edit warring to Allemandtando, and likewise wikifuss over it. --Abd (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello extra-ludicrously pointless drama! --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite how I feel about it. The primary discussion was closed, over, and I didn't want to reopen it, but I had some comments already written, which, following instructions, I placed in Talk. It was reverted with a comment that misinterpreted the Talk page instructions. I reverted that, pointing to the explicit Close template instructions. It was then reverted again and moved here, taking up bandwidth for a Noticeboard, something I dislike very much, with the original substance relating to a closed discussion that I agreed should stay closed. There is actually an issue here; but it won't be resolved on this page, I think, nor is this the place to discuss it. Below, I recommend that this be closed, that's the simplest solution. I can't do it myself because of COI. Somebody, please, put this out of its misery!

I missed the close of what had become a brawl, and I think that at least some of what I wrote is worth putting up instead of it merely being buried in history (it was removed by another user, and I concluded that the removal was legitimate, but that doesn't extend to this Talk page.)

First in response to a user's apparent accusation of bad faith, I wrote:


 * (edit conflict with Giano, :-):Maybe it's time we reinstated WP:AGF as policy. In other words, if an editor blatantly and without necessity and evidence, directly accuses another user of bad faith, that is incivility and a blockable offense. I'd argue that it is one of the most disruptive activities that is allowed to continue here. We obviously have different opinions about Giano and the import of his participation, but I don't find it necessary, so far, to fail to assume good faith on the part of any participant, including those who have commented above. But you can be blocked for being uncivil with good intentions. Now, to give [this editor, whose identity isn't important here] the full benefit of the doubt, the comment is stated as being about how the editor feels, and how we feel isn't ever, in itself, a reason to be blocked. But it certainly pushes the edge. The comment remains uncivil. As to Giano, I wrote something about him on Carcharoth's Talk page. The diff. --Abd (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And then, the comment Giano had added while I was editing (so my first submission was actually prior to close and I missed the close simply because I had to deal with the conflict.):


 * What a shameful disgusting and manipulated debate, in the history of Wikipedia, I think this is probably one of Wikipedia's most revealing and repulsive days. If this had happened to any other editor (Any) I would be defending them left, right and centre, no one deserves to be to be at the eye of such a contrived storm. Yet Not one Arb said, this debate is not what we intended or wanted, and that rather proves my point. You who have shouted here today, screeching for my blood, are nothing more than manipulated thugs. Well, I am better than you are, I am more moral, I am more just, and I am a better writer and contributor to this encyclopedia (remember it's an encyclopedia) and what's more, I am here, and I am here to stay. So get used to the idea! Giano (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To which I replied, not realizing that the section had been closed (that's why I didn't get an edit conflict from the closure, it was already there when I loaded the page, but it isn't clear in an edit window):
 * Nah, Giano, this kind of stuff happens all the time, but with editors who aren't as well-known as you. You may be right (probably are right) about some of what you've written, but, shhhh..... it's quite rude to toot your own horn that way, most very bright kids get it early on. Those that don't may end up drinking hemlock (see User:Abd/Rule 0). And there is another side, there always is; when we need to discriminate distance, most easily, we need to see from more than one point of view simultaneously, and presto! depth perception. There is a time for passionate hyperbole, but if you believe it, you're stuck. The world is a bigger place than you think. Good luck, I'm sure we will meet again. --Abd (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Long post. And your point is? Reinstate AGF as a policy? Then the post would have been 3 lines long, not 30. So what was the point? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the following before Allemandtando edit warred the section out from under me, in response to Tagishsimon. "Here" refers to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard:


 * There is more point than there is to much discussion within the closed section. These were comments written for that section, not for here, but because the section is closed, and my placing of them within the section missed the close (initially due to edit conflict with Giano, which was just prior to the close) was reverted, I followed the suggestion in the close message. These are comments on the closed section and on comments within that section. There isn't any "point." It's discussion of issues that were before us in the section. If it's too long, I have an easy suggestion: don't read it. It's not a complaint, an attempt to blame or punish or call down the wrath of the gods or administrators, nor is it a call for action. Just a comment. It's what I do, most of the time. Some like my comments, some don't. However, yes. Reinstate AGF as a policy is one possible suggestion, but, of course, that would be a huge topic, wouldn't it? I wouldn't make that point here, beyond mentioning it so that, maybe in a year, the ground has been prepared a little. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting this here was selfish and did nothing to help any situation on Wikipedia. Beam 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe, maybe not, but I didn't post this here and tried to stop it from coming here. I'd suggest closing it, or moving it back to Talk, either one is fine with me. Or discuss it, for all I care.--Abd (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved it here because the talk page is for the discussion of the mechanisms of AN - it's not for the discussion of ongoing issues with editors or the like - as the big notice at the top says. I have no interest at all in this matter beyond that and don't plan to comment on this matter. --Allemandtando (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to discuss the issue of where my comments should have been placed in ... Talk for this page, which is where it should have been discussed before edit warring over it. --Abd (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard --Abd (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with vandalism/unsourced insertions
User:Lawinformationhelper (contribs), the same user I complained about here, has been vandalizing and making unsourced additions to a range of law firm related articles. One user has already warned him about this. I had reverted most of his changes, but he keeps putting them back in. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation on the Main Page
According to the page Image:Dayana Mendoza for ITN.jpg, (the image is used on the Main Page in "In the news") the image is a copy of Image:AMAZONAS.jpg, which has been tagged for speedy deletion as a potential copyright problem!!! Shouldn't we remove the image from the Main Page, at least until this gets sorted out? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 15:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the second time in a week there has been a copyright issue with "In the news" on the Main Page - the last time was the Ingrid Betancourt photo. Kelly  hi! 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch, working on cleaning it up now... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Side effect of the higher rotation rate of ITN.Geni 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dr.SCUMM
For some reason, this page has been blacklisted. This is a new user who left a three-word, nonsensical nanostub which someone tagged as a speedy. I tried to leave word on the talk page, but I'm locked out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably because it matches the string "scum". The page isn't protected. I'll leave a note on the page if you wish. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pete. Signing off for now.  :)  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't an entry for "scum" on the title blacklist, however there is "CUM" (case sensitive) which would match this username. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Old versions of Philippe Graffin
The current version of Philippe Graffin is fine, but the following old versions of the article contain copyvio text and should be deleted.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Graffin&oldid=225910646
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Graffin&oldid=225910280
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Graffin&oldid=225910183   --Eastmain (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple enough. Done. - auburn pilot   talk  02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a page, but I don't see it in the log...
I just deleted Susan McNally, but it's not registering in the deletion log. I'm pretty sure this is because I navigated away from the "delete" page because I thought my browser was stuck (it has a tendency to do that, happens at least once every few minutes), but apparently it was actually working on it. I'm completely at a loss as to what to do here, so I could use some suggestions. --<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (talk - contribs) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I suggest opening a bugzilla report.  In the mean time, you could create a minimal page and redelete with your deletion reason so that gets in the log.  GRBerry 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that works. Time to go play with bugzilla, I guess.  After that I think I should log off, it's really acting up horribly right now.  --<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (talk - contribs) 20:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very, very rarely, log entries do not register. You might mention it to a developer, but it's a known issue.  Ral315 (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2 removing stuff from his talkpage without comment
Earlier today, I failed 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson as a GA due to the presence of maintenance templates. I tried to inform Realist2 of this, only for them to undo my comment. I then asked them why they did this, and my comment was removed again. A third attempt to get through was undone, as was another user's attempt to ask them. I feel that this user is being incivil by simply removing talk page commentary without saying a word, and seek further comment from an admin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 01:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's allowed to do this, it shows that he's read your comments. He doesn't need to reply, as I see it, and is given considerable latitude to manage his own talk page. -- Rodhull andemu  01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While common courtesy says that he should reply, he really does not have to. Like Rod said: "he is given considerable latitude to manage his own talk page". Tiptoety  talk 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for permissions
This page is now up and fully active, and as such users are now able to request both rollback and account creation on one standardized page. This also means that Requests for rollback is now marked historical so everyone can take it off their watchlists. Tiptoety talk 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How do I request to be ultimated Dictator of Awesome? I didn't see it on that page.... Beam 03:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well you ask me of course..geeze.. Tiptoety  talk 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DoUA is that way. :-) J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried claiming my title, but they deleted the page and called it silly. :( Beam 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * , as I claimed the position first. — Kurykh  04:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, excuse me, I said you had to as me for permission... Tiptoety  talk 04:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Since when did I, as the ultimate Dictator of Awesome, have to ask you for permission? :P — Kurykh  04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think he'd actually create it. (although originally I was going to say something like "that had better stay a red link") Now I'm curious. Can an admin email me the wikitext of the page? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to email, it reads as follows:

-- Chris  08:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Move-protection
Hello fellow admins. I recently move-protected a batch of policy and guideline pages (I took Wikipedia policies and guidelines and made sure each page was move protected). My reasoning was that these are high-profile pages that are juicy targets for some page-move vandals we have around here. After protecting said pages, I have had one editor who questioned my protection of WP:MOS and WP:NAME (see here for reference) and another editor question my protection of WP:NC (see here for reference), a page which ironically was at WP:RM (wasn't aware of that). Neither editor has really given me compelling testimony on why these pages shouldn't be move-protected, thus I have not unprotected them myself, but one has called for a wider audience to gain consensus, so here I am. I want to point out that my actions were what I felt was the best for Wikipedia, and I still feel they are, but if the consensus here comes to un-move-protecting these pages, then any admin, feel free to un-move-protect any of these pages. For ease of reference, you can see which pages I protected at my protection log. I probably am not going to be a part of this discussion here, because I really am tired of discussing this and I have better things to do, so if anyone needs farther clarification, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Cheers everyone,  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I somehow endorse this action if it's really a big issue with vandalism (Grawp attacks and as such). Otherwise the protections aren't really needed unless the policies are a big vandal target. What I will not endorse is a possible full protection from editing the policy articles (Just including this here, even though Gonzo didn't edit protect the policy pages). -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Batch move-protection over a certain class of articles should almost always be avoided. There's nothing specific or special about the pages you move-protected, other than them being Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is to say, if a pagemove vandal is targeting policies and guidelines, the vandal could just as easily be targeting all articles about countries, numbers, shapes, porn stars, athletes, or any other category. It's fairly anti-wiki to disallow pagemoves is such a broad fashion. And, it's fairly inefficient, time-consuming, log-clogging, and in the end accomplishes very little except to disrupt legitimate future pagemoves. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't need a compelling reason to unprotect pages. We need a compelling reason to keep them protected at all; is there one, here? – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there isn't. They should be batch-unprotected.  I noticed this when WP:MOS was protected, and I checked the history.  Going back 12 months I could only find one move, it was good faith, and it was bold-revert-discussed.  Livitup (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with unprotecting them. Haukur (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any admin volunteer to start undoing the protections? Thanks! Livitup (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user:AlasdairGreen27
I report vandal user:AlasdairGreen27 for these actions: I am editor in Portuguese wiki then I add related links but vandal removes appropriate links. 16 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.87.105 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * The board you're looking for is WP:AIV. shoy (reactions) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PIO, what are you doing? Have you forgotten that you are banned? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just returned from denying the AIV report, and blocking 151.67.87.105 for 31 hours. I noted the Portuguese Wiki editor is based in Milan, Italy, and was labelling your reverts as actions by a banned editor... so I blocked on suspicion. Nice to see it justified. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks LessHeard. My friend PIO crops up most days with an edit or two, despite the fact that he and his several subsequent socks have all been firmly escorted to the exit by our burly security officers. The problem is that it seems he's on a dialup connection which assigns him a new IP address with each logon. Would a range block of 151.67 be appropriate or would it catch too many good faith editors in its indiscriminate net? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall allow someone with more technical knowledge of rangeblocks to answer that one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are the IPs? All I see are:
 * Hard to guess the full range on only two IPs. You can get both of these with a 151.67.84.0/22 but I'll bet the range is larger than that.  Whois says 151.67.0.0/16.  Surely semi-protecting the two articles would be preferable but even that's overkill on only two edits apiece.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to guess the full range on only two IPs. You can get both of these with a 151.67.84.0/22 but I'll bet the range is larger than that.  Whois says 151.67.0.0/16.  Surely semi-protecting the two articles would be preferable but even that's overkill on only two edits apiece.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to guess the full range on only two IPs. You can get both of these with a 151.67.84.0/22 but I'll bet the range is larger than that.  Whois says 151.67.0.0/16.  Surely semi-protecting the two articles would be preferable but even that's overkill on only two edits apiece.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) See [Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PIO] and [Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PIO]. There are lots of others, as yet untagged, nearly all in the 151.67 range. Would it help if I tagged them? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I stand corrected. The first category you gave is exactly what I said: 151.67.84.0/22.  The second category has a few well outside that range but it looks like a /22 block would pretty much do it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The non 151.67 ranges are stale. Nothing this year - all this year's have been 151.67. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalizing my pages
The IP has vandalized my user page, talk page and an image I have uploaded. Also he has added some acsi code to an article twice. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31 hours. Next time please take this to WP:AIV for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Redirects for discussion
Redirects for Discussion currently has open discussions dating back to June 27, several of which could use some love from an admin experienced in closing contentious deletion discussions. Most of the regulars have commented in the oldest open discussions, so outside assistance is going to be needed to do things properly. Thanks in advance for anyone who can help out. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision
It's technically before the case has closed, however, in the event the remedy did pass, I don't think it will make a difference if we begin the discussion now or later. Although, I wonder if we will come to a consensus here.

Short blocks have obviously not been working in fixing the problem in the long term. Ban proposals seem to get the same negative responses from the same set of individuals on the public pages, while the more positive responses seem to be voiced in private (whether by email, or chat).

Civility is not an optional policy, nor are vested contributors exempt from following Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms. So...the question is simple: what ideas does the community have to deal with future outbreaks of such attacks? How should we proceed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Geogre and William are both adults, they should be capable of understanding that a change is required in the way they interact. Both are clearly committed to the project of building a great encyclopaedia, so I doubt their differences are irreconcilable. Whatever, I don't see the need to discuss this in a vacuum: what current issue needs addressing? Guy (Help!) 09:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed remedy 5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please use the arbitration pages and spare the rest of us the farce. El_C 09:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think now I get it. El_C 10:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Make Ignore personal attacks policy. —Giggy 10:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a nice idea to an extent. But, although the page notes "People who make personal attacks do damage Wikipedia, and it is right that we do our best to prevent personal attacks from occurring here", it doesn't really help fix our issue in how to prevent them from occurring in the long term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the point - rather than try and prevent them, just ignore them. (And to rebut the inevitable response; read the third paragraph of the essay. I don't think most of the Giano civility drama comes as a result of egregious stuff.) —Giggy 10:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are differing opinions on whether it's egregious. I think some of it is, with other bits not so much. In any case, I don't think it's unreasonable for any person to expect a standard of decorum; professional commentary and so on - when it isn't maintained, a lot of contributors are put off in some way or another. Creating a high quality free encyclopedia does not mean we become Wiki-Personal-Attacks-Central. I also don't think Giano is the only user who has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. I therefore don't see how ignoring them will be a net benefit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop Giano from contributing until he learns to be civil. I was for a stern warning originally, thinking that this has only started recently, but seeing as the proposed decision page highlights a chain of progressive stricter warnings dating back nearly two years... it's becoming a problem. While he does get a bit of lee-way for being a good article contributor, he's getting too much rope as it is. I'm frankly appalled at the admins who wish to give him more. Sceptre (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with using the standard procedure: if editors persistently engage in misconduct, ask uninvolved administrators to apply appropriate sanctions through WP:AIV or WP:ANI?  Sandstein   13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, the standard procedure has been used several times - except, unlike usual circumstances where blocks escalate in duration, the same short blocks are applied (presumably because of being a vested contributor). That, and the fact the ArbCom remedy mandates it. Yet, the (mis)conduct still does not cease. That's why we're here - what can be done to fix it in the long term rather than the short term (in the event the community needs to deal with it yet again)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is one thing I'm learning, it is pointless to initiate a drama based on something a single arbitrator says on a case proposed decision page. That is a level of support insufficient to be meaningful, and the drama never seems to have much effect on the rest of the committee's deliberation - which is a good thing.  GRBerry 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A little late in the day for that now GRBerry, you have all fallen into the Arb's trap tp create even more drama about me . I just hope you are all ready for it. Giano (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just act like we would to any other user acting this way? 1  !=  2  14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we wait until the remedy actually passes? Right now there's just one arb supporting it, which doesn't mean much, especially in a case like this one. There's no point in starting an endless discussion that might turn out to be, er, pointless, anyhow.--Conti|✉ 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Waiting ehh? Okay I was thinking we could do something new and treat him like everyone else, but since waiting has such a long history of reducing immediate drama lets just keep doing that. It has worked to reduce drama for several months now, except when it has not. I do agree however that this is a moot discussion until the arbcom case is over because currently arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, there really is not much for administrators to do about any of this. 1  !=  2  14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the goal is to reduce drama, telling the community to deal with this really isn't the way to go. We have discussed this countless times before, and we couldn't find a consensus on what to do, and I dare say that this discussion won't end with a consensus either way, either. --Conti|✉ 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if we don't find a consensus, then the remedy should not pass as it is ineffective and pointless (as you say). If we can find consensus, then there's no problems. So rather than sitting back with uncertainty until the case closes, we'll know for a fact (as opposed to imagine) if it's a tragic remedy or one that's worth considering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly would welcome a community consensus on this issue, but I don't see why one would form now. It hasn't worked in the past, which is why we had all these arbcom cases in the first place, right? So I don't think there'll be anything resembling a consensus this time, either. I'll be glad if I'm proven wrong, tho. --Conti|✉ 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the whole thing completely baffling. Giano is a prolific writer of good content for whom English is a second language (albeit his command of English is substantially better than that of many for whom it is supposedly their mother tongue).  People persist in baiting Giano, and the result is never good.  For some reason this appears to be blamed on Giano, as if Wikipedia is supposed to conform to some grade-school ideal of personal interaction.  Wikipedia is not Usenet for sure, but the vast majority of supposed incivility I see from Giano is simply forthrightness, and many of the comments made to him are really quite remarkably rude.  Teenagers would, in the real world, hardly be surprised if they received a trenchant response to a patronising comment directed at someone older and likely better educated than themselves.  The plot appears to have been lost at some point - we should be educating people on how not to piss off people who do good work, as well as trying to help those who snap back, to resist the temptation.  In any work situation this would be perfectly normal and hardly need saying; I guess the problem is that many of our less tactful contributors have little or no experience of the workplace.  Giano has said nothing, as far as I can see, that would lead to disciplinary action in a workplace - at least not recently, if at all.  Guy (Help!) 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. I know it's not RFC but who cares - I couldn't have said it better...  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful with the generalizations - they may not apply as widely as you seem to believe. It may be down to a pure cultural difference in expectations, but many people view the comments in the opposite way you do - as hardly offensive comments generating quite remarkably rude responses. If my employees routinely called eachother ignorant and stupid, its quite likely that some disciplinary action would result. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A reasonable change to the civility policy might be limiting enforcement to those cases where incivility results in disruption - i.e. barring incivility with disruptive effect, rather than incivility by itself. Of course we'd get into long, philosophical debates about what consists of "disruptive effect." Clearly the remedy isn't having its intended effect, and clearly Giano represents a corner case where the civility policy as written can't be applied. Perhaps its because the policy doesn't truly reflect the will of the community - if we can't have a consensus on enforcing it, then it needs to be written into the policy that the enforcement bar needs to be higher than Giano-like conduct. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat of disruption
I'm sorry for pointing this out, and I'll no doubt get shot down hard for it, but this is a clear threat to disrupt the project - he's calling out for other editors to participate "in what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever!" Then threats of bandishing around a few emails to finish it off - I don't like that, I don't like that one bit. Any other editor would be blocked for that, and I mean any.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Arbcom has passed a prohibition on blocking Giano, you will need to appeal to an arbcom member, administrators cannot take action regardless of the appropriateness of the block. 1  !=  2  14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe he knows that. Wow, Giano taking advantage of his invincibility?  Who'd have thought he'd do that? - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am reminded of Mario Bros, running through all the turtles with that cool music playing. Only problem is that it does not last long. 1  !=  2  14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Until 1==2, let me be frank here. Some have accused Giano of a campaign. Even if his actions do amount to a campaign, things like IRC and ArbCom reform are broad targets. You, on the other hand, have made things increaasingly personal. Ever since (and maybe before, I haven't checked) Giano pissed you off with that comment, you have been commenting on him ceaselessly, with the above comment you have made being typical of your attitude. What does that tell us about you and your campaign? Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... if the "above comment" is about the Mario Bros one, I'm not sure what the deal is. The music in the game really doesn't last long... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really accurate, in fact downright unfair. You can see by my edit history that I have been perplexed as to why Giano is not blocked for his actions long before we ever conversed. The comment was rude and I was offended because I have been stalked in the past, but that has no bearing. The fact is that anyone who points out Giano's behavior is called bias. I think that if you do some real research you will see that I have only spoken to and about Giano regarding his behavior. I am not really upset with Giano, I am upset with the communities inability to deal with the situation, I think it stinks. 1  !=  2  15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means what you think it means. I think Giano means that he's a victim of "what is going to be Wikipedia's biggest punch up ever". No? And then he will send some e-mails. What do you think he's threatening to do? Spam us all to death? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect he's going to smear some of the committee in an email campaign - that's what it's implying - "to finish it off". I don't think you can honestly interpret the first part as Giano being the victim, he's trying to lead a vigilante mob.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wknight94, did you see the edit summary: "They want a fight - they got one"? The context is clear. 1  !=  2  14:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but those of us who have been unfortunate enough to come across Giano have probably been subject to incivility and unecessarily heated discussion. Look at the state of his block log. In light of all this, why is he still being allowed to edit Wikipedia? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the sentiment of Lradrama's statement: at some point don't people with chronic civility issues just need to be shown the door? – xeno  ( talk ) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, Lradrama, it's because sometimes we have spines of wet spaghetti, and balls the size of raisins. I've always been baffled at how Giano can get away with so much. If someone adds a single penis picture to an article, they can be kicked to the curb without blinking an eye, but for someone that repeatedly showcases a severe disinterest in civility or positive collaborative contributions, we must bend over backwards and coddle them. Ridiculous. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that basically sums up the answer. Have a guess why he hasn't been community banned.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason he hasn't been community banned is because most of the time he is civil, he collaborates, he talks nicely to people, he does good work. In fact, he spends more time doing that than engaging in drama (I wish I could say the same for some of the names I see popping up here). Giano does react poorly to baiting, but his incivility has long ago been blown up to be a problem larger than it is. I recognise some of the names here, and I can point to cases where they are in all likelihood harbouring an unsettled grudge against Giano. I'm not going to name names, as that would be unproductive, but I would urge everyone to examine their consciences and look at why they are reacting the way they are. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, I have worked closely with the vast majority of the names in this discussion. You may have been refering to me, but I can confidently say that each of us engages in highly productive work on Wikipedia, and avoid drama at all costs (hence this debate). Most of us are administrators like yourself, and we got where we are through hard, hard work. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, do it: name names. Please, point to examples of why some of the people here harbor grudges. That would be far more productive than your subtle and blanket dismissal of people's attitudes. I've seen lots of statements about how people are biased, but none of those claims have been backed up with diffs or talk page archives or anything. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - 0 out of the 2 edits Carcharoth has made to this discussion have been productive so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's make it 0/3 then. About as productive as your edits here and here. Do you really think removing people's comments, or retracting and changing your comments, will help in a thread like this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreso than your edits so far, the latest which is no different to El_C's addition here. I don't expect Giano to understand the purpose of this thread (or anything else in relation to this matter), but several of us are keen on having the dispute (among many others) resolved in some way, with or (if you choose), without your/his participation, and currently, it has not helped in doing so. Stop casting aspersions, and instead, please focus on the matter at hand, if you wish to participate. NO ONE gives a toss about vague assertions - if you have issues, you should be well aware of WP:DR. If you have personal concerns, use user talk pages and I'm sure you'll get a response when a user is ready to give you one. Please also do not reply to this message (unless it's on my talk page), as I will not respond further (at all) if you do. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No kidding! Let's see some evidence, instead of just calling people bias and dismissing them. 1  !=  2  16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup EVula put it well. 1  !=  2  15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You see, what none of you know, is that while you have all been putting the boot in to me, encouraged by the Arbcom adding me to the case, I have been quietly minding my own business, working on a page as an alternate account, with the full permission and knowledge of the Arbcom, only stopping when I became tired of outing myself (as a sock I'm not very good) you see no drama, no nothing. Then suddenly the strings are jerked and the jackals and hyenas enter the arena as prophesied here, Oh and Ryan, please do relax, calm down, you seem very jittery, you know how you re-act when you become over-exited, I can promise you any emails I post will have the full permission of their senders, unless of course they are one's I have sent to others.  As for this being the biggest punch -up in Wikipedia's history, yes, it probably will be, that is not a threat, it is obvious to anyone who studies Wikipedia form and it's probably what the Arbcom want, then you can all say Giano is causing more drama.  I suggest you look at those who started to promote this debate, rather than me. Now I will leave you all to bray and scream to your heart's are contented - I have a page to write. Giano (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know Giano, I've always seen you as a force for positive change. Always thought you were right more than wrong and a net gain for Wikipedia. I hoped to see you succeed in the effort you've put forth. But I think it's gotten to the point now that it's gone too far. I don't understand why you think you can talk to people like that...I guess it's fine for a while in a kind of IAR way but at some point we need to be clear about what's an acceptable way to speak to each other and what is not. I just think it's gone to far. RxS (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed probation on comments to Giano
Perhaps to stave off any problems the community should put comments to Giano on probation, so that any user or admin baiting him is subject to the same sanctions Giano may be subject to if he responds negatively. Poke a lion to get him to bite you, you get blocked as well. That would stop a lot of nonsense. Nothing else has worked, why not try it? If anyone baits any user they deserve no less, but in this case the benefit would be to stop troublemaking and drama. rootology ( T ) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and while we are at it nobody can revert his edits, or even have hurt feelings when he is nasty. If a policy gets in his way we should change it to allow for his actions. Surely there are other ways we could make his behavior cause less drama? How about no talking about him in the third person either? 1  !=  2  15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And when no one acts like an idiot and doesn't insult or bait Giano he vanishes into his user pages and spits out FAs. Would it be bad to rigorously enforce NPA in regards to comments made to and about him? rootology  ( T ) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FAs are not a currency that can be used to purchase exemption from civility. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When someone is a problem, why do we need to set up special rules just for them? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you shit on someone's head, it's understandable for them to get heated. I'm just saying we should apply the same standard to those passing their bowels. :) rootology  ( T ) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, when you are not allowed to block them and those who are allowed to do not, you need to get creative. If he won't change and we can't block him we will just have to change everything else to make it work. 1  !=  2  15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments aren't helpful since you obviously have a problem with Giano. Maybe let others posit here, and less snark from ya would be helpful. You can step back now. rootology  ( T ) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about you provide some diffs showing that Giano's incivility is due to baiting? 1  !=  2  15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, surprise surprise, lots of people have a problem with Giano and his behavior. Maybe we should let those people posit, rather than telling anyone that doesn't like his disdainful behavior to stuff it? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Enforce civility both ways for real, rather than half-assed towards Giano and eighth-assed at pokers? Might work ... Wily D  15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all I'm saying. If nothing else has worked, actually ENFORCE all civility standards evenly and see what happens. rootology  ( T ) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone else care to participate in mine & Xenocidic's query as to why he is still allowed to edit here? Why are we this lenient with such a disruptive editor? Why can we not learn, despite a block log the length of the River Severn? It's at the bottom of that sub-thread up there ^ <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rootology, you seem to think I was being sarcastic. I am completely serious. If Giano will not change, and we cannot block him, and those who can block him do not, and disruption keeps occurring then we do need to take drastic steps to stop this disruption.

Wikipedia policy should be set by our best practices. Our current best practice for dealing with Giano is to hold him to a different set of rules, we have been doing that for months so lets just codify it. Lets make an alternate civility policy for him, restrict what criticisms can be made etc... otherwise this will just keep coming up. This is of course my third choice, my second choice being blocking him, and my first is him being civil. We cannot however keep this double standard hidden, if we are going to keep it lets make it official. 1 !=  2  15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dramatic, much? Beam 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Civility is overblown and abused in Wikipedia. Admins who have an issue with a user, rightful or not, abuse the civility policy to ban/block them. Passive incivility or borderline incivility shouldn't be a reason for a ban/block. I wish this blessed essay was used more often, in certain cases, than admins going on a crusade against a user masked in WP:CIVIL defense. Admin power abuses are plentiful in this way, and having been a victim (in my eyes) to this previously, it totally ruins the project. Anyway, to those asking a question in response to the suggestion that admins and others be civil towards Giano: Hypocrisy much? Beam 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be civil towards Giano and every other editor, if anyone can point out who is baiting him then we can take action, but nobody provides any diffs to show his incivility results from baiting. 1 !=  2  15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I definitely include you among those repeatedly baiting him. But I'm choosing not to take action.  GRBerry 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuh-uh, that's a cop-out. The whole point of this sub-thread is that we hold both sides accountable. If you've got solid evidence of baiting, present it so that the baiting party can be held accountable. What you're doing is laying an insult at someone's feet and then acting like the bigger person for not doing anything. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you missed the part when I said diffs. I have seen lots of accusations, but no evidence. Come one, you just made a real nasty accusation show where I have baited Giano or remove your comment. 1 !=  2  15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was necessary to post diffs because I believe almost everything you have said in this discussion constitutes baiting Giano. Anyone reading the conversation will have already seen your statements before they saw mine, because they were above them.  If your really want me to go link 40% of your last 50 contributions, I'll go through the mechanical exercise of proving that you made the contributions in this thread signed with your username.  GRBerry 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion is the same as baiting? Really? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is what you call baiting then you need to take a second look. I support either he follow policy, we block him, or that we change policy to suit his presence. If that prevents him from following the civility policy then I can't take the blame for that. Sorry man, but that is a very weak evidence for such a nasty accusation. Please remove it or provide some real evidence. 1 !=  2  16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know] well that Giano is sensitive to your comments about him.  (If you really want us to dig up more evidence of this, it could be done.) Your seem unable to accept the criticism you have repeatedly received that your behavior here is a problem.  Do you intend to change your behavior, or should I treat you as I would any other editor whose conduct is unacceptable?  GRBerry 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem that arises when you try to push people into following policy is that those who ignore it see it as "harrasment" - even if they're totally in the wrong. POV pushers serve as proof for this. Sceptre (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * feh. 90% of this comes from the inability of folks to deal with the problems created through the use of IRC to hassle users and foster a culture of "us v. them".  The committee has not delt with management of irc as they requested of themselves.  Ban everyone who doesn't use irc, and the problem goes away (except then so do most of the users).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the day...
At the end of the day, you can tell this will be one more of those situations where nothing changes, nothing gets sorted out, because no one can agree. There is a big divide of opinion here. Giano has plenty of supporters, as it is, many of whom are administrators like ourselves, and that means no action can really be taken. Which is really sad, and really depressing, because any one else would have been blocked indefinately a long while ago for behaviour like that, and it appears no resolution can ever be reached if we keep squabbling like this.

My view at the end of it all is this. Why must we change our policy to suit one, incivil, repeatedly blocked individual? Why? All the rest of us can cope, I think we'd be going out of our way to bend the rules for someone unable to work decently within our community. Surely we're not that tolerant of inhumane behaviour are we? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but reading that i seems you're just upset you're not getting your way, not that "the right thing" isn't getting done. Seems very selfish, honestly. Beam 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My own way? It wasn't even me who started the discussion. I'm just stating what myself and others think is right. But if this is going to cause yet another rift, then I'm not arguing it anymore. You try and improve Wikipedia, but more often than not, nothing is done. All that happens is people fall out. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of this discussion?
I am sorry but why are we having this discussion? It seems to me one overly divisive to have "just in case" ArbCom wipe their hands of the matter and refer it back to the community. I happen to think that would be a ridiculous step for it to take - ArbCom exists to solve conduct issues the community cannot, not vice versa. But can we not shelve this whole discussion until after we know what the ArbCom decision is? All this thread is doing is raising tempers and discontent. I think bringing this here now was a poor decision. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. If the community is unable to come to a decision now, we will not later. This is to make it clear, factually, whether we can come to a consensus eventually or not. It's futile and stupid to think it's even possible within a few hours, let alone a day - I was well aware that it would take a bit of time. I myself will archive this if the tempers and discontent remains. But it's too early, and once part of it has washed away, I think we can make a bit of progress; however little or great. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano-bashing: vituperative rhetoric in order to harass perceived adversaries
I can't believe that this whole slugfest is posted on the Administrators' Noticeboard because one arbitrator has proposed "The question of what, if anything, should be done about Giano's continued public attacks is remanded to the community as a whole. The Committee asks the community to come to a consensus on how to proceed within a month of the closing of this case"? Ask yourself: how many individual propositions on the RFAR page generally get enough arbitrator votes to pass into the Final Decision? One in ten? Less? Much less, that's right. In the case I know best, RFAR/IRC, it was a lot less. And yet this vituperation, this character assassination, this blithe assumption that Giano makes public attacks, and Giano is in bad faith, is started on the noticeboard from a proposition signed by one single arb (Kirill Lokshin)? Started here, yet, before the case is closed, nor anywhere near being closed? Why this timing—could it possibly be because the proposition obviously is not going to pass? And if the Giano-haters were to wait for its close, there's maybe one chance in a hundred that they would get to have this kind of fun on the WP:AN? No, that can't be it, because I need to assume good faith—never mind that the amount of good faith people are here assuming from Giano wouldn't cover the nail of my pinky? I suggest you apply another quote from Kirill, from the same Proposed Decision page, to what you're doing here, oh most noble Giano-bashers: "Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries." OK? That's well put. ''...rather than engaging in unbridled criticism across all available forums. It is unacceptable for editors to engage in vituperative rhetoric and public attacks in order to harass perceived adversaries.'' This thread is completely irrelevant on this board. And it's an utter disgrace. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC).
 * I think Bishonen makes sound points above. This is one of the more ill-advised discussions brought to a board where ill-advised discussions regularly abound. A proposal by a single Arb should not be enough to start something quite so introspectively self-destructive. If the point of this thread was just to prove to the Arbitration Committee that the community cannot resolve the matter I suspect it will succeed - though I would have thought the long history that has brought us to that point made it clear enough already. These flair ups reflect sadly on the ability of the community to manage itself when tough questions are asked. Until someone comes up with a solution, one likely to be acceptable both to Giano and those who find his conduct troubling at times, I am not sure what point there is in discussing this. If anyone is unable to sketch in advance an outline of how any discussion like this one will deteriorate, I would be astounded. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary 1 & Part 2
As expected, the discussion has only gone so far. Sifting past all the incivility, irrelevant crap, and so on, we have the following suggestions so far. A suggestion that: I'll add any others to the list on request. Is there any disagreement with that summary of the suggestions relevant to the spirit of the thread? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) We should be able to Ignore personal attacks - but using that, it's applicable to WMC's initial block, but doesn't resolve the overall problem I think.
 * 2) We should be able to treat problematic conduct in this case (should it occur in the future), no differently to problematic conduct by other users.
 * 3) We should (in the future, if it occurs) treat users baiting Giano the same way as we treat his incivility in the same way we treat other users incivility.

Yes, I disagree. This is the summary as far as I can tell:
 * 1) BBBBBBAAAAWWWWWWWWW GIANO BBBBBBAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW

There is no point to this as Scribe pointed out. Just drop it until there is a point, for the love of all WikiGods, drop it. Beam 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the community has failed to come up with a satisfactory solution to the "Giano problem" (i.e. an approach that has broad consensus and avoids drama), the suggestion that Arbcom, "the final step in dispute resolution," would toss the issue back to the community is profoundly disfunctional. Until such a proposal is passed by a majority, it should not have been brought here for discussion. Thatcher 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think there will be 1 Giano in the history of Wikipedia - if it happens again, at least we have some sort of place to follow up on rather than starting a bare discussion and going through the yearly cycle again. I'll be clear - I am not fond of this idea of ArbCom passing it back to the community. Nevertheless, why should it preclude our own discussion? Rather than imagining no consensus being formed at all, why not go through this properly instead of all of us raising our hands in the air and walking away, again and again? Let's focus on the issues and see where we can go - a little further at least, hopefully. Assuming the rifts and personal tiffs can be controlled or closed off whenever it starts getting out of hand, what's there to lose? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the current time this is a waste, and can only lead to problems, imAWESOMEo. Beam 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on what 'problems' you're talking about? Or did you happen to miss the assumptions and the 3 genuine suggestions made amidst the discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OH ye of little good faith, I guess I care not to elaborate, as I do not care for your tone or assumptions. :) Beam 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too subtle earlier. But I, for one, find it revealing that Ncmvocalist, Kiril's favourd clerk-to-be, is so quick to consider his patron's single vote as the vote of the entire committee and is already on the remanded train. It all works to inspire little confidence in our future clerk. El_C 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not consider Kirill's vote to be the vote of the entire committee; indeed jpgordon explicitly opposed (and I agree with both the reason and the vote wholeheartedly). I've made it explicitly clear more than once here that this will either provide solid evidence of why the remedy should not pass, or if it is to pass, not to leave a 1 month limbo of what to do if it occurred again. Perhaps I was too subtle in not replying directly to your disruptive trolling the first time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also revealing how quickly Ncmvocalist's politeness facade cracks under the satire. Not a good sign. El_C 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Albeit for me to label his very first comment that started this entire thread as "trolling" — clearly, he has monopoly of the inflammatory. El_C 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This will be my last comment, as imo any further comment by anyone here isn't productive. I feel that Ncmv has an agenda to push and is masking it in "for the good of WP" bullshit. That's just me though. Beam 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What a shameful disgusting and manipulated debate, in the history of Wikipedia, I think this is probably one of Wikipedia's most revealing and repulsive days. If this had happened to any other editor (Any) I would be defending them left, right and centre, no one deserves to be to be at the eye of such a contrived storm. Yet Not one Arb said, this debate is not what we intended or wanted, and that rather proves my point. You who have shouted here today, screeching for my blood, are nothing more than manipulated thugs. Well, I am better than you are, I am more moral, I am more just, and I am a better writer and contributor to this encyclopedia (remember it's an encyclopedia) and what's more, I am here, and I am here to stay. So get used to the idea! Giano (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The above was archived with this comment. I think all who posted here are entitled to an explanation and an appology, or was the thread only for those who agreed with the thread's starter. Is this now what this noticeboard is now for? Giano (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, when it comes to this sort of thing, the only winning move is not to play. My thanks in advance to whichever party is able to be the bigger person and drop this first, regardless of how justifiable their grievances may be or seem. <tt>How about a nice game of chess?</tt> MastCell Talk 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to create User Talk page
Hello, following a new user's test edit, my attempts to create the user's talk page (to welcome and notify) were met with an "Unauthorised" message here. Their username is User:Oobah??? - this word means nothing to me... it may to someone else, however - but it seems they were able to create an account, so the username wasn't autoblocked, but the creation of a user or talk page is not permitted. Could somebody possibly look into it? Thanks. -  Toon  05  18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Rodhull andemu  18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice one, and thanks for the speedy response. -  Toon  05  18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are currently two comments on that talk page. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... it's already been fixed, per above.-  Toon  05  18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page problem
I recently created a disambiguation page for Bauhaus. I moved the original page to Staatliches Bauhaus and then had it moved to Bauhaus (design). The problem are tons of links to Bauhaus disambiguation actually meant for Bauhaus (design). I'd like to move the page back to Bauhaus and move the disambiguation to Bauhaus (disambiguation), but I can't since I'm not an administrator. Could anyone help? Admiral Norton (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think the disambig page needs some work to meet styleguides. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning user page comment
User:Ksofen666 states on his user page that he watches a certain sport because he likes to see people have the shit beaten out of them. Is this appropriate? It's certainly not as offensive as a swastika but still, it's just not...decent. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well he is talking about ultimate fighting! --Allemandtando (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the objection. Is it indecent to enjoy bloody sports or to announce one's enjoyment of them? I don't see who could be offended, or how it would bring disrepute on the project. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm maybe it's a cultural thing, where I come from it is really controversial. Maybe the american version isn't quite as brutal. Hehe. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you posted this at all Realist...? Beam 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's no less offensive than the message you've got at the top of your talk page. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (This is directed to Realist2)
 * My goals aren't offensive.... BBBBAWWWWW :( Beam 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's directed at Realist2. (clarified) – xeno  ( talk ) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you like my goals? Beam 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I like watching people get the ever-living tripe knocked out of them too! :-) That would make a funny userbox caption, actually.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection (Page)
Is it possible if an admin could re-delete my userpage - I have requested an Administrator previously to do so and have done - but certain user's have been constantly re-creating them - including the recent attempt by one of the "newest" user - as such I'm requesting my userpage to be erased again and re-create the userpage and talkpage but have it fully protected - I'm getting extremely fed-up with this constantly happening - I'm no-longer interested with the wikimedia sites and am leaving permanently - this site I'll have blocked as well as the other wikimedia sites from my PC, I don't want any problems with this site. Terra (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Page deleted and creation set to sysop. Let us know if you ever want to be able to create it. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - but is it possible if you could do it to my talkpage as well. Terra (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to defer that request to a more experienced admin. I'm not sure if we protect user talk pages like that. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall I stay active on this site - the reason for me leaving previously was due to the increase of vandalism and other reasons - which I explained here on Wikisource. Terra (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether it's policy or not, I don't have a problem protecting the talk page so long as it is understood that protection will be removed if any further edits are made with the Terra account. - auburn pilot   talk  18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please protected my talkpage - the userpage itself has been protected by User:Xenocidic, I'll be active on meta only for the time being, if a there is a problem please inform me on meta on my Terra account. Terra (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I would not support deletion of talk pages. I've already had a problem with an admin that simply deleted an article talk page where a large discussion for an article had been and refused to explain why. This kind of stuff is annoying to deal with. Talk pages have an important history. Why not just add soft cross-space redirects to his meta account (and perhaps protection)? If there is a problem, someone can inform him. This way, nobody has a clue what to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems resonable - however though on meta I've recently had a username change as I'm no-longer interested in using the name Terra - if you want I could leave a softredirect link on that talkpage, this here is a confirmation of my request for a username change, I will remain active on meta as I wouldn't mind helping out there - if there is a problem, please contact me on meta I won't be viewing wikipedia that much as I used to, I'm currently unifying my new username. Dark Mage (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User Thegone is vandalizing the articles Kelsang Gyatso and New Kadampa Tradition
User Thegone is repeatedly vandalizing these articles, adding long tracts of unsourced material cut and paste from dalailama.com without any discussion. He has been reported here before and seems to have deleted it. Please see the talk pages for those articles for a history of his actions. He is using hateful and unsubstantiated language. He will not accept any edits whatsoever of the material he has inserted. This material does not belong in these articles at all -- if anywhere, it should be put in Dorje Shugden controversy (although it is all covered and discussed there already). Please help. He is breaking wiki codes of conduct. He is removing even our complaints about him and no one seems to be doing anything about him. (Truthbody (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Please provide the relevant wikilinks and diffs for us.  Sandstein   00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he means these: "Marketing vandalism by a cult editor: The history of this topic shows it is being censored by the marketing members of the NKT organization and is biased and one sided." Special:Contributions/Thegone Kylu (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked 31 h for editwarring and copyright violations.  Sandstein   09:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: After has made comments on his user talk page that make clear that he does not intend to comply with some core behavioural policies, I have blocked him indefinitely for the reasons explained on his talk page. A review of that block is welcome.   Sandstein   10:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He's still ranting on his talkpage, about Nazis, and mediocres, and morons, and how the gods will punish his oppresors or something. I thought about protecting the page, but it's probably better to let him vent. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   13:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at articles for speedy deletion.
Just noting.link. ThuranX (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Dice Clay stubbified
This is notification that I have blanked the article, for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular: "Obvious bias unfixed for three months; only two references for 20kb". I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Sceptre (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wow. That article sucked pretty bad.  Nice job.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Looking through the removed material there is material which is obvious and non-controversial, like his brekthrough films etc. I do agree some of it needs referencing though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that was throwing out the baby with the bathwater. not really, if an editor thinks there is a serious problem with an article and he thinks stubbing it is the best way to go - he should do it. The material is all still there and can be restored on review. It's better to have a one line BLP than one that is incorrect or slanted. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can recall alot of those things mentioned happening, but I am not so good at sourcing hollywood stuff as I am science and medicine material. Are any of you guys familiar with the Diceman? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're doing a fine job so far. Some of the stuff Sceptre removed was sourced by Youtube of all things!  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this on AN? 86.44.20.40 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To alert administrators of a future problem? I don't have a big qualm with that.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vous en avez pas marre d'ergoter à l'infini sur votre site communautaire à la con, sans déc ? Herve661 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Donnez-moi les pommes de terre. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFD discussions concerning WP:BIO
This is probably old news to most of you but I thought a heads up just in case might be in order.

Per a recent discussion at WP:BIO, it was generally agreed that the current pointers regarding WP:BIO categories being guidelines as to notability and that failing to meet one of them (such as WP:ATHLETE for example) does not confer inherent non-notability and that if an article passes WP:N in terms of sourcing then it still remains notable despite failing the sub criteria.

This is obviously nothing new but a very, very large number of AfDs have been being closed recently with a lot of "Fails WP:ATHLETE" !votes counting towards deletion.

Again sorry if I'm bringing up something that you all already know just thought given the confirmation in the discussion it was worth mentioning. BigHairRef | Talk 08:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All of those pages, BIO, ATHLETE, N, are just guidelines. Failing one and passing another doesn't automatically make it notable or not notable, despite whatever might have been decided on the guideline talk page. It might point out that there's certainly a strong argument to see it as notable, but that's still just a guideline. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting to see Category:Politicians wiped out by "Fails WP:ATHLETE" mass AFD !voting It could do well to make it clear on all of the N subguidelines that the alternative criteria are merely circumstances in which we assume the basic criterion is met, and not arbitrary rules we crafted to not see our favorite up-and-coming football players and bands have their articles deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between the general and the special guidelines is undecided. My own personal view is that the general guideline is a fallback in case there is no other way of deciding, and the specific guidelines take precedence when applicable. But it is also  true that an athlete who qualifies under some other guideline, including the notability guidelines for people in general, will be notable as such. In practice the current situation seems to permit making either  argument if something passes one guideline and fails another. Perhaps we might even need this flexibility. But this does not seem the place to discuss it.DGG (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is only one guideline worth having: has the individual been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources? If not, they could be the fastest man on the planet and we still could not have a policy-compliant article. And to be fair not all the BIO subguidelines are actually a deliberate attempt to obscure this, only a few of them. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is simply a failure to parse. All of the subguidelines include the general standard as applying. WP:ATHLETE is a section of bio which contains the general standard that a subject is presumed to be notable if it has received... It ipso facto, then, defines additonal inclusive bases and not exclusionary bases that trump the general standard already defined as applicable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * here's the real question: given the total disagreement between good wikipedians on this, how are we to resolve it. The last 18 months oat least of discussions, and the totally variable result of discussions since then, has clearly shown there is no consensus whatsoever. The only time this was actually brought to a true community-wide discussion, for WP:ATT, it was determined that using Attribution alone for notability did not have consensus. I  would ask Guy if he really means  there are no other factors at all? Would he really support an article on someone who was the oldest man in Ohio in 1911, if there were two independent reliable newspaper sources to prove it and no other notability? DGG (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't answer for Guy, but that wouldn't be substantive/significant coverage, now would it?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suppose it were--suppose it were a full page feature on him and his life. Bored newspapermen in need of copy do that. DGG (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we're talking about the exception to the rule. That fact pattern occurs but not often and we write rules to address the common. When we come across the exception, logic, analysis and commonsense has to take over. Despite that these are guidelines we are discussing, and despite the fact that no rule here is hidebound (+IAR), there is no denying the tendency of some to treat any written down rule as obdurate, often without consideration of whether it's marked policy, guideline or even essay. But when we write them and when we consider changing them, we must not travel down the road of bowing to how they may be misinterpreted or treated as something they are not. So yes, sure, this may come up but so what? And even if some technocrat fastens onto the letter of the rule, we always have WP:NOT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unified-login SUL issues
I (finally) got motivated enough to try my hand at unifying my login. It was successful except for the following sites (I added annotations on each one):
 * de.wikipedia.org benutzer:Alexf exists but is inactive since December 13, 2007
 * fr.wikipedia.org Utilisateur: Alexf exists and is active
 * it.wikipedia.org Utente:Alexf exists but is inactive since October 19, 2007
 * it.wikiquote.org Utente:Alexf does not seem to exist
 * pt.wikipedia.org Usuário:Alexf exists and is active
 * ru.wikipedia.org Alexf exists and is active

Does anybody know the page to contact a bureaucrat in German and Italian? Or maybe someone reading this is an editor in these sites and can help me. I do not read German and don't know where to post (I assume posting in English there would be OK for this). I'd like to usurp the name in the unused sites, but probably will have trouble in French, Portuguese and Russian where the users with my same name (unrelated) are active. Let's take it one at a time anyway. Thanks for any pointers. -- Alexf42 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Forget it for de. Someone made a couple hundred edits under Benutzer:Horologium in 2006 (last edit in October 2006), and they would not allow me to usurp. What's frustrating is that the user does not have e-mail enabled, and his (now dormant) account at en.wp (User:Horologii) also doesn't have e-mail enabled. de.wp will not do any usurpation as long as there is even one valid edit.  Horologium  (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious, is there a reason you are concerned about obtaining your username for projects on which you don't speak the language? – xeno  ( talk ) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As said below, I sometimes like to add interwiki links., I do a lot of translations (mainly from Spanish to English) and then I go to es:WP and add the en.interwiki link. I'd like to do the same in other languages. NBD anyway. Thanks -- Alexf42 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may interject, it can be useful for small things such as adding interwiki links, as well as preventing someone from impersonating you on other projects. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Spanish (much), French (much), Italian (at all), Polish (at all), Dutch (at all), or Occitan (at all), yet I have contributions at all of them; in fact, I have created (stub) articles at all but the last two. While understanding a language makes it much easier to edit in that language, there are some functions that can be done without understanding the language. My creations have been cities in Florida which were lacking articles in the Spanish, French, Italian, and Polish Wikipedias, and simple updates in the Occitan and Dutch Wikipedias. (The Occitan article on Florida still had Jeb Bush listed as governor; he's been out of office for a while now.) I'll never be as active in the other wikipedias as I am here at en.wp, but I still can contribute. FWIW, Babelfish can help with translation from other Wikipedias as well, especially if one is familiar with the subject. Sometimes the articles may need some copy-editing from a native speaker, but it's easier to copy-edit an article that already exists than to create one from scratch.  Horologium  (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. No doubt you know this Alexf, but if you don't find users speaking the languages you need here you could always search the user cats and "what links here" for User fr for example. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- Alexf42 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Following the interwiki links from WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U on this project is usually a good way of tracking down pages with similar functions on other language projects. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good point Thanks! -- Alexf42 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, if you haven't used it already SUL:Alexf is a good way to check the SUL status across wikis. You should be fine to usurp the zero edit accounts on the French and Portuguese wikis. The others will depend on local policies for renaming accounts with edits. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I had found and run that app just before I read your message. I also already applied in French and found a bureaucrat in Russian that speaks English, and posted a request in his talk page. Will do Portuguese next (a language I fortunately do speak). -- Alexf42 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For all the good it will do, here is the link on de.wp: w:de:Hilfe:Benutzernamen ändern/Benutzernamens-Übernahme. You can post in English, as at least one of their 'crats (w:de:Benutzer:Raymond) speaks English. You will likely end up on the same list as a bunch of us: w:de:Hilfe:Benutzernamen ändern/Problemfälle, which is the holding pen for people who want to usurp dormant accounts with valid edits. There's a guy on there with a global account who is held up by someone who made 27 edits in April 2003. That's just stupid.  Horologium  (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I wouldn't perform the same request here. The problem is that some people suggest renaming people with non trivial edits without their permission violates the GFDL - in particular the obligation to "preserve the section entitled history". My argument has been that as long as we rename them to something that includes the old name (e.g. "Alexf" → "Alexf (renamed)"), we are simply adding extra info to that section, not altering existing information. That opinion is not uniformly held however and there has yet to be word on this matter from the Foundation. Without the go ahead from the Foundation's legal team that such renames are compatible with the GFDL I can understand - and share - the reluctance of bureaucrats to perform these requests. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anyone applied boot to posterior to get a definitive answer from the legal team? Sometimes a little pressure will result in an answer. I would imagine that you bureaucrats (who have to deal with all of this) would be eager to see a resolution. BTW, the (renamed) or (usurped) tag is a great solution, especially when dealing with people who have turned off their e-mail (like Benutzer:Horologium) or never had it enabled (most of the other people on that list over at de.wp fall into that category).  Horologium  (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also saw a guy with only 1 edit from Jan 2004 and that's it. You are right. Makes no sense. I read their request page (some are in English) and found this answer: "Nein, sorry, but it is not allowed on de.wp to usurp accounts with valid contributions. I have put your request on Hilfe:Benutzernamen ändern/Problemfälle for a solution in the future." I won't bother with German then. -- Alexf42 00:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the response I got. I suspect that Raymond has a macro set up to type that out for all of the English speakers who have been requesting usurpation.  Horologium  (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review
User:Pats1 and I were unable to come to an agreement on his talk page, so I'd like some other opinions. Pats1 blocked as a vandalism-only account due to this series of edits. I think this is a gross overreaction; most of this user's other edits appear to be just fine, and I believe a warning would have been sufficient in this case. Pats1 contends this was an appropriate block and refuses to lift it. Thoughts? --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little extreme - the user's never been welcomed, never been warned, and hasn't even been given a blocked template with instructions on requesting unblock. I'd support unblocking with a stern warning. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A warning would have been appropriate. A block is absolutely inappropriate and abusive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. While I wouldn't quite classify it as vandalism-only, It's definitely an anti-Patriots POV. I don't support an indefblock because there was no warnings on the talk page, and no attempts to discuss with them. Reduce to time served, post to their page that inserting anti-Patriots POV won't fly, and point them to our policies. SirFozzie (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits are unsourced and rather unhelpful but not vandalism, more like those of an over-eager newbie who truly does not understand Wikipedia. Meanwhile there is zero discussion on this user's talk page, not even a block notice. This block mustn't stand and should never have been made without warning and not for vandalism. I could understand a block for disruption after discussion about the need for sourcing, what article talk pages are for and consensus, but this seems beyond the pale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would anyone mind if I unblock this editor now? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems clear. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer giving Pats1 a few hours to undo it himself, but in general, I have no problem with the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ":It is a sound block, and it won't be lifted by me" - Pat's most recent edit. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The half hour consensus by 5 people, now that is efficient. Chillum 01:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the standing community consensus to adequately warn users? (or warn them at all, for that matter) And the one against biting newcomers? I don't see as we need an hour long discussion to reverse this action. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What about it? I also think the block was not the best way to proceed. I appreciate efficiency. Chillum 01:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies - tone of voice does not come through well in text. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood you Chillum but it's true, I had to read it twice! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a real problem, I am sure we will solve it soon. Chillum 01:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. No way should this block have been made, the edits weren't vandalism (they may have been disruption) and there was no warning. We give lots of straight vandals 3-5 warnings before a block and even then it's not likely to be indefinite. Moreover, it looks to me like the blocking admin was involved in article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I predict the user will recidivate and be re-blocked before long, but I agree that the user has made enough good-faith edits to deserve warnings - more than one in fact. If the contributions are filled with nothing but "replaced content with 'YOU SUCK!!!!'", then a warningless block is fine - otherwise, warnings are in order.  For the record, I wouldn't consider Pats1 an overly-involved admin in this case.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I believe you about involvement, I also agree the user seems likely to be blocked again (if he comes back) but the edits weren't vandalism and there was no warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I just read this, read the talk pages, reviewed the diffs, and this is complete abuse of administrator block privileges. Tan      39  03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly the first or likely to be the last example of such abuse. Administrators need to be held to account for their abuses; not protected by the medieval guild system that seems to prevail here. How long before adminship becomes inheritable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From the sounds of it, Pats1 had a rough day. Hopefully it won't happen again and hopefully Edtrash will return with some better edits.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Well, not just a rough day - more like a rough past year. I've cleaned up hundreds upon hundreds of cases of users tagging every instance of "Patriots" or "Belichick" in articles with asterisks or "gay" or "cheater" since Spygate (hell, in the meantime, I wrote 99% of that article myself from scratch) in September. Most main Patriots articles have gotten lengthy protection at one point or another. It's been brutal, and besides vandalism to my user page for it, I've also had to full protect blocked users' user pages as they would continue to spew all of their garbage. This particular user may have been a little less obvious than others, but I've seen enough of this (as an admin "specializing" in WP:NFL) to know that saying the user "didn't understand Wikipedia" is probably taking AGF too far. Without my tireless efforts on a daily basis over the past year plus, NFL-related Wiki articles would suffer. There are times when I feel I'm going at it alone (well, aside from my trusty friend ClueBot) and I have to make a judgment call based off my experience in the matter.  Pats 1  T / C  03:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From the sounds of it you're a fellow member of the guild, protecting another member who has clearly behaved abusively. Would you be so forgiving to a non-guild member? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems extremely naive to view admins as a monolithic, unified guild. To the extent that admins cut each other some slack, it's probably empathy more than anything else. The burnout rate is ferocious. People look over your shoulder waiting to yell "abuse! abuse!", and various forums are dedicated to critiquing your actions in terms ranging from the arguably fair to the legally actionable. There's always the threat that you'll be struck by a lightning bolt from Olympus without warning, and if you're lucky enough to anger a particularly obsessive headcase, you may find yourself pursued through cyberspace and real life as if you'd killed someone's child, rather than prevented them from contributing to a specific online forum. Some might even call that "accountability". All for a zero-figure salary. Look, it's a volunteer job, and I do it cause I want to, but is it really so hard to understand why people in this situation sometimes give each other the benefit of the doubt or support each other? Do you think that making the atmosphere more polarized is going to convince people to uncircle the wagons? MastCell Talk 03:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh come now, a bad block does not equal abuse. The term abuse is bandied about far to often around here. Chillum 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly is. But then, perhaps you've never been blocked by an admin who's just "having a bad day" yourself? try it, see how it feels. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec, reply to Chillum) Disagree. I can abuse anything once, twice, many times. A problem does not have to be persistent to be labeled abuse. Call it "misuse" if you want to avoid the a-word. It was a knee-jerk, irresponsible block. I'm not calling for action, but Pats1 hasn't even come close to being contrite - in fact he has a "fuck you, I'm right and everone else is wrong" attitude. Defend it if you want, I call it abuse. Tan      39  03:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, abuse implies bad faith, and I don't think there was any bad faith here. Bad block, undone, no bad faith. And Tan, don't put things in quotes when it is not a quote but rather an exaggerated paraphrasing, unless I am wrong and that was what was said in which case a diff would be nice. Chillum 03:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I wasn't quoting you. I was giving you an alternate wording. Great attitude tho, A for effort. Tan      39  03:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Abuse implies bad behaviour, not bad faith. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like we don't (shouldn't) block people for one bad edit, we also don't make a federal case from one ill-advised block. So you can put away the propaganda generator now.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think every admin can fuck up occasionally without being de-sysopped - at least, I hope so. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Talking to those who cannot, or will not hear, is clearly unproductive. Which is why I rarely have very much to say to administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This all being said and my snaps with Chillum notwithstanding, I will say that I DO agree that bad blocks can happen, that abuse doesn't always have to be a big dramatic issue, and that we can all just forget it and move on. I can abuse my tools in a moment of heated debate or polarizing anger; I hope one block doesn't desysop me. However, it just would have been nice to see some admission that it was a bad block. Tan      39  03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus Fatuorum, I think everyone hears you just fine - and it sounds like you're going too far. Edtrash is unblocked, Pats1 is presumably sleeping it off, so show's over IMHO.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

XKCD Alert!
Deconstruction got a mention in today's comic, and it's already getting vandalism. It could use a couple more eyes on it for now, and maybe a semi-protect later. Paragon12321 (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Obama
This should perhaps more properly be requested at VP, but I would like to request anyone who thinks they can help preserve NPOV in the face of extremely partisan bickering watch John McCain and Barack Obama at least until the forthcoming US election in November. I put both of these on my watchlist a few weeks ago and have now been sucked into both of these. I guess it's not overly surprising that these articles (and related articles, like Project Vote) seem to be attracting, um, heated debate, and the articles themselves at this point aren't too bad, but the talk pages are quite active. I haven't frequented pages like this in the past, and maybe it's all perfectly normal, but I'm about at the point where if it were up to me I'd ban anyone with an IP address originating in the US from editing either of these (and have suggested Jimbo consider radical action). In any event, I suspect it's going to get a lot worse until November and the more folks who understand NPOV who are willing to watch these pages the better. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's inevitable that these two articles are going to get a lot of attention until the election, with one of them getting a whole lot of attention for the next four to eight years. The two pages and Talk:Barack Obama have been semi-protected (I think Talk:John McCain will be too sooner or later), so there's not much we can do about IPs. Given the current states of the articles and the prominence of their subjects, there's isn't really much to do other than watch and wait. Arguably, the article that's facing more controversy than these two is United States presidential election, 2008, mostly over the infobox. — Kurykh  05:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One possibility is that the pages get full protection, and that any changes to the article would have to be proposed and discussed on the talk page to the point that there is consensus on the talk page for the change. There should also be a warning that anyone found to be using obstructionist techniques to block consensus would be banned from the page.  There could be a "zero tolerance" policy for personal attacks and other uncivil behavior. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Long-term full protection is considered harmful. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Long term full protection will stir up much more harm than help. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review
This relates to. The timeline is more or less as follows:
 * In December 2007 we received a complaint from MN8 that someone was using their article to promote a singer, Robbie Glover, as an associated act. The complaint stated that this was false - "The band are not linked to Robbie Glover or his project in any way."
 * I investigated the complaint and found that the article Robbie Glover was heavily promotional and edited solely by a single-purpose account,, which was also responsible for the problem with MN8.
 * I conducted the usual "Google test", which yielded very few hits for "Robbie Glover" +singer; none of these hits looked to be a non-trivial reliable source. Right now Google gives around 600 hits of which around 140 are unique (search result), some at least of which are unrelated.
 * While investigating I found from 2006 in which Robbie Glover complains that there is no article on him. His email address common name is Robbieglover2k, note the similarity to the WP:SPA Crazymusicman2k.
 * I deleted the Robbie Glover article as WP:CSD.
 * It was re-created in March, again heavily promotional, again by a SPA, this time . I G11 deleted it again.
 * Glover then complained to OTRS, which complaints made it plain that both accounts (Crazymusicman2k and Officialrobbieglover) were indeed the subject himself, which explains why they read to me as vanity.
 * A couple of days ago the talk page popped up on my watchlist with a long discourse on how wonderful Robbie Glover is and how we should have an article, so I nuked that as the same self-promotion. I deleted this as spam, since all the arguments were already contained in the OTRS tickets and had been reviewed.
 * Glover has now complained again to OTRS, making it clear once again that the talk page was him,

Back in March I checked the supposed sources Glover listed, which were pretty much the same sources he included in the talk page I deleted. These are:
 * http://www.discogs.com/release/1117272 - Discogs (Vinyl Release), a directory, "Vinyl, 12", EP, Partially Unofficial", Glover appears on one of two tracks on the B side.
 * http://www.channel4.com/music/mymusic/E/e4musicvideo.html - E4 competition for unsigned acts, I suspect that this competition is the driver for wanting a Wikipedia article right now.
 * http://www.akagraham.com - "Official Movie Site for Cinema release" does not mention Glover. See also User:JzG/Nigel Foster, someone who has been on a movie soundtrack and is I think just over the notability boundary, but I don't yet have sufficient independent sources.
 * http://www.sound-leisure.com - "Sound Leisure Website (UK's Digital Leading Jukebox Suppliers in bars)" - directory listing
 * http://www.robbieglover.com - Official Site
 * http://www.myspace.com/robbieglover - Official Website
 * http://www.youtube.com/robbiegloverofficial - "Official Youtube (Includes his ITV interviews for his HIT OF THE YEAR TV APPEARANCES & Hit single)" - er, not quite; the whole "Ft. Dee Tails of MN8" thing appears to eb rather misleading, it looks like Glover just mixed in that voice, the OTRS ticket from Dee Tails makes it plain that he did not actually collaborate in that project in any way.

Among the other claims I waded through was a claim to a No. 1 and "People's Choice" award "across Southern and Central Europe". This does not quite stand up: the sources (which are a couple of very short pieces from tabloids and YouTubes of two local news segments on morning TV) actually say that he's had a surprise hit in Macedonia, but that the radio station concerned paid no royalties because they downloaded the music for free. One of the pieces calls him a "struggling singer" and says that in Britain he is "virtually unknown". Hard to argue.

Here's an example of the kind of stretching that's going on: this picture is presented as "in Matt Goss video" - but all we see is one shot of the back of Glover's head, an apparent extra in a video for someone who is, in any case, a very long way from the A list. Sorry, age and many vanity spammers have made me cynical, I find that deficient as evidence of notability.

So: we have a young, apparently unsigned singer, who appears to have no representation (all the emails are from him directly), who says he went solo in 2000 and has been trying since 2006 to get an article on himself into Wikipedia, who asserts that "various people all over the net have [..] requested an article submission" but none of those people have ever come to Wikipedia, only the subject himself. He asserts that he has "no need" of a Wikipedia article, but has been trying via edits and emails since 2006 to achieve just that. He asserts that this is (his emphasis) an official legit wikipedia for Robbie Glover done by an OFFICIAL WIKI MOD OR REPUTABLE SOURCE, and it is essentially this that I am passing on.

Now, I am a heartless bastard and as subject as anyone to cognitive dissonance, the more a subject insists on their own importance and agitates for an article, the more inclined I am to be sceptical of their claims and sources. In this case the "sources" appear to me to be either original research, provably not indpendent, unreliable or trivial. If they are sources at all, I would argue that a still from a Matt Goss video showing the back of your head is not really a source as such. The sources which do exist are I think all related to the Macedonia business; there might be sufficient for a v very short article based on that one incident, but it looks to me to fail WP:BLP1E.

He states that he went solo in 2000, and that means seven or eight years in which he could have made a name for himself and appears not to have done so. I can't trace any evidence that he has achieved any kind of success or note outside of Macedonia. Perhaps the Macedonian Wikipedia has an article, I don't know. Either way, the people asking for an article thus far have been Robbie Glover, Robbie Glover, Robbie Glover and... Robbie Glover. My mean, heartless, callous side tells me that if the only person who's ever asked for an article is the subject, then the article is intended to benefit the subject rather than Wikipedia. Yes, that makes me a bad and cynical person.

If anybody here who is not Robbie Glover thinks we should have an article on the guy, and fancies helping him out, and thinks they can stop him turning any article into another piece of vapid self-promotion, then perhaps they would step up to the plate. I will remove the redlinks from my watchlist. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmm, delicious. But why ask on this page, populated as it is by heartless bastards such as yourself? Here you and Robbie will learn of an experienced and far more sympathetic Wikipedia user. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, and here I was starting to believe all those things that they say about you. :) I think you have this one nailed. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 11:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello. This is an admin account. It is insecure. You know what to do. --User:Zoe|(talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How odd, Mine too! --Rick&#93;&#93;&#91;&#91;User talk:RickK&#124;K (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, wtf?  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to WP:BN. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing someone trying silly passwords at admin accounts. Anyone know a steward nearby?  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Daniel (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drini. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI folks, Kelly Martin posted to Wikipedia Review that she knew the passwords to both RickK and Zoe, and they were the same password and fairly easy to guess. She used this as evidence to prove that RickK and Zoe are the same person (which for this context is irrelevant). She wrote, half-jokingly, that someone in "Wikiland" would probably soon notice and disable those accounts, and apparently, that's what just happened. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that an experienced editor logged in as the above - not the users themselves, or a WR regular.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, this was handled with maximum efficiency, well done. Chillum  15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was jolly decent of the hacker to give us a fair chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a jolly decent hacker. Chillum  15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jolly decent indeed. Tagging as resolved. Thanks are due to the good samaritan. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Use this event to inspire a re-reading of Password strength. Be sure to change your password on a somewhat regular basis. Kingturtle (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I wouldn't call him a hacker. They looked at his email address and guessed it from that. Also I wouldn't call him a hacker as he did not mean any harm by using the accounts but in a way just to prove a point.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:blue;">T alk /<sub style="color:blue;">C ont 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make him a white hat hacker. Not all hackers are bad. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess so. In a way we were lucky such a nice person "hacked" the accounts :>. If it was as easy as was said in the forum posts then imagine what would have happened if a "bad" user or vandal had got hold of them.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:blue;">T alk /<sub style="color:blue;">C ont 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we have any more abandoned sysop accounts back from when password security was more lax? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The developers have already run a password cracker on all admin accounts and changed those that were easily hacked. This was apparently a password that was not "weak" (as defined by the developers' method) but was still easily guessable if you knew certain other information. Thatcher 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another reason why inactive admin accounts should be desysopped after, say, three months or so. If they return, it can be restored by 'crats or stewards easily enough. In this case, somebody (Kelly Martin, Greg Maxwell, or another user) let us off with a warning.  Horologium  (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think desysoping hundreds of admins for a problem that barely comes up once a year would be a gross overreaction. I would say the old sysops come back and be helpful far more often than their accounts are hacked, what is more any damage caused by a compromised account is easily reversed and any gain from an admin that comes back and is helpful is kept. 24.68.249.114 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You apparently missed the part about simply having a steward restore the admin flag should the user return and request it. Since it would be removed under non-controversial circumstances, policy already allows for reflagging upon request.  Horologium  (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, other than I'd change the duration of inactivity to a year, I'd agree with that, but then, I seem to recall that this has been discussed before (and trailed off...) - jc37 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, propose a policy. Just a warning, the last 3-6(not sure how many, more than a couple) proposals of this nature had a clear consensus against the idea. The community generally decides that compromised admin accounts are a very small problem here. Chillum  15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does ArbComm needs to confirm the desysoppings?
After what happened with Robdurbar last year, do we need to have the Arbitration Committee confirm the desysoppings, since they were done on an emergency basis? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want them to confirm, that they have been desysopped ( can be confirmed by checking the user rights log) or that emergency desysopping of a hacked account is a good idea ( which is blatantly obvious isn't it?) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the previous case mentioned but in theory they could be re-sysopped if their identities could be confirmed (if they ever return), so perhaps this is what Arbcom needs to confirm. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could see there being a point in notifying the Committee members that this has taken place. That way, we don't make any unnecessary process for what appears to be a no-brainer... but on the off chance any of them feels that there is anything even remotely controversial about this, they could initiate a deliberation as a group.  (or they could just have on of their members issue a unilateral proclamation about it on the Friday before a holiday week....  oops, did I just say that aloud? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, Jay, tell us how you really feel? On point, having had a failed RFA, I would submit that a community consensus (the failed RFA) would trump a ruling from Arbcom in regards to a previously desysopped user. If Arbcom's intent was that this user could be resysopped at any time, then requesting an RFA and having it go unsuccessful would seem to close that door. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Technicaly arbcom can resysopp even if the community has rejected the person in an RFA but trying to operate as an admin under those coniditions would be tricky. Realisticaly they would be limited to saying that they no longer considered whatever got the person to be desysopped to be a current issue or that they supported the person's RFA attempt. If the case was based on non public evidence it could be argued that they have a duty to do so if they belive that to be the case otherwise not so much.Geni 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Depends on the "failure." We consider an RfA "failed" if there isn't a supermajority of independent Support !voters. Yet we wouldn't desysop on that. On the other hand, if a there were a supermajority of Oppose !voters, it would be worrisome for ArbComm to ignore it. It would depend. Suppose the "failed" nominee failed because of yeoman work done enforcing ArbComm decisions? Now, if that oppose consensus were real and not merely an artifact of participation bias, it would still be worrisome for ArbComm to disregard it.... ArbComm can override a rough consensus process, for good reason. But it also would properly be quite careful, and would avoid doing it unless it considered the matter necessary. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "she" ditched both of the accounts a while back and does not look like she is going back - where is the big drama in 1) informing arbcom that the flags were removed and that 2) they can be restored on whatever basis they see fit but we'd like to know about it/feel secure that verification of the account holder had taken place? As far as I'm aware, she left in good standing (leaving aside the wikidrama towards the end). Do we really have to have long drawn out conversations about something a normal organisation would decide and deal with in about ten minutes? --Allemandtando (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the Wiki way! "Wikipedia:  The Free Endless Meeting Where Anyone Can Fillibuster!"
 * Seriously though, I heartily agree. I will send a note to jpgordon (since I respect him most of any ArbCom member at the moment) and let him know this action was taken.  We can now all move on with our lives. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting administrator assistance
With the Detroit hip hop article. User:Cosprings is bent on adding original research to this article and has been warned once about it. If I am incorrectly interpreting WP:NOR please leave me a note on my talk page and I will walk away. JBsupreme (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be correct but there is Articles for deletion/Detroit hip hop already discussing the material. Since you are the one nominating it for deletion, I would say removing other people's edits would be a conflict.  Leave the article alone and discuss at the AFD about the sources (or lack thereof).  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Editorial policy is not changed just because something is listed on AFD, to the best of my knowledge. Thank you for your response though. JBsupreme (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry template overhaul
A few weeks ago, MBisanz asked me to merge a few templates that dealt with sock puppetry. I said okay and went to work. I looked at the ones he wanted merged and thought "No problem," and merged them into Sockpuppet. My mistake. In come the people who complain about how my changes have broken other templates that use the one I changed as a base. I am thinking to myself that they could just switch to the new shorter template and everything would be good again. No such luck; they didn't want to take the time to change the templates out. Also, I found out just how badly organized the whole sockpuppet process was.

I found out that there are times when there are puppet strings through several Suspected sock puppet cases, and the same is happening at Check user. I feel this is counterintuitive.

If I am understanding things correctly, the process is really complex. Let's say that they suspect PuppetMaster 1 of having two or three puppets. They may start a SSP case or not. Now, let's say that they do. After a while they find that PuppetMaster 1 is actually a puppet of PuppetMaster 2. Instead of moving the case from PuppetMaster 1 to PuppetMaster 2, they just start a fresh case for PuppetMaster 2 with a link to the PuppetMaster 1 case. Well, PuppetMaster 1 is not a puppet master but a puppet. Would it not be better to keep all of the puppets of one master on one page with just one case opened?

As I see it, that area only needs five templates. With parser functions, these templates can cover all of the work that is currently being done with almost 20 templates. It would take a little work on the part of those involved with puppetry cases to make all of the switches, but I am sure that someone could come up with a bot to do it.
 * Puppet
 * Puppet master
 * Puppet notice
 * Puppet discussion
 * Puppet category

Hopefully, this will be a spring board for a more streamlined sock puppetry process. - LA @ 07:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I think that I forgot to mention that this is not just for socks, it is for the meat as well. So, when these templates are written, they will be for all puppets, not just footwear. - LA @ 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As SSP2 is already in the works, I will continue this discussion there with the people who are currently working on overhauling of this process. I will work with them to make the suite of templates mentioned above. Thanks for all of the support. - LA @ 22:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing this here. - LA @ 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Support this proposal. Lady Aleena has put a lot of work into this template which is commendable. A cleanup of the templates is overdue, and with Lady Aleena's efforts, the process can be simplified. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While in principle I naturally support this proposal, we need to make sure that all the requirements are met. An RFCU may be useful for some sockpuppets, but many will be blocked either on behavioural evidence or a CU investigation not listed at RFCU.  Equally, an SSP case can exist and have no mention of a sockpuppet on it.  It would certainly be useful to have all these automatically mentioned in the sockpuppet tag, but we need to do so in a fashion that does justice to the complexities of sockpuppet investigations.  I think we really need to plan everything out before the templates are designed -- and perhaps we can also consider the proposed merger of WP:SSP and WP:RFCU?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which way would you suggest; SSP to RFCU, RFCU to SSP, or both to a new ubertopic such as Sock puppet investigations (SPI)? - LA @ 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LA: please see WP:SSP2. Tiptoety  talk 19:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety, would you let me know when it is finalized so the templating can begin? - LA @ 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can do. Tiptoety  talk 20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Being the guy to ask for this of course means I support it. I'll also toss in some AWB hours to go through and update pages when we figure out what a final tag looks like.  MBisanz  talk 11:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as per PeterSymonds' statement above -- Atomican  [ T 19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Peter. D.M.N. (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as per Peter Symonds, and Lady Aleena's clear explanation of what needed to be done. One of the reasons I stay away from that area of Wikipedia is the arcane and byzantine system that is currently in place; streamlining it is a great idea.  Horologium  (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? - Seems reasonable. Tiptoety  talk 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, just make sure that any template that adds the userpage to a sockpuppet category includes do not delete, or else this could cause problems. Templates that don't put the user into any category probably don't need it, as the page won't be needed for tracking. Mr.Z-man 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, I'd be happy to give MBisanz a hand, if he was alright with that. Seems quite a large task for one person ;). Steve Crossin   (contact)  09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here. Sounds a good proposal, so I will support it at this time.   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  07:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Two things: 1) needs to be meshed with FT2's work on SSP/RFCU reform and 2) the category should keep the distinction between suspected/confirmed socks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This realy will not effect or be effected by the SSP/RFCU mereger, and the things that are can be easily worked out. Tiptoety  talk 03:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rlevse, rest assured that I will work very closely with FT2 and Tiptoety when writing the templates that will go along with the merged process. I have no intention of disrupting the category structure that is already put into place. My part will be taking the 19 templates which currently exist and boiling them down to 5. MBisanz has already stated that he will be willing to log hours to switch from the old templates to the new ones. All I am waiting for is for a finalization of the process so that I can start writing the templates. - LA @ 04:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with bold move reverting
Hi, could someone please revert this rather bold move of changing Rainbow flag (LGBT movement) to Pride flag (LGBT community). Although I think it's well-intended I don't agree this is the most widely seen or searched for title of this page and I'd like to see consensus, or at least discussion before such a move. This user has moved a bunch of pages, and made vast changes of "gay" to "LGBT", most of which seem reasonable, and made sweeping changing to the LGBT templates and articles which no one seems to be too upset with but some of their moves and changes have been met with protest. I think this one is easily considered controversial being done without discussion. I'd like it restored until we have some discussion first. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reversed the move for now, your claim is valid, and a page move in this case is very much a controversial move (at least, without discussion). I encourage you, Benjiboi, if you haven't already, to pick up a dialogue with the original pagemover to try to come to some agreement as to his/her motivations for the move. The latter ("Pride flag...") is now a redirect to "Rainbow flag..."  Keeper    76  19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, we are already in discussion, and somewhat in agreement as well. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   19:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Would someone look into this
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post, but I think an Administrator should look into these two users  over at Uncyclopedia, as they appear to be the source of the recent Avril vandalism. Both display the same messages which the vandal posts, and they are most likely the same person anyway. Is there any way they can be checked in a similar way to Encyclopedia Dramatica users? Ranker fox (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You could get checkusers here and on Uncyclopedia to check the two accounts' IP addresses to see if they are the same person, but there's no point - even if they are the same person there's nothing we can do about it. Plus Uncyclopedia has no checkusers. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure but uncyclopedia:User:Angela appears to have checkuser rights on Uncyclopedia (if not, she can always give herself checkuser as she's a steward there) Calvin 1998 (t-c) 22:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI English Confederate States of America article has been Hacked
Hi,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

has been hacked and is unavailable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner71 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * already repaired by an anti-vandalism bot. Rmhermen (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he was actually referring to this spate of vandalism, also fixed. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody keeps reverting my edit even though I provided a reference
Hello. The article on internal combustion engines has a few problems. I have stated that the summary needed to be broadened---according to some policies---and have provided not only a reference, but a form of respect to the other editors in regard to their contributions and ownership of the article. This statement can be found here:. Seeing that only one editor has a problem with my addition, I concluded to "agree to disagree". I think I have argued enough with this editor since she/he offers no counter-arguements of worth. Nevertheless, I thought it was a joke at first but it seems it is not. Would I be able to be helped at all? Thanks for your time. InternetHero (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a problem needing administrative assistance - try Dispute resolution. BencherliteTalk 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Shalom
I am leaving Wikipedia. See my talk page.

Please do the following:
 * 1) Full-protect my userpage.
 * 2) Courtesy-blank all four of my requests for adminship.

Thank you. Yechiel (Shalom) 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done the first, I'll leave it up to someone with more experience to deal with the second request. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sad to see that you are leaving. I have complied with your second request, if that's the least I can do for you.  bibliomaniac 1  5  16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry things did not go well for you :( Take care wherever you go! <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/TinucherianBot 4
Need some help on the task itself (categories of article classes) - I'm not sure if it's in the community's best interest to have the category pages categories and need some opinions -- Tawker (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me explain... These WP 1.0 assessment categories are used by every WikiProject and taskforces for Article Assessment based on WP1.0 selections. See also how every WProjects does this like here . This is how the categories are created usually :Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories, but the tool is available only for admins as of now. Non-admins members of WikiProjects like us create them manually , which is very tedious. This task is to help them and WikiProjects -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 05:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of West Virginia - EDIT WAR
User:Bedford and User:Doncram are engaged in an edit war on the Grand Lodge of West Virginia article. They have repeatedly reverted each other's edits. I cautioned both users about the 3RR and tried to help resolve this by doing an edit of the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. The edit wars continue. It's probably time for an admin to investigate and take appropriate action. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it still has neutrality problems, then I must continue to add the templates. I was never asked if my problems with its neutrality were resolved; the tag was just blatantly removed.  Over half of an organization's article,  who's history must by necessity date from the 1860s-1870, if not from the 1700s (due to it must having been split off from the Grand Lodge of Virginia), being about a negative event can not stand.  The only reason for this edit war is because user Doncram has making a nuisance of himself towards me for almost a month now, trying to torpedo many of my DYK nominations and whatnot, and this is his latest phase.  If I hadn't commented on it on its DYK nomination, Doncram would not be the least bit interested in it.  If this keeps up, I feel I must recommend it for AfD.-- Bedford  <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bedford was asked on the talk page and by edit comments to participate meaningfully on the talk page, which he has not chosen to do. It is asked there what on earth is the story, the source, any info at all which is available but which is not reflected or is being suppressed by anyone from the article.  Bedford may have access to other sources, but the official public website of the organization is scant, and the organization chooses not to comment about the lawsuit which has been in the news.  So, a new article does tend to show the available news.  If that news was so bad, the organization would choose to respond publicly, which it does not.


 * Bedford's last big revert (which i eventually reverted) returned the article to a clearly inferior state, stripping out the development based on the official website of the organization which I had added, and returning it to show both "Under construction" and "Neutrality" tags. Since Bedford had not before and has not since contributed to the article besides tagging it and removing well-sourced material, i believe that his effective posting of a new "Under construction" tag was erroneous and careless at least.  It's a perfectly fine new article, very well-referenced on every statement.  So I don't get why he continues to tag the article and to make threats.


 * I appreciate that Truthanado stepped in to try to fix matters. I have provided the article with additional research and think it should now be cleared of Bedford's tags. doncram (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to WP:ANI - or even WP:AN3. Thank you.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been moved to WP:ANI. Truthanado (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Young Magicians' Club
I'm having difficulty understanding how it is that one editor can simply destroy the work of another one. I wrote the article on Young Magicians' Club and, it seems, it's scheduled for deletion. Why would one editor come to decide what should or shouldn't be allowed. My article serves a purpose. It assists young magicians in finding a group designed to assist them. I would like to request a page block until I'm given more guidelines on how to change it. --Kismetmagic (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Kismet
 * The AfD process is a 5 day discussion and evaluation, that's plenty of time to participate and improve the article, if necessary. --Stephen 07:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been unfairly accused of sockpuppetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Grant23 None of those people are me. When I tried to contact them to prove they weren't me, they were already blocked. Someone is out there trying to spread dirt on me because they themselves were accused of using sock puppets. help me clear my name pleaseGrant23 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't looked at the case, and won't, probably, I'm not an admin, but piece of advice: WP:DGAF may help, take two, and call me in the morning. They are blocked, you aren't. There is almost no way to "prove" that you are not someone's sock puppet, though various levels of certainly can sometimes be found. If you are so unfortunate as to share the same IP range as a blocked user, it can get very difficult to prove that you are innocent. Don't even go there. Remain calm, and, especially, remain civil. I know it can be hard. Assume good faith, even if you know in your heart that these are your sworn enemies, out to demolish your reputation. Cooperate. I.e, if they say, "This editor said this and it's the same as the blocked editor." Answer, "That's right, I can see how this would look like sock puppetry." Do not attack the sock puppet accuser. It will make you look guilty. If you are very skillful, you might be able to compile evidence showing that you are innocent, but I've seen very skillful editors fall on their faces doing it, because a skilled puppet master can usually create such evidence, so it proves little. The burden of proof is on the accusers, and if it should happen that you are improperly identified and blocked, there is recourse, it can all be fixed. WP:DGAF. Enjoy the wikibreak, and repair your good name cautiously and patiently. See the block log of User:Coldmachine, who may have been blocked by a careless checkuser, or who was struck by lightning (was using the same IP block as a blocked editor, which I estimate will happen maybe one time in 10,000 random, but if you live in the same locality as the blocked editor, the possibility of false positive -- such as a "likely" result -- increases). So, if you can discover that you are, in fact, co-located, disclose it immediately. "I've discovered that I use the same IP block as the blocked editor. Is there anything I can do to show that I'm not that editor, thanks."


 * And if you are a blocked editor, realize that few are going to GAF unless you are disruptive. Checkuser requests don't get filed very often for civil, cooperative editors, and when they are, they tend to be ignored. Editors are blocked for bad behavior, and if your behavior isn't bad, it really doesn't matter much what you did in the past. So, again, WP:DGAF. I just found that page and I've been linking to it a lot. It's really good advice. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Contents/Categorical index vandalism
Just noticed that some of the recent vandalism of this page still exists - specifically the section underneath the pretty icons at the top of the page - it reads : "Template:Advertising firms in zambia [Categories-Advertising in zambia (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help you to find information, even if you don't know what exists or what it's called. The following list of categories of Wikipedia's coverage parallels our other lists by topic." I'd have removed it, but can't work out what needs changing. CultureDrone (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A page transcluded onto there, Portal:Contents/Categorical index/Intro was vandalized. Fixed now.  -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP problems at Joel C. Rosenberg.
Sorry if this is the wrong place. I'd like someone to look at the recent changes to Joel C. Rosenberg. I think I've been right to revert some of the edits, but two IP editors have been putting it back. Seeing as how I don't _like_ the man at all, I really don't want to be the guardian of his good name... Thanks. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not in bad shape right now. I'll watchlist it, but right now it's not crying for any semi-protection.  I'm about to go to bed, so if much more happens in the next few hours someone should at least temporarly sproctect it.  Cheers.  --<i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i> (talk - contribs) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I stripped it and watchlisted it. If it gets hit again, I'll protect. FCYTravis (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Try WP:BLPN in the future for this sort of issue. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd missed that somehow. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Need some admin opinions
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is it not abuse of admin privilidges/against the protection policy to protect a page to 1. your own preferred version and 2. a page you are directly involved in editing, and have edit warred on in the past? Or has the protection policy changed?pschemp | talk 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give us some diffs, please? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Echoing Gwen Gale, but yes, that is generally considered abuse of admin privileges. PeterSymonds (talk)  16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (after e/c) Impossible to say without context. If it were blatant vandalism or a WP:BLP concern, for example, then it would absolutely not be against policy.  If it's a pure pov dispute, then yes, that would look pretty bad.  And obviously there is a whole continuum of different possibilities in between.
 * Have you contacted the admin in question and asked them to explain their reasoning first? I saw a case earlier today where somebody raised an ANI about an admin doing just that, and the admin has already changed his mind and reverted back to the other (his non-preferred) version before he even saw the ANI thread...  Most people are reasonable if approached reasonably, and those who are not, well, it is impossible to answer a hypothetical like this. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LEt me tell you what, reasoning or not, it's against the policy to protect to your preferred version. The admin makes the change here  a short edit war ensued, he participates here  then protects his favored version here . This admin has previously (about two weeks ago) edit warred about the EXACT same thing, which I as an uninvolved admin, protected the page to stop the edit warring. THis same admin then undid the protection then, even though he was involved - so I'm getting pretty tired of what I see as blatant misuse of the protection button on his behalf on this article where he is clearly involved and clearly using the tools to push his opinion. Doing it once you can claim ignorance. Doing it multiple times, no. pschemp | talk 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So do we have duplicate threads? seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend as a punishment that seicer be forced to personally unprotect the article, revert back to his non-preferred version, and then re-protect the article in the state that pschemp protected it in.
 * Oh wait. He already did that?  Well, then WP:TROUT him or something.  I just don't see the big deal here.  --Jaysweet (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he subsequently changed the version (again) to something he preferred, without removing the protection. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The big deal is that Seicer is showing a pattern of misbehavior on this article, and it is not acceptable. These aren't duplicated threads because the issue is repetition of abuse of the tools, and an ANI thread where instead of even acknowledging the fact this is not acceptable behaviour, you go along and act like what he did was right. He still has not put the page back to where it was before.  Jaysweet, you obviously don't think he behavior is a problem, so I'd rather here from other admins who aren't biased. AND, the protection should not be done by him, at all, period. He is involved in the edit war. pschemp | talk 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh lookie, what a little discussion will do. There was no "edit war" -- two reverts over one day != edit war. So I made a mistake in protecting the article, but that was rectified before I was informed of the ANI thread -- who hasn't made a mistake? Oh wait... seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * REverting and re-reverting is an edit war, and you were involved in it. In fact, that's the reason we protect articles, to stop these things. If you weren't stopping an edit war, why did you protect? TO keep it at your preferred version? THis thread is here because you have misused the protection button multiple times on the same article and haven't put it back the way it was before you started this. (that means it shouldn't remain protected by you either, because you are CLEARLY involved.) pschemp | talk 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, three reverts (in order):  . As per what I've done in the past (since you stalk my edits, you would know), I would have taken it to the talk page past that point.  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Four: Your problem is that you seem to feel it's okay to lie about your behaviour, in addition to abusing admin tools. When did you take it to the talk page? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which was not part of the set I provided above. The article was unprotected so we could implement improvements to the perceived bias, which I took up at WP:RFPP. Per your suggestions, we implemented the changes and added several citations, but you never replied or contributed to the discussion when you were on your "wikibreak." As for the latter statement, please re-read my passage above. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seicer, you have abused the protect button on this article twice, in contravention of policy, to further your own preferred version. You have not undone what you did, or acknowledged that this is against our policies. Arguing about what constitutes an edit war in your mind, claiming that I stalk your diffs, none of that changes the fact that what you did was wrong. It's pretty clear it shouldn't have been unprotected at all, since you can't seem to behave in regards to it.pschemp | talk 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "...you have not undone what you did..." . Behold! The power of a user talk page!  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still protected by you. You haven't undone what you did. pschemp | talk 17:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And why should it be unprotected? At least with this, we can come to another consensus (hopefully with Papa's assistance in this round). See also:   seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be protected by an UNINVOLVED admin, someone who has not ever edited the article, not you. Get someone else to do you. Your protecting of the article is against the protection policy, period. pschemp | talk 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per policy? PREFER states, "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." Clearly, the current protected version does not advance my own personal belief, in the interest that another consensus can be established. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since your original protection was clearly in furtherance of your preferred edit, you being the protecting admin does advance your position, since now it is you who can make the decision to unprotect, a privileged you clearly should not have, being the involved admin. To fix your mistake, you should undo all of it. You should not be rewarded for your constant abuse of tools on this article. And you didn't even fix the content totally until this thread started. pschemp | talk 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pschemp, what protection problem were you referring to in this edit? Hopefully not the same article? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is Urban exploration - look at the diffs I posted at the top. I didn't link to that diff at all. pschemp | talk 17:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I know. The diff I just posted is from July 9 - and you are referring to Seicer's protections then too.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I noted that above, with the specific DIFF. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and she says, "Oh Seicer - the admin who ignores our protection policy and abuses his admin privileges to unprotect a page that he edit warred on, then turns up to complain about my interpretation of policy". Why was she saying that on July 9?  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I see what you are talking about now. I was saying that because that was the FIRST instance of Seicer abusing his admin tools on Urban Exploration and he had turned up in my lynch mob. THis is the second instance of his doing this to the same article. pschemp | talk 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well that changes the scenery a bit. This isn't a first-time occurence.  Interesting.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am taking it that this sub-thread is a continuation for my vocal opposition to the improper blocking of User talk:Spot Image -- to which there was a strong consensus to unblock. pschemp, the blocking administrator, was quite vocal in those who opposed. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the whole thing is smelling a bit nasty - in various ways. And I am sensing an RFAR with both your names on it in the not-so-distant future.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring that up at all in this thread. You did Seicer, and then Wknight kindly opened that can of worms. The fact remains that you abused your tools twice on this article and have not fixed it.pschemp | talk 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Point of fact: actually, Seicer opened the can of worms. All I did was read the diff s/he provided while eating my popcorn and watching the drama.) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. pschemp | talk 17:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this only from afar, I don't think either of you, Seicer or pschemp, should be using admin tools anywhere near this article. Is there any hope you two could come to some kind of understanding on this on your user talk pages? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no understanding to come to since I've never actually edited the article. My concern is ONLY with improper protection. Now that that's been resolved, I'm happy. pschemp | talk 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can all agree that Seicer should not have protected the article, then we should ask whether there is any reason for it to be protected at all. The locus of the dispute seems to be whether or not the article should be flagged with the POV tag. As this does not directly affect the article's content, I have yet to see how the disruption is significant enough for protection to be helpful. Even if it was, there seem to be very few users edit warring over this, and the majority of recent edits are unrelated to the POV tag. For these reasons I recommend un-protecting the page at once and I don't care who does it. — CharlotteWebb 19:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. Hopefully y'all can write up a sourced section on legalities/risks and be done with it. It's a thrilling but very dangerous hobby. The archaeologist in me likes lookin at Internet pictures from these adventures but setting foot inside any building which has been abandoned for any length of time can be frightfully dodgy. I have done, professionally (a research gig for a bank), with permission, key in hand, alone, quickly got scared I'd fall through the floor or something, then the air smelled deadly, had a glance at what I wanted to see and got out. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully y'all can write up a sourced section on legalities/risks and be done with it. Fwiw, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For me, the article is more personal because its an interest that I've been involved with for many years; it's also one of the first articles I edited at WP. I've done urban exploration illegally, but have been legit for the past three years and it's more of a professional gig than anything. Been to prisons, hospitals, military facilities (all with permission), down to houses and even petrol stations. Alone in an abandonment? That's probably asking for trouble in many locales. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's a professional gig, let me ask you whether you would like to voluntarily declare a conflict of interest at this point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, if he isn't directly involved in promoting his own material that isn't a problem any more than if a doctor edited articles about a medicine that he had perscribed in the past. Note that this doesn't excuse Seicer's behavior since even then he should not have protected when he was involved. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm simply asking for clarification of what he means by "professional gig". If he wants to answer that he doesn't have a conflict of interest, that's a question answered. I don't really think you can answer on his behalf, though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No COI; my professional gig extends to my documentation and photography, my dealings with dozens of property owners, including the United States Military, and my sellings of prints and various publications derived from urban exploration. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm for me that you have read, and that you believe that you have understood, WP:COI? (which is a guideline) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this about, followed up with this edit summary? seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what it says - follow the diff. If I'm getting tagged by your friend, then you're getting tagged the same. See this for reference. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Playing "tag" in more ways than one. Near as I can tell from checking PLW's edits since June 8, he has some POV issues with the article, but has yet to actually write anything - he's expecting someone else to do it. He seems to be able to write in legible English, so if he wants to contribute, he should write something that will, in his opinion, neutralize the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be forgetting that we're writing a collaborative encyclopaedia. My not writing an NPOV passage doesn't remove the bias from an article, right? Think about it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've really got an aversion to writing something, yet you're taking all kinds of shots at those who do write. How collaborative is that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already provided the references. I didn't write the original article, so I fail to see how its deficiencies can be blamed on me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, instead of assisting with the article, he writes inflammatory messages. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. He reminds me of what Lucy Van Pelt once said to Charlie Brown: "I don't have any solutions. I just point out trouble." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So I guess what you just did wasn't inflammatory? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only to someone with no sense of humor. Meanwhile, while you all are yapping, I added a couple of sentences to the article discussing illegality, just as a starting point. Have at it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are we prolonging this festival of Stupid? we have 1 (one) editor who insists that the entire article is POV because it does not give enough weight to his POV.  An admin stopped a lame edit war over this.  The editor is now being guided on how to fix the problem, which is to provide properly sourced material which may then achieve consensus for inclusion. If half as much effort had been devoted to that as has been given to these threads, we've probably have the bloody thing up to FA by now. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Guy on this one. Editwarring over a NPOV tag is a little lame in the first place, but very common. Carrying it further to protecting it either in or out is getting involved beyond what the situation merits. Doing it as an involved admin is hardly acting in an emergency. But taking that protection to AN/I as abuse is really going overboard, and now taking it to ANB as an example of general behavior almost beyond the ridicuous. DGG (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

vand on article
Roman Catholic Church, haggar like vand. --AdultSwim (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems. Was it another Zodiac template vandalism incident?  Horologium  (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yup its gone now. --AdultSwim (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A question for the techies
Is is possible to blacklist a certain word from template: space? If the word "Zodiac" were to be blacklisted, this would interrupt the current spree of template vandalism by the open-proxy and disposable-account hopping vandal currently running around. I doubt that the word appears in many templates, certainly not many that need to be edited often.  Horologium  (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, not until WP:Abuse filter is enabled. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that would do much good. Regardless, how do you guys actually hunt down the template responsible? I was under the impression "related changes" would reveal these edits, but that hasn't worked for me. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you edit one of the pages with the affected template, it will list all of the transcluded templates at the bottom of the screen. It will be one of those.  Horologium  (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I have been finding them (and never fast enough to actually be the one to correct it). I was hoping there would be a more efficient way to hunt it down. Certainly, RBI is far more effective when the revert comes in under a minute, which is often the case with typical vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that really is the only way to track down template vandalism. Backtrack through the transclusions until you find something that got edited recently. It almost makes you want to semi-protect the whole Template: namespace, but that would almost certainly be more of an inconvenience than a help. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bookmark []. --- RockMFR 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! Cool, bookmarked and added to my toolbar. I may not be a regular patroller there, but I'll drop in now and then.  Horologium  (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's also the quickest way I know. Bring up RC for template space:  you'll invariably see the problem right away.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrol and Doomsday
User:DragonflySixtyseven pointed this out to me last night and I said that I would mention it here. I think it's fairly important:

We all remember the glorious day when those wonderful developer folks introduced yellow highlighting to Special:NewPages and the ability to mark pages as patrolled. However, what was't immediately apparent is that a page's patrolled/unpatrolled state is only accessible for 30 days after it's creation.

Now, I know what you're all thinking: How close is the oldest unpatrolled page to the 30 day limit? As I write this, the answer is 2 and half hours. Click here and scroll to the bottom to find the current status. The problem is that most new page patrollers work the top of the list; hardly anyone is working the back end.

You may be wondering: Why does this matter, so a few pages don't get ticked off as patrolled, big deal, so what, who cares? Well, actually, I think it matters a lot. For a start, the pages that don't get marked patrolled tend to be the difficult cases where what to do is unclear. What's more, a good number of BLP issues are introduced at page creation and these need to be checked for. And finally, it's actually easy to create a new page and avoid having it be seen by people working the top of Special:NewPages, if you know how.

So, please help out with this backlog - at least enough so that we can be days rather hours from doomsday. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dun-dun-DUUUUUUN!. *cough* Sorry, that was just a tad melodramatic for me. :) &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a legitimate issue. I've helped out DS on a couple occasions in patrolling pages; it is true gruntwork and he is the only one concerned about the backlogging to clearing by software.  I would help out more, but as of right now (and the past few months, and the foreseeable future) I'm only online a couple hours a day and most of that time is spent relaxing reading articles.  More eyes would be nice.   Keegan talk 06:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

vand on article
Roman Catholic Church, haggar like vand. --AdultSwim (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems. Was it another Zodiac template vandalism incident?  Horologium  (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yup its gone now. --AdultSwim (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A question for the techies
Is is possible to blacklist a certain word from template: space? If the word "Zodiac" were to be blacklisted, this would interrupt the current spree of template vandalism by the open-proxy and disposable-account hopping vandal currently running around. I doubt that the word appears in many templates, certainly not many that need to be edited often.  Horologium  (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, not until WP:Abuse filter is enabled. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that would do much good. Regardless, how do you guys actually hunt down the template responsible? I was under the impression "related changes" would reveal these edits, but that hasn't worked for me. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you edit one of the pages with the affected template, it will list all of the transcluded templates at the bottom of the screen. It will be one of those.  Horologium  (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I have been finding them (and never fast enough to actually be the one to correct it). I was hoping there would be a more efficient way to hunt it down. Certainly, RBI is far more effective when the revert comes in under a minute, which is often the case with typical vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that really is the only way to track down template vandalism. Backtrack through the transclusions until you find something that got edited recently. It almost makes you want to semi-protect the whole Template: namespace, but that would almost certainly be more of an inconvenience than a help. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bookmark []. --- RockMFR 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! Cool, bookmarked and added to my toolbar. I may not be a regular patroller there, but I'll drop in now and then.  Horologium  (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's also the quickest way I know. Bring up RC for template space:  you'll invariably see the problem right away.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrol and Doomsday
User:DragonflySixtyseven pointed this out to me last night and I said that I would mention it here. I think it's fairly important:

We all remember the glorious day when those wonderful developer folks introduced yellow highlighting to Special:NewPages and the ability to mark pages as patrolled. However, what was't immediately apparent is that a page's patrolled/unpatrolled state is only accessible for 30 days after it's creation.

Now, I know what you're all thinking: How close is the oldest unpatrolled page to the 30 day limit? As I write this, the answer is 2 and half hours. Click here and scroll to the bottom to find the current status. The problem is that most new page patrollers work the top of the list; hardly anyone is working the back end.

You may be wondering: Why does this matter, so a few pages don't get ticked off as patrolled, big deal, so what, who cares? Well, actually, I think it matters a lot. For a start, the pages that don't get marked patrolled tend to be the difficult cases where what to do is unclear. What's more, a good number of BLP issues are introduced at page creation and these need to be checked for. And finally, it's actually easy to create a new page and avoid having it be seen by people working the top of Special:NewPages, if you know how.

So, please help out with this backlog - at least enough so that we can be days rather hours from doomsday. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dun-dun-DUUUUUUN!. *cough* Sorry, that was just a tad melodramatic for me. :) &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a legitimate issue. I've helped out DS on a couple occasions in patrolling pages; it is true gruntwork and he is the only one concerned about the backlogging to clearing by software.  I would help out more, but as of right now (and the past few months, and the foreseeable future) I'm only online a couple hours a day and most of that time is spent relaxing reading articles.  More eyes would be nice.   Keegan talk 06:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin with ACC access needed.
WP:ACC is backlogged: 8 accounts needing administrator attention. iced kola(Mmm...) 16:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

– xeno  ( talk ) 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks to WBOSITG & TravisTX for the assist. – xeno  ( talk ) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh, glad to help :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|19px]] It is backlogged again. (eight account this time too, its a conspiracy!) - Icewedge (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Requested Moves
We've developed a backlog of nearly a month again at WP:RM. Any help, as usual, is greatly appreciated. JPG-GR (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tinkering around with it, there are some complex talk pages with obvious decisions, and vice versa. Experience in consensus reading is a must.   Keegan talk 06:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)