Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218

Remind me what to do about outing?
Just found an editor adding what he says is another editor's real name on an article talk page. The editor is probably a sock as they only have about 6 edits. What's the form with outing now? Rev/del, report to ANI, what? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the 'named' editor denied that that was his name, but it was still an outing attempt. Maybe just warn the offending editor? I'd still like to know the drill for future reference. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the drill is usually block and oversight. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also FYI failed outing should be treated the same way. And the editor shouldn't comment on if the outing was successful or not (even if it wasn't). See WP:OUTING - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably didn't make it clear, but that's also what I was getting at: the user should be blocked and the revision oversighted as personally-identifiable information, regardless of whether or not it is true. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A block should not be automatic. If it's malicious then probably, but a revdel and warning that it's against policy can also be appropriate. Admins are employed for their judgment, so I'd recommend that Doug. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but in this case it seems pretty malicious to me; a non-malicious "outing" would be accidentally using the real name of someone you know in real life while on wikipedia, in which case a warning or a simple note would be more appropriate than a block. Attempting to impersonate someone and trying to reveal their real name probably warrants an indef, imo. GiftigerWunsch  [TALK]  19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a fairly notorious case of a few years back when a "newbie" account outed another editor when commentating that the target account was contributing to an article in a manner which advocated the the subject's use and that they had a big COI in that regard. The outing editor was first blocked and then banned, and took to socking and off-wiki postings and suchlike, while the article contributor continued to edit and furthermore had many editors who expressed concern over the article(s) blocked as sock or meatpuppets of the banned editor. Regretfully, it transpired that the outing editor was correct, and the contributor was using Wikipedia to further their personal interests within the subject matter in real life. The original editor was unbanned and the really abusive contributor banned - as he remains today, although he apparently still tries to edit the articles via socks. Especially with newbie editors, it pays to carefully regard whether they are outing someone for malicious reasons or they think a COI should be noted - not that the latter is always appropriate, but some AGF may be directed toward them by means of noting the correct method of addressing those concerns and warning against repeating the comment. Obviously malicious outing should be dealt with by blocks; preferably indefinite ones - new editors can always start again, more carefully, and established editors have no excuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone up for a page move?
The move request at Talk:Sexy_Commando_Gaiden:_Sugoiyo!!_Masaru-san closed as supporting a move (there was no opposition). However, the page cannot be moved due to the double exclamation point being on the blacklist. Can some nice and/or bored administrator please make it happen? Thanks in advance for your trouble. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ —DoRD (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks bunches. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Block review: User:Magioladitis

 * Previous discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215

Yesterday, I informed Magioladitis that he needed to stop his campaign of insignificant and trivial edits contrary to WP:AWB. This was another in a long line of cautions and requests I and others have left for him on this and similar issues between his account and his bot account (see thread referenced above, his talk page archives) to stop making these changes.

Many of his edits stem from his apparent desire to have as few templates/template redirects as possible and he makes edits to articles that have no change on the rendered text (e.g.), spamming watchlists, and then jamming up RFD and TFD processes trying to have the templates that he orphaned in fait accompli campaigns deleted.

Instead of stopping, he today engaged on another campaign targeting three other uses. Since he is an administrator, I cannot revoke his AWB access - so I have instead blocked him indefinitely pending review. Any administrator may feel free to unblock him if they feel I have erred, or the user agrees to stop this pattern of behaviour. – xeno talk 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I commend him for cleaning up templates, we have way too many useless redirects, some house cleaning is needed regularity. ΔT The only constant 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If they were useless, they wouldn't be used. – xeno talk 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite often Template:A is created, then Template:B is created which is an extension of template:A (IE other uses when it had a single parameter) Template:B adds a second parameter to other uses. At some later date Template:A is modified to incorporate the features and parameters of Template:B, thus making B redundant to A, people sill use B, for a long time, until someone comes along, cleans up its usage and then deletes it as redundant. Normal house cleaning. ΔT The only constant 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the standard procedure is to simply redirect B to A. —David Levy 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we have a process for deleting them as G6, most of the time redirects dont work due to very minor syntax differences. ΔT The only constant 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. Deleting wrapper templates/template redirects (that users might call from memory) is user-hostile and breaks old revisions. – xeno talk 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * CSD G6 is for "uncontroversial maintenance." This is far from uncontroversial.  —David Levy 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also note that you are in a dispute with said user and thus should NOT be using your admin tools, (which you have already done in a conflict of interest case/involved administrator). ΔT The only constant 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My interactions with this user have been administrative in nature; attempting to enforce guidelines and AWB's rules of use. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to state that I think that this is unnecessary and I personally agree with Magio's "crusade" against template redirects. Some of my reasons are listed below:
 * Template redirects can have undesireable effects on third party links such as Facebook, mirror sites, Wikibooks, etc.
 * There were a couple examples recently that have come up about certain templates not working correctly when Facebook displays the page. Unfortunatley I didnt write them down but I think it was Start box and End box that was causing WikiBooks to not print correctly and needed to be changed to S-start and S-end. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Template redirects can also have undesireable effects within WP. They make it difficult to account for when programming bots or scripts.
 * To use Find a Grave as an example. There were a number of redirects to this template including: findagrave, Findagrave and FAG. If you want to make a change to one of these using a tool such as AWB you need to take into account all the variations. that means you might have to add logic multiple ways to catch it. This is less of an issue with other data on regular articles because there is a limited number of times that data could appear but with templates, it could be on tens of thousands of articles a dozen different ways. --Kumioko (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Template redirects can be confusing to the users. If you are a user and you are new to WP and you see a template listed 5 or 6 different ways it is easy to get confused into thinking they are all different. Add to that the hundreds or thousands of valid templates WP has and you have a big mess. The whole point of a redirect is to allow a link to the real article that intuitively could be done by the users. To an article though this can get really confusing because in some cases we really do have multiple templates that do similar like things. Additionally Magio maintains several bots and is one of the programmers of AWB. Too block him based indefinately based on something that is best described as a disagreement would be a serious blow to WP. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide some evidence for your claims. Oh, and indefinite=forever. (FYI, I have recently cautioned Kumioko about similar edits contrary to AWB's rules of use.) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not merely a simple disagreement. In his reply to xeno Magioladitis said “The template is marked as ‘Deprecated’”.  There was no such marking on the template or the template's talk page at that time.  More than twenty-eight hours later Magioladitis nominated the template for deletion.  This is only the latest incidence of this behavior and the only one that I can document.  JimCubb (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any confusion, but this was a different template we were talking about there. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add by paraphrasing something from an ongoing conversation with Xeno on my talk page. I think he is getting too worried about watchlists. If I was doing edits that somehow adversely impacted the server performance or was somehow affecting the site itself I could understand and would agree. But, doing so many edits that I am filling watchlists is not a problem for me. Personally I smile whenever I see my watchlist fill up because that means the pages I have on my watchlist (which is about 18000 BTW) are getting some love. The more love they get the better they are. Trivial or otherwise each improvement made to an article makes it a little better. --Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason AWB has a rule against trivial and insignificant edits is in part because it clogs up watchlists. Just because you don't mind someone making an edit just to bypass a template redirect doesn't mean others want that on their watchlist when there is almost no net benefit. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple solution, press the "Hide minor edits" option. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should users change the behaviour of their interface to accommodate users who ignore guidelines, rules, and community norms? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, why counsil an editor to use a function that also hides massive or malicious edits that are hidden as "minor"? An no, I'm not labeling the 'bot migration of templates as malicious - contentious definetly, but it is certainly not overtly or intentionally malicious. But everyone has run into editors that always mark their edits as "minor". In some cases that lets lots bypass watch lists - from honest errors up through blatant vandalism. - J Greb (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse block. Magioladitis is well aware that the community has rejected his/her logic (and just participated in some discussions in which this sentiment was reinforced), and he/she simply doesn't care.  He/she is deliberately engaging in actions contradicting policy/consensus, attempting to force through his/her preferences by any means necessary.  This is highly disruptive (especially for someone with the sysop bit, which he/she has used to speedily delete longstanding redirects not meeting any CSD) and needs to cease.  —David Levy 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this was a well-advised block. It seems to be rooted in a wikiphilosophical disagreement about whether one should actively replace redirected templates. I have no opinion about this, except that it is not a disagreement that should be settled by blocks among admins. The replacements are not patently disruptive and I imagine that one can disagree whether such edits are "insignificant or inconsequential edits" according to the AWB rules quoted by Xeno. In the apparent absence of a clear community consensus about this issue, and without any formal stages in the dispute resolution process (such as a RFC) having been undertaken, the indefinite block seems both premature and excessive to me. Any sanction, finally, would probably be more effective if it were not undertaken by an administrator who seems to be actively involved in the underlying policy/procedure/MOS discussions.  Sandstein  19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This block might be lifted if Magilatidis will agree to cease his usage of AWB until he obtains consensus in a proper forum. I suggest that Kumioko should stop as well, for the same reason. If Kumioko won't agree, I suppose that admins might revoke his AWB access, since his edits don't seem to conform to WP:AWB. People who are familiar with AWB might suggest where the proper discussion should occur. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Possible venues are WT:Template messages and WT:Redirect. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein: WP:R2D has wide consensus and existed long before I even started actively editing here. However, please do note (and feel free to act on), my above explicit permission for any admin to modify this block. I've also told Mag that I will unblock him if he agrees to obtain consensus for these changes prior to making them. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be a case of WP:R2D. That guideline tells us: "It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect . (However target may be replaced with target if redirect is not a Redirect with possibilities)." It is the latter, parenthetical, case that the edits at issue are more similar to, which suggests that replacing deprecated templates is just fine in the light of that guideline.  Sandstein   10:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your logic; but this is not the venue to have an extended debate on the meaning of R2D - will take it to the talk page there. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not endorse the length of this block. I'm neutral on the rest, but indefinite is exceptionally harsh given the nature of the edits, and the block lengths recommended by policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The block addresses a long-term problem about which Magioladitis has repeatedly been warned, not an isolated incident that can be resolved by blocking for a predefined duration.
 * And Xeno has agreed to unblock as soon as Magioladitis agrees to seek consensus before continuing the controversial actions. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent" or even "long."  —David Levy 21:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm just checking on that. As long as we agree it's not permanent. I guess as a patrolling admin on WP:AN3 who regularly hands out escalating blocks which serves as warnings, I was a little taken aback to be honest. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand why it might have seemed harsh in that context. —David Levy 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The question seems to be what constitutes "overly trivial" in the AWB rules of use. I would not consider fixing templates and redirects to be overly trivial in the slightest, for example, though obviously Xeno and others disagree. As such I disagree with the block myself. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One cannot fix something that isn't broken. Please see Redirect (a longstanding, consensus-backed instruction).  —David Levy 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You comment is misleading. By the plain meaning of its text, WP:R2D applies only to bracketed links, not to transclussions. Ruslik_ Zero 08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading his response, I unblocked Mag and requested he engage the TFD process prior to orphaning further templates. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This block has no foundation in policy. WP:R2D and by extension AWB rules of use applies only to (piped) bracketed links, but not to transclusion of redirects. WP:Redirect actually says that they may create problems with updating template calls. So, this block should be lifted. Ruslik_ Zero 08:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That line makes no sense and should be removed. Perhaps those who feel template redirects are a problem should consult the community to see if they share their view. Anyhow, I've already unblocked him, as mentioned above. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some comments: I won't be able to edit in the next 2 days.
 * In Administrators'_noticeboard, it was implied that this is related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215. This is not case. The latter was caused by a bug in WP:AWB's code that was fixed. Of course, it's everybody's right to believe that I was doing the edits in question on purpose. I have already written on the matter in Yobot's talk page.
 * In the same discussion it's also mixes the action of bypassing redirects with the one of replacing a template with one other. I consider myself experienced on the subject of the DABlink and I think I have the right to add/replace with one that I think it's more appropriate. If someone checks I corrected many mistakes in DABlinks. Nobody, until now, ever reacted in my edits moving, updating, changing DABlinks. About with 70k+ transclusions is better established and more familiar for tenths of editors by a template with less than 200 transclusions which was not even used for its purpose other than in 4 pages. I consider my job the same with replacing About with for in the case the first parameter of about is unnecessary or tautology. If someone checks the dits they are many that the dablink moved on the top per WP:LAYOUT or multiple DABlinks were merged. I don't understand where the WP:R2D stands on that but this is a discussion we did again. I would like also to note that TfD discussions (not RfD) usually ended with the redundant DABlink to be deleted. Check Otheruses6, Otheruses7, Otheruses8 and probably more which I don't have the time now to do find. I willing to get more consensus on these edits if this is the problem but I don't think the problem is that the community isn't aware of the edits but the fact that sme editors disagree with the "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" reason to delete a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that such AWB campaigns to orphan deleted templates skip the "deleted" part. If a template redirect is actually deleted as the outcome of a TFD, then of course that redirect has to be orphaned. But orphaning a redirect in order to later nominate it for deletion gets the process backwards.


 * However, that also ignores the AWB rules of use, which I am sure you are aware of. I have also seen trivial edits lately, although I didn't point them out. I'll keep an eye out for more of them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Binocular vision and Stereopsis
We have a problem. Two articles Binocular vision and Stereopsis have interwiki, for example: nl:Binoculaire dispariteit have en:interwiki Stereopsis but pl:Widzenie stereoskopowe have en:interwiki Binocular vision & nl:Binoculaire dispariteit.

All language articles about topic:
 * uk:Бінокулярний зір
 * Binocular vision & Stereopsis
 * fr:Vision binoculaire
 * it:Visione binoculare
 * lv:Binokulārā redze
 * pt:Visão binocular & pt:Estereopsia
 * ru:Бинокулярное зрение
 * zh:双眼视觉
 * es:Visión binocular
 * de:Stereoskopisches Sehen. Page de:Stereopsis return to de:Stereoskopisches Sehen
 * ro:Vedere stereoscopică —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepavor (talk • contribs) 12:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is the wrong place for discussing this - I would say place it on thetalk page of one of the articles, and link to the discussion on the talk page of the other. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User adding valueless opinion to Hitler related articles
It may be an idea to watch 58.168.136.97 (talk) who is adding opinion pieces of questionable value to articles related to Adolf Hitler, and in at least one instance to an editor they seem to consider a Hitler apologist. Britmax (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well that's the thing about opinion peices, they're hitler miss... 23:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Durrhurrhurr... Grand  master  ka  23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying my best here; can you nazi that? Half  Shadow  18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP's only edits are to talk pages; I don't see any mainspace edits. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said "the talk page of Adolf Hitler and an editor they think is a Hitler apologist". Anyway another admin has removed some of them as trolling which is probably what they are. Thanks, guys. Britmax (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bug in Category:Candidates for history merging?

 * When I look at page Category:Candidates for history merging, pages Castle Donington Power Station, Chadderton Power Station, Rototuna Wind Farm show as members of it. But when I look at those 3 pages, Category:Candidates for history merging does not show up in the list of categories that they are in, and they do not have the tag. I am an admin and so I can see what hidden categories that pages are in. I made a temporary copy of Rototuna Wind Farm onto another page and that page did not show as a member of Category:Candidates for history merging. When I go into edit mode in Rototuna Wind Farm, Template:db-histmerge shows in the list of templates that Rototuna Wind Farm transcludes. What is happening? This bug is causing false alarms when I go to see what needs to be histmerged. This bug has been happening for a day at least, which is surely long enough for all work buffers to clear. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's odd. The template Infobox power station was histmerged 3 days ago and briefly had a db-histmerge tag on it, but as you said it's probably a long enough time for the work queue to be cleared. However, that's the only reason I can think of since the preview page for Rototuna Wind Farm shows that Template:Db-histmerge is used on the page but it disappears if you preview the page without the infobox. Jafeluv (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The job queue takes forever sometimes, but if you do a null edit to the template in question (the infobox), it might fix it quickly. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have just tried this dummy edit to page Template:Infobox power station. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When I look at page Category:Candidates for history merging, pages Castle Donington Power Station, Chadderton Power Station, Rototuna Wind Farm still show as members of it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note well that the job queue has been and still is a major problem. If you look at this page you can see that a template that was updated on September 2 is still not fully processed.  Null edits are the only viable option if you want to see the truth. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the null edits must be made to the affected pages, not the template that's causing the problem. Graham 87 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For no apparent reason, the category is now empty. Jafeluv (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

New essay - Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal
I've created a new essay, linked above. I'm rather proud of it, to say :D. I've noticed it quite a bit as a patrolling admin at WP:AN3. Anyone feel free to edit it, add images, link it, change the name (I was thinking You sir, are worse than Hitler, but turned it down), etc. Enjoy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something I wanted to write during the BADSITES controversy a few years ago. "Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll". The main point being, "no matter how logical or sensible you think your proposal or idea is, there are going to be those who will have good faith reasons to oppose it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If we renamed it "You're a big stupid dick" we could have another MfD over that in which users would call those with opposing views vandals who are worse than Hitler. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GIANTDICK is already taken... -- Jayron  32  05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fiction and the relevant noticeboard
If you look above at the noticeboard navigation, you'll notice a "fiction noticeboard". No it's real, not fictional... Anyway, I've looked and that noticeboard is attached to the fiction page, which is currently marked "failed". There's no reason for us to have a noticeboard if it's a noticeboard of a failed proposal. But hold on, it gets even more complicated, the failed notice was added there by an IP, with the reason that it's failed because it hasn't been edited in three months. The noticeboard is largely inactive, and even if it was active, we don't need it, since fictional issues can be discussed on the relevant project. So, should I mark both as historical? Start a discussion on their status? Note: WP:FICTION goes to a different place. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 02:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the Content noticeboard can handle the low amounts of fiction stuff. So I'm in favor of merging the fiction noticeboard to the content one, and marking the fiction one as historical (or whatever should happen to it). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would actually prefer to see it activated. It would be a good place to hash out, in one spot, topics that span many separate articles, e.g., Transformers.  If it could be used effectively in this manner, regardless of how FICT has failed or not, it would take a load off AfD and reduce inconsistent outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Chia N Mustafa
I'm not sure how to deal with this. An IP editor put an afd template on Chia N Mustafa, but since they're an IP they can't finish the nomination process. I can't do it either, since I'm an IP editor. Where would the appropriate place have been to bring this up? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Created now. I'll notify the IP so they can add their rationale, although the tag was added two days ago and they haven't edited since. If there are no comments for a while someone can just apply speedy keep here. Jafeluv (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Was this the appropriate place to bring this?  216.93.213.191 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but you weren't far off. :) —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B"> (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require admin attention since any autoconfirmed editor can complete the process; I would suggest WP:EAR or WP:Help desk instead, for future requests like this. Or maybe a on the article's talk page. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch   <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Upload Picture Redirect
Hello, when I first joined Wikipedia I had a lot of trouble finding out how to add pictures to articles and thought it would be very helpful to have a page titled 'Upload Image to Wikipedia' which is simply a redirect to a FAQ or wikimedia commons. I tried to create this, but it is a banned term.

Currently it is very hard to work out how to add an image just by searching wikipedia and seems very obscure and unfriendly to new users. Indeed a sidebar link to Commons would be just as helpful.

Ion Zone (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go. - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 17:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions re. User:Mario96
I thought I'd run up a couple of trial balloons regarding our latest young user with an overactive imagination and multiple IPs. First, I think a ban is warranted. Second, I think he's just about ready for his own LTA page. I don't particularly care to give a vandal his own page, but I think he's become enough of a pest to alert others to his presense. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh, if that's his year of birth, he'll grow up or get bored soon enough. It's the adult nutters that seem to be the real LTA nuisances.  Sandstein   19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ^Lol. Well put.  - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but I would also point out that this user has been revealed to be a ninth-grader who had been at this since he was in middle school. This utterly evil little monster may have finally been shut down and believe me when I say that I'm being polite when I describe him, especially after that cross-wiki stalking incident he put me through a couple of months ago.  Jimbo himself got involved with that issue.  This is probably nowhere near as bad, but I wanted to take no chances after what I went through.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is Bambifan we're talking about here. FWIW, he's almost as bad as Grawp.  - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with a ban as there are almost fifty socks and banning streamlines the whole WP:RBI process, but since the original account was only blocked in May I would suggest we hold off for now on the LTA page. It looks like most of the socks were detected fairly quickly so far. Any change of a rangeblock having the desired effect? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We should do something; I just clobbered a loudly quacking example as evidenced by the user talk page and deleted contribs. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm pretty convinced that BF is/was worse than Grawp. Most of the Grawp damage was caused by copycats and BF did all that cross-wiki damage on his own. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just ban Mario already. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Consider him banned. He's simply not going to contribute meaningfully. Thanks, Fetch. Diggin' the new signature, BTW. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a ban is warranted. He's defacto banned right now: I can't imagine an admin granting an unblock request.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Category for Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color
Can an admin add to the template Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color please? Just for ease of navigation from a UK/Northern Ireland perspective. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I note you also brought this up on the template talkpage; note that the talk page is the correct venue, and you can use the template to get an admin's attention. I have added the template to the request for you. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch   <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[BODY DOUBLE]  17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ah great. Thanks for pointing that out! All sorted Zangar (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MIRROR issue
Probably the wrong venue to bring this up, apologies, but after seeing Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Olbermann_catch_phrases I followed the google link and the first hit is to http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Keith_Olbermann_Catch_Phrases which is a rip-off of the wikipedia page without any attribution. Sorry to palm this off, but thought I ought to alert someone, somehow! Bigger digger (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we know that page is not the source of the article? Is our article a copyvio? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a list of Keith Olbermann's sayings. I guess it's not like we can say we own the copyright to them.  I wouldn't worry about it too much, granted the article is on it's way out anyways.  - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Servinghistory.com is a WP mirror. Licensing is noted at this page, but I think it's insufficient. If someone wants to contact them, go ahead. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is twice that this has come up within a fortnight. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642.  Bigger digger, the right venue is [ here], where you can add all of the several largely identical mashup WWW sites that are run by Discovery Media.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Uncle G, I will put it up there. Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tons of pure vandalistic userpages that aren't noindexed
Seriously, just search for "cunt" or "fuck" or something similar and limit the search to the user namespace to see what I mean. I've been going through tagging as G3s but there are so many that I'd appreciate if some admins could just go through and help delete all these. They aren't noidexed AFAIK and the absolute last thing we want is for one of them to appear at the top of a google search. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we just NOINDEX all of userspace? Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have waded through such searches in the past, it is time consuming but there is an awful lot of userpage vandalism that takes place, I've tagged or deleted plenty of G10s there as well.. Sometimes you just just need to revert to the userpage of a long inactive user, other times it seems an account was just created to use a userpage as a Graffiti wall. Rollbacking and then Semiprotecting the vandalised userpages of long absent Wikipedians is also useful. It might be possible to get an editfilter look for some of this, or perhaps get Huggle or Igloo to look for the use of certain words in userspace - though of course there are also plenty of legitimate uses of any profanity you can think of.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Igloo has profanity highliting, and is good at detecting userpage vandalism. I also set up a filter that makes any user namespace edit appear at the top Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 05:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They should be deleted, but I wouldn't be in a rush to NOINDEX them. What set of search terms would bring those pages up on the first page? Protonk (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fuck you", "cunt", "nigga", etc. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (Search within User: Namespace only)
 * Those are searches on wikipedia's search engine (which works even if we don't allows compliant bots to index the page, which is what NOINDEX does). what google searches will bring these pages on a google search page? Protonk (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Noindex does not affect Wikipedia's search; only Googling. —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B"> (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of scope user page ?
User:Marvin fant is it out of scope ?--Musamies (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Promotional userpages can be tagged for speedy deletion as advertising, so you can do that in the future if you catch one like that. I accordingly speedied that one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross
The nominator has now !voted "keep". Would an uninvolved admin please close Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross? Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! JodyBtalk 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do I request a revision be deleted.
I think this diff might qualify per RD#2. Thank you for your time. Fei noh  a  Talk, My master 03:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ ANI may get be the location where you will get the quickest response. If it is particularly bad you can request oversight via email here without drawing attention to the edit.   7  03:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved editor to close merge discussion
Per Help:Merging I would like an uninvolved editor to look at Talk:Cherem to see if a consensus has been reached in the merge discussion. It's been active for seven days. StAnselm (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with a deleted page
I received an email from the creator of an article that I recently deleted. He was not asking for the article to be reinstated but asked for the deletion message to be removed. It was an expired prod with a rationale of no available sources and a possible hoax. Now if the name is Googled the deletion page comes up with the hoax message which the creator finds damaging professionaly as he is being called a hoax. I thought (foolishly) that I could rectify the problem by reinstating then redeleting with a different message, but now both deletion rationales show up. Is there a way to fix this? I don't want to cause this person excessive grief. Thanks J04n(talk page) 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the "deletion messages" you are referring to are the edit summaries in the deletion logs, then the only way to remove them is for the deletion log entries to be removed. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 15:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that this user has also recreated the article. Is the content there now any different from the deleted version? Tarc (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentialy the same article but interestingly it was the original prodder that recreated it . To respond to Ks0stm, yes I am referring to the deletion log enties, can they be removed? how? J04n(talk page) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, oversight will do so if it meets the criteria for oversight. RevDel is also possible if it meets criteria 2, from what I can gather of the RevDel page. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I used RevDel to take out the edit summary. J04n(talk page) 15:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the article being recreated, the original prodder is interacting with the creator, I'll see how that plays out. J04n(talk page) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TIme for WP:RFRD?
Note: The previous discussion was archived here. Can an uninvolved admin look at the comments and evaluate consensus? Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This needs a community-wide RfC. The straw poll is an inadequate in terms of consensus to implement a new community discussion board.  - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a nice opinion, but pointless bureaucratic delay. If it was inadequate, there was plenty of time to say so here before it was archived. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors do not actively watch and comment on this board. - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a proponent of the board, I must say that the concerns raised by sitting members of ARBCOM would give one pause before implementation. Has anyone actually asked the Foundation for a view, or Mike Godwin? It seems that this may, and I use the word "may" with due dilligence, be potentially outside the community's remit. Pedro : Chat  19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for someone to go rubberstamp it and start it, and you'll note (upon review of the archived discussion) that I've expressed concerns about the titles (vs. numbers) of people opposed to it. What I DON'T want to do is just let this fade away into the archives while the original problem (RFRD requests posted to ANI) continues unabated. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, start an RfC. You've got to be kidding me if you think that the ~30 editors who commented on the aforementioned thread creates an accurate representation of the opinions of the whole Wikipedia community. - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see consensus there. There are lots of tentative supports, and the only truly certain ones appear to be about equal to those voicing concerns. There are legal implications, and there really ought to be a RFC. Status quo is fine for now, until it can be properly and widely discussed. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw assertions of legal implications, but none that were anything beyond vague fears. I saw some enthusiastic support, numerically superior, with some oddly imprecise "concerns" expressed--exactly the sort of situation where a neutral observer would be welcome to summarize the discussion and move on to next steps. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you have a few neutral observers commenting here suggesting that the next step is an RfC. Count me in on that suggestion. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize it was on WP:CENT from September 26 until October 9? That's clearly plenty of time for input. Seeing as how no one else seems to want to address this, I think I'm going to go ahead and implement it over the weekend unless anyone can articulate a good reason to delay. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What? No.  You've just been told by three people that an RfC is the right path.  You've simply decided that you don't like that answer. Protonk (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I just told you "Been there, done that, don't see anything to be gained by doing it again". So, since no one else was inclined to summarize the discussion to date, then I'm going to go ahead and proceed reasonably, cautiously, and appropriately, taking all the input into consideration.  Want to help me?  I'm going to start constructing it in my userspace, at which time there will be a concrete proposal which can be discussed. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I still say you asked for input, got it, decided you didn't like it and are proceeding apace. You are free to do whatever you like, of course, but remember that it doesn't really have any community force. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked for input, got it, then later asked for someone to formally close the discussion and write up a consensus statement, and three additional people chimed in suggesting that more input was appropriate. Everyone is free to opine, but process for process' sake is needlessly bureaucratic. Asking for a closing statement was really a formality. I'm a big boy and can implement a proposal incorporating feedback that suggests community opinion differs from what I'd actually prefer, so in that sense, I will be acting on input that I don't like. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(od)FYI, there's already a draft at User:Access Denied/RFRDHeader. Rd232 talk 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll probably use that as a starting point. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not like we need a decision, we just need someone who didn't participate to formally close the discussion and add a brief statement summarizing the results. I'd do it but I participated. I notice it is becoming harder lately to find admins to do stuff that actually requires them to write something themselves and not use some template. I have had two such requests here be ignored in the last few weeks. I ended up doing one myself since it seemed nobody would step up, and this one is still sitting with no closing statement. I know it's nobody in particular's sworn duty to do this, but c'mon guys. If you can close an AFD you can evaluate consensus in other conversations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, any admin who doesn't mind being contacted individually about RevDel can add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to fulfil RevisionDelete requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit restriction poll
There's a slightly mis-placed community poll at /Incidents. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't much see the point of splitting the ongoing discussion from the extant thread to move it here. → ROUX   ₪  10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally if the discussion started as a result of an incident, it's usually just left at ANI; there isn't much point in splitting it, when the incident at ANI is directly relevant to the sanction discussion. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  10:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Announcing the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections
Preparations are underway for the annual elections to the Arbitration Committee, due to take place mid-November to mid-December. Provisional election pages have been set up based on the model of the 2009 elections, which were conducted using the SecurePoll secret ballot system. The proposed timetable allows for a 10-day nomination period (from Sunday November 14 to Tuesday November 23), a 10-day voting period (Friday November 26 to Monday December 6), and a subsequent period for the vote to be audited by independent scrutineers.

Until the call for nominations on November 14, the parameters of the election are open to community examination and feedback. A draft set of nine general questions to be posed to each candidate has been established (voters will also be able to ask unique questions of individual candidates). Editors interested in helping to organise the elections are encouraged to sign up as volunteer coordinators.

Working as an arbitrator is an important and demanding role, and there is perennial need for new volunteers to take it on. This year, 10 arbitrators are expected to be chosen; experienced and committed editors are urged to seriously consider standing.

Discuss this at the election talkpage.

For the coordinators, <font face="New York">Skomorokh  11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic banned editors needling one another

 * This was hatted at WP:AE because it was not really in arbitration intervention request. I still think that because of the problem which seems to be well recognised we should consider some kind of community solution.


 * For background, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and in particular note the findings and remedies relating to William M. Connolley, Lar and ATren. Some background is also available at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence and, if you have a day or two to spare, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision and its countless archive subpages. --TS 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not the only example, but it's typical of the way in which, for the past week or so since the end of the climate change arbitration case, topic-banned editors are still needling one another. I include Lar because although he is not topic banned but requested to stop using his admin bit in the area, there is an arbitration finding in the case (Finding 12.3) that Lar "has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin." In fact he has not edited in the topic but acted in the enforcement of the recently superseded probation. ATren and William M. Connolley have a long history of animosity toward one another, as do Lar and William M. Connolley.

The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match from the Running commentary thread on the arbcom noticeboard to Lar's user talk page. Lar picks it up gladly, and ATren jumps in with his two penn'orth.

I wonder if it would be appropriate now to ask Lar and the topic banned editors ATren and William M. Connolley to observe a mutual interaction ban. They've had a week to get over it but seem not to have done so. --TS 14:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC has animosity toward many folk. However, it assumes facts not in evidence to assert that others, even those he calls stupid and malicious, have animosity to him. I certainly have none. I merely don't appreciate his tactics, which he got multiple sanctions for. He continues baiting many folk, making snide comments, and so forth... as in the instance that TS refers to, WMC baits me about a reference that wasn't actually to him. When I clarify on the ArbCom page, TS seems to think that's a sign of.. what? Further WMC turns up to needle me further on my talk page, I again respond mildly. ATren appeared to comment on the WSJ ref... I don't see the needling here by ATren or me that TS does. What's needed here is a further interaction ban on WMC, but not necessarily on others. Restrict his needling and baiting. That cures the problem. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This ad hominem comment, directed at me at WT:ADMIN, a discussion to which I was specifically invited by Roger Davies, is similarly gratuitous and unhelpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? That you've got a hobby horse? Did you want the diffs demonstrating it? You take swipes at me every chance you get. In fact, here you are now. QED. You strain at gnats and pass camels. As has been pointed out to you before. You're part of the problem with your enabling behavior. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire message thread can be reviewed here. I think that this particular jibe is consequential because it is not part of a "needling match." I was commenting on administrative policy. Lar's name wasn't mentioned, and he wasn't even participating in that message thread until I commented (as suggested on my talk page by Roger Davies). Then Lar dived right in with his attacking "hobby horse" comment, which served no purpose at all but is consistent with the battleground behavior noted in the arbcom decision. I advocated that Lar be separated from CC enforcement during the PD discussion, which indeed happened, and that resulted in the antagonism that you see displayed in his comment above, and also motivating his "hobby horse" comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the topic starter: I disagree with TS that WMC and Lar were engaged in a "needling match." WMC politely asked that Lar refactor a personal attack. He responded by needling him about the Wall Street Journal editorial.ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He responded by refactoring. How many times have you, Scotty, been involved personally in a situation that one of the most influential newspapers anywhere saw fit to comment on? You wouldn't mention it on your talk page? Scotty, why don't you stop commenting on Lar and leave him alone? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have difficulty seeing how a WP:MYOB restriction on interaction between WMC and Lar would harm the project. Their unchecked mutual animosity helps no one.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While the editors involved appear to have problems with civil communication with each other, I'm not sure that an AE enforcement is the right thing. Maybe if TS specifically layed out a case for enforcement (as the instructions request) it might be clearer.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the editors keep these sorts of discussions confined to the the appropriate forum. Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The cited link above shows William M. Connolley extending a needling match  - wrong. Lar called me a prat; I aske him to retract the PA. I considered contacting an admin, but reflected that the advice in general has been that one should in general contact the offending party to request redress first. Is taht advice now retracted? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar: Are you persisting with interactions with editors of the climate change subject area, or have you withdrawn completely from activity in that area? If you have not, why not? AGK   19:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add this to this discussion. I commented at Tony Sidaway's talk page not expecting my comment to be anything more than my opinion of what was being discussed. Lar came to the discussion accusing me of being bias about WMC and him, an accusation I feel is hurtful to make. His whole comment to me is rude. Lar is an administrator that I used to go to for lots of different things. I don't know why he wrote to me like he did but I don't think he, as an administrator, should be talking to people like this. I think that this should be stopped. I don't want any problems with Lar, but lately he's been commenting after I make comments trying to put me in a bad light and it's not right. I'm sorry but this behavior of his towards me is starting to make me nervous. Thanks for listening, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think banning interactions between them would help to make WP a happier place... --BozMo talk 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree. Absolutely no harm would come to the project from an interaction ban between these two users, and the reduced sniping would make the place much nicer for the rest of us. -Atmoz (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I support an interaction ban between any of the editors that seem to be continuing their disputes with each other. Right now, this includes ATren, Lar and WMC. Anyone else see sniping by other sanctioned parties? The Wordsmith Communicate 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something, or is this an attempted interaction ban against Lar for responding to a post on his very own talk page? Arkon (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the comment on his own talk page, the comment in question, was asking him to retract a statement that William M. Connolley had interpreted as a personal attack. The right way to deal with that is to apologise and say you didn't intend to attack him. That's not what Lar's doing. To be fair, Connolley is also looking for a fight.  This only happened after an arbitration clerk had closed down the original ruckus on, of all places, the arbitration committee noticeboard. They should both (and possibly others too) be asked to stop it. --TS 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) ::: In that thread Lar states "I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling you anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)" Is the argument that that response isn't good enough? Arkon (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been fine if he had left it there. What happened next was not so good. --TS 21:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened next was that Lar redacted the comment. Sounds more than reasonable. Are you referring to Lar mentioning some very, very prominent press coverage? This is Wikipedia. He was on his Wikipedia talk page. He brought up some important, interesting press coverage of a Wikipedia event that he, Lar, was involved in. That isn't needling. I think, Tony, you're straining at gnats. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not involved. I like Lar. I don't really know WMC, but i think the arbcom case was a bad bit of business (and whatever one thinks of the outcome, it's understandable that WMC is feeling sore about the whole thing). But all that aside, why not just let them go on needling each other if they both seem to enjoy it? Why police one or both of them if it's not hurting article content? Now, if anyone's going over the top -either in volume or extremity of commentary, deal with that as it happens by the usual means.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I am surprised that this continues in this way in spite of the topic bans. Since one of the editors is not subject to a topic ban, I also note that apparently the finding in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, which came without any formal sanction, did not have an effect. This and this are simply not acceptable. The indirect insult was inexcusable under the circumstances. The response to WMC's complaint stretches credibility beyond all reasonable bounds. ("The ends do not justify the means. Especially when it's actually possible to produce quality output without being a prat, and therefore the means used are unnecessary. Which is the point of the sanctions on you. Which I gather you don't like much." – "I fear you've misinterpreted what I said. Unless you choose to apply the term to yourself, I wasn't talking about you, necessarily.") And triumphantly topping this with a link to a Wall Street Journal attack piece against WMC escalates it to the point where I, if I were an admin and completely uninvolved. would have blocked Lar for blatant personal attacks. Hans Adler 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose - I'm just not feel'n it. if one or the other of the group flies off the handle and gets a block, then maybe revisiting this is appropriate.  Otherwise, I'd let them gently needle each other on thier talk pages and keep it off the drama boards.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * William Connelly has nothing to really do here any more and that is what is the issue. User is lingering around with nothing to do, he is not editing anything. I think we need to deal with the users restricted that continue in a stronger manner, as in, either move along and edit some flower articles or don't but involvement in continued disruption will result in blocking. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Off2riorob's comment is probably spot on, but the call for a formal interaction ban is likely premature. Yes, everyone involved should knock it off, go find their own corners of Wikipedia (or a sister project) to productively contribute in, and leave well enough alone.  Just staying out of each others' way for a while can help a good bit with return to collegial relations, as I can personally attest. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The advantage of an interaction ban is that it doesn't interfere with content work at all (unlike topic restrictions or blocks) and puts it on the record that the people need to stay away from each other. There's been a "Oh, I'm not causing a problem" reaction from all involved, and a lot of uninvolved people are agreeing that there is in fact a problem.  If the involved parties don't get it, an interaction ban is the most humane and least damaging intervention.  Merely hoping they leave each other alone was the hope yesterday.  Perhaps we don't have to pull the trigger today on a formal ban, but if it keeps up, perhaps tomorrow or the day after.  The bickering is disrupting several sections of WP boards.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * GWH: Agreed. Would you say that an interaction ban between William M. Connolley, Lar, and ATren is warranted? Are there any other parties that need interaction-banned? AGK   22:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I warned yesterday on the arbcom noticeboard talk page; I commented here. I didn't pull the trigger on any actions yet (and wasn't planning on today).  If other admins agree that there's an issue I trust their judgement and would support actions; I think I see that here today.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AGK, would you please identify the diffs from the last month where I interacted with WMC? ATren (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a troubling notpology: I'm sorry you drew that inference from my wording...in other words "I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand what I said"...and apologise unreservedly if you found my wording insulting - note the conditional "if you found"... Not taking responsibility for what was said but rather "I'm sorry you couldn't figure out what I meant". More needling under the guise of an apology? (Note the Was it your intention to call me stupid and malicious some weeks back? at the end). If this is how he acts when under scrutiny, there's little hope he will improve his behaviour on his own. Guettarda (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh really, Guettarda? Let's just reproduce the whole thing here:
 * It wasn't my intention to call you a prat. I'm sorry you drew that inference from my wording, and apologise unreservedly if you found my wording insulting. I'll try to do better in future. Was it your intention to call me stupid and malicious some weeks back? ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the "[I] apologise unreservedly" takes "responsibility for what was said" and is the operative part of the diff, isn't it? The "if" doesn't really mean a thing, does it? But let's not stop there. Note the timestamps:
 * I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling you anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * GWH: You have misinterpreted my words too. I will be more careful in future to be more explicit in my referents. Try not to jump at shadows so, though. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now let's note Tony Sidaway's similar reaction when GWH criticized both Lar and Tony ("Tony, please don't poke Larry or assume bad faith." ):
 * Has this discussion become so toxic that my good faith statements and queries can be so badly misinterpreted? I withdraw and apologise without reserve while denying any intention whatever of poking or assuming bad faith. --TS 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from writing style, it would be impossible to differentiate Tony's response from Lar's (even down to Lar's non-American spelling of "apologise"). Denying that one meant to insult and apologizing anyway, then saying that one will be more careful in the future should be a sufficient reaction. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would hate to have to take this back to arbitration so soon for an amendment, but this continued sniping isn't good because it keeps the bad odor hanging in the air while we're trying to rebuild a cooperative atmosphere (with some promising signs, I might add) in the topic area.

These are editors who show every sign of hating one another's guts. Why can't we just ask them to avoid communicating with one another or talking about one another, even in generic terms? There's no reason why William M. Connolley need ever interact with Lar again, and there's no reason why Lar, who has seldom if ever edited the topic area and is not expected to take admin action in the area, should ever mention either William M. Connolley or the editing of the climate change articles on the wiki ever again. Much the same applies to William M. Connolley. He is not involved in editing on the topic area, and if he writes on his talk page about the editing of the topic he risks poisoning the well or influencing some other editor who might face charges of meat puppetry. --TS 00:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony is misrepresenting this situation. I responded to Lar, on Lar's talk. I've had no interaction with WMC in at least a month, and I'm asking Tony to retract his charge and apologize. ATren (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW My opinion is to let things be, they will cool down when interaction outside of talk pages ceases, which it will with the topic bans in place. Arkon (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that expectation is a bit of unjustified optimism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The comment by JohnWBarber above is another proof that some people here are simply tone-deaf. Tony expressed his surprise, then in a separate sentence apologised for the bad sense of having made statements that could be misunderstood in the situation. Everything he had said in that thread was entirely consistent with him assuming good faith throughout and actually welcoming 'skeptic' expert editors so long as they are contributing constructively. (The real problem is that what we are getting here is not experts but 'experts' who get their 'knowledge' from blogs.) It is also possible to read what Tony said as underhanded attacks, but I believe him that he wasn't aware of that.

It is very hard to similarly assume good faith in the case of Lar. Apart from the more subtle cues Lars wasn't sincere, let's play a bit with italics and see what happens:
 * "It wasn't my intention to call you a prat. I'm sorry you drew that inference from my wording, and apologise unreservedly if you found my wording insulting. I'll try to do better in future. Was it your intention to call me stupid and malicious some weeks back?"
 * "I believe you have drawn an incorrect inference, and I'm sorry you did. Directly calling you anything in particular was not my intent. The findings in the case do that well enough. I was referring to the generic case of editors acting badly."

Try to do the same with Tony's apology and you will see what I mean. The most obvious differences are that it doesn't come put the blame for the (real or supposed) misunderstanding on the opposing party, and that he doesn't attach an open counter-attack at the end. Lar's insistence on openly spiteful behaviour is disgraceful. And I say it once more because it seems to have been ignored: If a fellow editor you don't like becomes the target of a character assassination attack in a widely circulated newspaper, under his real name, the last thing you should be allowed to do is rub it in triumphantly. Hans Adler 06:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lar has apologised on my talk page, and I've accepted that. That is the correct solution to this problem. I really don't think TS has been very helpful here - this was a needless escalation of something that could, and has, been resolved William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What do we do when an editor creates duplicate articles?
created Tommy Wilson (Professional Wrestler) and then Tommy Wilson (Wrestler). Can we speedy one of them? Dougweller (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or redirect. They'll probably get deleted anyways.  Grsz 11  04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The second could be speedied under A10 - duplicates content elsewhere in the enclyclopaedia. But neither has much merit as they stand.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider turning the duplicate into a redirect. A history merge may sometimes be in order if there is significant content forking. --TS 14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin to wrap up topic-ban discussion?
Might be time for an uninvolved admin to wrap-up this discussion, subpaged off ANI. Although it has gotten a bit messy there seems to be consensus for a topic ban.--Misarxist 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except, regretfully, that an armistice has broken out between the parties and there are attempts, via an RfC, to resolve the issues that lead to the dispute. Why are "uninterested parties" so keen to have editors sanctioned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request uninvolved merge-discussion close
Two merge discussions at Talk:Longevity myths and Talk:Longevity myths appear to be over. As per WP:MM, would someone please determine whether they should be closed and archived, or relisted somewhere to restart discussion? There are also larger issues involved, and, after performing this minor request, it would be useful to consider contributing at WP:FTN or elsewhere, or to request additional links. JJB 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJB 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached in the next 48-hour bot-enforced limit.

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is breaking down very quickly. Discussion was intense yet collegial over the past few weeks, but today has turned into a series of edit wars and personal attacks. I request not that some action be taken here, but that a senior editor or administrator please try to calm down that situation.  NW  ( Talk ) 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot running wild?
<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 closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thought I'd drop by during the course of my attempts to take a break and I found a bot notice on my talk page from User:Sfan00 IMG regarding a fair use image I uploaded more than four years ago from Trainweb.org. The user/bot's history page is a long line of these notices issued on what appear to be perfectly fair photos. I took the time to remove the deletion notice; the photo is justified under this site's own rules and I have done work with that the webmaster of that particular Trainweb portal before. Basically, it's a snapshot of an old railroad crossing signal. If I lived near San Jose, California, I'd gladly take a snapshot of the thing myself. It is the last one of this particular type of signal in use in California. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sfan is correct, all trainweb images must meet our non-free content policies, The image(s) in question do not have a non-free rationale, Nor does File:Griswold bayshore12.jpg meet the criteria because it can be replaced with a free license version of the file. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Working on that right now. He's online and explained the situation. I thought it might have been posted by a bot. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, User:Sfan00 IMG is not a bot account!!! –MuZemike 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave up that fight a long time ago, regardless of what you may say, people call you a bot and there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. I tell people that we have user talk pages for a reason, yet no one seems to use them, rather they jump to AN or ANI (or some other drama board) before trying to make a reasoned logical discussion. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I did use his/her talkpage, only to hear crickets. Shubinator (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested edit
Please create Talk:.ไทย and add WikiProject Internet and WikiProject Thailand. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Courcelles 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting rfc closure
Hi, I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin close the Rfc at WT:UP regerding userspace drafts and FAKEARTICLES, thanks, Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for the lifting of editing restrictions
Moved from Arbitration/Requests/Amendment I have moved this discussion from the ArbCom to this venue for community input.

Initiated by  —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ at 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
 * 2) Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
 * 3) Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
 * Suggestion: Repeal all.


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * Other user templates:


 * I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.

Amendment 1

 * Initial RfA: Requests for arbitration/Koavf; details of community sanction: User:Koavf/Community sanction

Statement by Koavf
I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:
 * 1) Limited to editing with a single account.
 * 2) Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
 * 3) Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:
 * 1) I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
 * 2) I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
 * 3) This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

Discussion

 * I don't see any major issue with lifting these restrictions. Unless another user brings up significant concerns over this issue, I see no reason why the restrictions should continue. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I received a ping on this because I was involved in the arbcom case somehow (memory fails me how). I'm not in a position to offer any opinion either way, unfortunately, but I don't have any particular objections either way this may turn out. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  04:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will mirror what Swatjester just said. Kaovf has stayed off the radar for a long time, so I don't really have much of an opinion on his editing history over this time, which is probably a good thing.  I can't come up with a reason not to rescind the restrictions, at least #1 and #2.  I think #3 may be a good idea going forward, since its still a check on backsliding to former problems, but I'm not too attached.  -- Jayron  32  04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions Timeline
Each of the numbered are blocks or enforcement of sanctions in relation to the user.
 * 1) October 2005 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 2) Feburary 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 3) August 2006 - blocked for disruptive pointiness
 * unblocked as it was unintentional and he agreed to use AfD and other venues to bring attention to his concerns
 * 1) September 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 2) September 2006 (6 days after the previous block) -  blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 3) October 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 4) October 2006 (11 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 5) October 2006 (3 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 6) October 2006 (8 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast (he was making up to 10 edits within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less)
 * 7) October 2006 (5 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast
 * 8) November 2006 (9 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
 * 9) November 2006 - block extended to indef for exhausting Community's patience
 * Early 2007 - Koavf privately appealed to ArbCom
 * May/June 2007 - ArbCom lifted ban and imposed 1RR on him (details). Although concerns were expressed at that time that community members were not notified, those concerned also respected the outcome decided by those arbitrators in the interests of assuming good faith. Did the outcome work?
 * 1) June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
 * 2) June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
 * 3) July 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
 * unblocked to allow user to help correct problem and make show of AGF
 * 1) September 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
 * 2) April 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
 * 3) May 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
 * 4) September 2008 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring
 * Community ban discussion initiated due to 19th block; 12 users endorsed a site ban; 7 opposed.
 * Community sanction proposals put forward; unanimous Community support for sanctions.
 * 1) November 2009 - probation measure invoked to prevent disruption relating to categories
 * March 2010 - appealed successfully
 * 1) late April 2010 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (   adding the characterisation of 'demo' instead of 'compilation'). See his original unblock request, and the then amended unblock request with the administrators reasons for declining it  followed by his response which maintained he would revert upon the block expiring . Another editor told him not to do so.
 * 2) October 2010: within the last few days, he has been using AWB in the same way he was warned not to in the past (making up to 12 edits using AWB within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less).
 * appealing the Community sanctions in total.

Although I was ready to accept his March 2010 appeal regarding the categories specific enforcement, I'd certainly oppose lifting the probation altogether. I don't mind lifting the account restriction bit, but really, that's dependant on the Moroccan/Sahara topic ban, and I'm going to leave it to others who encountered issues on that particular topic to decide whether the scope of any such problems can be dealt with via probation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Striking per my comments below - although I'd have favoured keeping probation (term 3) in place for 6 more months, I don't oppose the lifting of the sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect What would I have to do for you to be comfortable with lifting these sanctions? Should they be in place forever? For that matter, I honestly don't understand what the purpose is of the third clause, as this stipulation would be true regardless--if I was making a series of disruptive edits to (e.g.) Western Sahara-related articles, I could be topic banned from them again (more likely, I would have a more serious punishment, considering my block log.) Having this as an editing restriction seems redundant as any user making a series of disruptive edits to any set of articles or topics could be barred from editing those topics.
 * Regarding my AWB usage, I see nothing in the documentation about speed of use other than to be careful (correct me if I'm missing something here.) The initial reason for the request to make slower edits with AWB was users who check Special:RecentChanges. This was years ago, and if anyone is manually checking that today, it's impossible to keep up with the flood of new edits from all users and my contributions are a drop in a bucket. If someone is using Huggle, then I am whitelisted anyway. In point of fact, I got a barnstar from one user precisely because I was rapidly tagging these talk pages with AWB. I can't see how adding tags to category talk pages at the rate of (e.g.) 17 a minute is really a problem, but I'm willing to concede that it might be if you can explain to me how this is unhelpful.
 * Finally, while your assessment of the final block is not inaccurate, it is (unintentionally) misleading, as you omit the fact that I did not revert as I planned after my block was lifted for precisely the reason that you cite. (And the edits I did make were reverted as "vandalism", even though that was a false charge.) We ended up discussing that issue on talk and found an acceptable version of the page. Again, this is the difference between my editing five years ago and today and I would like to think that it shows that I am a mature enough editor that I don't need any active restrictions or patrolling of my edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, should you make disruptive edits again, then:
 * if probation remains in force, an administrator will ban you from certain pages/topics and only block you for violations.
 * if probation is lifted, an administrator will block you for the edit(s) and/or the Community will ban you from editing Wikipedia (due to the history/context/pattern here).
 * That is, in the case of the latter, you must remember: these 3 measures were imposed as a last chance good faith measure so if these are lifted, the Community is unlikely to contemplate coming back and going through a full discussion to reimpose more of the same if there are any relapses; it would come back to discuss it if a site ban is the only way to get through to you or the only way to deal with the disruption. On the other hand, obviously, if there are no issues, then that's the most ideal outcome for all.
 * Absent any concerns about 2, I was not going to stand in the way of 1 or 2 being lifted, but I was going to suggest that the third term operate for another 6 months in which you time you should edit without other issues (that is, without anymore blocks/bans due to disruptive behaviors). But if you accept the likelihood of what will happen in case things don't go to plan, then I'll strike my oppose and not stand in the way of the appeal (which means I would not actively oppose all 3 being lifted now). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah Now I understand your position. I am confident about lifting these sanctions because any "disruption" that I would make at this point would not be the type of inflammatory edit-warring or WP:POINT-style POV-pushing that I would have engaged in in the past. Anything that would constitute disruption on my part now would be bold editing that is misguided. If someone simply asks me to stop or explain myself, I will (and I have.) As far as six more months go, we would still be in the same boat then, right? The only difference is that I could say I waited six more months--that's fine, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it's really necessary nor that it will do anything in my favor in case there is some issue in the future. In sum, my problem in the past was edit-warring and I'm not going to deal with that now. If you prefer a six-month trial from this point forward or immediately lifting restrictions, either is fine with me. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the fact that he was blocked 4 years ago for using AWB too fast seems irrelevent here. Both AWB and the mediawiki software has changed so much in the past four years that the conditions which would have led to the AWB throttle have changed drasticly.  I can't see where this behavior, of itself, is a problem.  If THAT is the only actionable objection to his behavior in the past 6 months, then I don't see that as a problem. -- Jayron  32  02:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens in the present cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They're informed by a context, either of a pattern of behavior or history - after the history we see here, I'd have expected the disruptive behavior to stop after these measures (short of a full site ban) were employed, and it should be clear; the 3 sanctions being appealed at this time were the alternative remedy to a full site ban that was to be imposed two years ago; it was a good faith last chance. That is, one should try to avoid engaging in the same disruptive behaviors; unless an unjustified block was made, or a sanction was imposed unjustifiably under the probation, there should not have been any other issues. Incidentally, misuse of rollback (if it occurs) is a lot easier to handle than the other problems encountered so far. In November 2009 (a little over a year after the probation was imposed), the sanction was invoked to prevent certain behavior that was disruptive. Incidentally, if we'd lifted the ban after a year, and he engaged in this behavior afterwards, he probably would have faced a harsher outcome than the sanction that was imposed on him. Still, by March 2010, we accepted his assurances and removed the additional restriction.
 * A month later, in April/May 2010, he was disruptively edit-warring and was blocked. The main issue I find is this block (which was imposed less than 6 months ago); I think that is a problem. If the block was unjustified, and either the blocking admin, the admin who declined the appeal, or even the community are ready to come to that view, or at least there was not a strong consensus in support of imposing a block (despite the context), that needs to be considered. If the mitigating factors are sufficient that another editor should also have been blocked, that may also be worth considering (but unless I have missed something, the issue (again) was Koavf disruptively edit-warring in April/May 2010). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for the thoroughness of Ncmvocalist's analysis, but I'm not certain of his bottom line. I agree with Ncmvocalist that Koavf's block in April of 2010 (and the ensuing unblock dialog) are a concern because it suggests that the old problems from 2006 and 2007 have not entirely gone away. I myself would be OK with the lifting of all the restrictions, but suggest that Koavf voluntarily observe a 1RR regarding Western Sahara articles and be aware that any renewed problem in that area could lead to bad consequences. I didn't see any actual violation of the AWB terms of use but putting project tags in article talk space is not recommended by some projects, and I recommend that he consider whether all his AWB changes are truly valuable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I would be fine with being extra vigilant about my Western Sahara-related edits (as a strictly practical matter, I have to, or else face some certain disciplinary action.) As far as the tagging goes, I have checked these WikiProjects and they do not have any guidelines about not tagging non-article namespaces. In point of fact, the other person in the discussion that you cited acknowledged that there was no precedent guideline for this and changed his mind about the tagging based on this fact. The only other person who responded to me about this was from the Simpsons WikiProject, which also had no guideline about tagging and still doesn't, in spite of the fact that there banner explicitly includes an NA parameter, as well as one for books. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Justin, the wiki-past is gone. Now, could you tell admins on this board that you are serious enough about observing the 1RR rule and wp:consensus? So far you've just talked about how you have been respectful of sanctions and restrictions. I am asking you this is because all what has been talked about here is your editing style but it seems that the discussion has ignored your attitude toward WP:CONSENSUS on talk pages. Probably because you have not been explicitly sanctioned for it but the 'consensus' issue is still bothering me. It's a core policy of this business. Officially, it is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. If you still believe that one single user has the right to sabotage a consensus of 9 nine other users and still insist that he's within his rights then we'd surely have problems in the future. I'll appreciate if you could offer some assurance regarding this point. After that, there'd be no reason for me as a concerned user to object to your appeal.
 * P.S. I'd have liked to be notified since I was the user who brought the complaint to AN/I which resulted in the community sanction in question. Justin, everytime you appeal for something you miss notifying concerned users. It's just a courtesy matter but it has to be mentioned since this is the third time it happens. Thanks. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus As a for instance, the last disagreement I had with an editor, I counseled him to speak with the appropriate WikiProject(s) to reach consensus about contradicting a guideline. (The other half of the discussion is on my talk page.) Other recent examples of my editing raising a red flag and me respecting consensus include User_talk:Koavf/Archive021 (where consensus was against me, and I ceased editing) and User_talk:Koavf/Archive020 (where consensus favored me, and I continued editing for several weeks.) Alternately, here is an example of me following consensus and asking a user to do the same with the resolve to respect that process: User_talk:Koavf/Archive020. And these are all examples of boldness on my part rather than POV-pushing or sheer recklessness. I haven't had anyone complaining about me flaunting consensus lately and I don't do it.
 * In terms of reverting, I don't have much of a recent history for it or the prospect of it due to the types of edits I have been making lately—that is to say, I have been doing a lot of maintenance, such as categorization, tagging, etc on pages that I do not watch rather than substantial edits to the text of articles. Off hand, I cannot remember any instances within the past six months where I've had a prospective edit-war, and I certainly haven't actually engaged in one. This prospective 1RR restriction would be self-imposed and (apparently) limited only to Western Sahara-related articles, so for this, I guess you have my word and your gut.
 * I really didn't know who to alert about this, since I don't have anyone on Wikipedia who would be directly affected by this—no one with whom I have had any Western Sahara-related edit-wars is still on here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Justin. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from archive I have copied the above discussion from Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218 for a fuller discussion and deleted it from that same archive. I have done this per a discussion on the main IRC channel by "killiondude", "SpitfireWP", and "Sky2042" (not necessarily their usernames on en.wp.) Please post any further comments below this horizontal break. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So, what are we doing now? Move forward, wait for more discussions? -- <font size="1px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  12:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More input I "recruited" two admins to take a look--one of whom I have had good relations with, the other of whom has had to rebuke me a little in the past (but we still get along just fine.) I hope that someone will close this matter after having decided that some consensus exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Margareth Tomanek W55 Record
I just created the page: Margareth Tomanek W55 Record. It should have been named Template:Margareth Tomanek W55 Record to avoid unnecessary challenges for deletion. I don't know how the word got left off this version of a bunch of templates but I need admin. assistance to rename the article. Trackinfo (talk)
 * Done. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed partial removal of restrictions on Δ/Betacommand
(previously User:Betacommand) is currently under a series of community-imposed restrictions (listed below, see also original list here and discussion that led to them here): I am proposing that the first two of these restrictions be rescinded, and the third be amended to read "Δ must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time while editing under his primary account." The reasons for this are several. Firstly, Δ is most valuable to the project for his work on bots and automated scripts. He has done outstanding work in these fields in the past, and remains one of the more experienced bot operators Wikipedia has. While it is in part the operation of these automated tools that led to these restrictions, this brings me to my second point. Δ has demonstrated that he is able to maintain and operate a bot within the expectations of our community. As a result of a community discussion here and a subsequent Arbitration Committee motion here, he manages User:Δbot, which does a good job of clerking the (frankly overcomplicated) pages at WP:SPI. Thirdly, these changes to Δ's restriction continue to restrict him from operating scripts from his main account, which in large part was what led to difficulties previously. Δ would still be required to obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group (and/or ArbCom, as appropriate by their previous motions) before operating any other accounts or adding any more tasks to his existing bot.
 * Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand [Δ] must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand [Δ] must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
 * Betacommand [Δ] must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
 * Betacommand [Δ] must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
 * Betacommand [Δ] is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

I have asked Δ to come and explain what he would like to do on the project if these restrictions were lifted, although he has stated that he will have intermittent internet access for the next few days, so please be patient if you have questions for him. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I really would like to be able to say I support this, but I have reservations. On the one hand, Beta (or Delta now.  Whatever greek letter he wants) has skills which are very useful to the project.  On the other hand, Beta has two very serious problems related to the running of his bots which led to the above restrictions.  The first is that he has, at times, made poor decisions regarding the running of his bots for sometimes nefarious purposes (such as making thousands of dummy edits to make a page undeletable under technical limits of the Media Wiki software).  He also has shown, in the past, problems with personal interactions which are not helpful in a bot operator.  Basically, he doesn't interact well when asked to explain his actions, his attitude seems to be "I know better, so leave me alone".  This sort of inapproachability is part of the reason for the civility parole.  I have concerns about expanding his bot-running privileges given these past problems.  I would like to hear from him directly, and especially would like to hear about what he has learned from his troubles and how he intends to operate differently.  I am open to being convinced here, I am just not there yet.  -- Jayron  32  04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive spent a long time reviewing my past actions, Ive also spent a considerable amount of time reflecting and analyzing both my actions and the communities (actions and re-actions) and have learned quite a lot. I've since adjusted my approach, and I have changed quite a bit personally. If you would like we could take this to a private conversation off wiki. (I do not want my personal details public). I could write several essays about what I have learned, and about how I fucked up and what I could, (and should have) done differently but my skill with a pen just is not there to give it proper justice, so I would rather just go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: These restricitons cause nothing but problems Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, this was never asked for at VPR, and 50-60 edits in 10 minutes from 20:28-20:37. Relevant thread: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive643. I was fairly forgiving because I didn't know his restriction, but I'm not happy to hear about it now. I'm going with no; if you can't edit according to the already agreed sanctions, you shouldn't have your previous ones lifted, because we can't trust you. Period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayron's initial sentence. How many times has Δ/Betacommand been given an inch, only to take a mile? There have been too many secondsecondsecond chances here. He can continue editing under these restrictions (though as Magog points out, he actually hasn't), or he can go elsewhere. → ROUX   ₪  04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally per Jayron32. I'm OK with "triangle" and have asked him to help collate information in the past (when he was just Betacommand), he is really quite skilled in that area or at least has a decent framework to execute tasks on. I've seen no positive indication that he will interact better with the general community though, Hersfold, can you point to a successful execution of a WP:VPR request for leave to make a series of edits? Did that ever happen once? Franamax (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As with others, I have reservations. These restrictions were put in place to protect the community, and certainly not without reason. He drained far, far too much from this project in the past because he had useful skills, and I have no desire to go down that route again.  As of yet, I've not seen compelling reason to lift these restrictions, and in fact has broken one of said restrictions just recently. Resolute 05:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Based upon the available evidence, Betacommand/Δ seems no more trustworthy now than he was when the restrictions were enacted, so I oppose. —David Levy 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per problematic history of unauthorized bot activity, incivility, and negligent operation of automated and semi-automated tasks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I've detected absolutley no change in attitude that would justify this as yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of order &mdash; further information about this request, need a statement from Delta; please. I'm a bit confused about how this request came to be here. I don't see any discussion between Delta/Beta and Hersfold on their user talk pages about this request, though I gather that there was some communication between them in other fora. It's rather unusual for an unblocked, unbanned editor not to make requests for changes to paroles and sanctions on their own behalf. It also seems less than helpful – and kind of disrespectful to the community, Hersfold – for such a third-party request to be made while Delta is going to have limited connectivity. (Why couldn't this have waited a week?) At this point, there's no visible participation at all by Delta in this process; we don't have any information about what he wants, or why he believes that this request should be granted. I'm disappointed in Hersfold for bringing this forward under such inopportune circumstances, in Delta for going along with it (presuming he agreed) and with the editors above for being willing to jump to judgement without input from Delta.

Hersfold, you should withdraw this request until such time as Delta is able to participate fully in it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I discussed and requested Hersfold to do this for several reasons, He was a mentor of mine for a year, He has always been better at drafting request that me (I make the same points but just not as well worded), I have been doing quite a lot of gnoming lately and I have noticed several areas where I help improve the encyclopedia in some of these cases automated processes would drastically improve the process, and I have also seen quite a few Bot requests go stale due to a lack of qualified willing bot operators, while I sit around twiddling my thumbs. As for my connection issues, I let Hersfold know that I would have intermittent connection for a short time, (knowing he would post the request soon). That ended last night, however when he posted I was already offline for the day. As I stated above I just want to go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. I have a project Im working on right now that appears to me a fairly large task (15k+ items) that Ive been slowly working on for the last few months manually. I know my actions of the past have caused drama and that is something I don't like, and I am trying to avoid as often as I can. As I have stated I want to go back to my roots (running non-controversial, useful bots) and avoid the drama that led to my burnout (dramafest). ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it's more likely for specific exceptions to be agreed for specified tasks than a blanket lifting of restrictions, if you can show that the tasks have community support and how the restrictions limit your ability to do them. Rd232 talk 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We did that for the SPI bot, and I see no reason why we can't also consider another exception for your "fairly large task". Define this task for us and we can consider it. Resolute 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "I want to perform an unspecified task comprising 15,000+ items, so please turn me loose!" (scare quotes) is hardly the best approach.  —David Levy 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent this, I am not asking to "be let loose", rather just the freedom to file request for approvals for tasks that cross my path. Each task will then be assessed by the community, and BAG to determine the feasibility of each task. I am not asking for blanket approval on any bot activity, rather the ability to seek approval through the normal methods. As for my current project, a full listing of affected pages can be found here which is just over 15,100 pages. It is a listing of all articles which include deleted/non-existent files. I've been going though that list slowly for the last 6 months doing the cleanup myself. Ive got several other ideas on the drawing board but no clue if they will ever leave that. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The restrictions in question were enacted with very good reason. Please explain what has changed to warrant their removal.  How will you behave differently than you did before?  If someone objects to an ongoing task, how will you respond?  —David Levy 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at my response to Jayron32. As for objections, that is a loaded question, it really depends on what the objection is, almost no two objections are the same and thus cannot be responded to in the same manor. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Beta, but vague statements about having seen the error or your ways don't cut it anymore. Not after all of the chances that you've been given.  —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You could perhaps take the time to discuss the objections (without causing trouble in the process) and coming to an agreement with the editor. Then you could ask for input from a third party (WP:3O) if you and the other editor cannot come to an agreement. That's just one possible route to take, though, and I'm sure that each objection will have a different best practice for dealing with it, however, most of the time, what I recommend here (civil discussion) would be involved somehow. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats just one of a dozen different approaches that could be taken depending on the user, their objection, and why they are objecting. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My point was, in essence, that of the many different paths you could take in dealing with an objection, civil discussion must be involved. I raise this point because of some editors' concerns seen above about civility, and not necessarily because of my own opinion (I haven't looked deeply into the recent or far history of this, and so I do not have an opinion to share on this request attm.) <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, for you Beta, that's the only approach to take. The big question is, if someone objects, will you stop your bot? Franamax (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With any issue there are always multiple resolution solutions, however like Ks0stm stated remaining calm and civil is key. I actually used to have a feature enabled in my code that shut the bot off when it received the orange bar of death, I ended up shutting that off due to abuse. But with the ideas and tasks that I have planned, re-enabling it shouldn't be that much of an issue. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For me to even consider supporting the proposed modifications to your restrictions, you would need to agree to stop your bot immediately upon receiving a complaint from a user in good standing, not restart it until the issue has been resolved or a community discussion has resulted in consensus that it is not grounds to halt the task, and revert any changes that the community deems harmful (irrespective of whether they were approved in advance). —David Levy 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that David Levy's suggestion is a good one; there needs to be assurances that, when reasonable objections arise to a bots activity, the bot is stopped until such time as the objections are dealt with. Given Beta/Delta's past, we need to take the default action to be to stop the bot activity if there is ANY doubt about what the bot is doing.  Unlike David Levy, I am very willing to be convinced that Betacommand's restrictions can be relaxed in limited cases.  To be fair, other than the recent glitch noted above, he's kept his nose clean since his return, insofar as I haven't seen his name on the dramaboards at all.  At some point, given a long period of good behavior, we need to consider slowly relaxing restrictions, regardless of our personal problems with Beta.  I would be the first to admit that, especially in the past, I did not like him.  I will not mince words on that issue.  Still, my own personal tastes need to be put aside, and we need to consider what can be good for the Wiki.  It would be good to see some trial relaxations.  One posibility I could propose would be that all bot requests at WP:BAG would need a notice posted to WP:AN, so that the wider community could review his requests; more eyes would be a good thing.  -- Jayron  32  00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually am quite willing to be convinced, but I haven't been yet; Beta's statements have been far too vague. Given his propensity to exploit technicalities (both real and imagined), it's important to eliminate any ambiguity.  —David Levy 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As am I, which is why I would rather we moved to discussing the specifics of what BC/Beta/Delta hopes to accomplish. Discussing lifting the sanctions in vague terms accomplishes very little.  Resolute 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My first major task, which I have manually been working on is removal of deleted/missing images, as I stated above, my goal is to file a BRFA for missing/deleted image removal using AWB. (I cant seem to figure out a good regex myself for removal). I was hoping for general relaxing of the restrictions so that I could avoid a majority of the knee jerk reactions that people have when me and bots are brought up. I actually think Jayron32's proposal above makes good sense. One of the main reasons Ive avoided VPR is just like this discussion, there are a flood of users who regardless of what I may say or do, just think that I should be banned from bots forever, regardless of how the circumstances may change. For the most part its just not worth the drama fight necessary to get small scale projects done. (Ive privately poked a few bot ops with ideas in the past). If anyone would like clarity on anything specifically let me know or just ask for it. Also if anyone wants to see how I respond to objections draft a situation up and an objection and it can be "role played" though. Short of someone objecting its the best case example that I can come up with. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if someone wants to see how you respond to objections, they can check e.g. this discussion on your talk page from just one month ago, where you reacted to being called "Betacommand" with "Since you cannot show me the basic respect to use the right username I think this conversation is over with." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help people to extend good will to Delta if he had a link on his Talk page to his archives. The current revision of his talk page no longer contains that thread, which from the page history was archived here. (Further, the name of that archive page leads one to suspect there are even more talk archives in Delta's userspace, which would require anyone wanting to evaluate his behavior since his name change to do some determined fishing in order to find them.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose and troutslap anyone who proposes such a thing in the future. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In sum, if Delta follows the terms of Restriction 1 and proposes his specific task at VPR, he can as part of that proposal explain why restrictions 2 and 3 would be a particular limitation for that task, and ask for them to be relaxed for that specific task. A general lifting does not seem on the cards, at least at this point. Rd232 talk 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, is not able to handle objections in a reasonable way (see e.g. the link I gave above). Fram (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for many of the reasons above. Don't think lifting them would be a good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I admit that I may not know all the history and I understand the misgivings that many of the above editors have but I am going to be bold and be the first support that I can see and be willing to see this user get another chance at redeeming their honor and this is a worthwhile task that he wants to perform to do that. Remember, This is only to rescind the first 2 of the 4 restrictions. Although I am not sure myself how to stop a bot from making more than 4 edits a minute. The bot and its operator are still restricted to no more than 4 edits a minute and they are still being watched. Otherwise my advice is that someone else on this page needs to step forward and volunteer to perform the task that he is recommending. --Kumioko (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose - per Rd232, and that the user has a very hard time following community norms and restrictions placed by the community. I have no issue with task specific relaxation of specific sanctions, but only through a proper bot review process.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
 * Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  NW  ( Talk ) 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Mass redirect deletion request
Can a kind (and deletion hungry :) ) admin please delete some 30-odd implausible redirects listed at Talk:List of settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Thanks. No such user (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some are still liked in to articles. I see no pressing reason to delete these. They are harmless at worst.--Scott Mac 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, none should be linked to -- which exactly? Those entities simply do not exist. Besides, every redirect is harmless, but we do have WP:RFD and CSD R3. No such user (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked a few using Special:WhatLinksHere: for example, Zavalje i Zlopoljac (Bihać) and Vršani i Zagoni (Bijeljina) are linked from their municipalities. Oddly, Bijeljina has Vršani and Zagoni separated, but Zagoni redirects to Zagoni (Bratunac). Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for permissions
There are currently requests over a week out at Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. Could someone take a look there? <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Image restore
A request for an admin to undelete File:National Organization for Marriage.gif as it was deleted for being orphaned when a user who meant to remove the Unbalanced tag also inadvertently removed the article's infobox containing the image in September and no one caught this mistake until I just did now. Thanks. allstar✰echo   19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Allstarecho, I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Phil.     allstar✰echo    20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pd-textlogo anyway. Someone change the tag, find an SVG version, and transfer to Commons. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it pd-textlogo, though? I think it's a debatable case, but I think interlocking rings may be unoriginal enough. Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine
Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed the first one, but I had a personal opinion on the second, so I commented instead. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and maintenance tags
I invite participation at a discussion here: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned users and their userpages
At this deletion discussion, an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.

I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? Or is my memory failing me? :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment here, so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned users and their userpages
At this deletion discussion, an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.

I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? Or is my memory failing me? :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment here, so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned users and their userpages
At this deletion discussion, an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.

I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? Or is my memory failing me? :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment here, so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA
Resolved If a free admin could help out at WP:UAA that'd be great, there is a huge backlog. Thanks  Addi hockey  10 e-mail 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change: enough is enough!
As an uninvolved admin, I thought the end of the arbcom case would draw a line under this, by spelling out to all those obsessed with it that the community had simply had enough. However, it seems that the participants haven't quite got the message.

Since the closing of the case, we've had wikilawyering over whether the letter of the topic ban allowed banned users to contribute to the articles by posting comments on their talk pages ("what does topic banned mean?"). We've had two threads on this board regarding disputes. (And probably more I've missed.) And now we've got a dispute on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement about whether a banned user can carry on commenting on sanction on another involved user.

I am thoroughly sick of this. There's a point where some people are simply refusing to hear the community saying "ENOUGH". I thus propose that uninvolved admins agree the following:


 * 1) Topic banned means "find a different topic", and shall be very broadly construed. It's that simple: take the related articles (and users) off your watchlist and do something else.
 * 2) Given that the problem wasn't content, so much as the unacceptable interactions between the participants, the ban shall be taken to mean the participants should cease all hostile (or conceivably hostile) interactions. They should cease to comment on each other entirely.
 * 3) All other editors, who have been party to the conflict, are strongly urged to consider stepping back from the topic - including commenting on enforcement.
 * 4) Continued hostilities by any user in this area are likely to result in speedy blocks, without too much regard for who started it. All reasonable blocks will be endorsed without lengthy discussion and rule-mongering.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had it with this.--Scott Mac 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaning to support Put simply, the ruling means that these users are no longer invited to contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia's Climate Change related articles. If other editors act improperly then the topic banned users' contribution is not needed to correct it - uninvolved editors without a history of poor judgment and conduct in the topic area will comment if comment is needed; their comment is not. The ruling is also not intended to swap one major dispute for many small user page disputes. If the topic is raised on a user page the answer is "I am topic banned from responding, please ask here". However careless blocking "without too much regard" is not a good response. FT2 (Talk 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. As another Arb wrote ( Carcharoth, at, "My intention, when voting for the topic bans, was that those topic-banned would stay away from the topic area completely (as Beeblebrox has said). If we (ArbCom) had intended to allow limited discussion of sources on user talk pages, we would have made provisions for that. As we didn't, there are no provisions for that to take place." This has gone on long enough. I'm with Scott Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support there is a time for discussion, and a time to knock some heads together. I think the latter has arrived. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I've proposed an update to the policy explanation of topic bans to clarify these issues/loopholes, as they affect all topic bans, not just Climate Change related ones. FT2 (Talk 16:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Admins should be able to impose sanctions under CC discretionary sanctions if there is a problem, and the only possible reason any CC related issues should pop up here is in the event of a well-timed and well-framed appeal/review request/special notification. If AE has already dealt with an issue (such as by issuing a warning), it's unhelpful to propose a CC specific sanction at AN or ANI ~10 hours later (in circumstances where no other DR has occurred and the editor has made no other edits since the time that AE thread was closed). Certain users and their approaches are the problem - not the drafting. Therefore, I oppose shaping the rest of the project more (or even less) aggressively because of a single topic area - CC - that is out of control. "I am thoroughly sick of this" hits the nail on the head. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom was quite explicit about the intended scope of the topic bans that they imposed, though there does seem to be some attempt by several editors to rewrite those provisions. The case remedies already allow uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions in response to conduct which is harmful to the project.  It is not clear to me why another thread needed to be started here; poor judgement on Scott Mac's part, I think, to ignite another fire to no useful effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignite a fire? Help, can't you see the forest is ablaze already. My intention is to draw a line in the sand by saying that those trying to continue this war by other means need to "get it". The topic bans are not limited restrictions, they are intended to close the whole chapter. Some people obviously haven't got this at all.--Scott Mac 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am very sympathetic to the community reaction to the CC mess. As Ncmvocalist puts it: " 'I am thoroughly sick of this' hits the nail on the head." That said, I don't see how this proposal helps. The numbered list of statements either matches the ArbCom findings or it does not. If it matches, it is redundant, if it does not, it suggests that this group can overturn an ArbCom decision with a simple vote (or !vote). I see deficiencies in the ArbCom decision, but think there are better ways to address it. (FT2's link is a start). I'd also note that hostilities are winding down, and perhaps just letting the AE process get sorted out would be a better approach.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing new in my proposals. They simply are intended as an opportunity for us to say that we will not brook anyone wikilawyering around the spirit of what arbcom has said, and we will have zero tolerance with people simply continuing disputes in some way that arbcom didn't explicitly prohibit. Banned editors should move on entirely, and not pop up in discussions of the userconduct of their old opponents.--Scott Mac 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support: FGS ban the lot of them and delete the subject for ever. It's not that I am unsympathetic to polar bears having to live off bananas and the starving millions having to take skiing holidays (I am recycling my yogurt pots and newpapers to help them) but enough is truly enough. This bickering has gone on far too long - let's talk about sex or something interetsting we can all join in.  Giacomo  18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support 1: those banned are banned inter alia from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. End of. Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Oppose. This forum seems rather the wrong venue for these suggestions. If the existing ArbCom sanctions/remedies are insufficient, a request for amendment is in order. If the meaning/scope of topic bans is in question, a request for clarification can be filed. However, in the presence of a recent ArbCom ruling, trying to introduce additional restrictions, particularly in relation to the Arbcom topic bans, in another venue, seems to be a recipie for confusion and chaos. Nsk92 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Scott Mac's sentiment, but more noticeboard handwringing won't help. Instead, just start blocking these people in application of their topic ban (or under discretionary sanctions) if their continued bickering bothers you. Most tend to get it after the third or fourth block.  Sandstein   20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody needs to clarify anything. For all practical purposes arbcom has declared "weapons free" for admins acting in the climate change battlefield. Sanction whoever you want, however you want, for whatever reason you see fit. Don't be shy; the burden of proof is on the person who is being sanctioned. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly wasn't meant as such. I think it is a fair reading of arbcom's intent: enough with the perpetual drama and debate, just get in there and "knock some heads together" as someone put it above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the ArbCom decision and subsequent remarks by arbs was intended to create a "free fire zone", but it certainly did empower uninvolved admins to impose sanctions against those people violating both teh word and the spirit of their topic bans. I urge more admins to patrol this area and use the enforcement power you have been given to help bring this subject area under control. I believe that is what the community, as a whole, wants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more with the overall sentiment of being sick to death of this conflict and the push after the decision to find holes in the ban to wriggle through. However I also couldn't agree more that it's time to take a less talky, more blocky approach to the situation. Actions speak louder than words and months of talking still have failed to get through to some of the combatants. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From my experience with enforcement of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case, there comes a point at which the only thing getting the point across is "Break the rules, you'll get blocked. Push the boundaries, you'll get blocked." The alternative here is to see Requests for arbitration/Climate Change 2 become a bluelink, and no one in their right mind wants that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The goal is to create a change in culture. As Sandstein mentions above, the best way to do that is for a group of admins to mete out some lengthy blocks pour encourager les autres. When people see that arbcom and the admin corps mean business they'll stop pushing. Handwringing over "did the arbs mean this, did they mean that, what about clause (vi) in subpart 2(a) of Finding of Fact 9.2" only prolongs the agony. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Although understandable, this proposal seems to stem from a "I'm so angry I will nuke the world" mentality. That has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia (WP:Tigers and all that).  One of the supposed cases of climate-drama spillover was the AN request I began (to be clear, I am quite peripheral to climate editing, but am now planning to take a much more active interest).  It was an ordinary and routine case, requiring ordinary and routine attention--edit-warring across the project after various other attempts to encourage the editor failed.  However because one or two edit wars were climate-related, the thread was summarily hatted and protestations ignored.  The editor went back to a (non-climate) edit war immediately.  Angry is no way to edit an encyclopedia, and never has good results.  If you're angry, walk away.  Certainly don't propose blocking everyone who annoys you.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See this Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I appreciate it! My point is not that blocks should be avoided, only that they should be handed with judicious care. Blocks arising out of frustration are not going to work and should be discouraged.  I feel much of this proposal falls into that category.  While the frustration is understandable, encouraging reckless and emotionally involved blocks is going to cause far more problems.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see this recently concluded arbitration enforcement request. It's much harsher than I asked for but it's the result of a two-day discussion and I think it's justifiable. It appears that the arbitration committee, the community and the uninvolved admins at WP:AE are finally united in sending a clear and unmistakable message to the topic-banned editors in the climate change arbitration. --TS 09:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The community's willingness to enforce this breach, and send out such a strong message, rather renders my motion here moot. The message has been sent. I'd be happy to see this thread archived, if someone wants to do that.--Scott Mac 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob
A few hours ago I blocked Off2riorob for 24 hours in response to a 3RR violation. Upon further investigation, I found a lengthy series of problematic edits (see below), previous blocks, and at least one attempt at editing restrictions. He was previously placed on a 5 week 1RR sanction, which he stated he might continue of his own volition. The blocks since, including the present block, seem to indicate a continued problem.


 * In light of these, I wonder if there is community support for a permanent 1RR restriction for Off2riorob.

Some evidence of problematic edits:
 * April 2009: ANI discussion which resulted in a block. archived discussion The block was reduced when he showed remorse and an intent to improve.
 * August 2009: He was again blocked for edit warring and again promised to desist in the future .  His block was again reduced.
 * July 2010: Personal attacks (deleted edit), which resulted in a block.
 * October 2010: Petty vandalism when questioned about recent reverts (archived discussion).
 * My block for 3RR on William Connelley.

Keeping in mind he is currently blocked, does anyone have thoughts or suggestions on this? --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * User notified --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: 1RR restriction

 * Regarding his most recent block, I didn't see a block notice that is customarily given when a block is issued. Did I miss it? Regarding the sanctions, I would support a 1RR sanction. In addition, Rob has been identifying as vandalism content disputes and using Twinkle in an inappropriate manner. I would also support removing his Twinkle access for now. Basket of Puppies  06:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See for the block notice (plain text, not a fancy template - I suspect per WP:DNTTR).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh there it is! Yeah, I just missed it. My eyes are much too tired. Off to sleep! Basket of Puppies  06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal above by TeaDrinker and the comment by Basket of Puppies, and support a permanent 1RR sanction. (Note: Off2riorob was previously blocked for engaging in disruption at a GA-quality article that I wrote.) I would also support removing Off2riorob's access to Twinkle. -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support both. doesn't this belong on ANI? Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 06:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the proposed permanent 1RR restriction/sanction. Defer to others on Twinkle.  I also note that in this November 2009 AN/I, the great bulk of his support was from ChildofMidnight, who has since been banned from Wikipedia for a year.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * &hellip; which is both irrelevant and outdated. (We have an article on what the Institute for Propaganda Analysis called transfer explaining why ChildofMidnight's endorsement is not relevant to Off2riorob's actions.)  One could equally try to call Off2riorob a single-purpose account based upon what Cirt said in the April 2009 AN/I discussion.  That's clearly outdated now, too.  If the compelling evidence for action here is discussions from 2009, then I suggest that people take a look at Special:Contributions/Off2riorob.  Early 2009, late 2009, and 2010 are not the same animal.  We should not institutionalize hanging onto grudges like this.  Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not in principle opposed to a restriction, but what's wrong with the standard method of escalating blocks? If he doesn't comply with 3RR, he's not much more likely to comply with 1RR. If a restriction is to be imposed, somebody would need to spell out what exactly is being proposed here (one revert per page per 24 hours, I suppose?). Also, since the current edit war is in the climate change topic area, discretionary sanctions are also a possibility.  Sandstein   06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One revert per page per 24 hours seems most reasonable. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that 1-revert-per-pg per-24-hours seems appropriate. As to escalating blocks, I note that Off2 was blocked for 24 hours (March 2009), 72 reduced to 48 hours (April 2009), 72 hours (April 2009), 1 week (April 2009), 24 hours reduced to time served (July 2009), 2 weeks (July 2009), 3 weeks (reduced on promise to desist edit warring in the future; August 2009), 31 hours (July 2010). All prior to this 24-hour block.  Per our standard method of escalating blocks, which Sandstein refers to, it strikes me that the current 24-hour block is too low — it would have been appropriate for a first-time offender, but this editor has been blocked numerous times in the past year and a half, up to 3 weeks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the 1RR restriction. Off2riorob has also got into lengthy arguments and edit wars on the British National Party and other articles about the British far right, which he thought were written from an anti-BNP bias.  TFD (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose And the BNP argument holds no weight with me. Too much sounds like "let's get even" with a valued editor. Collect (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Climate change topic ban

 * Overall 1RR may be fine for Off2riorob, but one revert per day is 'too lenient for a CC articles. One revert per week is more in line with the type of editing restriction needed to get CC articles to have stability. Otherwise, the result will be tag team edit warring that would be supported by the editing restrictions. I suggest Off2riorob be put on a stricter restriction for the CC articles. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely stepping away from the CC topic (and any other areas where Off2riorob gets heated and loses control) is a better restriction than a blanket 1RR which allow too many problematic edits on controversial topics and perhaps too few where otherwise needed. If there are overall problems beyond reverting then that needs to be determined (maybe with a RFC or ArbCom case) and further editing restrictions or bans can be imposed. So, I support a complete CC topic ban for now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think now would be a good time to ask Off2riorob to step away from the climate change topic entirely. For technical reasons it is not possible at this stage to propose a topic ban at WP:AE, but the conclusion seems reasonable. He is by all accounts a very productive editor elsewhere, but as he admits himself he has a bee in his bonnet about William M. Connolley. --TS 12:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose A 1r restriction on an editor who mostly works BLP`s and the BLP noticeboard would hamstring him from the productive work he does. Everyone make`s mistakes, he ought not be overly punished for this one. mark (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)  This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --TS 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Making multiple reverts shouldn't be required in BLPs any more than anywhere else; remember that removing contentious, unsourced information about living persons is one of the exceptions to 3RR and by extension to an imposed 1RR. <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but there`s the rub, what if it is sourced but not written in a NPOV manner? Or as an attack piece? We see such on BLP`s all the time, if he is restricted to 1r he will quite simply be unable to work the BLP noticeboard. Why not a simple restriction of 1r on this one article? I think that would be more suitable given the nature of this offence mark (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)  This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --TS 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony Sidaway, and I suggest that people look away from AN/I to all of the work that Off2riorob does at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The slice of history presented here purports to cover a year's worth of editing but is very limited and one-sided, and really isn't the whole picture by any means.  It reflects, I suspect, the area where Off2riorob is influenced to err by (a) xyr perception of climate change POV-pushing and (b) the proximity of a subject to Wikipedia itself. Contrast that to xyr work at (to pick just one BLPN example) Ed Miliband where xyr work has been edits like this one and efforts to stop our article from labelling Miliband (who has stated for the record that xe does not believe in God) as "the Jewish leader of the Labour Party" and having religion=Jewish in an infobox.  When the biography is not climate-change related or close to Wikipedia, there's a rather different Off2riorob here.  There's also a significantly different Off2riorob now to the one that Cirt characterized in April 2009, the discussion of whom is being used as evidence for action here. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that in considering Off2riorob's editing history we must look at this work at BLPN - I'd be sorry to lose his help there. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Would a community topic ban from Climate Change articles, following the wording of those recently applied to various editors by ArbCom, and a permanent ban from the William Connolley article suffice? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think a full topic ban for CC is best for now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose(ec) Off2 was not mentioned in any CC arbcom discussions, and imposing a topicban is absurd over-reaction. He is a valued editor, and all of this is simply going to be a matter of "let's remove anyone we disagree with" type rationale. In other words -- why not openly say "anyone with any position on CC whatever is to be topic-banned ab initio" as the easiest way to deal with the topic? Nope. Draconian solutions generally do not work, and all this will do is make that more abundantly clear than ever. Meanwhile the BNP is so far rremoved from any reasonable argument on this as to be quite nicely irrelevant - we ought not have personal disagreements with anyone dictate banning a good editor who, as I noted, was never even mentioned at the arbcom discussions on CC. Collect (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about opinion, it's about behavior. He edit warred on a BLP in a topic area that was under arbcom-imposed sanctions. The only reason he isn't being topic banned at WP:AE is that arbcom sanctions require prior formal notification. The community has the opportunity to say "enough is enough." --TS 13:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire point of discretionary sanctions is to allow for editing restrictions for users not named in the ArbCom case. So, this editing restriction is perfectly reasonable given his edit warring on a CC related article within days of the case ending. I see no problem with discussing this here since this is where the discussion started. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions
 * 1) Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Why can't ArbCom discretionary sanctions deal with the CC related matters? Why does the Community need to relitigate this aspect here at WP:AN rather than WP:AE? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Metadiscussion

 * Question Why was the above discussion archived? I understand that Rob has agreed to modify his editing, but the consensus seemed to be in favor of a 1RR restriction and, possibly, revokation of Twinkle. Basket of Puppies  16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it seems more urgent to de-escalate the CC fiasco, than to worry too much about the rest of it. Besides, after Rob had agreed to step away from the immediate flashpoint, nothing else needed urgent admin action. If you want to pursue more general complaints, then I suggest a user RFC is the normal way.--Scott Mac 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been closed because the issue was resolved and, as Doc has correctly stated, the community is sick and tired of the subject. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am only confused as to why this discussion was closed, seemingly out of process. Isn't it against consensus to close a discussion where a consensus has nearly been reached? The underlying issue of Rob's behavior isn't much of a concern to me as the issue of prematurely closing a discussion. Basket of Puppies  16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And doesn't this belong on /Incidents anyway? Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Shrug* Basket of Puppies  17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is in the interests of this project to allow issues associated with CC to cool. Rob has seen that, and we should thank him for it and drop this. Sanctions are always a piss-poor substitute for getting agreement and peace. The technicalities of which board and broken process are worthy casualties of drama-ending. Now, walk away. This has ended as well (indeed a lot better) than any other possible ending. And I, for one, don't wish to waste any more time on CC and those who can't let it go.--Scott Mac 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was unnecessarily dramatic. Basket of Puppies  17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the closing of the thread. Way too early.  And there is no reason to roll it up, other than to conceal its contents from future searches.  I don't believe Scott's action in in line with the sentiment of the community on this page.  And I don't think his and editor Tasty (who is "sick and tired of the subject" after under 1,000 edits) are reflecting the sentiment on this page in suggesting that we should sweep it under the rug because of their sense that the community prefers that.  Rob has made agreements before, which triggered sanction reductions -- and which he has just violated with his edit warring here.  --Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you discussed your concerns with Rob? If so, unless there's need for urgent admin action, I'd suggest that a user RFC is the place to take ongoing concerns. (For your info Tasy = User:Tony Sidaway, not that the edit count should really matter).--Scott Mac 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here. This was quid pro quo.  Scott Mac did exactly what he promised, shut down discussion, on the basis of Rob's consent.  My personal opinion is that's entirely OK and within the scope of administrator discretion to "talk someone down" like that, but I think that Scott should have been a bit more open here about the deal he offered and concluded. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Why was this thread again archived when the discussion is ongoing? Basket of Puppies  21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. However, the user that hatted the thread, noted he did not read it at all: "discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at." Most inappropriate to archive and declare something as closed, which one has not even bothered to read. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This constant hatting of discussion without notification or warning is leaving multiple users (myself included, and i'm not even involved in the discussion) with a sense of bad faith toward the hatters. Silver  seren C 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should be closed, Rob learned his lesson, no one wants to ban him or but any restrictions on him. He does an excellent job with BLPs, so I'm against any sactions for him. Secret account 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal that we all agree to refrain from hatting/archiving/similar action threads when there is ongoing discussion. Additionally, for the hatter/archiver/similar to read and understand what they are doing before the action is undertaken. Agreed? Basket of Puppies  02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. From what I can read (in what has been rolled up), it appears that the close was a unilateral one done against consensus at the time.  In fact, broad comments used by the closer as a basis for the non-consensus closing such as "Most of us uninvolved folk are now totally sick of it" are not supported by the comments of "most of us uninvolved folk" on this page, and I find such comments to be quite curious (as well as contrary to what my own guess would be, reading this thread).  I understand that such a non-consensus close is contrary to our core consensus guideline (which, though I agree with the remarks about hatting/archiving, I view as an even graver problem with the goings-on in this string).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Am I correct in assuming it was who collapsed the discussion for the second time? Just want to make sure I am seeing it correctly.  Basket of Puppies  04:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the premature hatting/archiving of the above discussions, I've created WP:DAOHATTHOD to hopefully provide some useful advice. Basket of Puppies  06:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the discussion collapsing here has simply driven discussion to other noticeboards. This particular discussion has been continued at /Incidents. Interestingly, but regrettably, none of the involved parties are now using Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to discuss the actual BLP content dispute over Andre Geim. Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the issue of "who is a Jew?" is being talked round in circles on the talk page of the article.--Scott Mac 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

UAA Backlog
There is a huge backlog at WP:UAA, would some of you fix please? <em style="font-family:Matisse ITC;color:red">Special <em style="font-family:Matisse ITC;color:red">Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's only two now., boht tagged "wait 'til the user edits. Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Articles for deletion/Washington & Jefferson Presidents men's ice hockey and Articles for deletion/Gäp
Would an admin (or admins) close Articles for deletion/Washington & Jefferson Presidents men's ice hockey and Articles for deletion/Gäp? These AfDs are listed at Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The second one is done. Don't have time to tackle the first right now, so I leave it for another volunteer. --RL0919 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to look at the first one, and it has been closed "merge" the right close by the looks. Note admins are not required for closes. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Vandal with a grudge
Recently, I have nominated the pages of the "Vandal with a grudge" for deletion. Now has contacted me on what to do with the vandal (who had struck once again once after his sockpuppet pages had been deleted). While I agree that there's no point in keeping a list of his accounts, his vandalism is expectionally severe (posting of defamatory content on user's pages and other harassment), and he operates on multiple projects. (I remember seeing him on Czech, Slovak, English and German Wikipedia, and more recently on the Commons as commons:User:Valkýra 333 - where he was spotted too late to make a checkuser request.) For examples of his modus operandi, see the deleted history of User:-jkb-, or the page I used to maintain to keep track of him at User:Mike Rosoft/Vandal with a grudge. Could it be possible to create an abuse filter against him, and coordinate the effort across the targetted projects? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

New AfD tool
I have had an AfD parser available for a while, but due to some toolserver configuration changes it has broke, Since I am unable to fix the issue that caused the break I re-wrote my parser so that scans all active AfDs. A full listing of all parsed AfDs can be found at ~betacommand/reports/afd, However in the process of re-writing the tool I have also implemented a summary tool, its WP:RFASUM but for AfDs which can be found at ~betacommand/AFD.html if you have any questions,feature requests, or bugs please let me know. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS please note that you can sort that table by any column. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already been finding this the best way to scan quickly the thousand or so open AfDs. Thanks!   DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that you can easily tell if an AfD is expired by sorting on the expired column. (the tool uses the relist template to adjust expiration times when its relisted) ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What a cracking tool. Although I note it is reporting Articles_for_deletion/Middle_Barton_F.C. as having a start date some time in 2006. Must be something odd in the date formatting for that particular one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because the AfD in question was erroneously created over the top of an existing AfD. Δ, I bet you could explicitly detect such problems in your tool's report, if you're up for useful feature requests. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be because this particular AfD was filed in 2006, see however that AfD was moved and a redirect replaced it pointing to the new AfD. Then it was Sent to AfD this time and the tool checks for the oldest revision to the AfD (when it was filed) and uses that (in this case the first filing not the current one). Not much I can do, this should rarely if ever happen again. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure it had to be something bizarre. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If anyone has feature request or just wants another tool just let me know. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 23:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Marknutley
I've moved this thread to the forum designated for such appeals, WP:AE.  Sandstein  20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-design of BLP noticeboard, comments welcome
Hi all! I've redesigned the biographies of living persons noticeboard to make it easier to understand. All the information required for a user to submit a report is now placed in the top section, with information for those that want to help out hidden. This makes everything easier to understand and should make the process less intimidating. Any comments on how to improve it? Alternatively, if no one objects, I can take this live pretty soon. See User:Netalarm/Lab 3. Feel free to submit reports there. (Note the colors are not final and may be changed later one.) <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes, which weren't major enough so I hope you don't mind. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at RPP
Hi, there is getting to be a bit of a list at WP:RPP. I dunno why, but no one seems to be replying to posts on that board at the moment. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk)
 * Thanks, y'all. Much better. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-design of BLP noticeboard, comments welcome
Hi all! I've redesigned the biographies of living persons noticeboard to make it easier to understand. All the information required for a user to submit a report is now placed in the top section, with information for those that want to help out hidden. This makes everything easier to understand and should make the process less intimidating. Any comments on how to improve it? Alternatively, if no one objects, I can take this live pretty soon. See User:Netalarm/Lab 3. Feel free to submit reports there. (Note the colors are not final and may be changed later one.) <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes, which weren't major enough so I hope you don't mind. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at RPP
Hi, there is getting to be a bit of a list at WP:RPP. I dunno why, but no one seems to be replying to posts on that board at the moment. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk)
 * Thanks, y'all. Much better. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Very important: Need an uninvolved admin to help close an RFC
We need an uninvolved admin to formally close an RFC. Just to give you a little bit of background:


 * We started an RFC about the Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists in late August.
 * I documented a few broad principles where there appears to be consensus, despite other areas of controversy.
 * One week ago, I posted a notice to close the RFC on the talk page at this section

All we need from someone is to undertake a few tasks.


 * 1) Close this thread to close the RFC, with some kind of discussion/summary template.
 * 2) Close this list of principles with some kind of discussion/summary template.

It was a long and difficult discussion. But the issue is an important one and it would be a shame to lose the consensus principles that this RFC produced. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you are seeking is an "offical stamp" for your views on the RFC, but although you believe them to be the "consensus", in reality they are actually disputed. I don't see how the administrators can "sign off" your views as being the basis for changes to any policy guideline. Last time I looked, no policy or guideline had to have an admin's Imprimatur. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way Gavin, but most editors share those views even though you do not. Consensus is not unanimity. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting that Shooterwalker has not in fact asked anyone to endorse his own views. He has asked for the discussion to be formally closed and a summary written. That's exactly correct and this is a suitable venue for the request. The bad faith of "I think..." isn't needed here. FT2 (Talk 19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks FT2. My personal views are actually pretty close to Gavin's. But I'm trying to find a consensus, even where I personally disagree.
 * Regardless of the outcome, we need someone independent to read the closing thread to see if there is indeed a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, it is not in fact required that an administrator close an RFC. What is needed is any experienced user who did not participate in the discussion and has not previously indicated strong feelings one way or the other on the subject. At a glance it looks like a bear of a discussion that will require more time than I have open today to close properly, but if nobody steps up soon I may be able to find the time tomorrow or Wednesday. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I know there's a lot to read. Shooterwalker (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have known that if i said I would get to it later if nobody stepped up that nobody would step up. I will start working on it now, but this may take a while to complete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it will definitely take a while. If you have any questions I'll do my best to point you in the right direction. Thanks again. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Eulsa Treaty
It seems the move discussion at Talk:Eulsa Treaty has died down and a neutral admin (or someone) is needed to determine the consensus in the discussion. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like discussion has started back up again, so continue ignoring this. :) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus seemed rather clear in that discussion (minus one outspoken dissenter), and I was going to close as such. But on the suggestion above, I will continue to ignore it. -Atmoz (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move needs closing
A requested move of Dover to Dover, Kent needs to be closed. As a contentious request, it needs to be done by an uninvolved admin. Discussion at talk:Dover. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have closed it as "no consensus" with a link to an ongoing discussion on the Village Pump that is relevant and may result in a page move in the future.  —  Soap  —  12:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And with an edit conflict, I have added my closure (no consensus) as well. — <b style="color:#008">Edokter</b> • Talk  • 13:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Being solicited to sell prescription drugs through email
Just thought you guys should know this is happening. Here is the text of the email:

-  Johnny Mr Nin ja  02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (email text removed - may be spam but it's still copyright. Too many revisions to do more than this - FT2 22:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Indefinitely blocked with email revoked for spamming. No other sleepers from the CU that I ran. –MuZemike 02:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You guys do realize what those drugs are right?  Mr. R00t    Talk  04:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, makes no difference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Advance-fee fraud? Corvus cornix  talk  05:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts, but for pennies? Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC).


 * No, for bank account details; and possibly for electronic mail account details too. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, study drugs. –MuZemike 17:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it ironic that someone would be stupid enough to buy study drugs from a random website? Half  Shadow  22:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so ironic as it may seem. I seen many desperate college students try to get a hold of study drugs before exam time. –MuZemike 19:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Starzynka
Can someone take a look at this editor's creations? I went to leave a post on his talk page but the first thing you see is a message saying that he's not a bot. He managed to create nine articles on Korean rivers in one minute! These stubs contain no references and no mention of notability. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Browser tabs, perhaps. However, I notice that you did not leave them the required notice that they are being discussed here. Shall I do that for you? —DoRD (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be a more informed discussion if everybody participating would start by reading the header of the talk page of . Looie496 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well, since there has been no reply from the OP to my query, I have gone ahead and notified Starzynka. —DoRD (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry folks! I forgot about that. I'll put a note on the article now. Thanks for notifying Starzynka, I appreciate it. I was too busy placing unsourced tags on the articles. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I did read the header. But I personally find the creation of nine unsourced, un-notable stubs per minute a problem. That's why I asked for it to be looked at again. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, cities, towns, and other populated places are considered inherently notable. —DoRD (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but how do we even know that half of these places exist? Just look at the articles; they're one liners. In the articles that do have references, the reference sections (usually a solitary reference) are longer than the articles themselves. It's a waste of server space. You seem inherently defensive. Please, just look at the articles... — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Over 90% of articles I start have article on other wikipedia or have source and is instantly confirm by a google check.Starzynka (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the article you previously linked, but then removed, Google Maps says: It exists. —DoRD (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I was on NPP a few days ago, I went through this same issue with someone creating one-line articles on Portuguese towns, and it was incredibly annoying. I don't object to mass-creating stubs on geographic locations, but I'd like if the people doing it have at least one source, if only to make our job on NPP a little easier. In my case, I had to go and take out an atlas (I happen to have a paper one with far more detail than most) to verify the existence of these places because none of them were referenced, so I can understand the annoyance, for what it's worth. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant policy: Bot policy. I would assume that this applies, even if he is just using browser tabs.  NW  ( Talk ) 05:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My editing future is on a thin line here if this bullying continues. I will try to find source but all my stubs are encyclopedic and can be expand. many stubs do contain facts and sources like Category:Mountains of South Korea and other editors have since added korean names to them. The Han River is big river in Korea and I thought I help by filling gaps in a list. I did not edit for a month because of nucelar warefare and friends and moment I am here you push and push again. English wikipedia forces article creators and other good editors away by this reports. Starzynka (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Starzynka, you need to assume good faith. Nobody here is bullying you. Also, it might be a good idea not to make controversial edits while those very edits are under discussion, this just displays a lack of communication from you, and shows you may be unable to work with-in a community environment like Wikipedia. Also, you keep making the same mistake, and then having to fix it (e.g.) I recall seeing this kind of mistake mentioned before, possibly about you. But you're clearly aware of it, and yet keep making it over and over. You clearly need to slow down (there's no point using BASEPAGENAME or whatever you're using to get the title, if you then have to go back and change it) - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * is there evidence of good faith? i see no controversy. is he to suspend edits every time someone wants to start an ANI? how many times? is not starting an ANI over and over systemic? are we going to get some adult supervision, to stop the harassment of this editor?<font color="#D70040">Accotink2 talk 15:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not a mistake. It saves me having to type out the name twice in infobox and article. As long as I correct the title I did not use to but now I do because it was mention. Actually this article on Serbian wiki and French wiki.Starzynka (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So cut, copy, and paste - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why?? Its more efficient my way. There is nothing wrong with Petka (Požarevac) as a start, Real place, real content is what wikipedia needs.Starzynka (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your way is not more efficient, it involves making two edits to the page, when you could instead simply copy the real title of the page instead of BASEPAGENAME (then having to go back and fix it). That might be your opinion, but it's inappropriate to just ignore other people and edit at high speed rates like that to impose your opinion of what Wikipedia should be upon others. Besides, the problem a lot of the time doesn't seem to be the topic of the article, but the way's it written (stubby, high speed sacrificing quality for quantity, unreferenced etc.) - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You have forced another content creator away from wikipedia with pathetic bureacracy. Starzynka (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Back when I created a whack of stubs for communities in Trinidad and Tobago, each came from a redlink, had a suitable project listed on its talkpage, and I believe at least 1 reference. Even community stubs - which are inherently notable - need ref's and a minimal amount of work. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Content? All you do is take up the page name to add one more to your statistics. I'm sorry, but the "content" that you create is almost negligible. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  12:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And even when a source is provded, e.g. Petka_(Požarevac), it isn't really acceptable. In this case, it's a book in Polish. No translation of the title; nothing. Can't an English language source be used for a reference on the English language Wiki? If these are geographical locations, then any ENglish language atlas could be used. Also, to quote his userpage: "...I AM NOT COMPLETELY FLUENT IN ENGLISH AND AM NOT FLUENT OR EVEN KNOWLEDGEABLE IN LANGUAGES WHICH MANY OF MY ARTICLES NEED TRANSLATION FROM. I DO NOT FEEL CONFIDENT TO WRITE FULL ARTICLES ON ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA LIKE THIS." It does beg the question: why bother? I stay away from the Polish language Wikipedia because I don't feel confident to write full articles. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  12:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Non-English language references are acceptable. All the referenced articles Starzynka created were valid stubs. I agree that the unreferenced ones should have had references, but don't see why it is an AN matter. The net result of this discussion is that a prolific contributor working hard to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia may have stopped doing so, and Wikipedia is going to be less comprehensive and valuable. Not a result that anybody could have thought desirable, surely. Why comment on the way a contributor creates their articles? Is it such a terrible extra strain on the servers if they make an extra edit for each article? (If that is a problem, then I can understand why there's reason to ask people not to do it - otherwise, let everybody edit in the way they are most comfortable with as long as the resulting article is fine.) Why comment on their language capabilities when they have created valid stubs in perfectly good English? I just don't understand the apparent urge to micromanage others like that; I'm sure that the concern must be for the quality of the encyclopedia but I fail to see how this can have improved that quality. --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the point – quality is being sacrificed for the sake of quantity. Is your vision of a comprehensive and valuable encyclopaedia millions and millions of unsourced, unreferenced, one-line stubs? Foreign language sources and references are only acceptable in lieu of the existence of an English one: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre." (Try_to_verify) As for it not being a matter for WP:AN, well it appeared that the user was using an unauthorized bot to make dozens of edits per minute. That most certainly is a matter for WP:AN. See, for example, Bot policy. — Fly by Night  ( talk )


 * what quality is it that you're referring to? are you going to hound every stub article creator? are you going to delete all stubs, or tagspam every stub? instead of working with this editor, we have editors who prefer to preach to him, and argue how he's really a bot, and hence subject to their jurisdiction. this cynical wikilawyering is reprehensible. we have 200,000 unreferenced articles. are you going to reference them, or argue at ANI? the articles stay because they follow previous consensus: is the problem really that you have a problem with the previous consensus? how many times is he to endure the "new" charge: "i thought he was a bot"? we certainly do need an ANI over WP:HA. i see only the quality of hazing, without any encyclopedic value: the editors you cannot control, you will punish. <font color="#D70040">Accotink2 talk 14:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need for emotional rants like that. I've explained calmly and clearly, while using policy, what my problem was. It isn't just me. If you read the comments above you will see that I am not alone. If you check the history of WP:AN you will see that this is not a new topic of discussion. So please, less of the drama. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Every edit is manual not a bot, cleared on my talk page in past ANI, why come here more?. i am not bot so cannot be ordered by bot group. b] This is wiki. The idea is not that my stubs remain short forever. The idea is to encourage people to expand on what I start so eventually we have very comprehensive encyclopedia and good articles and people work as one not against to build best site possible as resource. Wikipedia started with short stubs in 2001. Like Mariusz Adamski somebody gave same argument as you Fly by night not good stub so bad must be delete. 99% of articles I start can be expanded. The problem is that many english wikipedians like to play governor and drive car with siren not encyclopedians and do not get writing. User:Tagshimon expanded many of my stubs. How can we have "sum of all human knowledge and information" if you not let me start encyclopedic real world content to be expand by fluent english? is wikipedia best having nice well sourced articles on Serbian settlements, Korean geography etc in long term or none at all? It is part of stages. First is create. Then more source then expand.. You not see the benefit of future of wikipedia my work in world coverage If I create bad longer articles needing cleanup I will get moans about big tasks. Least with short stubs I can follow pattern or subjects which I believe are important for even site. Does english wiki not need editors in any form? I try to add sources and fact. I edit english wkipedia as it has biggest potential and audience. Fly said "It does beg the question: why bother? I stay away from the Polish language Wikipedia because I don't feel confident to write full articles". Fly is racist and discriminate .You are sticking finger because of my origin. You tell me leave unless fluent and write nice long article which is nasty words.Starzynka (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Starzynka, please, no-one thinks you're bad. It isn't anything personal. I don't understand how you can possible make so many edits by hand. If you say that they are all manual then I will assume good faith and accept what you say. But please, please, please use references and sources. Follow the guidelines. Why are all of these little Korean rivers worth knowing about? Okay, because they are geographical objects then it seems they're inherently notable, but that's a technicality. Please try to make articles that are worth reading, that inform the reader. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts; it is not a dictionary. You obviously invest a lot of time creating articles. Why not make half the number of articles at double the current quality. It would, IMHO, be better if you were to produce one good article per week instead of 1,000 one-liners. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal preference is one thing, but starting an ANI simply because someone creates valid stubs in a totally different thing. Some of us write our work offline and copy/paste it into the browser; it's easy to make lots of articles like this by hand in a very short span of time if you're using tabbed browsing.  There's absolutely no good reason to complain about editing styles, especially when such complaints result in this.  Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you taken the time to read this AN? My initial reason, as stated, was that I believed the user to be running an unauthorized bot. And in the edit summary of the link you provide, he cites WP:BAG as the reason for his retirement. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did; otherwise I'd not have known about the tabbed browsing or been able to object to Starzynka being instructed to use cut, copy, and paste. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you thought it was an unauthorized bot, then WP:ANI would have been the right place. It really was not clear from your original post. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, it seems I misplaced a vowel. Doing some research it seems that WP:AN and WP:ANI are different pages. I didn't realise. I thought they were the same page. Lots of pages have different shortcuts, e.g. WP:AIAV and WP:AIV. While reading this thread I noticed that some people call it WP:AN and others call it WP:ANI. But thanks for pointing that out. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Starzynka is ✅ as a sock puppet; I have privately warned the sockmaster not to pull this off again, or the sockmaster will be blocked and disclosed. –MuZemike 17:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for blanket rollback permission for a series of erroneous AWB edits made on some 250 articles
The user formerly known as Betacommand has tagged some 250 articles as BLPunsourced tonight. The problem is that most of these articles are not unsourced, just that the sources are given as external links, not as proper references. However, tagging such articles as unsourced was never the intention of tags like BLPunsourced or simply unsourced. To give an idea, I randomly opened fice consecutive ones, Anne Chislett, Anne D. Neal, Anne Davies (Australian journalist), Anne Dorte Michelsen, and Anne Dorval. All five had one or more external sources, and at a quick glance three of those had a very good source (like the "Encyclopedia of literature in Canada").

Can I just rollback these 250 largely erroneous AWB edits (where the Betacommand edit is the top one), and can we stop him from making any more of these (since it is probable that he plans more such runs, seeing that he is taking the pages alphabetically, probably from the cat:living people)? Fram (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * External links are NOT sources, if an article is using them as sources it should be stated. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 12:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, to say that the articles are "unsourced" is not at all accurate. Support reversion of those edits. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► First Secretary of State ─╢ 12:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. For the purposes of BLPunsourced, germane external links do count as sources. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets take one example that you linked to Anne Dorte Michelsen the only "source" in the article is a link to the root of the website of the person. To the average person that is not a source, its just a link for further reading and more detail (what external links are supposed to be) and not a source. There have been some that have been tagged where external links where converted to references so what im doing is clarifying sourcing issues. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 12:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what you are doing is filling up a contentious backlog with articles that for the most part shouldn't be there, muddying the waters and making discussion less easy. That some of your taggings may have been correct is not an excuse to make many incorrect ones. Fram (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Actually that would be a source. What you are doing is confusing sources that support notability, and sources that support facts. The two are different things, her website will be able to source things in her article as being factual, but will not be able to be used to identify notability. The two are very different things which you seem to be confusing. I too corrected some of yours, as some of them had references that have been deamed reliable sources at past FACs and the like. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at exactly what you said ....will be able to source that means that it is not being used as a source but could be. Take a look at the results of one tagging of what your talking about of an external link is being used as a source it should be identified as such. Our External Links policy states that they are not references, but rather ...further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. which means that external links are not sources. If they are being used as such its not within policy, what Im doing is tagging articles that dont state its sources. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 12:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right and what I am saying is you are making a situation worse instead of correcting it. Instead of tagging the article you should be fixing the reference to show its a reference. You've rapidly made a situation worse instead of better. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not familiar with most of these subjects, its very difficult for me to identify what external links are being used as sources and what they are sourcing. There have been some articles where I do fix them see example. Most of the time that I tag, its not clear how the "external links" are being used as sources. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 12:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. going from WP:CITE, (which the template links to about citing sources) The terms "Further reading" and "External links" are used as section headings for texts that may be of interest but have not been used as sources. which clearly states that external link sections are not sources ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 13:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The longstanding convention is that for the purposes of BLPunsourced, germane external links do count as "sources". The point is that these are very often stubs that have not been brought in line with the MOS, so we can't trust that they have the perfect section headings of a featured article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is not "tagging articles that don't state its sources", but tagging articles that list their general references as external links. You need a very, very literal interprettaion of our policies, instead of looking at the spirit of them, to justify your tagging like this. But perhaps Xeno's question at the bottom is more in need of an answer, this can wait... Fram (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed: the issue here is that (at least some of) these articles list at least one source, but do it in a poor way. For example one of them has a link to a published "Encyclopedia of literature in Canada". The BLPunsourced tag means that: no sources at all. It does not apply to articles where there is clearly a source that happens to be listed as an external link. A link to a personal website with biographical information, or a link to a published encyclopedia, counts as a source for this purpose. And I agree Xeno's question should be answered immediately. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been going general article cleanup in the mainspace almost exclusively whether its generic article cleanup, removing deleted images, reverting crap or tagging. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 13:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I initially asked for rollback, but have noticed that it would be easier and more correct to use AWB to change BLP unsourced into BLP sources on these articles that still have the tag. This still acknowledges that they are BLP articles that need a lot of work re sources, but keeps them of the totally unsourced list, where they in general don't belong. As soon as consensus becomes clearer still, I'll initiate this. Fram (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go back and take a closer look at what I have tagged and change them to BLP sources as needed per this discussion. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 13:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps better first to check Xeno's question below and reply to it, as you look to be violating your restriction again by trying to correct this... Fram (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it's OK for Δ to fix these, given that they have already been edited. However, I can do it if you prefer. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Too late, he already started at 13:10, with an incorrect edit summary... Oh well, the problem was the initial tagging, and the lack of response to Xen's very pertinent question. The current tagging is at least an attempt to correct problems, so it would be a bit harsh to hold that as well against him... Fram (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Δ, that would resolve the concern here about the tags. Do watch out for the pattern of edits problem, however. You need to work within the editing restrictions, rather than stretching their limits, if you want to build a case that they should be removed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, "Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin." <-- was this requirement fulfilled? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  12:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I left a reminder about this issue on Δ's talk page. Personally, I feel that should be enough for this incident. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If Beta has rampantly violated the specific terms of a sanction (and I do mean if: I'm not qualified to tell!) then that is not remotely enough for this incident. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► Counsellor of State ─╢ 13:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not say he rampantly violated the terms. He did keep the editing rate low and broke up the edits into several shorter pieces. And he is now fixing the issue, which is the response that everyone would hope for. The only issue is that the overall scope of the task was somewhat large, and so should have been discussed, at which time someone could have pointed out that lots of stubs have the wrong section titles. I personally don't see this as an egregious violation, although hopefully it can be avoided in the future. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(After several E/C) I agree with Δ on this. If this were being undertaken by anyone else, it would not have been nearly as contentious. The fact that Fram went out of his way to drag Δ's old username into this discussion seems to be a case of waving the bloody shirt. Δ is right; external links are not sources, and the distinction should be made. Virginia S. Young is an article with no inline sources, but with a list of references, and would not be tagged under Δ's stated criteria. If the sources section were to be changed to an "further reading" or "external links" section (the latter is unlikely, as only one of the links is available online), it would qualify. And to address Anne Dorte Michelsen (discussed above), linking to the index page of a subject's own website doesn't count as a reference, any more than a MySpace or Facebook page counts as a source. (FWIW, the only information on the linked page is "see my concerts in the news, follow me on facebook".)  Horologium  (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * External links have always counted as sources for BLPunsourced (and for the "unreferenced" tag as well). We can't expect people who write stubs to know that they have to use the code word "references" above a reference - that's a much later stage of article development. Here is a typical example of an article where the author just doesn't know how to format things A.J. Verel. Any mass tagging of BLP articles as unsourced, when those articles plainly include links that are meant to be sources, will be controversial, and should be avoided.  &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have brought it here no matter who had done it, and I didn't go out of my way to drag his old username in it, it is simply much easier and much more recognisable to use his old name: note also that, contarary to policy, he does everything he can to obscure the link between his old identity, which is under active arbcom restrictions, and the new one. Anyway, tagging these pages becaue these sections were labeled EL instead of Refs is a very shortsighted method of looking for unsourced articles: if Anne Dorte Michelsen had that very same link in a section called "sources", Delta wouldn't have tagged it, showing that it had nothing to do with the quality of sources or the lack of sources, but simply with a formality. Otherwise he wouldn't have also tagged these other articles which had very good sources in the external links section, like e.g. Anne Van Lancker. Fram (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Δ for 72 hours since he's continuing to edit in violation of his sanctions, despite being requested not to, and he's also failing to come here and discuss, despite requests for him to do so. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He did come here and discuss didn't he? He is currently undoing the edits that were controversial per a request that he do so. Or am I missing something. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Second that. Kingpin13, unblock Δ to finish the job, please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought he recognized that the tags did need to be changed, and was simply cleaning up after himself. That seemed OK to me, since it's easier than me cleaning it up. See my comment of 13:19 above. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He was requested by a number of users here to address the issue of his violation of community-imposed sanctions, which he's failed to do. He was also requested to do this on his talk page, but still failed to do so. He then goes and violates them again by modifying his edits without discussion at VPP (despite an offer from another user to do the edits themself), and still without addressing the issue of his sanctions. I ask him to stop the edits, and discuss the issue here, and instead he continues to make the AWB edits. Considering revoking AWB access as well, but would like more input on that.. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Despite repeated requests to address his editing restriction, he didn't. He started undoing his edits, but stopped after the first 15 on 13:21. I then took over the correction at 13:38. He restarted editing at 13:48, not correcting BLP unsourced to BLPsources (I already did that), but combining multiple tags into one tag. These are basically cosmetic changes only, something that AWB shouldn't be used for, and ironically the subject of his only edit between his cleanups, a warning to user Emaus about Emausbot. Fram (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (technically not the same as the cosmetic changes he was warning the other user about, but I did notice that he was editing articles were the issue had already been addressed) - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but then again Emaus bot was making good edits plus cosmetical edits, not only cosmetical edits, so his warning was misplaced (basically he was correcting interwikilinks). But thta's all rather tangetial to the issue at hand. Fram (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the reverts of the originals gets done I am happy. Y'all can bicker about blocking him or not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fram appears to be sorting it out, although it seems to have been decided above that replacements, rather than reverts are what is needed (and is getting done) - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thats basically what I meant, as long as the unsourced is removed/replaced. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC) It's a little depressing that we are seriously contemplating using a bot to delete tens of thousands of articles using the same metric but are taking one editor for the woodshed for doing 250. Does anyone think that the number of sources among the 250 is an inaccurate estimate of the number which we will find in the tens of thousands? Protonk (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Following up on Fram's example above, I also did a random check on some other related BLPs after someone asked me to cite an uncited BLP from Spanish sources. I found a lot of other unsourced BLPs among equine topics, that hadn't yet been tagged as unsourced, and I found a lot of errors in the article I sourced,. Nothing derogatory, but just an inaccurate BLP, with errors propogated from es.wiki to en.wiki and throughout the internet. In that case, it's likely that the editor who put them up just copy/translated them from es.wiki, without checking or adding sourcing, and s/he did a lot of that. I don't have the time to cite all of them, but I did tag those that I found. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm entitled to an "I told you so" here, but I think I'll refrain from it and reiterate the basic point: Betacommand's skills and prowess do not make up for his demonstrated, ongoing, and recidivist inability to play nice with others, period. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The prospects of getting approval for a bot to automatically delete unsourced blps are negligible. Using a bot to WP:BLPPROD them has been proposed, but is also unlikely, since this would violate WP:BEFORE. The problem with Betacommand's actions is not that he tagged articles as unsourced BLPs, but that he did so inaccurately: anything remotely resembling a source is sufficient to avoid template:BLP unsourced; template:BLPsources is used on biographies of living persons whose references are grossly inadequate. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I submit that any project to mass tag BLPs for deletion on the grounds that they are unsourced will run into the same trouble, regardless of the operator. I'm not defending what BC did, just stating that we should take this as an object lesson about how we might run into false positives in such an undertaking. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The assumption is that the proposed bot that deletes thousands of unsourced blp's will do so strictly in accordance with the consensus of the community, it will only do the task for which it has been approved, it will be stopped the moment any problem is detected, it will not continue its task until the community resolves any issue with its work, it will not make representations that it understands the wishes of the community better than the community itself, or the interpretation of the policy is has been permitted to perform under, and it will not seek to distance itself from the consequences of any previous actions or issues; other than that and ratio between the numbers of edits, it is exactly the same as the bot operated by delta/betacommand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal is news to me. Who's going to run that 'bot, then?  Where is it being discussed?  Uncle G (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You found them and of course don't have time to resolve the problem yourself so it's teaspoon time. Wikignomes, to your gnome-mobiles! Thanks for finding them, excellent work.--TS 00:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My experience is that some other Wikipedias do in practice freely accept articles without sources, even BLPs, but that in most cases these are articles that are very easily sourced (and where they may be assuming that anyone could easily find the sources themselves). That of course is not the way enWP does things, and sources do have to be found, but it might be more productive looking first--even a very superficial look at GNews archive, and tagging only afterwards. This takes very little more time, and greatly decreases the subsequent workload.   DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a translated page, which is required if the article was translated from es.wiki. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for use of Betacommand's bot
Hello, all. I've got something of a problem. I'm trying to make Mediation Cabal case pages more streamlined, by taking the creation dates out of the case page names. Problem is, that's how MiszaBot knows which order to list them in. To solve this problem, Betacommand has agreed to have his bot list them properly by date order, without having dates in the name. I know he is under some unique restrictions, so I would like to obtain approval here to allow him to take over MedCab case listings. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much the same situation as with the SPI bot - if the editors who regularly use the project page do not object, then I see no reason for editing restrictions to stand in the way. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is just a terrible continuation of an awful precedent. The correct message to send is "No one is indispensible, you've worn out your welcome, no bots or bot mods from you will be accepted ever again." The fact that such requests are entertained seriously undermines the moral authority of the community to reprimand anyone, since it's clear that consequences for thumbing one's nose at the community are inversely proportional to the offender's usefulness. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Special:Contributions/Δbot and its 5,000 edits prove that the community still thinks I have things to offer, see also: Administrators'_noticeboard. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 14:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand it (just from memory, mind you), the restrictions on BCD are to prevent him from making mass changes that are in dispute, too-strictly enforcing image policies, and so forth - resulting in all kinds of sound and fury. Simply managing a project page, on request from the editors who use that project page, is a low-volume task and I don't see how any controversy could result. The SPI bot seems to be running along nicely, isn't it? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support the further amendment of Betacommand's restrictions to allow this venue, but it does require a further amendment of his restrictions. However, I think it would be better if the bot ran through the bot request process, and that any edits by Special:Contributions/Δbot outside of the allowed areas or approved functions in those areas be promptly blocked.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but before I can file a BRFA I need an amendment to allow me to run said bot. (its kinda circular and why I requested an amendment the last amendment). ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * iirc, the last bot approval turned upon the community writing in an exception prior to approved. It looks like this thread is just anticipating that - not a bypassing of BRFA, but a precursor. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - As with the SPI bot, I support creating a specific exception to Beta's restrictions in order to do this task.  If the BRFA request is denied, the exception can be closed.  I continue to oppose any general relaxation of the restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support if necessary; but it seems premature. The previous relaxation required community approval of the specific task and wording of that task, not just community approval to request the bot board to approve the task.  I'm not in support of a blank check.  Some bot requests from an editor under a community bot ban, after receiving a relaxation, submitted a bot request far beyond the specific task allowed by the community.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As with Beyond My Ken, I support a specific exemption in this case, so long as the bot does exactly and only what it is proposed to do, etc. I've heard of not issues with the SPI bot thus far and a similar task function with similar restrictions should not be an issue. Resolute 16:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't see how the granting of specific exemptions for a bot operator from community sanctions on AN is somehow a path toward creating a vested contributor.  If BC's bot is useful in a specific area, lets not cut off our nose to spite our face. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not as if Beta is one of Churchill's Ironsides, it's just that the community wants to be sure that he's operating to a clear community-led brief. The guy does good shizz, what he needs is a good line manager (says she who currently manages a bunch of techies) Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like a benefit to the project without a downside.   Will Beback    talk    22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. My problem on the larger discussion was how to address the good work the bot does.  Clearly here there should be no issues with following the rules. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It's time the project be cleaned up and redesigned. Of course I support things that are necessary to redesign projects to make them more useful! <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a reasonable exception. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; the problem with Δ was going against consensus with automated processes. A process that does have consensus is a net gain for everyone.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; this seems like a thoroughly uncontroversial and straightforward issue. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. This single application of Delta/Beta's skills is unlikely to generate the prior drama problems.  -- Jayron  32  06:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - the only reason for sanctioning Beta against automated edits is that he has shown that he can't be trusted in that realm; if he has well-defined tasks which have the clear consensus of the community, then such tasks aren't part of the problem, and should be allowed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. A bunch of opinions here were removed.  I have restored them.  There is more information to be restored.  The diff is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support There is precedent when ArbCom amended the terms of Betacommand's ban to allow a specific task - this time it is the community generally and the effected editors specifically who can agree for him to operate his bot in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would urge that the 'bot be required to be open source, with the source code under revision control, publicly visible, and under some Wikipedia-compatible license. This is desirable for quality control. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really something we can (or maybe even should) compel. You are free to talk to BC about this. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, we can require the release of source code under an acceptable free-content license by refusing to grant bot approval until this condition is fulfilled. While a security through obscurity argument is made against publicising source code for anti-vandalism or open-proxy blocking bots, it's obvious that the code for this particular bot could be released without compromising its function. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, it can technically be done. Whether there is any precedent or reason to do so is another question.  It is less an issue of what arguments exist for publicizing the source code and more what right we have in demanding that volunteers provide source code for bots which merely act on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought this up here because "bugs" in 'bots from this source have been a problem in the past. It's a more general issue, though. With open source and revision control, it's much easier to deal with problems.  Currently, 'bots are the only component of Wikipedia not open to scrutiny and improvement.  'Bots can stagnate, as the original developer moves on to other things, and there's no organized way to keep them alive or enhance them over time. --John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I can certainly see that the source should be available to the public, I see no reason why he must make it free-licensed. I think that the it's "open to the public" enough should he put it anywhere on the web which is accessable to the public and tell us where it is; or that he make it available by e-mail to any user who wants it upon request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - SPI bot has been very helpful and otherwise harmless. I see no problem with a bot being used to automate tedious actions on administrative pages. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Betacommand is a brilliant coder.   It's about time we let him help the project in the way he is best equipped to.  - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 18:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Xeno -- SPhilbrick  T  20:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Xeno. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  • 6:50pm •  07:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at this guy
Check out User:تهران. Needs warning from administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment a]]dded by 125.239.63.254 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has notified the user of this discussion, as is required. Corvus cornix talk  05:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's ok then. He can happily carry on seriously disrupting Wikipedia. Alternatively, a sharp note from an administrator might do the trick. Hence my post here at the administrators noticeboard. Funny thing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.63.254 (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally notified, just now by me. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno how disruptive it is - he mainly posts Iranian news on the news portal. Collect (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like the following, which means someone has to follow him around to remove his entries which are not encyclopedic.
 * Iran Cultural and Press Institute (ICPI) invites you to visit its stand at the 17th Press Festival in Tehran. Visitors can exchange views with ICPI managers and staff, namely from the Persian daily newspaper Iran, Iran Daily, Al-Vefaq, Iran Sports, Iran Sepid (for the blind) and Iran Azin. (Iran Daily) User:تهران
 * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad scores for Iranian-Bolivian presidential team. (mehr) [[User:تهران
 * IP 125, please demonstrate the user "seriously disrupting Wikipedia". In addition I do not see any attempts to contact the user directly and try to resolve the issue at the user's talk page.  Please try other venues before coming to the Administrator Noticeboards.  This statement is made by a non-administrator Hasteur (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

IP 125, you just apparently don't get it. Anyone could warn him, and he had not been. His userpage has actually been nominated for deletion. You also miss the point that if you report anyone to ANI or AN, you are required to notify that editor yourself. You would find more support and quicker action if you drop the sarcasm, and simply follow procedure. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why has this entire thread devolved into a discussion about the requirement to notify a user when they are under discussion. If the reporting editor hasn't notified the user, *do so yourself* and carry on (I see this was done above, but only after an empty comment about notification). Protonk (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, someone who sees that Wiki can operate using common sense. An IP telling a registered user to quit the crap is exponentially less likely to have an effect than a message from an admin. I particularly like your "do so yourself" advice. Pity that isn't heeded much more often in wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.63.254 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Common sense says to follow the rules unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise, and there's no good reason not to tell تهران that s/he is being discussed here. What's more, I didn't tell him/her to stop; I only said "Hey, you're being discussed at ANI" and explained how to find this discussion.  It's nothing that only an administrator could do.  Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IP 125, you are right that تهران is disrupting Wikipedia, yes, but coming to ANI to, essentially, have a rant about them without following standard procedure is not only in breach of AN rules, but you are seen not only by myself but I imagine a few other people who have commented on your views above me as almost as bad as, if not worse, than the user you question. Do you not think that "someone needs to look at" you, with edit summaries such as this and this? If you have a genuine concern about another user's conduct on Wikipedia, then please follow the correct channels. You will gain more respect and credibility here if you don't complain about other users when you yourself do not follow the rules and accuse people here of ignoring you. This statement is made by a non-administrator <font color="#00A693">Wackywace  converse 09:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolute bollocks, your admonition is childish. If you can fault my edits, rather than summaries, then fire ahead. Please explain why Protonk's comment above should not be the norm? Wackywace, you and Hasteur both say "this statement is made by a non-administrator". That's a relief. Get on with improving Wiki through making useful edits, and forget posing as policemen. The value of Wikipedia is in the efficacy of its content -- which I tried to protect by coming to this notoceboard  -- not in the high and mighty pettyfogging from some of its editors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.205.222 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Chiding an anon IP for not following wikipedia policy seems pretty stupid. New users can't be expected to be familiar with wikipedia's policies. Snapping at them, as several editors have above, seems to be a violation of WP:Bite.4meter4 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not stupid when there's a big colored editnotice visible at the editing window, complete with notification template code for alerting the person being discussed. This is not a standard that's only written at some hidden page: you can't possibly edit this page without being told that you must notify someone that you discuss.  Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is stupid, not because the IP (me) didn't follow wiki policy, but because of what has already been explained but you are ignoring --"an IP telling a registered user to quit the crap is exponentially less likely to have an effect than a message from an admin." So I posted here, trying to prompt an authoritative remark from an admin -- a quick fix without thou-shalt-not bullshit. I thought it prudent to have a sysop immediately swing into action so I posted here, at Administrators' Noticeboard, instead of on the perp's userpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.63.205 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-design for the fringe theory noticeboard
I've cut down in the excessive information that really should be on the guideline page and redesigned it to make it more concise and to the point. The colors are not final. I'll provide a central link to the archives later on, but the overall design is complete. The new design may be found at User:Netalarm/Fringe lab, but please note that this is not available for testing, as there are no templates involved. Please discuss on the main talk page of the fringe theories noticeboard. <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 01:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard That is the talk page discussion. Thanks for the pointer! Protonk (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

TorNodeBot
Hello all, I wanted to raise a note to indicate that an admin bot I developed a while ago, TorNodeBot is up for approval again. This bot was previously approved for trial but then withdrawn by me as the need for it seemed to go away. I'm reopening the approval in response to the recent abuse of Tor that is not being picked up by the TorBlock extension. Any community input is most appreciated. The discussion for approval is at Bots/Requests for approval/TorNodeBot 2. Thanks, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am tired of you people giving me nightmares
I am tired of you people giving me nightmares. I want to disappear. you people say you have no problem with this, but you are liars. I am tired of all of you lying to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentleyroastbeef (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and this is of course your only post using this username. Please, WP:DISAPPEAR then. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Doc Quintana. –MuZemike 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For anyone unclear on this:
 * Right to vanish and continued editing with sockpuppet accounts are mutually exclusive activities. You did not vanish if you are sockpuppeting, and if you are found out it is your own fault and you should not have done that in the first place.  Coming here to complain afterwards, with another sock, is most certainly not going to help.  That is pretty much the definition of "unclear on the concept".
 * If you want to go away from Wikipedia, just stop editing. That works extremely well.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Death by sub-paging

 * Comment—I think that it should probably have been moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Death by sub-paging... :) <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► pikuach nefesh ─╢ 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. Touché. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Help undeleting Sandbox/Word Association
I closed This DRV as overturn, but Wikipedia is not letting me undelete the revisions of Sandbox/Word Association. Every time I try, my browser takes forever before I get an error message giving the default notice that the Wikimedia servers haven't responded or something like that. I suspected that this has something to do with the large number of deleted revisions, but I thought that only had to do with deleting (to prevent large, important articles from being deleted), and not from undeleting. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, only 5000 revisions may be deleted at a time. Maybe this is also true for undeleting. Or maybe I'm just plain wrong. Maybe you could try undeleting a few revisions at a time? Otherwise, I think we have to ask a steward to do it. Airplaneman   ✈  22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the same error message when trying to load the deleted revisions (it took 5 minutes just to make that appear). Airplaneman   ✈  22:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it wouldn't let me get to the stage of selecting individual revisions either. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm suprised the deleting admin managed to delete it in the first place (unles a dev did it); that page had 37.753 revisions(!) Now, when you click 'Undelete', it has to enumerate all 37.753 revisions just to build the revision list... Defenitely need a dev for that. — <b style="color:#008">Edokter</b> • Talk  • 22:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the deletion summary: it was deleted by Mercy, a steward, after a request for steward help was made at Meta. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've filed a request for steward help. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The server is having problems in this case because it's trying to list all the deleted revisions and the resulting page is too long. I believe that Twinkle can deal with these cases, but I've just installed it and I can't figure out how to use it to undelete pages. Graham 87 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive141. I'll ping the users involved in that thread in a couple of minutes. Graham 87 01:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SQL has retired and Splarka is only semi-active. I've sent a message to Splarka and one to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle about this problem. If all else fails, we might need the help of a sysadmin. Graham 87 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Computer says no. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines


Earlier today, I advised that I would request both he and his bot be blocked if he continued making trivial and unnecessary changes that have proved controversial without first obtaining consensus for these changes.

Rather than cease making the changes, he simply went on ahead with them on both his bot account ( - unnecessary capitalization changes), and his main account ( changes spacing around header for no reason;  capitalizes template for no reason).

It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that all templates should be ucfirst, it is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that headers should have no spacing around them. However, it is unreasonable to push these views on the community without first obtaining consensus for them. The edits today display a shocking disregard for the collaborative editing model and indicate that Rich feels that he does not have to operate within the consensus model.

This is unacceptable behaviour for a bot operator and administrator and I request he be blocked pending the decision of the proposed restriction below, which has been copied here from the ANI subpage for greater visibility. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: Rich Farmbrough

 * This is an alternative proposal to more strict proposal here, which generated a fair amount of support for a complete ban on non-manual editing

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

Thoughts? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a sentence, though that is expected of any editor already. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's covered by 'demonstrable consensus'. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Good enough. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose We are all volunteers here and those who edit consistently and spent a lot of time working on here should be commended not restricted.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this has become stale now, but I'll revisit if that seems to change. --Bsherr (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is agreeable, this has my support. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc.  Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about discussing with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion doesn't help if he ignores objections and continues full-steam ahead without stopping to gather consensus for his changes. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy already exists to prohibit these changes (WP:AWB #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? Mr.Z-man 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose is already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making any bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also support this alternative proposal after the original one. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The restriction would make it clear that these changes lack consensus and he may be blocked if he continues making them prior to gathering consensus. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Commended for creating ultra-infra-microstubs like Sanapia, Franklin Lafayette Riley, Jr., Martha Lipton? He is basically just ripping this page to create these useless articles. If the full text of your article is "Azeline Hearne (1825-1890?), Slave.[1]", then you should not be commended. Fram (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice that the result of such rapid (11 articles created in 4 minutes) and poor article creation is that you are bound to make mistakes (apart from not providing any useful information), because you don't have the time to check anything. The article Monroe C. Beardsley should not have been created, since we already have it in a useful form at Monroe Beardsley. Not really hard to find... Similarly, Morris Moe Foner is now redirected to the already existing Moe Foner. Fram (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of his ultra-infra-microstubs now looks like Sanapia. A good catch and highly interesting in my view. I'll be honest. I wish he did more article writing on here but he more than makes up for that with his auto generated editing which has gone to massive lengths to help clean up the site.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense
This is a storm in a teacup. No one cares about the bot capitalising clean-up templates, except that they think I am offending others by doing it. There are no others, except apparently xeno has moved to-day from neutral about it ("I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves") to opposed ("Me for one") and dePiep is saying the same in the next comment (about 20 minutes ago). Hardly anyone cares about any of them. Those that do have an opinion would almost certainly, by the figures, support capitalising of Infoboxes. I have explained that for technical reasons that I made a choice, some four years ago for Ucfirst rather than lcfirst - after much careful thought. the reason is to enable me to write regexes like:


 * {{\s*(Cleanup|Attention[ _]+\(on[ _]+talk[ _]+page\)|Clean|Cu|CU|Tidy|Cleanup-quality|Cleanup-date|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+\(article[ _]+page\)|Attn|Attention[ _]+see[ _]+talk|Attention|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+\(talk[ _]+page\)|Clean[ _]+up|Cleanup-because|Clean-up|Cleanup-reason|Cleanup-since|Ugly|Cleanup-Pitt|Improve|Quality|Clu) *([\|}\n]) => {{Cleanup$2

and then do the date manipulation on a much simpler regex - a sample of which still runs to maybe 4 or 5 k.

Here's my proposed solutions:


 * 1) Forget it and go and write an enyclopedia.
 * 2) Have an centralized discussion on the case of cleanup templates. Tell me the result. I will implement that.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Your dismissive attitude ("No one cares..."; "Forget it and go and write an encyclopedia."; " There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking. ") is a major part of the problem.
 * I don't know how many people care about this, but I can tell you that I do. When I consult diffs to evaluate the edits, your bot's inconsequential changes waste my time.  I've gone to your talk page to raise the issue, only to be reminded by the existing complaints (and your [non-]responses thereto) that you routinely ignore/dismiss such criticisms.  So I don't bother to add my voice to the futile chorus (and I assume that others act in kind).  —David Levy 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well not bothering hardly helps. Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page. Nor yet quoting out of context.Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 *  Well not bothering hardly helps. 
 * Nor does wasting still more of my time by posting yet another comment for you to dismiss/ignore.
 *  Nor does the negative characterisation of my talk page. 
 * You mean my observation that you routinely dismiss/ignore these criticisms (just as you've done above)?
 *  Nor yet quoting out of context. 
 * How have I done so? Two of the quotations are taken from this very section, and I linked directly to the third's diff.  —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The diff is not the context. The context is an extensive conversation over several pages. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Please link to whatever threads/diffs you believe provide essential context. —David Levy 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally on the substantive point you raise, you can set your w/l to ignore bots. HTH. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * And that would not be a reasonable solution. Sometimes people will still want to see bots. We shouldn't have to stop seeing other bots because yours is behaving badly. I will have to agree with the other people in that these edits cause more trouble than help. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of that. I don't want to ignore bots (which would cause me to overlook problematic mass changes, including those caused by malfunctions).  I want to be able to monitor their edits without having to wade through the utterly pointless ones that your bot performs.  —David Levy 00:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add on that score that ignoring bots seems to cause another issue: if, say, an editor vandalises a page, (edit 1) then a bot goes past and makes a change, (edit 2), nothing turns up in your watchlist. As you are set to ignore bot edits, the watchlist code doesn't notify you of any edits, as it only checks to see if the most recent one warrants notification. Thus you are lead to assume that nothing has happened in the article. I found this to be a particular problem with SineBot, but generally that flag causes too many issues to use it. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well as not a great user of watch-lists, I had seen that comment before, but not got round to investigating it. It seems like a suboptimal way for watch-lists to work. Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" should bypass that particular concern. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also vote for bug 9790. Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Regarding your explanation regex: AWB can do this with the stock engine now without having to change the case (WP:AWB/TR). This is why I asked you to update SmackBot to the latest SVN snapshot. And you're right, I said I don't care about the minor bits themselves - I do care about the unnecessary, disruptive, and distracting changes to the minor bits that lack consensus - I would similarly ask an editor who was going in the other direction to stop. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded my redirect list, so that should help AWB. There are teething problems here, yet. For example trying to maintain ucfirst/lcfist across redirects has lead to imdb => iMDb name. But there are other problems with template names that are bigger than these minor quibbles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Re: "imdb => iMDb name". If we can agree a convention whereby some templates are excluded from the 'keep existing case' rule (perhaps when first word of new template name is all uppercase?) then I can implement it in AWB

. Rjwilmsi  21:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What actually needs to be done now: Need an uninvolved admin
I think, at this point, we've discussed this to death. What I think we need is an uninvolved admin who has maybe a couple of hours to read up on this, and then close the discussion and editing restriction proposals at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010. A number of different remedies have been offered there, and I think a closing admin can judge a suitable consensus on how best to proceed. I don't think it's worth our time talking about this all over again at this point. Especially when the previous discussion hasn't yet been closed. At this point I feel that the discussion and editing restriction proposals are ripe for closure, as that thread is no longer constructive (it appears to have degenerated to edit warring, repetition, and personal comments, rather than actually furthering discussion on the actual issue tat hand, despite this I think there is already enough content there to reach a consensus). If the solution provided by a closing administrator does not work after some time, then there are other venues, such as a RfC/U, which would be more appropriate, since it appears ANI is not helping this issue much. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Fram (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need an uninvolved admin to step in here. Subsequent to this thread being posted, Rich made nearly three thousand edits with SmackBot that 1) do not appear to have BAG approval (I found this, but perhaps it should be revisited - approval should not have been granted for spell-checking) and 2) appear to violate the bot policy on spell-checking (based on new information what happened was the operator had set it wrong, as opposed to the bot running amok) and 3) made obviously erroneous edits like this . We have policies and guidelines on automated and assisted editing for a reason, and flagrant disregard for those norms is unacceptable, especially when the result is editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a rabbit out of a hat. "editors having to manually review thousands of bot edits for errors". Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Should I assume the one edit I picked out at random and found to be in error was 1 in 3000? Are you going to check the rest of the edits yourself? (I see you ran over the pages to fix World Series of Poker back to how it should be - Thanks for that). – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I picked up a bunch of other WSOP errors too. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * He also made this edit which does nothing but capitalize a template while tweaking some whitespace. Making disputed edits while they're under discussion at a noticeboard strikes me as inflammatory. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again human error, some small task I started nearly a week ago, and that item was already fixed - by an unassisted human. (I won't say why the task is taking so long - I will mention that it would have just happened in the good old days prior to 29 Spetember.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * So you had it in auto-save mode? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh.. borrow my deerstalker and meerschaum xeno, they are freshly cleaned. One edit on it's own is very unlikely to be automatic. No I just flipped windows, scanned the diff for errors (which is as automatic for me as reading - look at a printed word and try not to read it) clicked "save" and uttered a choice expletive.  Considered reverting myself, but that's a bit nutzoid on a practical level - creating an extra edit to show that you aren't deliberately creating extra edits. Rich Farmbrough, 02:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Hmm .. indeed, that last one should not be there. I don't think that I saw any spelling-changes.  Most decapitalisations seem OK and proper, but there are some decapitalisations in headers which should actually be capitalised (like the example you gave).  Xeno, did you point Rich to these edits, and asked for explanations on the errors and .. useless edits?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but because of obfuscation and handwaving, I've just about exhausted my patience for speaking directly with Rich. (Further reading: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters), Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Handwaving! I have supplied pretty much the only hard facts, the majority of the argument is fuzzy to an extreme. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Uninvolved admin would be good. But if they can get through it in a couple of hours I would be amazed. This debate has eaten hundreds of hours of my time, and every time we get close to closing it down there is a change of venue. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Funny enough, I do think that this edit contains two 'errors' .. one title which is probably correct in the current case was (half) converted to a lower case title, while the next section, which should have been converted, was neglected. Whatever the case, I don't think that this gets over 28 errors (i.e., less than 1%; I still refuse to see the capitalisation/whitespace change as an error, I do define it as 'useless'.  And though I also think that of the fuss about it is equally useless: Rich, is there really no way of not doing that, it is certainly not necessary (run regexes on the wikitext with the 'i' parameter and it does not care whether it is upper or lowercase, so why uppercase them all), and it will stop the equally, if not more, unnecessary complaining about it?).  I also don't think that this falls under a spelling correction, and I do think that it is important enough to be done by a bot - unfortunately it is too error prone (I would suggest to add the standard ones, and record all the rest with statistics, if there are other common ones which need conversion, add those to the list, but be careful with converting them all).
 * All these discussions are not worth this fuss, Smackbot makes by design on every task some errors, some inevitable and some avoidable - others should be repaired (and are generally repaired) before continuing. The errors are minimal, diverse, and IMHO Rich either explains that some errors can not be avoided (e.g. the subst problem), most errors don't break things (they annoy people), and for the rest, a lot of complaints are about useless edits.  I understand that the regular errors do give a feeling of 'Smackbot makes a lot of errors', but overall I don't believe that there are really thàt many (and then, some are because the bot is fed a broken page to begin with; or other errors which can not be repaired, still get regurgitated over and over).  I also think that many errors were resolved, but also still regurgitated.  Now, if we take away the annoyances (I suggest that Rich tries to take most annoyances away, and the annoyed to stop complaining about these things that IMHO do not need this much complaining; it is not worth it), and that future errors are met with 'could you do this different, or ignore these terms' (which I then also expect Rich to follow), then it is now time to move on.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually don't have a huge problem with honest-to-goodness errors; it's the fixing things that aren't broken that I take issue with. As best as I can tell, the main excuse (other than ILIKEIT) for the template capitalization changes is because it's easier to write a regex that results in capitalization changes. Well, that's not a good excuse, and regex can fairly easily be written to maintain the case (and I know Rich is a wizard when it comes to these things - he helped me with some code for Xenobot Mk V); and in fact, AWB now has built-in redirect bypassing at WP:AWB/TR that won't do the unnecessary capitalization changes. So if Rich just worked within that framework, we can be done with this. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
This Gordian knot clearly needs cutting, and I hereby cut it: the restriction proposed above is enacted. In essence, Rich is injuncted from making cosmetic changes which do not have demonstrable community support; this is recorded at Editing restrictions and as usual enforceable by escalating blocks. I will also clarify that there is no currently demonstrated community consensus on capitalising template calls. In addition, I will say to Rich that the community recognises and appreciates the work you do in using and maintaining a range of powerful tools, but that with power comes responsibility, and you do need to ensure that you err on the side of caution in ensuring that these powerful tools, and your use of them, has sufficiently strong community support. That is all. Rd232 talk 09:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "This Gordian knot is quickly scissorable! ...." (You may fill in the next line yourselves.)  Thank you for reviewing this ungodly mess. Rich Farmbrough, 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Further to this, Rd232 is hereby enjoined from inventing ugly new verbs by back-formation from nouns. --TS 10:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just richifying the malleable English language. :P Rd232 talk 11:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More cite capitalisation, a few minutes ago? 195.27.52.146 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SmackBot stopped for now, until Rich has a version running which won't do this. Of course, it's hard to tell what's built in AWB and what's not. But until we've got an explicit "SmackBot is okay to go" from Rich, it's stopped. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB does a number of changes to templates, replacing a redirect to a template with the actual template is done for this list: AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. I have asked whether this, implemented about a month ago, actually has consensus, as it seems to go against regular practice of leaving redirects well alone. But anyway, the change of SmackBot (chanbing cite journal to Cite journal) is not included on the above list if template changes, i.e. "The redirects are first letter case insensitive e.g. and  are treated as identical." and "The first-letter case of the redirect is kept in the new template name. The template name is first-letter case insensitive e.g.  and  are the same." If it is done by AWB regardless of this, then AWB needs to be changed. If it is a Smackbot rule, then Smackbot needs to be changed (also e.g. here, changing "dead link" to "Dead link"). This one changes template capitalisation (unreferenced to Unreferenced, Infobox Album to Infobox album) and adds an unwanted defaultsort. The only result of the defaultsort change here is that Republic of China referendum, 2004 now is sorted before Republic of Austria v. Altmann instead of the correct after in Category:2004 in international relations. Before SmackBots change, this sorting was correct. This problem has now been raised repeatedly, but no justification has been given or correction has been made. Fram (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "AWB does a number of changes to templates, replacing a redirect to a template with the actual template is done for this list: AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. I have asked whether this, implemented about a month ago, actually has consensus, as it seems to go against regular practice of leaving redirects well alone.". Yes, That currently does have consensus and is allowed via BAG and the related bot policies BUT the edit must also contain other constructive edits as well (You can't just do solo edits for that content to replace the redirects). Peachey88 (T · &#32; C) 07:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Like I said there: "Where can I find the discussion that established that these kinds of chanegs have any sort of consensus?" No one has indicated that to me yet. Fram (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Album => Infobox album is not case changing rule it's a redirect removing rule.

Defaultsort fixed. Also fixed (which shows why DEFAULTSORT is used by the community):
 * 2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta
 * 2004 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
 * 2004 Israel – New Zealand spy scandal
 * 2004 Russia–Belarus gas dispute
 * 2004 enlargement of the European Union
 * 2004 world oil market chronology

to


 * 2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta
 * 2004 enlargement of the European Union
 * 2004 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
 * 2004 Israel – New Zealand spy scandal
 * 2004 Russia–Belarus gas dispute
 * 2004 world oil market chronology

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Songs for the Road now sorts thus:
 * 1) Something to Believe
 * 2) Songs from the Road (Jeff Healey album)
 * 3) Songs Inspired by Mulawin
 * 4) Soul Donkey

Previously it would have been listed out of order. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC).


 * (I seem to have inadvertently deleted this section, thanks for restoring it Epeefleche). I have started a discussion regarding the sortkey issue at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Your section above where you said you fixed five articles to the same five articles is a bit bizarre, I assume you mean that you added five defaultsorts to these articles, so that e.g. 2004 Russia-Belarus gas dispute now sorts correctly before, umm, no other article starts with the same three words, and only the fourth is capitalized, so a totally useless defaultsort is added... As I said on the discussion on the sortkey, in the limited number of cases where a sort for one category would be better with caps, such a sort can easily be added to the article on a case-by-case basis. Adding unnecessary and harmful (in the case of a move) defaultsorts to all articles, just to solve a few problems, is creating loads of collateral damage for little actual benefit. Fram (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Revive previous proposal
For some reason, the edit restriction proposal at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010, which generated a fair amount of support, was abandoned for xeno's proposal, which got hardly any comments. As could perhaps be predicted, the problems not adressed by this second proposal, but adressed in the first one, simply continue.

Rich Farmbrough is now testing a new bot on his main account, which again creates a lot of problems. I notified him at 11:36 yesterday that he created a number of redirects from the mainspace to his userspace. This included a group of 10 redirects created at 11:27 (together with ten more edits the same minute). However, at 21:12, 11 more of these redirects were created, from a total of 19 edits that minute. At 21:18 - 21:19 6 more redirects were created (or recreated). Some of them were deleted by Rich, a number were not though and had to be deleted by other admins.

He also created a number of pages in his user space, and edits them incorrectly at a very high speed. Between 01:28 and 01:30 this morning, he edited 28 articles, putting all 28 articles (biographies of long dead people in his user space) in the cats for living people. Apart from the fact that these cats were obviously wrong, they should also not be used on user space articles. Rich Farmbrough made a few edits afterwards, but apparently didn't notice the errors of his unapproved bot, so I cleaned this up this morning.

Any reason why we don't enact the previous proposal, seeing how he clearly is not interested in taking into account voluntary the points adressed in it, despite the many supports for it, and seeing how his current activities, with dozens of incorrect edits in minutes, are clearly a violation of the bot policy? Fram (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And he just added tjose 28 articles to those categories again in two minutes time. Can someone please block this unauthorized bot (and yes, that means a block of Rich Farmbroough, tough luck, he violates the bot policy again and again on his main account...)? I am clearly involved so I can't block it... Fram (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Rich seems to have subsequently responded to these concerns in user talk discussion (there seem to have been coding issues), notably using a separate account for bot edits, as bot policy does indeed require. Rd232 talk 14:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: and he is back at his old tricks, or so it seems. He is now creating, with his main acount, in the mainspace, loads of redirects, some potentially useful, some utterly useless, but clearly this happens in some automated manner, even though there is no indication of this in his edit summaries. He e.g. created Communications in Brunei. as a redirect to itself at 08:48 today, deleted it at 08:53, and recreated it as a redirect to Telecommunications in Brunei at 09:24. I deleted it again, as redirects with extra punctuation are an endless list of useless redirects. I also deleted his redirect from Geometric mean, to Geometric mean as implausible, but he restored that one. I have left most of his other redirects alone, but she we really have semi-automated creation of redirects like Autpert Ambrose (Ambroise) to Autpert Ambrose? His rule seems to be that if whatever is bolded in an article is different from the actual title, then a redirect has to be created, no matter if it just a simple error like with Geometric mean,... So far, maily due to errors in his script, 21 of these redirects have had to be deleted the last hour.
 * Why do we let him continue running unauthorized bots and useless scripts, when time after time they are filled with errors? Do we really need a bot that creates redirect from Cook Island(s) to Cook Island? Do we really need the creation of more of his extremely short stubs, like Lenon Hoyte, which were kept at AfD because the topic merits an article, but were most uninvolved editors asked him to stop the creation of any more of these in this format? There is just no change of behaviour at all... Fram (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Some of those redirects are good, but many of them are so blatantly poor, the Geometric mean, and Cook Island(s) ones you point out for example, and some of them only seem to change the case, which the software sorts out automatically. I honestly think ArbCom might be the way to go from here. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In this pattern, I noted this at RF Talk: RF created Redirect pages like Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which is doubling the abbrev, and not a real alternative anyway. Redirect title is copied from the intro bold text. Seven pages thus. -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked Rich to comment on this error. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And his "response" to this thread, the deletion of a number of redirects, and the posts on his talk page from KingPin and Dirk Beetstra, is to simply recreate things like Transportation In Guatemala. and Communications in Brunei. This means that he has now created the same faulty redirect three times in one day. Fram (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I know I'm no admin (and don't want to be one), but I think it's about time someone use a block as a way of hitting RF with a clue-by-four here. This is just getting ridiculous, and someone needs to get his attention.  rdfox 76 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I put much effort in the past to delete any redirects that contained punctuation, please inform me if they are any left. The same goes with redirect that contain the abbreviation. I strongly disagree with the creation of this kind of redirects and in the past many of them were deleted via RfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From User talk:Rich Farmbrough
 * Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers
 * Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
 * Biathlon World Championships (BWCH)
 * On-base plus slugging (OPS)
 * Customer relationship management (CRM)
 * Ascending chain condition (ACC)
 * Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification System
 * and one other, created by the same author
 * Industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) ‎
 * There may be others, I suppose. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Other problem edits since the last time include:
 * Delinking March 707 here, even though it is not a date but a model of racecar...
 * Recreating the faulty redirect Lucius Caelius to Lactantius, based on his automated script
 * Adding a place of birth (or similar) to a Persondata which already has a PLACE of BIRTH, e.g. here, here
 * And of course 60 or so of his Smackbot edits that he reverted because they changed "Refimprove" to "Religion Primary"...
 * These are just the ones I noticed on spotchecking and browsing the latest 100 edits he made. Fram (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, what exactly is your point here? There are occasional bot errors, and as far as I can see they get reported to Rich and he handles them. Please elaborate on what, if anything, you expect to happen on the basis of your report above. The recent issue that concerned me was mass creation of redirects, which per xeno's note on Rich's talk page should really have BRFA approval; as far as I can tell Rich has stopped that. Rd232 talk 11:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that every day, he is doing bot stuff that is unauthorized and very buggy, only for other people to correct or even just control it. He is a prolific bot writer, but he doesn's check his contributions, leaving this to other people. An occasional problem, like the March 707 delinking, is in itself not a problem: the amount of problems, day after day after day, with often repeats of previous problems as well, is the issue. He is e.g., despite countless requests to stop this, still changing the capitalization of templates. He adds a "date of birth" in the Persondata (year only, for some reason) to an article that already had the DATE OF BIRTH field (empty, but now it has both an empty field, and a partially filled one). No idea why he added the wikify tag here. Fram (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left Rich a note about the capitalization issue. The persondata issue has already been identified as a bug. There seems to be some buggyness, but I'm not sure how much is normal or what can be done to improve that. Repeat problems and unauthorised bot stuff are not good, but various things have been pointed out and improvements made. Rd232 talk 12:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirects noted above now nominated. However, those were supposedly reviewed edits; he states he's not going to do it again, but he would be in a better position to delete them than I.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes, and we don't catch them all ourselves, that is only logical. But the amount of mistakes he makes, and the scale on which they happen, are far beyond those of other editors, and it looks as if most of them have to be found by others before he eventually corrects his scripts. Considering that not all of these scripts are acknowledged, tested, approved, ... it makes it even harder (e.g. his redirect script that caused a lot of trouble). He has tonight corrected some 400 Smackbot edits where the Persondata was incorrectly edited. It is good that he corrects it, but this is too late, and should have been caught and corrected earlier. And whether his "correction" really gives the desired result? here we now have two parameters in uppercase, and two in lower case: not really the preferred state... Before the Persondata, it was the incorrect Religion template, the redirects, ... His Smackbot edits regularly include, next to pointless edits like this, rather stupid mistakes, like changing (2007 - ) to (born 2007) in this one, where the 2007- actually represents a term for a member in the list Members of the Louisiana House of Representatives. He moves a long standing template template:Monthly clean up category to template:Monthly clean-up category with the edit summary "Hyphenate per user request.", and then makes a series of AWB edits to correct all the links to it. Rather pointless, and a direct violation of his editing restrictions: "This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done)": in edits like this one (24 in total) no "substantive edit" is done, only a bypass of a template redirect he created in the first place. Fram (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(od)The template rename is OK I think, it was a spelling correction and fixing the resulting redirect affected a small number of pages. The Smackbot DEFAULTSORT I've left him a note about. In terms of errors and checking, I don't know what to say; substantive changes should get approval and AFAIK that is happening. Perhaps someone more familiar with hands-on bot operation could say something about the viability of better testing. Rd232 talk 09:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How was it okay? How was it not a violation of the editing restrictions? The edits were purely cosmetic, the template works equally well as a redirect than it does directly. The editing restrictions were not about number of pages (this were in the proposal that was not accepted for some reason, while the much less supported current restrictions were). That a violation of editing restrictions in itself doesn't break anything has never been a reason to ignore them, just like e.g. a violation of a block or ban to make as such correct edits isn't acceptable either. Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that he since has done 25 more of these edits... Fram (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I thought it was outside the spirit of the editing restriction in terms of reflecting a non-controversial template renaming; and besides it affects only Wikipedia maintenance category pages. However I also thought it was just a handful of pages but in fact it will be a lot, which makes it more of an issue. Rd232 talk 11:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Running bots on your main account is a violation of the bot policy. Bots need to be run on specified bot accounts. This needs to stop. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it had. Recently I see correctly identified AWB edits, which is surely OK. What prompted your post? Rd232 talk 22:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Sockpuppet investigations
We can use some help over at Sockpuppet investigations in clearing up some of the cases there that are listed which have been sitting there for a while. Quite a few of them have already had a CheckUser look at them (if necessary, others do not) and need a regular admin to make a call as to what action is to be taken. The same goes with the other cases which do not need a CheckUser; admins need to go through and make those calls. If there are any questions, let an SPI clerk or a CheckUser (such as myself) know, and we can try and help whenever we can. –MuZemike 06:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you expand as to what is required of Administrators at that page and/or the closure procedures? <font color="#C50">Nakon 07:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, for anything not listed as requiring a checkuser (anything that says "Open" at the top), any uninvolved admin can come in and act upon the report. Simply make a decision based off the presented evidence regarding whether or not WP:SOCK is being violated, apply blocks as necessary, leave a note, and then mark the case as closed by changing SPI case status to . Don't really worry about screwing anything up; clerks are constantly monitoring those pages to make sure all the technical details are in order. Administrators really only need to worry about the "make decision, place block" part. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * <font color="#C50">Nakon 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of the ones that have had a CU response. There are at least 18 reports open that require a CU. <font color="#C50">Nakon  07:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the cases that just say open, those never need a CU (or if they do, the status changes), infact open means practically that admins need to deal with unless there is no reason to block. You can look to my caselist page which has a list of open cases and is updated every 15 min by a bot, and only the blue and yellow ones need a Checkuser or SPI clerk to deal with. That ugly brown/pink or what ever it is is the open ones which admins can handle easily. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's to clarify what the major SPI case statuses mean (since we did make a recent major change in which I think simplifies the process:

Hopefully this helps a little bit. Keep in mind that it's the administrators out there (not just the SPI clerks or the CheckUsers) who need to take the lead and handle these cases, just as they are expected to handle edit warring cases and AIV reports. –MuZemike 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions is a handy guide for regular administrators to follow for SPI cases. –MuZemike 22:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to look at this
There has been a very long discussion here:, someone is needed to go through this entire discussion and see if there is consensus. Its important that you look at the arguments. I believe there is consensus for Proposal 2, and that the majority support it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for an univolved admin to close a contentious discussion, it would be best to post a pointer to the discussion without a mention of your own conclusion regarding it, which somewhat muddies the waters. Not that I think that admins aren't capable of making up their own minds, it's more a matter of good form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fiction noticeboard proposed marking as historical
A discussion that may be of interest to administrators may be found at Wikipedia talk:Fiction/Noticeboard. The issue is regarding the noticeboard and whether or not it should be marked historical. Yes, I am going through all the noticeboards to check them out <font color="#00AA11">Netalarm <font color="#FF9933">talk 02:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Saltshaker time
Fire It Up (EP) has been deleted via AFD in October 2008 here (albeit under a differently-punctuated title) and again only a week later here. The current revision seems no better than the last two, and all three versions had the same author. Might I suggest that this be deleted again and salted? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as a recreation because there is no more indication of notability now than there was the last two times, but two recreations in two years doesn't seem enough to justify salting, so I've left the name unprotected. --RL0919 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you made the call. I was tempted to decline the G4 and recommend AFD and then I took a look at the creator's talk page and contributions. He's been here since 2006 and has never said anything on in any talk space, just uploaded copyvios. I have zero sympathy for anybody who won't discuss their edits. Sort of reminds me of Brexx but at least he attempted to communicate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

6 Month old legal threat?
I've got a bit of an issue. Seeing a political edit reverted (correctly, involving the race of a politician), I checked the editor's talk page to see if there were other such edits, if their contribs had anything else that needed reverting, etc. Usual vandal check. I found that they had several images deleted in May, and responded (on their own talk page) by telling editors to get off their back and give them equal opportunity to post their work, and that editors should "Check into it before I sue." Now, this is a clear legal threat - block-worthy, in my opinion. Ideally, they'd retract it and they'd be unblocked and that'd be that. But it's 6 months old - so does it matter? Do we still block, even now? Or do we take it as an editor blowing off steam and presume that they cooled off in 6 months, and we leave it at that? Or do I just warn? "Hey, this was bad, don't do it again" sort of thing. Any insight is welcome - not sure what to do here. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hey, this was bad, don't do it again" sounds like a plan. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think a polite reminder sounds appropriate rather than specifically making a warning that fully focuses on something that was said/done 6 months earlier. "Please be aware of NLT policy. This is just a reminder that it is important to comply with this policy. Users who make edits like this usually tend to be blocked from editing for the reasons stated in that policy, so it's best to avoid making edits like that in the future. (add more niceness)" Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GBC Asset Management - a division of Pembroke Management
I would like to start a page for GBC Asset Management - a division of Pembroke Management and would like the help of an administrator. The Firm is one of the oldest in Canada and I find it strange that a page has not already been created... I have tried, but my attempts have not been up to par.

I would appreciate your assistance...

Best regards, Jack

http://www.pml.ca/# —Preceding unsigned comment added by A341672 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can try submitting an article to Articles for creation. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  12:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Collapsibility of the top of Recent changes
Hi. The collapsibility of the top of Recent changes is currently being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ  16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion procedure advice
Todd Young was deleted after an almost-unanimous AFD early this year; however, because he won a US Congressional race in yesterday's elections, he now passes WP:POLITICIAN, and the article was recreated yesterday. Is it appropriate to undelete the old revisions, since they were deleted simply because he didn't pass WP:GNG at the time? I was going to ask the deleting admin, but his talk page has a notice saying basically "I'm not editing much, so if you want to have a page undeleted that I deleted, ask someone else". Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. It looks like there's a lot of valuable content in the deleted history.  Plenty of which could be trimmed down probably, but why not put it all out there for everyone to edit now that it's clear the topic merits inclusion?  I see no policy or pragmatic reason not to undelete the old revisions, and every reason to do so.  postdlf (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Stephen 22:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no policy against history-undeletion; that's what this section of deletion review is for. Graham 87 01:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tidy up at WP:RESTRICT

 * Moved from a misplaced discussion at ANI. --TS 23:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was quickly looking through the Editing Restrictions, and came across these "expired" restrictions. If there are no objections within 24 hours, I will remove them - otherwise I will go by the community discussion here:

User:House1090
Discussion on this restriction:
 * Note: House1090 has been notified of this discussion -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MyMoloboaccount (formerly User:Molobo)
Discussion on this restriction:
 * Note MyMoloboaccount has been notified of this discussion -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for discussion of expired restrictions. Just remove them. --TS 23:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ... or archive them, as appropriate, of course. Expiration based on time is automatic. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 03:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sanction has not expired and should not be rescinded. The sanctions are the result of a most generous offer for the Molobo account to return to editing after their second permaban. The account has previously been identified as an anti-German SPA banned virtually everywhere in the web except for en.wiki, see this village pump thread and its discussion in the Piotrus2 Arbcom case. The user has not changed after the sanction, he has used sockpuppets and was blocked for one year (until recently); while blocked, they comntinued to be a member of the EEML and had their edits proxied on-wiki by their buddies. He continued to coordinate offline with the EEML core even after the case closed, as evident from the infamous, now oversighted on-wiki-posting of the inbox of another EEML member. There is no need nor any justification for removing the sanction without re-enacting the respective (second) permaban. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The restriction on House1090 has to come off. It's way overdued. As for MyMoloboaccount, perhaps now it's the time to bring this issue into light and generate discussion. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Skapperod's contention that "The account has previously been identified as an anti-German SPA banned virtually everywhere in the web except for en.wiki, see this village pump thread" is completely unsupported and false. Note that what he links to is an extremely long rant by what was obviously some kind of sock puppet SPA . The response to that extremely long rant, which Skapperod tries to pass off as evidence, by non-SPA users is here here and here. Skapperod's statement then is really nothing but a personal attack, disguised by the inclusion of an irrelevant "diff".
 * Additionally, there's no such thing as "Piotrus2 ArbCom case" (note lack of a link). Molobo was not sanctioned in any way during the EEML case. Skapperod's obviously quite involved here.radek (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The response by Radeksz aka VM (renamed yesterday) is deliberately misleading:
 * Radeksz participated in the Piotrus2 arbcom case, his pretending here that such a case did not exist is obviouzsly false and he must know that due to his involvement there - the case was simply renamed post-closure to EE disputes.
 * In that arbcom case, Molobo was not sanctioned because the sanction now under discussion was already in place ; during the EEML case, Molobo [served a one-year block for sockpuppetry (he socked to insert a BLP violation into an article about a German politian).
 * Radeksz is one of Molobo's EEML-pals and proxied for Molobo during their block. This is in the EEML evidence and in the respective findings of fact, and was one of the reasons Radeksz was sanctioned.
 * That Molobo and Shade2 are the same person, who disrupted not just wikipedia but also several web fora with their agenda as outlined in the abovementioned village pump thread, was sufficiently established by matching IPs and behavioral evidence during the Piotrus2 arbcom (collapsed below for convenience).

Evidence Molobo=Shade2 from the Piotrus2 Arbcom [ +	 Molobo => Shade2  +	+	+	+
 * 1)
 * Molobo: : "Studnicki sent to mental institution" (a snippet that doesn't even mention the first name nor any other background information, to which only one sentence of one source on the web seems devoted to )
 * Shade2: : "The German history in regards to Poles from past centuries, limited any cooperation to few desperate ideologists like Studnicki or criminals. Studnicki btw ended in mental asylum. Which likely speaks what kind of people considered alliance between Poles and Germans." (apparently he found that one source)

+	+	+	+
 * 2)
 * Molobo: "And you have to remember that as Selbstschutz was made out of fit men, it didn't include women, children and elderly who compromised part of population also." (unsourced consideration)
 * Shade2: "Considering the fact that they were able men, exluded elderly,women and children, an overwheling number of Germans supported Genocide of Poles" (same here)

+	+	+	+
 * 3)
 * Molobo: Molobo categorises himself as an atheist and "transhumanist".
 * Shade2:"I am an atheist" "but I am also a transhumanist". (same here)

+	+	+	+
 * 4)
 * Molobo: Less than two months before the following incident, a member of the League of Polish Families had asked for an investigation if the teletubby Tinky Winky was homosexual and did not back away in time before laying herself open to ridicule . Although there are tons of secondary and other sources on the net on this unimportant question, Molobo contributed a chunk of text from a trivial primary source of no significance.
 * Shade2: He provided exactly the same primary source as an argument only three days later.

+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	 Shade2 => Molobo  +	+	+
 * 5)
 * Molobo: Molobo made a sudden and unusual excursion to Buddhism to state on a talk page possibly something like that information about discrimination of the handicapped in Buddhism would be useful here. "It would be of use for about discrimination of carbon paper (calque) and children with inherent defects in tradition of buddhism." (poltran.com translation)
 * Shade2: Only 2 minutes later: Shade2 made a sudden and unusual excursion about "disabled people in Buddhism". "I have heard", he kicked off, that there was "certain" discrimination against "people born with disabillites" and asked in vain for more information. As examples he noted those being "blind, deaf or crippled".
 * Molobo: A few hours later, Molobo noted those being "blind", "deaf", mute or "crippled".
 * Molobo: 1 1/2 years later, Molobo made a sudden and unusual excursion about "disabled people in Buddhism". "I have heard", he kicked off, that there was discrimination in "certain" elements against "people born with disabilities" and asked as concisely for more information.
 * 5): (see above, it also provides evidence for this one)

+	+	+	+
 * 6)
 * Shade2: (requires registration) A Russian forum member started a thread with his discovery that Merkel had a picture of Catherine the Great in her office and wrote: "Never knew Germany were sympathetic to Russian leaders." Shade2 commented "the Merkel gest is far more symbolic- despotic Catherine was the one that together with absolutists Prussia destroyed democratic Poland and allowed the two states to begin working on dominating Europe. Merkel sign therefore symbolises Germany desire to destroy democracy in Europe".
 * Molobo: Five days later, Molobo cites a newspaper article published a year before that. Only a small paragraph of it mentioned that Merkel avoids being compared to Thatcher, had a picture of Catherine the Great and was fond of quoting a sentence from Hillary Clinton's autobiography. Molobo took the Catherine the Great out of this context and put his own spin on it by focusing on the Partitions of Poland by Catherine the Great, though the source had made no mention of that. "For (after) on chancellor Angela Merkel zaprzysiężeniu, it has inserted catherine for cabinet for partitions of poland tsarina II responsible portet" (poltran.com translation).

+	+	+	+	+
 * 7)
 * Shade2: Above, in 2), he also added a map and argued that 100,000 took part in an organization.
 * Molobo: Eight days later he used the same map in the Polish Wikipedia.
 * Molobo: A few months later, Molobo recapped the post and copied both the number (100 000) and the map. Since it was his number, he also found the source that the post did not include.

+	+	+	+	+
 * 8)
 * Shade2: He said that he really loved China.
 * Molobo: Molobo started an agitation for China in 2008, with the start of the Tibet conflict:      . He also visited the article on the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony to complain about a section about the fake representatives of other ethnic groups, claiming it looked like "sinophobia".

+	+	+	+
 * 9)
 * Shade2: "Or were two of your grandparents members of the allmighty German resistance-one of those huge organisations that had...oh now I remember-SIX members as the White Rose. Totally huge number compered to the small 500.000 Poles in Home Army." (reduction of the German resistance down to (an exemplified) six persons and contrasting this figure with the total number of people in the Polish Home Army)
 * Molobo: In his deleted "German collective guilt" article : "Opposition to Nazi regime that didn't support some of its goals also existed, for example White Rose movement which counted 6 people during the war. In non-German countries such movements were larger, for example in Poland the Polish Home Army] counted 400,000 members". (same thing here)

+	+	+	+
 * 10)
 * Shade2: A forum member tried to convince that the "recovered territories" were war compensation and cited a paragraph from Wikipedia for Shade2. Shade2 was not amused and simply "removed this incorrect sentence" from Wikipedia, which could only be referring to this edit.
 * Molobo: Just a few days ago, he tried to maintain the debunked "recovered territories" theory again, misrepresenting the source. After all, Molobo wants more money from Germany for war reparations. Also, he bemoaned that "major areas" have never been "recovered" from the Germans.

+	+	+	+
 * 11)
 * Shade2: His IP, verified in 10), also contributed to the talk page of the expulsion from Poland article. A few minutes later, already another IP of that kind edited the article. Among other spin in this edit, he added "in order to repair damage caused to those countries by German agression" into a verified piece of text whose stated source did not verify the new addition. He also tried to dress up forced labour camps as mere "transit camps".
 * Molobo: Molobo replicated this and added elsewhere "to repair devestation made by German agression" into a verified piece of text whose stated source did not verify the new addition. And yesterday he tried his "transit camps" again.

+	+	+	+
 * 12)
 * Molobo: Through 2005 and 2006, Molobo had one certain IP.
 * Shade2: In April 2007, Shade2 used two different IPs, verified in 10) and 11). Since the second one started merely 15 minutes after the first one stopped, he couldn't have changed his location and a good look-up program should find the same location for the two, like whois.
 * Molobo: in August 2007, Molobo already slipped his IP after his 1-year block. Entering this IP into a good look-up program and it will be clear it's Shade2's range, not his old one. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to lift the sanction, which is btw a pretty light sanction (1rr and civility) compared to the two permabans which were already issued and the extensive block log of that user. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I.e. there's no such thing as "Piotrus2 ArbCom" case. The case was renamed for a reason. Basic civility and propriety requires that Skapperod respect the fact that it was renamed, rather then continuously and purposefully misname the case just to attack Piotrus. My "participation" in the Eastern European topics case consisted of something like two minor comments, unlike Skapperod's extensive involvement.
 * Let's repeat: Molobo was not sanctioned in the EEML case. He could've been admonished, or some findings in regard to him could've been made or his sanctions extended as Skapperod is trying to do here. But none of that was done.
 * This whole Shade/Molobo thing appears to be based on a rant posted by a SPA to Village pump, which then one of Skapperod's buddies tried to introduce as "Evidence" into the EE case. It was ignored by everyone but Skapperod. Even there it was dangerously flirting with "Outing" (and perhaps false Outing at that), since it concerned things that had nothing to do with Wikipedia, and there's no need to rehash and reproduce those accusations and personal attacks here.
 * This is just another instance of Skapperod block shopping for Polish editors.
 * There's nothing misleading in my statement, either deliberate or not.radek (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your assumption, Molobo was admonished during the EEML case, all of you were - and that he was not subject to further sanctions like you resulted from the fact that he already served a long-term block during and after the case. And no, the village pump thread was not posted by a "buddy" of mine - in contrast to Molobo and you, I am not a member of any organized wiki interest group. And to pretend that there was no Piotrus2 case when one even participated there is deliberately misleading, period. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Molobo was not specifically admonished. He was not sanctioned either, period - you're in no position to read the ArbCom's mind and pretend that you know why this was so. I did not say the village pump thread was posted by a buddy of yours - don't misrepresent what I said - I said a buddy of yours tried to put it in "Evidence" after some sock puppet SPA posted it to the Village Pump. I am not a member of any organized wiki interest group, aside from the Wiki projects indicated on my talk page. You know this, so why are you saying otherwise? I am not pretending there was no Eastern European case - as is clear from what I wrote. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as a "Piotrus2 case". Which there isn't. As you also are well aware.radek (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop fighting please. I don't know why this is even here: Molobo's sanction exists, and for a reason, there's no doubt about that; and it is still in force, unless I'm missing something. If Molobo wants it reviewed, it's up to him to initiate a review. In the absence of this, why are we even discussing anything here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the sanction was delisted as "expired" by Phantomsteve . Skäpperöd (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that now. But deciding on whether that was a procedural error or not is a purely formal issue: was there an expiry or not? (I've asked Phantomsteve to explain.) It doesn't require rehashing mutual accusations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved administrator to close ArbCom elections RfC
At 22:01 UTC (about two hours' time), the RfC on how the voting is to be conducted for this year's ArbCom election is scheduled to close. An uninvolved admin is needed to read over the discussion and the talkpage and interpret the results. For the most part, it's a straightforward RfC, with proposals on mostly relevant issues with varying levels of support, which need to be assessed to see which have consensus for application. There are a few nuances to keep in mind in closing though, which require more than just a summary of the levels of support for each proposal. There are some popular proposals which may be in conflict, and some which may not be technically possible to implement without outside (i.e. developer) help. In order to proceed with the election, we need a clear indication at minimum on whether secret voting through SecurePoll is to be retained, or if open voting or some other tried and tested method is to be used. The closing statement on last year's RfC may be useful for reference. Thank you for your attention, <font face="New York">Skomorokh  20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one else has taken this on, I will close it. (Some of it looks pretty straightforward.) As for uninvolved, I haven't decided even if I will vote in this year's elections, so that makes me about as uninvolved as it can get. If someone has taken this on, & wants a second opinion on their decision, email me in the next 15-20 minutes so we don't duplicate our efforts, & tell me if you would like a second opinion on your decision. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RfC closed. I fully expect to be lambasted as completely deficient in logical thought, & for UltraExactZZ to be greatly offended for citing him by name. Let the politicking for the most thankless jobs on the English Wikipedia begin. -- llywrch (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you Llywrch, very clear and just what the doctor ordered. Appreciate your time, <font face="New York">Skomorokh  00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a very good close - and quite to the contrary, I'm flattered that my close from last year's RFC was fancy enough to get quoted verbatim. Thanks for taking a look at this one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the kind words, but I'll believe I made a good close only when those people who advocated for the thoughtful proposals which failed to attract sufficient support agree with my opinions. (And, yes, my words above about being lambasted, etc., were made partly as a joke.) But having slept on my closing, I feel there are a couple of points I should have made at length: And having written all of that, I'll stop talking & hereby step down from my role. Anything further from me on the matter should be considered as the opinions of Just Another Wikipedian. -- llywrch (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The original open elections for ArbCom should be considered as simply an accident of history. I was there at the time, & I can attest that it was done that way simply because (1) it was quick & easy, & (2) we didn't seriously consider any other way of doing it. I have no strong opinion on this point, & if people work to convince the community to go back to open elections, it won't make enough of a difference to me to influence whether I vote or not.
 * I forgot to mention one assumption I had reviewing this: this is not a ballot for 18 separate elections. All ArbCom candidates are running against each other for the open seats, & the 18 people who get the most votes are considered the winner. IFAICR, this is how the election has always worked, & how it will work this time around. If I made a mistake here, & enough people are upset over it, we need to open another RfC. However, I hope everyone agrees to allow my assumption to stand, & to reconsider this before the next election.
 * I'd like to further discuss one proposal which failed get a consensus: the requirement that all successful candidates have at least 50% approval. While it is clear that proposal is in no way binding on anyone, I believe we can all agree this is an understandable concern. And while the best thing would be for this never to happen, I ask that any committee charged with certifying the results explain why they resolved this issue the way they did. That is, why they either approved one or more candidates who didn't get sufficient votes or approved less than the required number. Offering an explanation -- which should be more than simply pointing to WP:IAR -- will allow everyone to accept the results: those who won, those who lost, & even those who didn't participate for whatever reason.

Request for Administrator resolution of Gavin.collins RFC/U and other issues
The following request was based on a consensus of editors as discussed here

has been the subject of three user RfCs, one in October 2007, one in December 2008, and a more recent one that began in September 2010. Each RfC cited complaints with his interaction style, with many attempts to warn and reform Gavin in between. The recent RfC/U has reached a consensus that he is disruptive; several users (including Hiding) stated they have limited or ended their participation on Wikipedia due to Gavin's actions. He has a long history at AN/I and other noticeboards, and as the third RfC/U progressed, another AN thread was started, during which the community discovered that most of Gavin's substantive contributions to the main namespace clearly and directly violated the copyright policy. As a result of that discussion, Kww volunteered to mentor Gavin, but his efforts had no effect on Gavin's behavior and Kww thus discontinued his mentorship. The discussion on his third RfC/U ultimately established that there is consensus that his disruptive behavior cannot be addressed with warnings or requests for improvement, and instead need more serious sanctions.

Gavin.collins refuses to compromise in the consensus-building process, resulting in disruptive editing and gaming the dispute-resolution system. It is, of course, acceptable to hold an opinion that is shared by no one else (or by a minority of the other participants). But for such a minority viewpoint (see his one-man crusades on "WP:FICTION", "links in infoboxes" 1 (and 2), "notability of lists" 1 (and 2), and his first and second demands to ban a user (with admins' response)) his comments dominate the discussion and discourage other editors from participating. In discussions, Gavin.collins' tendentiousness and repetition of arguments ad nauseum impede progress on the development of solutions where consensus does, in fact, exist. Even after his point of view is rejected by the community, he still will not cooperate with efforts to find middle ground. This damages the community by causing editors to leave in frustration, eliminating their valuable input, and allowing disputes to continue for years unresolved.

See the RfC itself for a list of examples. Please also note that after the RfC reached equilibrium, two other incidents have occurred despite multiple warnings and the generous mentorship of Kww.


 * 1) Refusing to accept consensus for notability of lists: There was a contentious RfC on lists, but there were a few issues where there was consensus. Shooterwalker spearheaded an effort with the other participants to summarize the few areas where there is a consensus on lists. After one week, Shooterwalker made a request to an uninvolved admin to close the discussion, but Gavin accused him of operating in bad faith. Gavin was admonished by FT2. Rather than helping to find areas of agreement,  he returned to the RFC to push his own point of view and prevent closure. When he did not gain any support for his viewpoint, he tried once again to accuse Shooterwalker of operating in bad faith. The remaining participants defended the summary as accurate, but wasted time and energy dealing with one editor who should have understood the community's consensus.
 * 2) Refusing to accept consensus on WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO: Gavin has an interpretation of WP:OR that is far outside the consensus and apparently inhibits his ability to edit article content without violating copyright. He believes that to summarize a source in your own words has a high probability of injecting original research, and this interpretation has caused him to repeatedly engage in significant verbatim copying from sources that result in copyright violations. Editors have tried to explain to him that he is welcome to his opinion, but that he must avoid acting as though such opinions are policy if he wishes to avoid being blocked again. Gavin interpreted this advice as a personal attack. Around the same time, Kww decided that mentoring Gavin would not be "fruitful".

In summary, Gavin refuses to make constructive compromises when his ideas are rejected by the community, and instead uses argument ad nauseum to stonewall and filibuster issues where there is otherwise a consensus. He insists his viewpoint is in fact policy and blames other editors for violating his one-man rules. When other editors point out that it is against Wikipedia rules to ignore the consensus and enforce one's own view of policy, he accuses other editors of bad faith. The consensus of the most recent RfC/U is that there is no other recourse but administrative action, possibly including a ban, the details of which are to be determined here.

On behalf of the participants in the RFC/U on user:Gavin.collins --Mike Cline (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I really can't add much to what is already in the statement except to note that the first admin who dropped by to close the RfC got so fed up with Gavin that he walked away from it (a fully understandable response). The next editor subsequently stated that he seriously contemplated just making the proposal to the Community directly. Seriously, I can count the number of editors who don't think Gavin is disruptive using one finger. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting - I had read the exchange between Gavin and BWilkins on Gavin's talk page, but I had not yet read Ncmvocalist's comments on his own talk page. Thanks for that. BOZ (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, Ncmvocalist is not an admin. → ROUX   ₪  16:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is tendentious editing so the question is this: is the problem limited to certain topics or does it just comes part and parcel with all of his contributions to Wikipedia? If that's too difficult to answer, alternatively: when have his contributions not included tendentious disruptive editing? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to look at the RfC/U for all the details, but the consensus there was that the problem extends across both articles (due to copyvio issues) and policies (due to tendentious editing etc.). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I endorse the idea that Gavin is disruption. He hasn't responded to warnings, and has been uncooperative with friendly editors, RFCs, and now even a mentor. I'd hate to use a full ban on someone who hasn't gone completely postal. But there has to be some kind of restriction that tells him that he has to be more collaborative and accept community decisions if he wants to stay here. Or at least stay out of the decision-making process. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also endorse this summary, and I particularly make note of the fact that the mentorship of Gavin by Kww, that grew out of the previous AN discussion, resulted in Kww giving up on the possibility that mentorship would be productive. At this point, I think that some sort of a ban (I'm not sure about the specifics, but, regardless of duration, it would probably have to be a site ban rather than a topic ban) may be the only option. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that this is an appropriate venue to disucss these issues at length, so I limit myself to a few points, as all of the issues have been discussed elsewhere at length. My understanding of the situation is that:
 * My interaction with other editors is extensive, but clear, reasonable and for the most part based on courtesy and respect, although this has been disputed at the recent RFC;
 * Hiding's decision to limit his involvement with Wikipedia is his own decision and is out of my control, but I bear no ill will or bad feeling towards him;
 * I reject the idea that I have ever engaged in stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of any sort;
 * The copyright violations which I have carried out have some mittigating circumstances due to a misunderstanding on my part regarding the use verbatim citations, which I have previously explained, applogised and undertaken to make amends for.
 * In fairness to me, I have provided clear and precise citations, and this will assist with cleanup, which should take no more than several weeks to correct, on my own if need be. The copyright violations themselves are numerous, but involve relatively small amounts of text from multiple sources, and should be easy to correct;
 * Kww decision to withdraw his mentorship is his own, but it not clear why he withdrew his offer so soon and and at such short notice. My request for further clarification and advice going forward has been unanswered;
 * I am aware of many accusions of disruptive behaviour by editors such as postdlf, but I do beleive these accusations to be of a mainly rhetorical kind, designed to undermine me as an editor rather address the subject matter of the discussions we were engaged in;
 * I am not oblidged to conform with any ideas deemed to be "consensus" if they are seriously disputed, that are little more than the beliefs of a few editors whose views differ from my own, particularly when those ideas conflict with existing policies and guidelines and my own are supported by them. In any case, a dissenting viewpoint should always be tolerated, if not accepted, and I see no fault for any editor to hold a dissenting view;
 * I am being asked to participate in the ANI equivalent of a trial by ordeal, in which my absence from the discussions, as well as my partipation (and the writing of these points) will be taken to be evidence of guilt, lying or proof that the accusations against me must be true. At this point, I request that good faith be assumed, rather than using this discussion as an opportunity for mudslinging;
 * Lastly, I think it only right that editors (inclduding myself) should be allowed to particiate in discussions about policies and guidelines in an atmosphere of mutual respect and courtesy without the personal attack which have been leveled against me. If I have harmed or annoyed any editor, I do appologise now, and if there is any instance of where I have offended any editor, I am happy to appoligise again if asked on my talk page.
 * Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist further with this discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To any neutral observers, look carefully at #8 and unpack the rhetorical gymnastics. According to Gavin, it's the community's fault is because we don't like him explaining to the rest of us what the guidelines are. His justification for ignoring consensus is because he's enforcing guidelines. But guidelines "are best practices that are supported by consensus". The only way he can handle this cognitive dissonance is to believe that his solitary viewpoint is grounded in policy, but everyone else's consensus reading of policy is actually ignorant. This is the belief system that makes it impossible for Gavin to engage in consensus-building in good faith. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say anything of the sort, and in any case, I have frequently gone on record that I think it possible that I may be mistaken, so am entirely aware that my views are my own. However, I am entitle to them, regardless of whether you think I am "actually ignorant" or not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To any neutral observers, notice how he took my words out of context to try to accuse me of making a personal attack. He does it routinely. Yesterday to an uninvolved admin. The day before to me.
 * To Gavin, when you say "it's possible" that you "may be mistaken", you're missing the point. Look at the other comments here. There's a consensus that you ARE mistaken, no possibilities or maybes. At this point you should be doing what so many other helpful editors have been telling you for months: stop pushing back, reach out, make concessions, and hope you can build a consensus with everyone else. If you make this change, I'm afraid that might you might be a day late and a dollar short. But I'm a forgiving person. I'd stick my neck out and try to argue for something less than a full ban if you'd acknowledge that you understand how WP:consensus works, and how it's about to get you banned. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Gavin has not attempted to edit any article to incorporate new material since the copyvio issue. He has stated that his concern is that unless he quotes verbatim, he cannot prove that something is not original research; however, in discussion over the copyvio issue (apologies that it's a whole section, but you have to see the thought process) he was advised that ascribed text and quotes should on the whole be kept to a minimum.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further (apologies, I didn't have time to include this above), Gavin has made no attempt to repair any of his copyvios. As folks can see from his statement above, the reason for this is that what he wants to do is to turn every one into a quote, but in the course of the discussion linked above, several people said that ascription (Elen of the Roads said "not on your nellie") was not appropriate for conveying factual/non- contentious information outside of exceptional circumstances. If people check the page history of Accountancy and look at all the text I removed as copyvios   etc, it's clear that it can't be put back as ascribed text or quotes, so my impression is that Gavin has not repaired any of the copyvios because he doesn't know how to go about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Gavin has had plenty of opportunity to work with the community in the previous RFC/Us and the ANI to resolve the issues but instead refused to participate, taking these as personal attacks, or requesting a much smaller venue (his talk page) to resolve one-on-one editor conflicts. I do not know whether he will participate now, but it is important that we've never prevented him from speaking his mind about his behavior. (Obviously, I support any admin action that is reasonable for Gavin's disruption). --M ASEM  (t) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to point out a rather fair question that Kww asked of Gavin on his talk (during the 24-hr block below, ): "Are you able to exercise reasonable judgment about the consequences of your actions?" I think, when you take in the whole picture of Gavin's behavior over the last few years, this points out the underlying problem in that Gavin lacks the self-awareness that is necessary to have in working within consensus, maybe not spelled out exactly that way at any time before, but certainly advice and other suggestions have been on those lines. Gavin cannot seem to state that his ideas are incompatible with consensus since they seem compatible with policy (by his interpretations), and cannot see how his discussion approaches is immediately off-putting to consensus building.  I was actually surprised to see Gavin apologize for the copyvio aspect, which in hindsight is the first time I've seen Gavin be self-aware.    I realize self-awareness is not an innate skill we expect editors to have, but it is one we guide them to practice (eg through things like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:TE, and WP:DEADHORSE) in order to build consensus.   A question to ask ourselves is: have we given Gavin ample opportunity through the 3 RFC/Us and ANI reports to correct his lack of self-awareness?  To me, yes (particularly given RFC/U #2's conclusions that basically are repeated into #3), but that might be the distinction between a topic ban, site ban, or indef block to others. --M ASEM  (t) 14:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban/indef-block proposal?

 * Per normal community sanctions proposal best practices, this should be left open for not less than 48 hrs at a bare minimum from the time it was proposed, in order to give maximum opportunity for diverse input from community members. WP:SNOW does not apply to community sanction discussions.  If consensus is achieved by that time, any uninvolved administrator may close at that time.  In the absence of consensus longer discussions are acceptable.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WT:BAN, only 24 hours is needed, and given the overwhelming consensus, I think it would be wise to shut this down now, to help preserve the user's dignity. Jehochman Talk 15:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways that the most restrictive measure can be imposed for tendentious editing of this nature. The first way is to site ban him as a community (he'd need to appeal to the community or ArbCom to return). The second way is to impose an indef block (an admin can unblock if he can satisfy that admin that he's resolved his issues). Thoughts? Please please please state your level of involvement (if any) with the user when commenting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI - Banning Policy vs Blocking Policy --Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For those who want to consider gentler remedies, please note that the documented problems are: (1) copyright violations, (2) radical incomprehension of NOR, (3) article titles, (4) notability, (5) article deletion, (6) disruption of talk pages and noticeboards, (7) anything consensus-driven, and (8) pointy abuse of tags. So if you want to keep Gavin as an editor permitted to do things that haven't been a problem, please tell me what Gavin could do that doesn't involve either articles, templates, or any sort of discussions. As far as I can tell, what's left is the null set, but I'm willing to listen to a rational argument if someone has found a tiny corner that he hasn't already disrupted. Just plan to be concrete and specific: "Surely there's something..." isn't going to convince me, any more than "Surely some sources exist..." convinces me to keep an article of distinctly dubious notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either as proposer. I didn't comment in the RfC/U itself, but I did deal with procedural matters of formatting, closing the RfC/U, etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either per proposer.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  16:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support site ban. I commented in the third RFC after interacting with him in the recent list RFC.  I also helped review some of his edits for the copyright infringement investigation.  It's those copyright infringements that turn this situation from one requiring a topic ban into a complete site ban.  There simply is no benefit to allowing him to edit any longer.  postdlf (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Topic Ban, Oppose Indef Block, Tolerate Site Ban Hate to sound wishy washy here. Disclosure: I agree with Gavin on third-party sources, but Gavin has accused me of bad faith for asking him to moderate his other radical views (or at least accept that he can't enforce his views without a consensus). I don't want to ban him, because he isn't completely unhinged. But I see an indef block as fruitless, since Gavin will have plenty of abstract platitudes at his disposal. He can say he's trying to enforce (his view of) policy, and argue that (his view of) policy is on his side, and that he wants to work with other editors to reach a shared understanding of (his view of) policy. My first choice is to restrict Gavin's privileges to a narrow part of Wikipedia, where he can hopefully prove that he's actually capable of good work. (Not just convincing an admin that he will do good work in theory.) But if he's not capable of good work, we should skip the indef block and go straight for the ban. (I support Mike Cline's position below.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support site ban. I commented in the third RfC after interacting with him in an AfD and on some policy page talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a full site ban for Gavin.collins. My first interaction with him was slightly over three years ago; I co-authored his second RFC/U, so my history with him is well-documented there. I have had virtually no interaction with Gavin since his prior RFC/U, and I find it disturbing that not only has his tenditiousness and lack of ability to cooperate with other user has continued, but apparently gotten worse over time. I was highly disappointed to see that he was conditionally unblocked upon his agreement to help clean up the mess he made with the copyright violations, but then offered absolutely no help in the cleanup efforts whatsoever. If you remove the copyright violations, template tagging, and deletion nominations from his article space edits, you are left with virtually nothing. What is left of his contributions amounts to thousands of edits to Wikipedia-space talk pages, and it is that which brought about his third RFC/U. Like everyone else, I would like to see Gavin become a productive contributor to the community, but I have no hope of such a dream being realized, and thus I feel this community is better off without him. BOZ (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support long-term community ban from entire site. An indef block is my second choice. By "long-term", I mean a minimum of one year. I've already done "patiently explain", and "assume good faith", and "last chance", and "unblock with (broken) promises". The community needs this disruption and copyright violation to stop. IMO a ban is the only reliable method of stopping the disruption. I've moved on to WP:COMPETENT: Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent. Good faith is necessary, but not sufficient.
 * For one, there is an near endless amount of articles to be assessed and a large amount of project tagging required. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gavin has already demonstrated disruptiveness with tagging, mentioned elsewhere, and assessment seems like an area where his difficulties would be in full force. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support either per proposer. I commented on the RfC and previous AN thread. I've previously had a particularly fruitless argument with Gavin over the issue of foreign language sources which is related to his understanding of WP:OR as well as his two ban proposals cited in the statement posted by Mike Cline. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of #8 in Gavin's list of principles in the above section. When Gavin speaks of misunderstandings (or whatever he might call them) of policy what he really means is that those policies don't actually mean what the majority of Wikipedians think they do. That's textbook Wikilawyering. With that in mind I don't see how he could ever contribute to article space in a constructive manner. He has had 3 1/2 years, a vast number of edits and plenty of warnings to show that he is willing to work with other editors rather that repeat his own interpretations of various policies over and over despite being told that he is wrong. Game over. Wikipedia is not therapy and other editors shouldn't have to suffer any longer just because he suddenly makes a few good edits to a talk page. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Topic Ban - I have been involved with Gavin.collins as an editor and admin for at least a year on a variety of issues mostly related to WP:Lists and WP:OR. I firmly disagree with many of Gavin’s positions on the application of WP policies and guidelines.  I have repeatedly tried to engage Gavin in discussions outside the drama of RFCs, talk pages and incident boards. Here, Here, and Here.  I firmly believe his disruptive behavior and misguided views on consensus and policy are directly attributable to his lack of real content experience.  His recent copyvios are proof he can’t even apply existing policy to his content work, despite his years of participation.  His policy positions, as idealistic as they may be, do not reflect a functional understanding of how this community works.  If Gavin.collins wishes to continue participation in WP he needs to immediately undertake two changes in his behavior:
 * He needs to understand and apply the concept of WP:Consensus to all of his future behavior and interaction with other editors.
 * He needs to restrict his participation to article work (content creation) and forego participation in any policy, guideline, deletion, et. al discussions, including the tagging of articles for perceived transgressions of policies, guidelines, etc. In doing article work, Gavin.collins needs to demonstrate to the wider community that he understands the application of WP policies and guidelines (as they are written and applied by the consensus of the community) to his content work.  As a community, we can consider his previous content mistakes (copyvios) as just that, mistakes.  As a community however, we will have high expectations that he won’t violate content policies and guidelines in the future.
 * To that end. I recommend and support a Topic Ban for Gavin.collins—the topic being all discussions on policies, guidelines, deletions and article tagging.  Gavin.collins is free to create and edit articles within the scope of existing policies and guidelines.  He is free to discuss article content on article talk pages in a collegial, WP:Consensus way without imposing his personal views on what WP policy should be during those discussions.  This ban should last for 1 year.  Should Gavin.collins refuse to comply with the details of this ban at anytime during the year (including a failure to apply existing policies), a full site ban should be imposed immediately. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support site ban for 1 year. Note that above he claims to have asked for advice/guidance from Kww -- but he did so on his own talk page after Kww withdrew, making it highly unlikely he was going to get an answer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support topic or site ban. I had a lot of hope that Kww's mentorship would help, but nope.  Gavin has had many chances to improve his behavior, and each has been taken as a license to keep pushing his agenda through tendentiousness.  Wikipedia is not therapy; our responsibility to help Gavin work through his issues so he can become a positive contributor is limited, and that limit has been reached and considerably exceeded.  Enough. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Ncmvocalist for missing the request to state level of involvement. I've been moderately involved in a couple of notability-related debates Gavin participated in over the past few months, and have made a couple desultory attempts at getting through to him on his talk page. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support community ban - Just get it over with. An indefinite block is just wasting time. If he wants to come back, he can follow the steps in the standard offer, or e-mail Arbcom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the distinction between banning and blocking is pure pedantry at this point. I might support a topic ban, if I knew those to provide any positive results whatsoever.  My experience with topic bans is that they do not.  they infuriate the person subject to the ban, provide ammunition for opponents and are generally unenforceable.  So as an alternative I will weakly support a site ban, if that is the only solution.  Bear in mind, however, that banning gavin under these circumstances will not be forgotten.  Wikipedia isn't a court of law, so there are no precedents, but suffice it to say this is not the first nor the last time we will see persistent disruption along the inclusion/deletion spectrum. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In earnest... I hope this is not the only time we consider this sort of remedy for this sort of problem. Gavin is not the first editor to push WP:IDHT beyond reproach, and he won't be the last. We should modify WP:GAMETYPE or WP:IDHT to make this kind of disruption more clear. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support permanent site ban per Gavin.collins massive plagiarism and copyright violations coupled with endless attempts to have as much free content deleted as possible under any conceivable pretense. Almost all of Gavin.collins contributions have been destructive and and harmful to Wikipedia. Goodbye, and good riddance! Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * question I would support a topic ban rather than a total ban, except for the problem of what to limit it to. My own difficult interactions have been only in WP and WT space, but it seems from the above that the problems others have been finding extend to article space also.   DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a WP and WT namespace ban doesn't address Gavin's plagiarism and copyright violations, his persistent unwillingness to provide any assistance in cleaning up his copvio mess, his bizarre insistence that rewriting material from references in one's own original language constitutes original research, and his general and continued refusal to acknowledge the requirements of Copyrights and Non-free content (as explained above, his proposed remedy for his plagiarism and copyright violations was to leave all non-free text intact, but simply place it in quotation marks, notwithstanding the brevity requirements of the non-free content policy.) The fundamental problem with any limited ban is the question of what purpose it is intended to serve. What could Gavin possibly offer Wikipedia besides more copyright violations and general disruption? Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to see him editing articles if he can work out his issues with it. He has said himself that he finds it next to impossible to summarise text, and he considers it OR to write a paragraph where you cannot directly source every word and phrase to a reference (you can see him continually rewriting paraphrases so they match the source wording more closely), so he is going to struggle. His contributions in WP and WT space though are too problematic in my opinion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending the copyvios or gavin's interpretation of OR but please understand that there are a number of good editors who hold wildly different views of what OR does and does not say about paraphrasing text. For instance, if you read my articles you will find rather workmanlike prose sourced painstakingly, but very few broad synthesizing sentences.  If you read articles written primarily by editors with a more liberal interpretation of OR you will see fewer cites per paragraph and stronger claims in text not directly linked to cited articles.  We thrive by tolerating a broad spectrum of opinions on this subject. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can certainly see that. My only onbservation is that it causes Gavin himself problems.  However this is an example of Gavin working well with other editors, and making good strong suggestions about text.  I would not wish to prevent him from doing that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support permanent site ban -I'm never one who usually wishes to banish people from wikipedia however much I loathe them but Gavin my experience is extremely spiteful in eveyr instance I've seen of him and is not a constructive editor. He is a trouble maker and has sparked off countless unnecessary debates and igniting ill feeling between editors which could have been avoided. A definate candidate for a permanent block.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question -- Before I express my opinion/vote on this, I'd like to hear Gavin.Collins' answer to this question: In #8 of your list above posted at 17:17 3 November 2010 (UTC), you stated that "I am not oblidged [sic] to conform with any ideas deemed to be 'consensus' if they are seriously disputed"; by "disputed", whom do you mean? Specifically, are you talking about one or more uninvolved Wikipedians, or do you include yourself as one who disputes consensus? You can either respond here, after Sarek's block is lifted, or in email to me, & I will repost your answer here. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My take (not Gavin's) on #8 is a situation where a number of editors have reached a consensus but that consensus elsewhere in terms of a guideline or a policy or none involved editors is different. This can be due to the consensus editors pushing a point of view or varies guidelines/policies in conflict with each other or editors of a certain view being drawn together. The situation seems quite common in fact. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to hear Gavin's explanation. But thanks for the answer. -- llywrch (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support community ban. The user is consistently causing problems, sometimes severe problems, due to an extreme lack of competence that appears unlikely to sort itself out, combined with stubbornness. Hans Adler 21:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Topic Ban, Oppose Indef Block, Oppose Site Ban carefully reading back over what appears a long list of interactions. Mike Cline has written it nicely above "Gavin.collins needs to demonstrate to the wider community that he understands the application of WP policies and guidelines (as they are written and applied by the consensus of the community) to his content work. As a community, we can consider his previous content mistakes (copyvios) as just that, mistakes. As a community however, we will have high expectations that he won’t violate content policies and guidelines in the future". I would add that a mentor is advisable and would recommend it as a requirement as being able to more effectively communicate with others is going be key to whether continued participation on Wikipedia is going to be suitable for Gavin. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering to be his mentor? The prospects of using a mentor depend on whether someone is ready to hold that position. On the other point, what topics are you proposing a ban on, and how will that prevent the issues popping up in the topics he is not banned from? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a full site ban having dealt with Gavin's narrow view of what is and isn't consensus for years on I am simply tired of fighting over every single edit. Especially in light that he seems to have been gaming the system in various policy threads.  He has had numerous chances, lets spend this effort on an editor that can be more productive. Web Warlock (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a site ban. In my interactions with Gavin, and my observations of his interactions with others, I've found Gavin to be contentious, unreasonable, disruptive, and unwilling to work toward consensus or compromise. Efforts to resolve the difficulties other editors have experienced with Gavin always seem to fail. In the rare cases when Gavin does agree to change his behavior, he invariably ends up reverting to form. Furthermore, as Boz has mentioned, Gavin's contributions to Wikipedia consist mostly of tagging articles, copyright violations, and arguing on talk pages about his edits--ie, little or no content contributions whatsoever. From what I've seen, Gavin has been given numerous opportunities to change his behavior, and nothing has worked. It's time for something that might actually work.--Robbstrd (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either, I've had interactions with him on the Criticism of Judaism and Article Titles discussions, my feeling is that he does not fully understand what consensus building entails, and is currently incapable of stepping back from his own views in order to [WP:WFTE understand another's view]. I am particularly concerned with his reactions to the copyright violations, and would point to this edit, in comparison to page 74 of the source as a particularly egregious example. I was disappointed that he did not make immediate efforts to go back and clean up the mess, but remain unsure as to whether this reluctance was due to confusion as to the nature of the problems or adherence to the belief that there is not a problem that needed to be fixed. Regardless of other outcomes, I think a mentor (or 2-3) should be required. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support site ban Repeated time sinks are disruptive and ultimately need excision. Even after all the above, when Kww below stated they did "not receive an answer to the question I was asking", Gavin.collins answered(diff), not by finding a question he had answered, or showing some evidence that Kww had never asked questions, but with the time-sinking retort "Which questions did not you not get answers to?". That might win in a law court, but all the evidence presented above is sufficient to show that further trials are pointless. I believe this is my first direct interaction with Gavin.collins. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blanket Support for the most stringent sanctions gaining community consensus, up to and including permanent banning. If I were completely uninvolved, I would have closed the RfC/U with a suggestion that the community limit Gavin to 1x/day personal contributions to policy or policy talk space (anything beyond 1 edit per day would have to be conveyed by another editor) in an attempt to end the textwalling and coerce cooperative editing without censoring him for his viewpoints on notability, which differ markedly from my own.  But Gavin's intransigence extends to copyright issues.  If we've lost Rlevse through hectoring on not-dissimilar copyright misunderstandings, it is the height of dissonance to not ban Gavin for his efforts.  Rlevse was a superior contributor in every way to Gavin, and he chose to leave of his own accord.  Gavin can well and indeed be shown the door without any injustice, since he doesn't have one smidgen of the integrity (no, Gavin, intransigence is not integrity) that Rlevse does. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support full and permanent site ban. I encountered Gavin Collins over a notability issue (links on my talk page) in 2008 when he behaved in the uncompromising manner that is so frequently described in the three RfC/Us, the last of which I contributed to. I have observed his editing pattern since 2008 and noticed that, since then, his behavior has gotten, if anything, worse. Many editors have demonstrated charity and forbearance well beyond the call of duty in their attempts to get him to edit in a manner acceptable to the consensus of editors. They have failed, not through any want of trying. Gavin Collins has been given many last chances. It is pointless and probably not appropriate to speculate on the motives for his behavior. Whatever they are, the end result is that, after interminable advice and tuition, he has not developed the competence to edit Wikipedia in a way that is acceptable to editors. As the article says "Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly -- but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent. " Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Support site-ban. He has had plenty of warnings, and the issue over copyright violations should have been a huge wake-up call. It wasn't. The later comments, especially this one where he doesn't think the problem is with his conduct, indicates that he still doesn't get it or doesn't want to get it. The vast majority of his edits have been all to Wikipedia/ space, where the current grief is being created, and User_talk space where he continues to fight and deny all charges. The very limited number of edits to article space are 90%+ devoted to adding various tags, and sometimes edit warring to keep the tags in, and much of the remainder are, as we know copyvios. That leaves far too little constructive work which is worth keeping, so a topic ban is insufficient. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding my involvement, I have posted outside views on all three of Gavin's RFC/U. I have been engaged in several disputes with him over notability policy. An AFD in particular where I have argued with him in the aftermath is the one on Ellen Hambro, the reasons for which I have elaborated in the third RFC/U. I was the admin who unblocked Gavin a few weeks ago due to his apology for the copyvio thing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either a full ban, or a topic ban from all WP:namespace pages, with a clear indication that this chance to concentrate on article editing is a last chance, and that repeated or egregious problems (e.g. further plagiarism) there will result in a full ban. Note: I am not uninvolved here, I have encountered Gavin in many discussions over the years, where he generally exhausted the patience of any other editors, with far-out statements like the recent "We know that Wikipedia is a not a directory of every village in the world; rather it provides encylopedic coverage about a settlement if there are sources to provide context (commentary, analysis or criticism) to the reader. Redirects don't provide context, so I don't see what useful purpose a redirect could serve." (emphasis mine: this on the subject of redirecting articles for smaller villaegs to articles about larger subjects, e.g. a submunicipality would redirect to the municipality). Fram (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Whatever form of sanction. Thanks to Gavin concensus has become harder to reach in some areas and the community even more divided. --KrebMarkt (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support full and permanent site ban Three RfCs and Gavin Collins hasn't changed. He still lies (claiming he wasn't informed of the RfC), he's still disruptive, and he still thinks that he can ignore consensus. He was blocked for copyright violations. The block was removed with the understanding that he work to fix those violations, but to date he has not fixed any of them. Instead he ignored and annoyed his mentor and continued with his same disruptive behavior that has already driven several people away from Wikipedia. People who, unlike Gavin, were able to contribute to Wikipedia without violating copyrights and with respect for consensus. Seanr451 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support site ban per WP:BAN: as having exhausted the patience of the community--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours
Per the attacks/lack of AGF in, I have blocked Gavin for 24 hours. I leave it to an uninvolved admin to decide if it needs to be extended per the discussion above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't decide if Gavin tells fibs, or if he just processes and stores information very differently to most people. At my suggestion, Mike Cline posted the proposal on Gavin's talkpage nearly 24 hours before this was posted here . Gavin ignored this (I checked his contribs - he edited in other places).  He then accuses Mike of not attempting to communicate on his talk page.  Same weird schizz as the RfC - Mike notified him as soon as it was posted, but Gavin refused to contribute on the grounds that he hadn't been notified. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Small nit : I was the one that posted the RFC/U (#3) and then notified him minutes later. Same result. --M ASEM (t) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I relied on my memory - mistake. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problems. Just in case people are trying to confirm this in Gavin's history... --M ASEM (t) 21:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that commented warranted a block. Gavin is certainly welcome to think that people agitating for his indefinite ban aren't out to help him, and say as much.  There were no personal attacks there, unless you consider characterizing actions as a personal attack.  Looks like this will all be beside the point anyway, but I figured I would register my disapproval. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go out on a limb and agree with Protonk on that one. Those sort of comments are par for the course from Gavin anyway, and if they were blockable, then he would have been indeff'd long ago. Blocking him robs him of his ability to respond to this thread, if he should choose to do so any further. BOZ (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, and I agree that significant, persistent ABF should be blockable. Saying that Mike's offer was made in bad faith and that Mike's "so called "help" is actually nothing but generalised mudslinging" is not the kind of behavior that helps Wikipedia.  If it takes a short block to stop this kind of unwarranted nastiness, then I'm willing to have that done.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While the specifics of this particular incident appear quite damning and the conclusion seems inevitable, I am concerned about an editor being blocked while we simultaneously discuss permanent or long-term sanctions. I hope someone is watching his Talk page to ensure his voice is being heard during this discussion, ideally by transcluding a section or copying material to this noticeboard. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is on 90 watchlists, not counting people like me, who hit the page occasionally without watchlisting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * x2 -- Assuming Bad Faith can be a personal attack, and since the previous edit also ABFed, and the last few comments have been similarly unhelpful, I figured it was time to stop the hole-digging. Your mileage may (and obviously does) vary. Since GWH has stated this will run for at least 48 hours, he'll be back before a final decision has been made.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. ABF is ABF, not a personal attack.  If that is the reason for the block then fine, but lets not broaden our definition of personal attack strategically. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The second-to-last edit was straight ABF, and not terribly blockable in my view. However, the last edit, with comments like "Your so called "help" is actually nothing but generalised mudslinging", was a bit much for me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that, though there is some merit (not always) in allowing latitude. I think my opinion on the block comes down to a difference in preferences. 20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This was obviously made in good faith, and I'm aware a few admins and editors are talking to him on his talk (maybe this will make him reflect on things). That said, I agree with BOZ - that's not block-worthy, and I'd strongly suggest that a block like this is avoided in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a rough consensus here that the user should be left unblocked so he can respond. I will this unblock (perhaps temporarily, given the apparent direction of the conversation, and the user's stubborn refusal to admit that they might be in the wrong and need to change their editing style, but there is always hope of a last minute epiphany). Jehochman Talk 14:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship abandonment
Just to clarify, there's nothing behind the scenes or hidden involved. I would ask the same question multiple times, and not receive an answer to the question I was asking. You can't even get started on a mentoring relationship if the person being mentored won't respond to questioning.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which questions did not you not get answers to? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this is all pretty amazingly ridiculous. Why would anyone block someone like Gavin? The answer is that a whole contingency of editors want to take wikipedia in a direction in which it should not go. These people can be thought of as "activists." They all have an ax to grind—an agenda. They are not satisfied with merely being the creators of the world's greatest store of easily accessed information—they also want to put their "spin" on certain segments of that information. Gavin stood at every juncture warning them that this is inconsistent with fundamental principles upon which this project was founded—specifically the close adherence to sources. It's pretty much that simple. Those above present the argument that wikipedia is a free-for-all. The mantra is "consensus." If consensus says do things in a certain way, it is deemed justified. That is thoughtless silliness, and detrimental to this project. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason your comment reminds me of No, I'm Spartacus!. Perhaps because the comment seems designed to be a declaration of intent to be Gavin Collins Mark 2, rather than actually help Gavin or at least constructively criticise the ban process. Rd232 talk 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop has made it abundantly clear in the course of the RFC and policy discussion that Gavin can do no wrong in his eyes because Bus Stop sees him as some kind of deletionist warrior-hero. His unflagging support of Gavin is political in nature, completely uncritical and utterly divorced from any kind of examination or even knowledge of the actual policy positions Gavin advocates.  His credibility is up there with Jayson Blair's. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's more telling than the number of people advocating that Gavin be banned is the absolute dearth of people defending him: Just as the fed-up people are notably not rabid "inclusionists", there are no "deletionists" defending him. What we have instead is a broad spectrum agreement that regardless of our specific viewpoints, Gavin's argumentation and engagement style is disruptive, unproductive, and hobbles forward progress by refusing to accept consensus based on his own interpretation of policies. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop has had their own problems on Wikipedia, to the point of being community banned. In reviewing this thread to determine consensus, I view BusStop's view as an outlying data point that does not carry much weight.  Their arguments are not based on facts or Wikipedia policies. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion re: Gavin Collins
This discussion has been open for 23 hours. I am reading through the above materials, and checking the links and diffs. In about an hour I am planning to close this discussion. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. Gavin is blocked and can't defend himself here. Wait until the block has expired and he's been given a fair chance to post a defence here. The notice at the top of the thread says 48 hours minimum. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I was unblocking Gavin while you wrote that, and WP:BAN specifies a minimum of 24 hours.  That page takes precedence, I believe.  We have a very large amount of comments above, a veritable pile-on. We should try to minimize the very public criticism of any volunteer.  If somebody needs to be banned, it should be done in a way that is kind and helps to preserve their dignity. Jehochman Talk 14:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for having a chance to respond, there were three RFC's and the user has posted to this thread (quite intransigently). I am in favor of giving them one final chance to reply, but given the pattern of past responses, the user will have to take a completely different approach if they want to avoid being banned. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, you've argued effectively for a snow close on this discussion, after 24 hours instead of the planned 48, and not waited for anyone to agree; indeed the only commenter disagreed. What really makes that seem odd is that less than an hour after saying you would unblock to allow him a final chance to reply, you declare the discussion over, without the user having said much in the interim. This is unfortunately and unnecessarily messy, when it was all quite surprisingly neat for a ban discussion. Rd232 talk 15:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think another 24 hours will do anything more than further humiliate the user? The discussion is extremely lopsided.  (Note: the user has not been blocked yet.  That detail should be addressed, and the ban logged, before this thread gets archived, whenever that may be.) I looked, and WP:BAN says 24 hours.  I don't know where this 48 hours came from, other than one or two users declaring that number. Jehochman Talk 17:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what the next 24 hours might do, and neither do you. Probably nothing. But the point is it was generally agreed, including by you, that Gavin should have a final chance to respond. Some seem also to have left the door open for a lesser sanction than a site ban (i.e. topic ban). I wouldn't use the word "humiliation" but whatever element of that which exists comes primarily from being ejected from Wikipedia, not from what is said during the discussion. Rd232 talk 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the main source of humiliation is having one's name posted on WP:AN (a high visibility page) with tons and tons of negative comments. We ought not keep the user in the ducking stool any longer than necessary to establish a consensus.  If the above is not a consensus, I don't know what is. Jehochman Talk 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest we close this now. I do not see any value in holding this discussion open any longer.  Jehochman Talk 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U certification procedural question
At Requests for comment/Doncram 2, Doncram has requested speedy deletion of the RFC per "terms stated", presumably meaning the requirement that two editors certify within 48 hours. The RFC/U was created by SarekOfVulcan and certified by Blueboar; is that not two editors, or does Sarek not count? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was properly certified, because it doesn't have the diffs of two editors trying and failing to resolve the same issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly more than two editors have actually tried and failed; I don't think we want to delete it simply because some bureaucratic hoop wasn't jumped through -- especially since using the template is not mandatory, so "putting the relevant diffs under 'Description' rather than under 'Evidence'" (which is what was done here) is not justification for declaring the diffs to be not be present on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, i obviously am not familiar with the procedures here but i thought that was an obvious deletion to make, and it seems unpleasant to have that hanging out there. I had noticed SarekOfVulcan specifically declining to certify, at an earlier point, in this edit at S's Talk.  And SarekOfVulcan's comment above indicates non-opposition to it being deleted.  I believe S, as an administrator, has continued access to the deleted draft.  You all do what you want.


 * I noticed this from WhatamIdoing's note at another Talk page, not that i was informed of this discussion per terms i see stated for this page, but i will see followup here so don't need to be informed further. --doncram (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as to call it "non-opposition" -- I just acknowledge that by a strict reading of the rules, it does not seem to be certified. Someone with more experience working with RFC/Us might disagree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My days of interpreting you as fairly skillfully, yet a bit too obviously, gaming Wikipedia process are certainly coming to a middle. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I call him Vera. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we send someone to "the special hell" here at AN, or is that reserved for ANI? Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are clear minimum requirements, and failure to meet these are met with a speedy delete response. The RfC/u was opened on 1 Nov, and now it's 4 Nov; that's quite clearly well after the 48 hour requirement. The entire purpose of these minimum requirements is so that users do not misuse RfC/U in circumstances where not enough effort has been put into trying to resolve the dispute before requesting further comment. The failure to produce diffs in the appropriate mandatory sections of the RfC/U suggests there is a failure to meet "minimum requirements" and that it is not ripe for this step in dispute resolution. If there are diffs, then that's the first part that needs to be filled out, which is again why there's a firm emphasis to complete the minimum requirements first or to make a draft so as to ensure all of the requirements are completed. I've replaced the speedy delete template, and suggest to the filers that if there is a dispute which requires comment, use a draft before making it live in the future. See also the guidance pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting this, couldn't we just userfy it to remove it from the page, but not eliminate all of the work gone into it already? So far, it appears that this is mostly just formatting issues, while I agree that 4 days is more than long enough to have fixed these if the page needs to be kept in the main RFC/U stream, perhaps we should just "send this back for finishing" to the filing user, rather than just ourtight deletion?  Just an idea.  -- Jayron  32  05:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, usually admins would provide the text of what was deleted should a party (or author) request that text. Still, I don't mind if it's moved into one of the party's user space, so long as the page containing the redirect link is deleted due to it being uncertified the first time it was put up (or if this is not the first time, then the nth time this has happened; this wasn't an 'exceptional dispute'). But really, this is up to the party to have requested at the time; I don't think others could just move into another's userspace unless it's something like an involuntary sanction. Users are free to participate in a process even without reading the relevant pages, but if they do something that they shouldn't, or miss something significant, and there is already an outcome to expect for that, then that outcome would ideally discourage such users (and other users who are looking) to not do the same thing in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy the whole thing (or the creators should copy off the wiki text for now) and meet the procedural criteria. It'd probably be better to prepare for the merits though, since there's no real issue preclusion here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's deleted but the user can request the text from any admin if they want. Indeed, there's nothing precluding the user from refiling the RfC/U (so long as minimum requirements are fulfilled). If they do, hopefully they'll read the relevant pages before-hand (and we won't have the situation where an involved user labels their view as an 'Outside view'). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to refile this properly, I'll be happy to userfy it for them. As a further submission, I'd like to share this : "Polaron, i have repeatedly stated that I will tend to want to defer to editors who actually do productive work. That is not a blanket promise to agree to anything you choose, once you do some work. If there are policy reasons or strong practice-based reasons, or factual reasons to disagree, i will still disagree. In practice, many issues in editing come down to editorial judgment; in these i will tend to want to defer to one who has earned some right to make the judgment. I will not be stupid about this though. If you never are willing to defer to my editorial judgment where there are no other good way to make a decision, then why should i ever defer to you? I have often deferred to your wishes, anyhow, but you remind me that maybe i shouldn't, i dunno." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason why uncertified RFC/Us are deleted is so that other users cannot continue to use the uncertified page as a proverbial "noose" to dangle over the user's head. Personally, I don't have much a problem if an admin emails any other involved user a copy, but it shouldn't be on-wiki. However, I can see how others may disagree on that, as we do keep other discussions about said user from other venues, such as article talk pages, ANI, etc. –MuZemike 16:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed; releasing such text on-wiki would be strictly for the purposes of drafting, but where there is no progress, then such drafting would also need to be deleted within a reasonable time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify my earlier remark, which may seem more expansive than it was:
 * The fact that the "attempted and failed" diffs were listed under ==Description==, rather than under ==Evidence of having tried to resolve the dispute==, in this strictly optional pre-formatted template, is unimportant. (See NOTBURO, PPP, IAR, etc. -- not to mention the standard RFC/U minimum requirements, which do not require the existence of an ==Evidence of having tried to resolve the dispute== section, much less any diffs in it.)
 * The fact that a second editor hadn't signed on within 48 hours is IMO material, and I agree with the deletion (even though I expect it to be re-created very soon). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's reasonable to expect any user to go through an entire RfC/U in order to figure out whether the minimum requirements have been met. The observation that it is permissible to use varying formatting to some extent is absolutely correct, but I did check the description and I don't agree that it met the minimum requirements even when it was set out in that way (and there's also that other issue of the lack of second certifier). The attempts really need to be clearly shown; there are plenty of RfC/Us which have managed to show this step without any issues like this and it seems that the best (and most common) way this is done is using a separate section (which is the reason why it is part of the default formatted templates). If a filer has a dispute, the onus is on them to show that they're not (in the first instance) misusing RfC/U for what essentially is a non-dispute or one where insufficient attempts have been made to resolve the issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tranches: a new way to patrol BLPs

 * This is an initiative related to a recent discussion on this page.

Please visit the page below and consider adopting one of the 100 lists of 5000 BLPs by putting your signature at the end of the corresponding line.

The idea is to get every single edit to a known BLP patrolled, even the articles that are not otherwise watched.

To patrol recent changes to the articles, click on the "related changes" link for your chosen list. Diffs can be inspected in the usual way; it's not unlike a normal watchlist. Start at the bottom and work your way up.

The lists will be refreshed regularly to account for changes in the content of the living persons category.


 * User:Tony Sidaway/Living people/tranches

--TS 00:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, but where can it be briefly discussed? If here, what does "lists will be refreshed regularly" mean? What is reasonable for patrolling? Scenario: text added is "This person is a loser[ref: some blog]" (action: undo or possibly revert). But what if text added is "This person ran a mile in under 4 minutes", or a change of birth date? There might be no source or a hard-to-access source. I guess I'm looking for confirmation that the plan is to remove unreasonable negativity, while probably ignoring other changes because properly monitoring 5000 BLPs is too difficult. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To discuss this project, try User talk:Tony Sidaway/Living people/tranches.


 * I'll respond to your questions here only because they concern well established policy.


 * As with all edits to BLPs, remove dubious unsourced or poorly sourced data. For instance if the article didn't already give a properly sourced birth date and the edit changes the birth date without proper sourcing, remove it altogether because it's unverifiable.


 * The notion that the BLP and the verifiability policy only apply to a subset of unverifiable statements, namely "negative" ones, is a misunderstanding. All information on Wikipedia, especially about living people, must be verified or removed. --TS 18:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the negative unsourced information in BLP is exempt from 3RR; other than that, it is treated the same as other challenged information. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Huge backlog of tagged unsourced biographies of living persons
''Entire section has been moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons to save space on the WP:AN page and to centralize discussion. Please do not timestamp until this reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)''

Appeal by Triton Rocker

 * Appealing user :


 * Sanction being appealed : One year block


 * Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction : /


 * Notification of that editor :

''The following was submitted as part of an unblock request at User talk:Triton Rocker. Because the block was made in application of community sanctions, WP:GS/BI, I am referring this request to the community as an appeal against community sanctions. This is a procedural referral and I have no opinion about the merits of the block or the request.  Sandstein  12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)''
 * [Complaints about the alleged bias of the previous unblock reviewer omitted] "Therefore, my point remains, the non-involved editors of good faith saw the length of block for the perfectly civil single talk page edit I made as being excessive I believe they were correct and that Looie496's, a new admin with only a couple of week's experience, interpretation of my words was over-enthusiastic.
 * Please note that the length of this ban was determined by a previous one month block based again on a single edit to a talk page, here --- again, in itself, perfectly formal and polite enough.
 * Cailil construed a report is here: using prejudicial accusations relating to an outstanding checkuser report, here  which was later overturned as "conclusively unrelated".
 * I requested that such discussion of Cailil accusation was delayed until the checkuser findings were delivered. That polite request was ignored. I was never given a fair chance to defend myself against it as I was blocked from editing even my talk page at the time. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)"


 * I checked TR's last post at BISE. In that post, TR comments on another editor (Bjmullan) & his editorial motives. The sanction TR was/is under forbade him to do so. Alleged political motives, conspiracies etc, are irrelevant & having a siege mentality approach is un-productive. Until TR recognizes that he got himself blocked? his appeals won't be successful. GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with GoodDay. Regardless of Triton Rocker perceiving other editors' editing to be biased/problematic/whatever there are dispute resolution procedures in place for dealing with that. He hasn't attempted to use any of those, and just keeps going on about other editors. Multiple blocks haven't prevented that, and his appeal really doesn't address the reasons behind his block. There's a definite siege mentality with his refusal to listen to outside input, and unless he is willing to listen and agree specific unblock conditions there's no way I could support his unblock. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  14:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: Is Triton Rocker saying that the reasons for the present block were not valid? I'm not even sure I quite understand the appeal here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment TR's restrictions are in two parts. 1)Imposed by Black Kite - a topic ban from editting in the article space in relation to the British Isles naming topic. 2)Imposed by the community as proposed by me - civility parole. TR's sanctions were imposed and reviewed by the community on WP:ANI (twice) and on WP:AN. Users other than TR (LevenBoy and LemonMonday) who are single purpose accounts that edit in this area raised two of these re-reviews for TR. This matter has been discussed and has community approval. TR's way back is to accept site policy, his restriction, and start editting accordingly. I already cautioned LemonMonday about "asking the other parent" in this regard and I believe TR should be warned accordingly too--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 14:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, TR is still under a civility restriction even if blocked. This comments are a personal attack, they also cast aspersions about me and assume bad faith, thus I request an uninvolved sysop review this please--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Triton Rocker continues to blame others for getting him into the position he finds himself. Even today he repeated (in bold) that I had gone against sanctions when I edited at BSkyB. I will repeat here again so that he may understand, I am under NO sanctions at BISE. In addition he considers that my edit was wrong even though it is supported by references. Triton Rocker seem only to see in one colour and concentrates on the supposed motives of others rather than looking at his own. Since the block was imposed he has done nothing that makes me believe he has changed ways or even to consider that what he did was wrong. Bjmullan (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the blocking admin, "The direct cause of the block was the line ' It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that...'". While not civil, I don't think it rises to the level of a year block even given this users previous history of incivility. I looked at some of the users other edits from coming off the 2 month block to the present block and they don't look particularly bad. I support the original block, but reduced to time served or up to about a month. -Atmoz (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A year block seems rather long; normally it would be a choice between indef (giving up on the editor ever being productive) or something shorter (time out to get perspective). So I'd figure 2 or 3 months, given a prior 1 month block. Rd232 talk 15:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from blocking admin From my perspective, the fundamental problem is that TR has thus far (to the best of my knowledge) refused to even acknowledge that the comments in question were uncivil. If he can't recognize that, how can he possibly avoid being uncivil in the future?  This block is purely preventative in intent.  Viewed as punishment, it is overkill, but it is not intended as punishment.  If I saw any reasonable prospect that TR wouldn't quickly repeat the same sort of behavior after being unblocked, I would be entirely open to an unblock. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's your position, it should really be an indef block (emphasising indefinite, not permanent). Rd232 talk 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Arbcom sanctions only allow blocks of up to a year. An indef block would have to be made using a different process. Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This statement is contradictory to this where you state that "this is a community sanction rather than an Arbitration sanction". -Atmoz (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah, you're right of course. Sorry for the confusion. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Cailil, the admin who imposed the "civility parole", said  that any individual admin has the discretion to unblock. That would appear incompatible with the claim this was a "community sanction". Gimmetoo (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The restriction is a community sanction Gimmetoo - the block is an enforcement of that sanction. The editing restriction cannot be undone without community approval (see WP:GS/BI). A block can be undone unless there is a community consenus for that block. In that case consensus to unblock should be sought. In other words a reviewing sysop has discretion to unblock but has to weigh the consensus in threads like this one and TR's unblock requests per WP:BLOCK--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 12:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are reversing your previous statement - admins do not have discretion to unblock if, as you claim, they cannot do so without "community approval". Gimmetoo (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, an admin has discretion to unblock an enforcement of a sanction if they believe it meets with the criteria for an unblock (one of those being seeking conesnus to unblock if necessary). They cannot undo a community approved sanction/restriction like a topic ban without community consensus to do so. It's all there in WP:BLOCK--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 13:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support block Discussion of shortening it should be predicated on the editor's ownership of his own role in the issue. If he won't, a year or an indef block is a problem we may need to deal with next year, but not worth stressing over now. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A year is too long. Agree with 2 or 3 months. The remarks made, whilst not civil, would probably not have been blockable in themselves had he not been under restrictions. Also agree with unblock if there was any sign of understanding why he was blocked. Fainites barley scribs 22:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Retain block for at least three months. Triton's been blocked enough times already and is showing no sign of learning anything, as his constant efforts to portray his block as the fault of others shows. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - in fairness to TR we should review this after 3 months from date of original block. If he a) accepts site policy and b) his restriction and c) demonstartes he'll move on and edit accordingly then we should unblock--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Update
Triton Rocker posted this this morning. I would like to clarify for all reviewing that he is disputing 1) his editing restriction, 2) his year-long block, and 3) his block reviewers. He has made in this comment an accusation of "deliberate" misconduct by myself (in my bringing a motion to ANI) and an accusation of bad faith about Jehochman (these attacks are just the latest in a series of spurious accusations of malfeasance made by TR about others while blocked and are explicitly prohibitted by the terms of his restriction - diffs below). I will state once more that editing restriction (civility parole) has already been reviewed twice by the community and was imposed by the community originally (see my first comment above for links). This block has been reviewed multiple times in this thread, and on his talk-page, and we may differ on the length and whether it should be indefinite or not there is no consensus here for an unblock. I'm asking the community to review TR's repeated personal attacks and accusations of bad faith while blocked in light of his restriction. These comments are both an abuse of talk space while blocked and a breach of the restriction in place. I'm wondering if it is time to protect that page for a period of 3 months at which time I believe we should review the year-long block and offer TR a way back to editing constructively--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 12:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you are using your civility restriction would create a bit of a Catch-22 for TR and make it rather difficult to appeal. Also, I still do not see, in the links you provided (above), where the specific wording of TR's specific civility parole was discussed. Could you point me to that? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gimmetoo, you've had warning to stop wikilawyering (at the last ANi thread) in relation to the wording of TR's restriction which was discussed in the inital ANi thread linked above, and was approved twice subsequent to its imposition. TR has perfect right to appeal while AGFing and not attacking others. That does not make appealing difficult - that's the minimum requirement for editing--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 13:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, in case it is the formula of words you are asking about the restriction given to TR uses the wording of WP:RESTRICT - per all civility paroles (and other restrictions). It was placed on TR's talk page as a courtesy so he was clear what would happen if he breached the restriction. And if you are wondering why certain policies are not explicitly listed at WP:GS/BI please read through WP:CIVIL which encompasses many policies and guidelines (including WP:AGF)--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 13:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is rather difficult to review an administrator's actions without investigating the circumstances under which that action took place, and that usually involves asking the admin for clarification and diffs. So, what exactly is the purpose of your "warning" me about "wikilawyering"? Perhaps you were not aware of this, but your "warning" could be perceived as a threat and an attempt to silence an editor questioning your administrative action. If that is not your intent, you should take more care in the future. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that his unblock request has been on hold for two days at this point -- could someone resolve it please? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I recently gave an undertaking to stay away from AN/I, but I hope you excuse this one lapse. I would draw attention to the recent unblocking of User:MickMacNee, which I support, and I wonder if it might be appropriate to be similarly lenient with Triton. Triton's so-called incivility is not a patch on Mick's, but whereas Mick was unblocked after a very short time without giving any commitment to alter his ways, Triton faces a year-long block. I humbly suggest we could now unblock Triton and see what happens. I know there are other issues here concerning sanctions, but come on! Live and let live. Thanks. <font color="DarkBlue">LemonMonday <font color="Orange"> Talk   19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Indef block restored for violating terms of .--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, no. Agreement according to that diff was to avoid ANI. This is AN. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See above note on wikilawyering. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you happen to see my reply on that? I will AGF that perhaps you did not, so I'll repeat it: such a claim of "wikilawyering" could be perceived as a threat and an attempt to silence an editor who is questioning your administrative actions. If that is not what you intended, then take more care in the future. You and Cailil are now explicitly warned; any other editors replying here should also heed that warning. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Complaining of the inappropriateness of (perceived) threats with threats of your own. Good one.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering you're trying to silence me by making that claim, I know exactly how much to heed that warning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am questioning your administrative action. That is hardly silencing you. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you started by questioning my admin action. I pointed out you were wikilawyering again, and you started threatening, which is a different thing altogether. Have fun. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The above post by Lemon warrants an indefinite block? God this place really is becoming pathetic. And then when anyone dares challenge an admins action they get talked down to and told they are wikilawyering. Incredible. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Triton Rocker
The result of the appeal is that there is no consensus to lift the block of Triton Rocker at this time. Several editors have commented that they would either shorten the block to three months or consider another appeal after three months. Accordingly, Triton Rocker may make another appeal three months after the start of the block.  Sandstein  22:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak RFC/U - Community ban and / or Sanctions

 * Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak - regarding Requests for comment/Xanderliptak - Proposals were made to ban and/or severely restrict Xanderliptak on that page; I believe current process requires that such discussions happen on AN (or another noticeboard). This discussion must remain open for a bare minimum of 48 hrs from posting at AN per current community sanction best practices, to ensure adequate notification and opportunity for participation by the Wikipedia community; WP:SNOW does not apply to sanction discussions.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak has either retired or gone on unannounced Wikibreak, not having edited for a week.

Comments have also tapered off.

We're not quite in the situation that this RFC/U can be closed quite yet - see Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. However, parties who are interested should review that and the RFC/U and consider what might be appropriate resolutions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Recommend indef block for all 3 accounts, which he can appeal if he returns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An indef block seems a bit dramatic when his conflict concerns only watermarks. Maybe we can prohibit him from editing image descriptions or making edits that remove or replace his own images, subject to a ban if he doesn't comply. I'm open to ideas though. Dcoetzee 03:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dcoetzee, please read the entire RFCU. Watermarks are far from the only issue. → ROUX   ₪  12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any specifics, he doesn't need three user accounts, so two of them ought to be blocked. Given that he's best known for editing under the Xanderliptak account, it's probably the other two that should be blocked. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be good. And then keep an eye on the Xanderlip account, as unless he's actually left, he's probably waiting for the fire to be switched off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the summary I presented, I think that an indef block of Xanderliptak's account is warranted, as long as it's understood to be in effect until Xanderliptak presents some evidence that he understands that his behavior has been antithetical to the basic tenets of Wikipedia, and awareness that he is expected to edit collegially and collaboratively, to the benefit of the encyclopedia, and not simply to his own aggrandizement. To this point, he's not presented any indication that this is the case. He still may have value to impart to the project, so the door should be left open to him, but it really does seem necessary to send a strong message at this point, since nothing else seems to have gotten through to him. (I agree also that only one account -- of his choice -- shoudld remain open, the other(s) should be permanently shut down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that he's just waiting for the heat to turn down so that he can come back and resume what he's been up to for the last year or so. His account could be indef'd with the caveat that if he owns up to the issues he's caused, he could be unblocked. That would force him to confront the problem instead of just sneaking back in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with Bugs in that it seems clear that Xanderliptak is merely waiting for the heat to die down, and will then resume his disruptive behaviour. Note, for example, that he did edit recently under his IP, which indicates that he was still around on 27 October. To be perfectly frank, I would be flabbergasted if Xanderliptak isn't already using another account or IP. But there is not enough evidence (apart from sheer common sense), and so I cannot make the accusation directly. It is merely a suspicion. Or maybe GWH is right and he actually has retired. I find this incredibly unlikely. So I have three proposals, which can be applied together, separately, or in various permutations thereof:

Proposal 1: RfC/U on hold
Suggest we simply put this RfC/U on hold, and when--not if, let's be honest here--Xanderliptak returns under his current username or another, we revisit it to finish it up, implementing Proposal 2 or 3 at that time.

Proposal 2: editing restrictions for Xanderliptak

 * 1) is forbidden, indefinitely, from uploading images which are in violation of WP:WATERMARK.
 * 2) is forbidden, indefinitely, from attempting to change licencing conditions after upload of artwork he has created. The sole exception will be removing licencing conditions; any attempt to add or further restrict the licencing he agreed to at upload is forbidden.
 * 3) is forbidden, indefinitely, from participating in any discussions about image policy.
 * 4) is required, indefinitely, to prominently link all accounts he uses together at the top of each user page. (Note that on Commons such linking ended up having to be done by administrators who then had to fully protect each user page to prevent Xanderliptak from removing the linking. This may need to be done here.)
 * 5) is required, indefinitely, to provide accurate diffs of any allegation he makes about another editor.
 * 6) is required, indefinitely, to provide accurate diffs of any claims that another editor has said or done something.
 * In regards to the above two requirements, any user may remove allegations/etc which Xanderliptak has made if he fails to provide diffs in a reasonable time.
 * 1) is forbidden, indefinitely, from summarizing any discussions held elsewhere, and is restrained to direct comments supported by diffs only.
 * 2) All of the above to be very broadly construed.
 * 3) Violations to be met with the usual series of escalating blocks.
 * 4) Restrictions to take effect on Xanderliptak's first edit (with any account) after this date, or upon granting of an unblock as listed in Proposal 3, whichever is later.
 * 5) May appeal these restrictions six months after implementation, or six months after the end of the most recent block for violation, whichever is later.
 * 1) May appeal these restrictions six months after implementation, or six months after the end of the most recent block for violation, whichever is later.

Proposal 3: Indefinite block
and all related accounts are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. He may request unblock only from the Xanderliptak account, and must show understanding of what he did wrong and how he will change. Note that such an unblock request must include accurate summaries of past events. More misrepresentation of the truth will not be tolerated.

→ ROUX   ₪  12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I personally support 3 to be implemented immediately, followed by 2 to be implemented if anyone ever unblocks him. I included proposal 1 for fairness, but I think it (WP:BEANS). → ROUX   ₪  12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The last time he used any of his three known ID's on commons was the 25th. I've asked there whether discussions here can also be applied there for the sake of uniformity. Any of these proposals seem reasonable, given the circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1 simply postpones action. I believe #2 is impractical, because Xanderliptak has shown no capacity (or interest) in modifying his behavior in that way, and I have difficulty believing he would hold to it.  Support #3, with #2 to be considered for imposition as conditions if Xanderliptak applies to have the block removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken's position makes sense to me. In the absence of any recent participation from Xanderliptak in this RFC, the wise thing to do would be to block his account to avoid him returning without re-engaging with the community regarding his problematic behavior. If and/or when he requests a removal of that block, the set of restrictions in #2 can be presented to him as conditions for his return. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Beyond My Ken has it right. Proposal 2 is a good draft of the restrictions we might impose if we thought Xanderliptak would follow them, but right now there's no indication that he would, so a block until he acknowledges his responsibilities as an editor of a communal enterprise is correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the restrictions are important, whether or not he shows an indication that he would follow them (and I agree that he has shown no indication that he will follow even established community norms). Basically such restrictions are drawing a line in the sand and saying "if you cross this completely unambiguous line you will be blocked repeatedly, and eventually permanently." That then makes the (inevitable, to my mind) series of blocks entirely his fault for behaviour he was specifically forbidden. No wiggle room, no wikilawyering; clear and concise 'you may not do these things.' At that point, his continued participation here is entirely up to him. → ROUX   ₪  19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do find indeffinate blocking a bit harsh, and only like it used when really warranted. Sadly, in Xanderliptak's case, that looks like the best solution, which is sad, because he has much to offer, and his artistic skills are very good, but he simply refuses to accept when he is wrong, and forces upon us his work even when it is not acceptable, either due to watermarks, or being incorrect in certain ways. For that reason, I support prop 3, perhaps with the addition that if he owns up to his actions and learns to behave in a manner which is expected here, that he can return. Fry1989 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that procedurally, community sanctions need to be taken up on the administrators' noticeboard - I am going to copy this over there and will provide a subsection link to there once copied. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading the RFC, I support an indefinite block as outlined by Beyond My Ken.  Sandstein   21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that while I support an indefinite block (as I noted, I would prefer Proposal 3 followed by 2 should Xanderliptak seek an unblock), I adamantly oppose a community-based ban in favour of any admin being able to unblock on their own initiative if Xanderliptak agrees to either the conditions set forth in Proposal 2, or similar conditions which address the most egregious issues: WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND, licencing problems, and his tendency to misrepresent the tenor, tone, and content of what others have said. → ROUX   ₪  21:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it on hold. Editors aren't required to announce wikibreaks. (In fact, it goes against standard security advice: Don't tell the world that now is a good time to hack your account/burglarize your home/etc.) If we make choices now, and he's back tomorrow with a story about being sick, being unexpectedly called out of town, a computer failure, etc., then we're going to feel kind of silly for assuming that he won't be back. There's no magic 30-day timer, there's no deadline, and waiting another week or two to see whether this relatively short absence is being extended won't hurt anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was considerable agreement on the RFC/U that there were problems here; it was not prompted directly by the break, though that focused an endpoint to the discussion in a way. What would the point be of waiting?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you close it now, with only a one-week absence, there's a significant risk that it will need to be re-opened next week. There are always a few editors willing to say that any decision taken during a short absence is invalid, or even unfair. (If you'd come here with a two-week absence, I'd have a different view about the likelihood of the editor's return.)
 * NB that I do not comment on the merits of the case, only on the risk of having egg on your face if you "rush" to close the RFC after a one-week delay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * User has been notified on his talk page and via email, and is not blocked at the moment. If he choses to come participate he's welcome to do so.  Lack of participation is not a bar to the community (or individual admins) issuing a finding or imposing sanctions.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing is just outlining standard practice in relation to RfC/Us. If someone is away, we close it and don't bother until/unless they come back. That they have left is a remedy in itself and it doesn't require immediate enforcement, particularly if they come back with a different outlook. If they persist on returning or whatever, that's when we should come back here and cite the previous Rfc/U as a reason for considering several options. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Prefer 3, will not go crazy if 2 is chosen. 1 isn't worth the time waiting; if he's left, so be it; if he hasn't, then he'll be subject to a block or restrictions anyway. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I'm going to suggest a permanent block on the two accounts he has not used much recently, and an indefinite block on his main account with the opportunity for returning under strict terms if he promises good behaviour and has a mentor to watch him. I don't know if I'd use exactly the terms in (2) above - for example allowing him to remove restrictions from licenses could be misinterpreted and abused, and some of the terms seem unnecessarily harsh - but such terms could be revisited if and when he is unblocked. Dcoetzee 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC) copied from RfC/U by Beyond My Ken
 * Agree with the general trend here to take proposal 3 and modify to 2 given positive communication from Xander. I have never launched an RfC/U before and hope never to have do so again, but I felt there was an urgent need to make plain to Xander where his behavior did not conform to community standards. This was meant to give him one clear opportunity to recognize the problem and address it of his own accord. He never showed any inclination towards doing so at any point in the RfC/U. The problematic behavior, if anything, intensified at the RfC/U's talk page. Whether Xander had chosen to go low profile or not (and he did edit twice as an IP two days after he stopped contributing under his named account), we would almost certainly have reached the stage of proposing sanctions soon, since he was obviously taking nothing constructive from the last ditch dispute resolution process. Delay would serve no purpose, I'm afraid, and if Xander is truly interested in revising his behavior when he returns that will become plain soon enough. If he takes on the restrictions and lives up to them without problem, they can be adjusted accordingly. Most of them aren't extraordinary; except for #3 and #7, they're all basic good practice. The need for #7 will be clear to anyone who reads the talk page of the RfC/U. The thrust of 3 is necessary as well (he has a history of trying to wikilawyer his way), although it may be possible to relax that one with any showing of good faith. If he doesn't return, it does no harm. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Beyond My Ken It is always the errant editors that have something to offer that are the timesinks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
Despite some RFC-process related objection, there is significant community consensus that community sanctions should be applied. I am going to apply sanction 3 (indefinitely blocked - but, as requested above in several comments, not community banned), and 2 (the set of restrictions listed above, should he be unblocked by admin review at a future date). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good-faith corporate corrections - an overreaction?
On 30th August 2010 new user made its only two edits to the article Alberta Bible College. The edits were apparently mere corrections to factual errors, and were entirely constructive and neutral. There are no further edits to any article.

6 hours later, blocks "with an expiry time of indefinite ‎  (unblock | change block)". Now, the username clearly isn't spam, and the account is clearly not being used for spamming. Perhaps the account should be blocked because it is claiming to represent an organisation, but "spam" implies an attempt to "self-promote", an allegation that's patently untrue. The block may be sound as a username block, but the rational is an assumption of bad faith, bitey and plain wrong.

Orangemike also leaves a template Spamusername which is inaccurate. It states the block is because the account "appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes" (which is untrue) and "The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion." (not so) although it does than indicate the name of the account may violate the username policy (which is true). The bitety template also heavily discourages the user from creating an account with a new name and continuing with similar edits. Since when did we prevent employees fixing factual errors on their corporate articles?

On 4th November, the user files an unblock request, : "I am an employee of Alberta Bible College and the only page on Wikipedia I edit is the one for the College. I am unclear as to why I have been blocked from making a change to the page. Can you let me know what steps need to be taken to remove this block, that would be appreciated".

then comments on the page. Asking the user if he's aware of 1) WP:NOTADIRECTORY 2) WP:COI and 3) the WP:GNG concerning subjects of articles. This is strange, because there's no indication that the user has violated any of these in any way, shape, or form. Tnxman adds "You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product" (which is true) and "that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy" (which is patently untrue) ending with "Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above." (which is irrelevant.) This is a bad block review, which has tended to assume that a user with a name breaching the guidelines has been guilty of promotional activity. It is obvious that the editor's contributions have not been examined. Had they been, the correct response would have been to direct the user to create a new account, declare any COI, and make only minor factual correction, or to make suggestions for corrections on the articles talk page.

The unblock request was reviewed again by who apparently routinely reviews unblock requests. He templated it as "denied" with the request "Please read and follow the instructions above". Thus pointing the user back to a very bitey template, and the inaccurate information. Once again the user's contributions were not examined.

I'm concerned about the quality and accuracy of explaining usernameblocks to users, and I'm very concerned about sloppy investigation of unblock requests. The block is not bad, and the decision not to unblock is not at fault, but the care, attention, tone and particularly the poor choice of templates and messages are deeply concerning.--Scott Mac 03:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Scott - I know you are a veteran around here, and I know you alerted the users involved because that is how I came to this page. I wonder, though - did you engage any of the editors involved before coming here? It is not clear that you would have gotten a different result, and I am making no comment on their actions one way or the other...but did you ask and receive an unsatisfactory answer? Or no answer? I believe these editors to be open to discussion, even if they ultimately disagree with you. Frank  &#124;  talk  03:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's directing this just at the editors mentioned above, but at all of us who tag and block editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I review a lot of unblock requests (far more than I actually take action on), and I do notice a lot of organizational accounts that create or change their own article. In many cases the entity is non-notable or the contributed content is otherwise in violation of our policies (especially NPOV and copyright).  In almost all cases, the user is surprised and confused by our response.  I wish we had gentler ways to respond.  I wish we had ways to prevent the problem in the first place.  For example, here a user says, "I didn't know that it was an invalid username, I assumed that it would have told [me] that when I tried to use it to create an account."  The account creation page does make it fairly clear if you read it, but apparently that isn't enough. Bovlb (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * that aligns with my experience at WP:REFUND. the bottom line is people do not read text.  they don't read warning messages, provisos, and (especially) edit notices.  their expectation is that something will physically prevent them from uploading a non-free images, registering an account with a "bad" username or otherwise breaking some existential rule. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a very frequent problem. In principle the instructions and advice currently at Uw-spamublock are correct. The problem in the instant case seems to be that a more appropriate admin action would have been a soft block and a Uw-softerblock message, since the user was not actually promoting their college. Even with the bitier template, though, the main instruction is the same - please choose a new username - and there is really little that we can do about people not reading the username instructions when they sign up. (On reflection, I agree that as a block reviewer I could also have tried to pursue the Uw-softerblock route with the user, but once they had been given the Uw-spamublock message, rightly or wrongly, I felt that it was less confusing to just ask them to follow these instructions rather than to confuse them further with other instructions.)  Sandstein   07:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the underlying problem here is that a block rationale and uw template called "spam" needs to be reserved for users who are actually spaming, or engaged in evident promotion, or obvious "puffing". Such editors need taken in hand firmly. The blocker in this case was right to block, on the basis of the username - but not right to label it spam. Accusing someone of spamming who evidently isn't borders on the libellous. We need to differentiate our templates clearly. Secondly, reviewers do need to look at actual edits. The question isn't just "is the block good", but does the user, and particulalrly a good faith one, have a fair understanding of why we've done this and what's expected. Sandstein's actions were correct, if the previous instructions were clear and accurate, which in fact they were not, because Tnxman307 had evidently misunderstood the situation and repeated irrelevancies. Block reviewers can't really afford to assume earlier comments are relevant, but understand how that mistake gets made. The reason for bringing it here, and not discussing with any individual, is that the problem here was not one action, but it was compounded and probably reflective of structural problems both with the blocking templates (can't people wrire messages, or at least read a template and ask "does this say what I want to say?) and the lack of rigour in unblock reviews (which need to ask more than "should this user be blocked? - yes" - because in this case the answer was "yes, but....")--Scott Mac 09:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with virtually all of Scott MacDonald's comments in this thread. New editors making factually accurate edits and corrections to articles about their institutions should be treated with as much respect and consideration as any other new editors, particularly with respect to policies such as "assume goood faith," "don't bite the newcomers," and "warn before blocking good-faith editors wherever possible." If such accounts, which is probably growing, can't be addressed through individualized messages, then a new set of templates might profitably be developed; I'd be happy to review and comment on drafts of them. (As a separate matter, I don't personally see why we are so strongly opposed to some sorts of descriptive usernames for these types of accounts, but that is a separate discussion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to IAR
Some weeks ago, I filed a bot request for category changes: buildings in the "Category:____ architecture" categories (e.g. Category:1890 architecture) that are in the USA I'd like to see changed to "Category:____ architecture in the United States". Betacommand/Delta said basically "It's simple, so I'll do it if nobody else will", but now he's saying that he won't do it because of the hoops he has to jump through to operate a bot. I can't complain if he decides not to help, since we're all volunteers here, but could we please ignore a rule here and let him operate a bot to perform this specific request? I'm aware of Betacommand's past, but this is a simple request that wouldn't be controversial by itself (the bot would simply be adding geographic details to content categories already present in articles, and the only feedback that I've gotten from moving a few articles by myself is a comment of "don't do it manually, for it's too much work for you to do"), and it's really holding me back: our architecture by year categories are badly in need of splitting (this is the easiest and most useful means of so doing), but nobody else has volunteered to write a bot to do this, and I really don't feel like performing thousands of redundent edits manually. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be flippant about this, but is Betacommand the only bot developer on Wikipedia? I see dozens and dozens of bots doing this sort of thing, and none of them are run by hum.  Why not just ask someone else?  Betacommands restrictions are in place for a very good reason.  Honestly, I don't see a problem, per se with him running this one function, but I also don't see the compelling need to side-step his sanctions just because it they are inconvenient.  Why not just find someone else to do the run for you?  -- Jayron  32  05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried; my request was at WP:BOTR for a few weeks without getting any response from anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And his editing restrictions were discussed and confirmed to remain in place only a couple of weeks ago . --Stephen 05:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IAR? No need.  Send them to WP:CFD, and if the move is approved- or no one objects in a week- it'll be lsited on WP:CFDW and Cydebot will move the categories.  We have this process for a reason. Courcelles 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that we are moving only some of the pages (i.e., the US ones). I don't think Cydebot can handle that. T. Canens (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely — I'm asking that we create a bunch of categories and move some articles, not delete anything or move all the articles in these categories. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, this requires a custom bot, cydebot was not designed for this. I am willing to write the bot, just not release un-tested code. Ive just seen too many issues when alpha level code is in the wrong hands. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 09:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Beta/Delta - do you insist on being the one who runs it, or would you work in conjunction with someone such as me - although I'm not a tremendous coder, as long as we have code available for viewing, proper testing, I would be 100% willing to run it and work through bugs with you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just two minor details, are you familar with python, and are you willing to abide by my licensing restrictions? ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 12:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot that I currently run is pywikipedia. I understand that in order to run a second bot, I believe I'll need a second instance of python.  Obviously, I won't run/change anything that has not also been gone over by others.  I will clearly not claim code ownership.  If code is approved, I'll run it.  If code needs changing, so be it. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You will just need to run a second script, AKA python architecture.py (or whatever file name I decide on). If you want to use it under the same bot account it shouldnt be an issue, if you want to create a new account, just let me know and I can re-configure the code for multiple user pywikipedia. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 13:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have User:3SeriesBOT and User:5SeriesBOT available - we'll need a quick WP:BFRA under either name. As 7Series is an admin bot, I'd rather use one of the others in this case ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get the ball rolling, Im looking into the logistics now. ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

&larr; Bot requests/Archive 38 looks easy enough to do with AWB. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 12:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that (1) it's been archived, and (2) I had to un-archive once before getting a response from Betacommand/Delta. I asked everybody and got absolutely no other response.  Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm not sure why no one picked it up. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I have opened a discussion on WP:BFRA for User:3SeriesBOT. More details - including previous discussions - can be added as required. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This really needs to be discussed at WP:CFD. This entire tree has a major problem in that inclusion years are not uniform.  For many of these, inclusion is based on the year the structure was completed.  However the design was actually created many years earlier.  This ambiguity in the category names really needs to be addressed.  Having a bot rename these categories without addressing that ambiguity may simply mean we are making a bunch of unnecessary extra edits.  Is this tree about the design year or the completion of construction year or the beginning of construction year?  Questions not likely to be answered here. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point: I'm not asking for any categories to be renamed, so there is no need for a CFD. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But you are asking to create new categories that have ambiguous names. The existing categories need to be cleaned up first so that it is clear what the criteria for inclusion are. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that some of these now say they are for the year completed. So my objection is no longer valid.  There is still issues, but they should not delay your request. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC closure request
Could an uninvolved admin or experienced editor please close the RfC following below the discussion at Talk:Creampie_(sexual_act)? Thanks. -- JN 466  18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done --Mike Cline (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- JN 466  18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. And remember that while WP is not censored, it's also "not safe/suitable" for work or school, so don't let your boss/teacher catch you viewing these images!  Just the way an encyclopedia should be, IMHO.  Thanks, Seedfeeder! :> <font color="#000" size="2">Doc  <font color="#999999">talk  19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a minor point of fact: The image in question is not by Seedfeeder. If it were, the complaints about the quality of the image most likely wouldn't exist. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite true on both accounts :> I told him I mentioned him here, but he's done nothing wrong anyway. The community keeps the content, and we all get to see the image until a "better quality" one is produced.  I, for one, can't wait!  Cheers... :> <font color="#000" size="2">Doc  <font color="#999999">talk  20:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Due process
Although the outcome of the Request for Administrator resolution of Gavin.collins RFC/U and other issues was what I sought, I am not happy with the way in which the debate was closed. During the debate Gavin Collins was blocked. He was then unblocked and four hours later the debate was closed and he was banned. Depending on the difference in time zones this may have given him an inadequate time to respond as he may have been asleep and unaware of what was going on. Although I think that it is unlikely that anything that Gavin Collins had further to say would have affected the outcome, I think that when somebody is on trial for their Wikipedian life, due process must be seen to be followed and the person accused should be given the full 24 hours in which to respond before closure. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Although I share your concerns in the general case, in the specific case, I'm not too worried about it.
 * First, the community cares far more about outcomes than about process, and extending the process would have meant extending the embarrassment before producing an identical outcome. Taking an unnecessarily long time to sack someone in public is not an act of kindness.
 * Second, if Gavin had wanted to post further comments, there was nothing preventing him from requesting an unblock for that purpose (which he didn't), posting messages on his user talk page with a request that they be copied to this discussion (which he didn't), or otherwise attempting to engage in the discussion (which he didn't).
 * So in my mind, extending the discussion would have amounted to extending the process for bureaucratic reasons, at the expense of wasting more time and further embarrassing the editor, and was not warranted or even appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I opposed the 24hr block for reasons unrelated to due process, but unblocking him so that we can have a pointless 24 hours of discussion on a closed subject is not wise. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If he had not been blocked in the first place, the minimum 24 hours would have passed without problem and Give 'em enough rope would probably have played its part. Due process has always taken an important role in the culture of the English-speaking world and it is fitting that it should do so in the English Wikipedia. Although no injustice has been done in this case it would be best if the actions under question were not repeated. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

User:Mforceuk
Bit of an awkward one here. I came across when he added a wikilink to an article I watch. The link was to the article. This article had previously been deleted as a copyvio, and recreated by the original creator. Having an interest in mills, I was aware of the firm having been millers in east Kent. Mforceuk has also created two articles on himself, which have been deleted on notability grounds.

The main problem with the H.S. Pledge & Sons Ltd article is the claim of the firm being involved in electronics. To the best of my knowledge, the firm was not involved in this line of business. According to Mforceuk, the firm ceased trading in 1995, but reading between the lines of the article and the editor in question's contributions (admins, check out the deleted articles for fuller understanding of this issue), the rights to the name may have been purchased by MForce Tournaments (Mforceuk username issue flagged up). The H S Pledge website appears to me to be an example of cybersquatting.

Advice as to how to tackle the issue of the unsourced/unverified electronics issue without getting into an edit war would be welcome. One problem with this particular firm is that there is little on the web about them. Most sources will be in print form. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've decided to remove the electronics stuff as unsourced, unverified and (to the best of my knowledge) untrue. Mjroots (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The username is an issue. If that were the only issue, I'd softerblock them. MJ, do you see justification for a block aside from the username? You saw him first, so it'sup to you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've bashed the article into something approaching a half-decent shape, but it still needs more sources, which I will work on finding. The nightclub should be easy enough to verify. As far as I can tell, almost everything said in the article now is true, even if not sourced. I'd say that further promotion of the website would be an issue. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend use of RevDel

 * Requests for comment/Nyttend Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have notified Nyttend of the RFC/U; could someone please advise me on whether I should notify anyone else mentioned there, to avoid canvassing? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind the question: since I received no answer, I have notified everyone who was involved in the original matter. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of ArbCom Enforcement in regard to the Israel-Palestine articles
There' a discussion regarding ArbCom Enforcement in regard to the Israel-Palestine articles at WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. The discussion is considering a number of options concerning how to deal with the apparent deterioration of editing in this area. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Announcements regarding contribution project and the fundraiser
Greetings all,

If you haven't seen it yet, I'd like to make you guys aware of a memo from the Foundation to the community, regarding the Fundraiser that is rapidly coming up.

Along those same lines, I'd like to announce the launch of the Wikipedia Contributions team over at WP:CONTRIB. It's a joint team of staff and editors that will be doing a two-part effort to help bring in and retain new editors and improve the quality of our editing contributions, as well as to support the ongoing fundraiser and help bring in financial contributions. Anyone is welcome to join, but we especially invite the administrator body to join and help out. Any questions about the team can be answered on that page, rather than cluttering up AN.

Regards, Drosenthal (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests
Just a note that that page is backlogged. Granted, it's only semi-protected, so any autoconfirmed user could perform the edits themselves (I will be helping right after I post this). Just posting to just to let admins and any other people watching this page know.  elektrik SHOOS  04:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At 3 requests right now. -Atmoz (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a great thing for non-admins who want to be admins someday to go do. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request by Kalajan
Kalajan was blocked indefinitely in January 2009 for abusing multiple accounts (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kalajan, Sockpuppet investigations/Kalajan/Archive). They now request to be unblocked, stating:
 * "Hi, I was blocked almost two years ago, which has been more than enoughn for me to realize that I was a fool in creating so many socks and acting irresponsibly. In these past two years I have matured greatly; I have been through that stage where you become a man. I am absolutely focused on returning to wikipedia as a helpful and collaborative user. Thanks :)Kalajan (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)"

Not socking for a long time usually inclines this community to clemency, but the blocking admin has expressed reservations. I therefore recommend that the community discuss whether an unblock is warranted. Normally I would have favored an unblock under these circumstances, but Kalajan's latest comment on his talk page in which he at least partially blames others for his troubles makes me much more cautious. If there is a checkuser in the audience, they may want to check whether Kalajan's claim of no longer socking is correct within the time for which data is available.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I am not an admin, it seems that the user has problems interacting with other editors based on his past contributions, and I think it would happen more with other editors around here if he is unblocked. It seems his reason "to crack" is more of just not listening to others and doing what he desires is best. --<font face="Bradley Hand ITC"><font color="#2A7ECF">iGeM <font color="33FF00">iN <font color="#CC14CC">ix 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tentative AGF support, subject to no evidence being found of undisclosed socking. If this editor really has stayed away for two years without causing disruption then it could be worth a second chance. Any unblock would be on the understanding that the editor is "on probation" for at least six months, and the block could be reapplied at any time should there be further problems. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, per Mjroots; a lot of things can change in two years - and if they haven't where WP is concerned then the block button can be pressed very easily. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I support the unblock as it's been a while and I think s/he is starting if not has already learned their lesson. The socking although was inappropriate, and I don't condone it, minimal effect. I would also like to note though in re to Sandstein is that a CU as far as I can tell would not be able to comment on it, as the socks were blocked as ducks and no CU was done on them. Also, contribs would be as this data is released after 3 months. So the only thing that would be able to prove this, if a CU actually ran a check on a specific IP (not a user) way back long time ago, and it was found in the logs. --  DQ  (t)  (e)  21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kalajan posted on his talkpage over the past few days. It would be perfectly possible for a Checkuser to see if the IPs he posted from were making posts to Wikipedia elsewhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's worth taking the chance. JodyBtalk 21:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unblock Close to two years since the offending activity? We'd need to have very good reasons to continue the block in those circumstances and I don't see them. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with a close eye. This may be a young user who has grown up a bit, as he seems to suggest. We can always reblock if it doesn't work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support- if this unblock request is declined, one would have to wonder whether it's possible for an indef blocked user to ever return. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock. Two years is a long time. Let him try to contribute constructively if he wants to. If there are further problems, reblocking is just a button click away in any case. Jafeluv (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unblock. 2+ years without socking deserves a shot. -Atmoz (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock per standard offer. Basket of Puppies'  23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming consensus to unblock, which I have now implemented. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much guys, you won't regret this. :D Kalajan (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Heritagesoccerpro, User:Kingdombound
I want to report again the user connected to Heritage Soccer Agency. He's still creating articles about dubious notable footballers without any sources with false, fictitious information. Link to last report Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive631.

Few weeks ago I corrected this article:Burnel Okana-Stazi, but he's still reverting my edits and insterting unsourced, false information and POV. He's using a multiple accounts User:Heritagesoccerpro, User:Heritagesocceragency, User:Kingdombound and several IPs. Also he doesn't care about the rules, these articles Wassawaly Eric Michel, Siaka Adams Doumbia were deleted previously but he created them again.

I think that it's time to finally stop the mess he's doing to wikipedia.--Wrwr1 (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I did run a CU, and it is that the two Heritagesoccerpro and Kingdombound are the same user. –MuZemike 04:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edits, as well as the similar topics and sources there is an grammmatical quirk all 3 share which convinces me they are the same person. I am also concerned that the prime source for players details is invariably the Heritage Soccer Agency site, and the other sources are (often foreign language) "interviews" with the player or a generic website for one of the clubs - which usually do not mention the player concerned.
 * I have little idea what the criteria for notability for sportmen/women are, but I should suspect that playing for clubs in the Maltese league or lower divisions in Greece, etc, is pretty marginal (and would be difficult to check against). Perhaps some input from sports/soccer related editors may be of benefit? My instinct would be to block the editors and delete the bio's, unless they are firmly compliant with the notability requirements. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal Albanian nationalism with Albanian National Awakening
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I proposed to merge parts of Albanian nationalism article with Albanian National Awakening and some content to transfer to Greater Albania article. If you have any opinion on this, please assist us by getting involved in this talk page. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.

Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep
Would an admin (or admins) close Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Sunrunners of Goddess Keep? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've closed The Irving (Iperhaps an unforced error that I'll come to regret); I'll leave the other one. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed out Sunrunners, so looks like we're good here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Image used to defame
I'm at a loss how to handle this, some admin advice/action would be greatly appreciated. There is an image file recently uploaded to Commons that appears to have been uploaded solely to defame the subject. What should be done here? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion as copyvio/orphaned on Commons, and flagged on their AN. However, they tend not to react there as quickly as we do here. Rodhull  andemu  00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rodhullandemu. 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The user is at least no longer an issue. Half  Shadow  00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not here; meanwhile, he remains unblocked on Commons. Rodhull  andemu  00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP violations concerning a minor? Kill it with fire. User blocked indefinitely, filename removed from page history log. Thanks Rodhullandemu for dealing with the Commons side. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The image falls under the Commons criteria for speedy deletion, so I've added a speedy tag onto it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's gone from Commons now, and I've advised the deleting admin there that the uploader has been blocked here. Rodhull  andemu  00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Side question - that article looks like a good candidate for Pending changes. I have not been keeping up with that debate, though, so I may be wrong. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought pending changes trial has finished, although I still see articles subject to that level of protection. While we still have, I see no reason why we shouldn't use it, however, and I'll apply it now. Rodhull  andemu  00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Should user talk pages be deleted under the right to vanish?
This is an issue that's raised time and again, with inconsistent application by admins, so it would be good to get it sorted out so that admins know how to proceed. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of Article
Looks like a problem over at the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

some of the sentences are not represented by the source articles. It seems they are twisting facts that the FDA warned the company when it was another website the FDA warned. Some editors are calling it a pyramid scheme. What does it take to call a company that on wikipedia?

It looks like the past months the article was locked for edit warring twice to keep its content safe. This company was just added to wikiproject companies.

There are Users saying its a bunch of lies and POV. Because of legal issues and slander and all since it is a company top priority should be the truth. Could we get some new admins to please go over there to check the source articles and look the article over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.98.63 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was already fully protected last month and will expire in 5 days. There's not a whole lot more administrators can do. Please use Talk:MonaVie to discuss any content issues you may have with the article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The user appears to be a forum-shopping / socking SPA, as per discussion at ANI. None of them is currently blocked, though. Another issue is the users semi-veiled legal threats, talking about "libel" and such while failing to provide specifics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Revdel issue?
Are the contributions from today candidates for revdel? Spanish speaking editors will know what the question means, the rest of you will have to use an online translator. All edits made by that IP today have been reverted, and the IP blocked for a year. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted them all. RD3 fits that brand of vulgarity like a glove. Courcelles 08:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This gives me an idea. I think we should create a project page for redaction nominees. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

CLose the Sat85 Topic Ban Discussion?
Next Door on ANI so we can put Talk:Man stuff behind us? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just about to suggest the same thing myself - contributions have come to a stop, so I think it really would be good for an uninvolved admin to judge consensus and close it, and then we can move forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been archived now, while still marked "Unresolved" - Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review requested
I posted a warning note on talk page. As I have been involved in discussions with him in the recent past, I request an administrator/established editor peer review of the warning. Sincere regards  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Requests for arbitration/PHG
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

"The existing topic ban imposed in the PHG arbitration on is extended indefinitely. Accordingly, this user is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. Per Honor et Gloria may appeal this sanction no more than once every six months, starting six months from the passing of this motion."

For the Arbitration Committee,  NW  ( Talk ) 15:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

RPP backlog
Couple of hours' backlog at WP:RPP if anyone has a mo :) <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal: User:Simulation12



 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Simulation12


 * wikipedia sockpuppets of simulation12
 * wikipedia sockpuppets of simulation12
 * wikipedia sockpuppets of simulation12
 * wikipedia sockpuppets of simulation12
 * wikipedia sockpuppets of simulation12

has been, for the past year blatantly disrupting the above articles, imitating other users and admins, and has recently started creating attack pages and accounts. I propose a full siteban on this user. He is clearly not welcome on this encyclopedia any longer. –MuZemike 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And I just blocked another sock:. I'm about two seconds away from full-protecting all three pages above; they are really starting to tick me off! –MuZemike 00:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See this and this. If there is not going to be discussion, I am considering the person banned myself, due to the implied silence. –MuZemike 21:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, support. Obvious. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support and go ahead and protect the pages. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of surprised this took so long. Support permanent, as in non-liftable, ban. → ROUX   ₪  01:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See also this abusive edit, as well as this one. I've reverted them, but perhaps an admin could revoke talk page access. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an eye should be kept on ? Brand new account, and guess where their first edit was? Admittedly that's not hard evidence, but considering how many socks he's made so far, and seeing as you're still finding them... Half  Shadow  16:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing from what I can see, so far. Assuming I know how to block users and use checkuser right. –MuZemike 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Update - Simulation12 has created a hate page on Facebook about me and the other admins: . –MuZemike 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reported the page as 'targeting a friend'. Oh banhammers, I want to use that on this certain sockmaster who has been a pain in my ass for months. MuZemike knows who it is, but that's another story. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that the user has put up a YouTube video asking for help in getting unblocked: . I'd feel sympathetic to their cause, but not after the personal attacks the user posted on his page previously. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support full site ban Enough is enough. Hate pages?  What is this, middle school?  This is a serious encyclopedia project, not a childhood pasttime. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support ban he's a sockpuppeteer and creator of attack pages. I'm pretty sure he can't improve on how much disruption he's made. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support community ban - And then we can roll back all of his sock edits without violating 3RR. Let's empower ourselves. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this "resolved" as it has run for the mandatory 48 hours and the votes have all been unanimous. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Moot point now, but Support. If he were on fire, I'd roast marshmallows over him. Half  Shadow  19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse alternative account
Should User:Dog The Teddy Bear not be blocked also? pablo 10:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, but the master account is not blocked. It was a valid alternate account, not a sock. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The master account is indeed blocked. But don't worry, someone else is on the case. pablo 13:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blocked it. This is not written into the directions, but I tend to block the vanished accounts as they no longer have any need to edit, and it serves to protect the project from people abusing RtV. I have seen people excercise RtV and then come back in a week; this helps protect against that. It is a purely preventative block; which is what blocks are supposed to be. -- Avi (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a bad block. If a user, who has neither active bans nor blocks history wants to come back and have a fresh start he should be allowed to do it with no questions asked.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The right to vanish implies a complete and total break from wikipedia, not a clean start. Please review WP:CLEANSTART and WP:RTV; they are different. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * However, RTV also includes a provision for users who choose to return: "Editors who invoke this right should expect that, should they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and may be linked to their new one if required for communal scrutiny, and any open sanctions and outstanding administrator or arbitration matters may be resumed." So the account may be unblocked if Rlevse comes back again (which I hope happens). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us cross that bridge when we get there; we assume someone exercising RtV is does so with permanent intent. Of course no one knows what the future holds, but we need to deal with the present. -- Avi (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD Close/relist needed
It looks like Articles for deletion/Futurecon was not properly created and is over 7 days old. Can an admin please close it, or relist if its less-than-visible status has prevented consensus from being reached? VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Dumbot screwed up. It's listed on the log for the 8th which means that it closes on the 15th. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please create
Unauthorized to create talk page Please see Talk:Azrieli_Graduate_School_of_Jewish_Education_and_Administration and add WikiProject New York City and WikiProject Judaism. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Verified. I get "unauthorized". Wonder why? Basket of Puppies  05:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Created that for you. It'll be something on the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or the global one, as the warning message said. Likely caused by "... Jewish ... Admin..." - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hardcore racist abuse and insertion of vulgar phrases in non-English language
Vandalism only account Ninte Ammaye Ookkiya Namboori inserting hardcore racist hatred and vulgar non-English POV. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell what he's saying; apparently Google does not translate Corsican, but it appears to be another language. Could you elaborate on the racist hatred? (From what I can tell, this seems more like a content dispute, and should be resolved elsewhere.) / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * His username means "The one who fucked your mother" in Malayalam. All of his edits contains vulgar words. In his userpage, he says: "Nair penkuttikale kootheeladikkaan aagrahikkunna oru paavam namboori.." (I want to gangbang Nair girls). The edit here says: "Fuckoff you son of a whore motherfucker". 125.16.65.6 (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipolice, please stop this racism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Google Translate seems not to recognize the language right away. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Date delinking Ohconfucius
"Remedy #17 ('Ohconfucius automation') of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and is permitted to use automation subject to normal community guidelines."
 * Passed by motion 7 to 0 with 1 recusal at 14:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)'

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Disruptive editing by dynamic IP
A dynamic IP (listed below) that geo-locates to Japan has been making numerous disruptive edits to the 1982 Lebanon War. The IP makes no use of the Talk pages, does not explain his/her edits in the edit summary section, engages in tendentious editing, has been reverted numerous times by other editors and appears to be singularly focused on this one article. I am requesting that the article be Semi-Protected.



















Thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved to incident boards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case amendment
By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows: &mdash; Coren (talk), for the Committee, 21:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
 * 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.


 * Discuss

AfD for Qantas Flight 32
After 160k of discussion, the nominator has now withdrawn his nomination of the article for deletion. Is it appropriate that the discussion is now closed by an uninvolved admin, or should it be allowed to run its course. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it should run its course because it is not a 100% keep vote, there are several delete votes still. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As Graeme says - that's the policy after all. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup help
I see that an incomplete page move left Discrimination against the disabled and Ableism with divergent versions of the same page, before the former was redirected to the latter in September. Could someone more experienced with this sort of thing sort out some sort of merger please? Rd232 talk 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Page history merged under Ableism. Jafeluv (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A section "issues" in the article "Israel Police"
So before creating it, like in other corresponding articles that are related to other countries, I would like to .. I don't know, make sure or maybe give a warn to admins. Because what I'm about to add might be not likable for someones, hence, these someones would try to get rid of this section or simply put spokes in my wheel which will make it impossible for me to add information in this section. Of course we're talking about information which are provided by marginally reliable sources. So can we now, right ahead, make sure that it's possible to create such section there, no matter if it stays empty for some years or gets filled at glance, the fact that it can be created shouldn't be doubtful, right? Clear question, clear answer. Userpd (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is better discussed at the article's talk page. Its inclusion depends on consensus, not the views of one admin. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is needed if someone disputes something about a content, but the creation of section "Issues" in that article is non-disputable (WP:DISRUPTPOINT), just like a section "biography" in articles about celebrities. Userpd (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, it's obviously disputable. So, take it back to the talk page. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it disputable? No, we're already discussing it here. Let the admins see impudent faces of those who dare to call such a solid, indisputable and seemingly pretty normal case - "disputable". Have you the cheek to say so of this case. The section issues in articles regarding law enforcement can be, as it's an inherent part of it, one can't simply dismiss it because he doesn't like it. Userpd (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm perfectly aware that an information which might be disputable, should be discussed at talkpage, but here I just wanted to make sure, that the creation of the section "issues" would be possible in the future and to ascertain its possibility to be there, both theoretically and practically. That's it, there's nothing planning yet, just to make sure such an obvious case, because like I said, I have a feeling someone may impede the creation of this section per se. So if we acknowledge beforehand, that this section can be and no one has a right to simply take it down because of his personal ambitions, that would be good and would help to avoid this nuisance in the future. Userpd (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a non-admin, the inclusion of any section is disputable. No one can, in advance, determine that a whole section could be included. And even if we agreed right here right now that it was okay, it can still change in the future (see WP:Consensus can change).  For right now, only the talk page of the article can help answer your question.  Questions may come up in the future about sources, or information about living people, or being neutral, or whatever, and there are boards you can take it to; further, there are things you can do if a dispute erupts that doesn't seem to be solvable just through the article's talk page alone.  But admins don't adjudicate what content can and cannot be in an article, except when the content directly contradicts policy (like putting unsourced negative info in a biography of a living person).  In any event, there's not much value in discussing whether some theoretical, nebulous section could be added to an article--instead, propose an actual addition (since you're talking about a controversial page, it's probably best to propose on talk before just editing, although you do always have the option of being bold).  As always, the devil is in the details.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't make a big deal out of nothing. What you want to say, is that if some people vote for no inclusion of this section, thus no consensus, it simply couldn't be there? That's just ridiculous, how people may abuse wikipedia for their own sake. Userpd (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus we're talking about the Israeli-Palestinian topic area, which is filled with partisans who will object to anything that slights their preferred point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I wanted to make it clear in advance. We're just talking about the creation of the section, not about its content or what we're going to add in it, just the creation, why should be it impossible? Like I said, the section "issues" isn't just some non-related thing, and such section presence in other "Law enforcement" articles. Userpd (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I edit in the I-P topic area fairly often and I'm familiar with the problems. Qwyrxian's answer is sensible in my view. Whether a section can or should be created depends on its content which in turn has to comply with policy. There's no point just talking about a section in principal. The existence of a section with the same name in other "Law enforcement" articles isn't relevant because it has nothing to do with content policies. You would need to make the case for inclusion in Israel Police article (or a bold edit) based on content policies (i.e. WP:NPOV and WP:V) and actual reliably sourced content. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian explained it perfectly. And WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean "unanimous." Discuss the section on the article's talk page and see if you can reach an agreement there. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And now you're revealing yourself (I'm talking about you, Sean.hoyland and Qwyrxian), I repeated throughout my all messages, that we're not talking about the content we're going to add in it, just to ensure a possibility, and now you've found a way to make even this an "issue", the above links weren't needed and were posted as a provocative action, to discredit me in front of admins, "look, he doesn't know the rules", when in fact you just misunderstood what this was all about, and I warned in the beginning, I'm perfectly aware of the rules. But saying that the possibility of the creation of section issues is disputable - is just ridiculous. Yes, content of this section might be, but the section itself... n/c, well played. Userpd (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * hmmm puzzling response. You seem to misunderstand. This isn't a game. I have zero interest in you personally or how you look in front of admins or what you think about me or anyone else. You asked a question. You got an answer. It was intended to help you. If you aren't talking about the content of the section then you aren't talking about something meaningful policywise. You could have asked whether it is possible in principle to create a section about the size distribution of their shoes or their views on whether they are actively facilitating non-compliance with Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in territories held under belligerent occupation and/or protecting a land promised to them by an undetected superbeing. You would have got the same answer. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But I shouldn't be getting "the same answer", because obviously, there's a difference between the content of the section and the section itself. And it should raise questions if people like you, beforehand, being warned still continue repeating the same, which isn't up to the topic's theme. And your answer isn't helpful, because I already said I know these rules that you posted above in other words I read them long before. And knowing this, why did you post them? Or mentioned? I appreciate someone's help, but not in this way. Didn't I make it clear I know them or that we're not discussing here about disputable contents? I refuse to accept that a section titled "issues" is disputable in articles where it belongs to. Userpd (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To make it clearer, once again, disregarding whether the content of the section "issues" might be or might not be verifiable / reliable, can the section itself take place in the article "Israel Police". This supposed to be a simple question with a simple, definite answer. Or rephrased like this "can we write about issues within the israeli police in an accordance to WP rules?" Userpd (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we write about issues within the israeli police in an accordance to WP rules ? Of course, especially if the sources used are doing exactly that, describing issues within the Israeli police from a meta level rather than reporting specific instances of some kind of perceived issue. If the section is just a synthesis of individual media reports about specific issues or if it simply lists specific instances it probably won't survive. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe everything, which is backed up by reliable sources or proven, related to this section can be written in it / mentioned, some people come here to gather information about what they want. Of course, poorly written / sourced material (or someones' blogs to push their opinions upon readers) should be undoubtedly deleted, but in wikipedia in this case, primarily attention is paid to source's reliability. If you find the information to be inappropriate, then I can't help you. And of course, it must be written in accordance to WP:NPOV. If you find the section lacks other related information, then fulfill it with "it". You can't command people what they should write / add in wikipedia if it's no in violation of WP rules, WP isn't censored. Userpd (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that isn't how things work in practice in that topic area but I wish you luck. Things that you might find useful just in case you don't know about them are WP:IPCOLL, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues, the discretionary sanctions and ongoing discussions regarding implementing further restrictions on editors and articles, see WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose this WP:IPCOLL doesn't make an aim of "getting rid of unfavorable information from any israeli-related articles"? If no, then I fail to see why you're bringing up your concern to me, because dude, I can find you a lot of information given on wikipedia, which amusingly, quite a lot of people would prefer to be deleted. Userpd (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check user talk page
User talk page User talk:DictioNANIE out of scope ?--Musamies (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!
Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across the noticeboards to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Dan Rosenthal    Wikipedia Contribution Team  21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As a side request, can we please keep this post from being archived for a few days? Thanks. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> Dan  Rosenthal    Wikipedia Contribution Team  21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tweeked your Original Post's Time Stamp, So it wont be archived till the Nov 12th at the earliest The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second this appeal. The community has had a huge opportunity to participate in the fundraiser this year, including choosing banner text, proposing banner text, and being able to work with social media outreach, and now we're looking for graphic banner designs as well as appeals from ... you. Check out Fundraising 2010 HQ and please don't complain about the horrible banners if you didn't make suggestions. Cheers, / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at a new page
Hi again. I've just built up a small backlog for a page that was recently moved. WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/RD1 Requests is where it is if anyone's interested. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to find a wikiproject to review articles
Clearly this guy has an interest in some topic, but I'm unable to determine what the topic is. The articles he is creating don't have valid intros or descriptions, so it's almost impossible to tell what the topic is. I'd really like someone from a valid WikiProject to take a look at all this work to see what can/should be done. But I cannot determine the WikiProject where I should post the comment. Can someone help? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The linguistics people would seem to be who you're looking for; SemEval probably stands for Semantic Evaluations. I'm tempted to tag SemEval for G11 as it stands now, though; I won't, but someone should take a look at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I added a note to that page. Hope that's right. Thanks &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not A1, as you tagged it. Have you tried to discuss this with the user? Or notified them of this discussion? -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you identify the context of that article? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I could barely figure out what the hell it was; although that's an unusual use of A1, I think it was a reasonable application of it, given that the article doesn't have any (I only figured it out after running a Google search, and I'm still only guessing; I could be wrong). The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the first line has a link to the conference, A1 is clearly inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article still reads like an advertisement, though; I'll let someone else judge that. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. This is a new user trying to write their first article on a topic they are obviously familiar with. It may or may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but new users are not required to know all the rules. In fact, they are encouraged to be bold and this user was when creating this article. The proper response is not to summarily delete their work, but to work with them to try to improve the article, or communicate with them and explain why their article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. So please, stop biting the newcomers. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If i may speak, SemEval is a series of conferences discussing on an issue in Natural Language Processing. The reason why you cannot find the details online is because the google engine pagerank gave you the relevant sites but there is no 1 website that will explain to you what the whole idea of SemEval is about. There are 5 workshops held and each workshops have sub-workshops, that they call them tasks. and therefore when you search on google, only bits and pieces of the sub-workshops are reflected. The wiki page was a first step to gather all these bits and pieces into 1 site and it is only a first step. please help to improve this wikipage by giving us suggestions on how to make the wikipage more wikiable to the readers. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please pardon the creation of the multiple page, because it is an attempt to simplify the page after reading the comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SemEval#why_wikify so i thought of porting out the different sections might be a way to wikify the page. But that's how open source stuff are, one puts up and the rest improve. thank you for your tolerance.Alvations (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have a life outside Wikipedia, I made that comment knowing I would have to leave for a while, and I was trying to draw someone's attention to it. Since I won't have the amount of time necessary for at least several hours, and I'm now attempting to deal with another unrelated matter, I wanted to make sure someone would notice it.  Honestly, if I was new and I saw my own comments, I'd be more interested in rectifying the problem than anything else, which seems to be the case with this user, so don't worry so much about hurt feelings.  The work still needs to be done; I'm more than happy to put in the time, but I'm not sure if/when I'll have the time to sit down and do it.  Just relax, OK?  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Side not we are on our Second SPA, popping up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Third SPA The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fourth The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifth. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * has failed us here's number six The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Three year old spammer account has popped up in support. Definite off Wiki-Canvassing going on. Two of the IPs  have been from different continents so socking doesnt seem likely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at [|other wikipages] i've edited, template i've created and stuff i'm interested in. Being a linguist and a geek, i confess that my inclination to computational linguistics is beyond most people. and in fact the semeval page is part of a school project. That explains the constant and much effort put into it. I've sounded my piece, it's up to the general public of wikipedia to decide on my past, present and future contributions to the global pool of knowledge.Alvations (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing what a google search brings up. MER-C 04:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion noticeboard (II)

 * See proposed Wikipedia noticeboard at Revision deletion/Noticeboard. 
 * See Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion/Noticeboard to discuss this (to avoid splitting the discussion across multiple venues).

A month ago there was discussion of a noticeboard for RevisionDelete requests, rather than handling them at ANI.

This would cover matters that do not require oversight and are neither privacy breaching nor defamatory under Oversight policy. Typical examples include specific copyvio and browser-crashing/disruptive revisions, CSD for specific revisions rather than entire page history, routine housekeeping, etc. (policy)

Recap of summary:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:90%" width="95%"

I think we have gotten sufficient consensus to create the noticeboard, so someone should go ahead and do it! Meanwhile, I'll be designing a header and editnotice in my userspace. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sufficient consensus?
 * Sufficient consensus?
 * Well it's sufficient consensus for a draft to be helpful at this point; it may help overcome some reservations. Rd232 talk 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a little bit "cart before the horse", but those who oppose the board in principle seem to underestimate the range of design options available. Besides what I've already said above, you could design the board so that all that's seen publicly is a log of requests (with no useful information in the log, not even a link, least not whilst it's any use to non-admins). For example the log could be structured as "request number # sent by email to Admin Y at time such and such", and after deletion the admin responds on the board with a link so other admins can review. Or, if we didn't even want that level of publicness (though that's hardly more than the existing |deletion log), we could devise some system involving requests going by email to several admins, so that the decision is reviewed entirely offline, and the log merely shows requests and the timeliness of fulfilment. Rd232 talk 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for something sufficiently clever to avoid BEANS issues, that actually gets coded, actually works, and actually diverts traffic away from ANI. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagined that my idea you're replying to wouldn't require coding, just instructions to people on what to do, and a template or two. Rd232 talk 20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this, there's still a clear numerical majority favoring a new noticeboard, but at the same time there are also a number of pretty senior people saying it's a bad idea. I'm simply not seeing why it's a bad idea, given that we're already getting multiple requests at ANI, that the content in question will only last on-wiki as long as it takes an admin to RevDel it, and that it doesn't change Oversight at all. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We need more input I think. Myself, a notice board that merely tracks that requests were made is preferable to one that gives links to the items in need of attention, and my opposition to it is softer. But a notice board to track this would be, in my view, fairly complex in operation so I'm not seeing the benefit. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * }

The draft header and template can be seen and were designed to clarify the main concern (related to oversightable material).

Should someone go ahead and create Revision deletion/Noticeboard? FT2 (Talk 05:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like a good idea, but in the end it only serves to further the bureaucracy, something which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Basket of Puppies  06:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll create it, if you are asking because consensus has been reached? <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 06:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, boldly created with a "proposed noticeboard" message at the top. Now we can discuss it's merits or not on it's talk page, etc, essentially as we would a proposed policy. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 06:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I said I was going to do this, but I haven't ever gotten around to it--I got caught up in rescuing an interesting article and never got back to it. I endorse the idea of someone going ahead and doing this. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Noting: discussion is likely to be at the talk page, to avoid splitting between venues. FT2 (Talk 06:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's proof why posting at ANI is a bad idea and we need the new noticeboard. Recently an editor who I won't name here for privacy reasons posted a legitimate suicide threat on his userpage, when it was posted to ANI 4chan caught whiff of it and after the user recovered from suicidal thoughts and was unblocked the trolls raided his page encouraging him to commit suicide saying 'no one likes you in life please go shoot your self' or something along those lines. Ani is just too visible. <small class="ad-sig" style="background:#880000;border:1px solid black;color:white;"> Access Denied –  talk to me  07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed the discussion but really like this idea and I have watchlisted that noticeboard's page. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 07:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and maintenance tags
WP:PEREN indicates that we're not going to get consensus to move maintenance tags off the articles and onto talk, so I have proposed a simple change that might mitigate the impact of maintenance tags on BLP subjects: Village pump (policy).

Basically, the proposal is that we add an optional flag argument to collapse the maintenance box and show just a simple note that says "Wikipedia understands it needs to improve this article" or some such. It can then be expanded for more detail including the date of the tagging and so on. Also I propose that the flag adds text to the note that says we recognise this is about the state of the article not a subjective judgment on the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please delete userpage
Please delete userpage User:GMatt00, out of scope--Musamies (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of coming here and telling us, all you have to do is tag the page for deletion. Please read Deletion process to learn about this. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tagged with CSD A7 (as is Project Destiny). — <b style="color:#008">Edokter</b> • Talk  • 18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does A7 apply to Userspace? Arakunem Talk 18:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Article criteria (A1-A10) only apply to articles. Userpages can only be speedied under the general criteria (G1-G2) or userspace criteria (U1-U3). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Might want to get Dignity (band) also.  &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I work in finnish wikipedia and there are system different, now I know--Musamies (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GMatt00. MER-C 04:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

1RR for the Arab-Israeli conflict articles
A recent discussion at WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles has established a consensus to impose a 1RR restriction on the entire Arab-Israeli conflict set of articles. There's a template Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement, which has a shortcut of ARBPIA, to place on talk pages to explain the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea.  Sandstein   16:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests
There are 239 requests in the Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests. Now, I am aware that not all of you are WP:WSW members, but we all can talk (I'm assuming), so is it possible to widdle some of these requests down? Thanks...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StartrekismylifeJadzia
Supposedly the "consensus" for this MfD was to keep the page, according to the closing admin, but another just deleted the page two days right after it was closed. And another decided to delete the corresponding talkpage for the MfD even though it existed. Should the page be undeleted then, if this was the outcome of the MfD? :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page contained nothing pertinent and there's no need for an RfA page to exist if it's never going to be transcluded. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I should have been notified of this discussion since I'm involved... See User talk:Fastily and User talk:Eagles247. Untranscluded RfAs are not typically kept on Wikipedia. Also, after talking with the candidate about it after I deleted the RfA, they agreed that they were not ready to run at this time.  Eagles   24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * New information became available after the MfD closed, namely, that the user is not planning to run for adminship anytime soon. As such, the MfD result really no longer applies and deletion is okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleting the MfD talkpage was my error. An editor had put a G1 speedy on it (which was clearly wrong), but I took a look and thought it was the talkpage for the deleted RfA, not the MfD itself.  As such, I've restored it FWIW (without the speedy tag) and would have probably done it a lot quicker if I'd been notified of this ... Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry everyone. It was my fault that I did not notify the participants involved immediately; I had thought it rather trivial and was on a time constraint. Please forgive me. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, the involved parties found the section.  Eagles   24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 02:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

MFD closer here. The MFD comments were strongly against deletion on the basis that even a zero-chance nominee has the right to put themselves forward, so I closed accordingly. But given the user's subsequent comments about not wanting to run right now, I agree that the conclusions of the MFD are moot. --RL0919 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Should future RfA's be deleted?
<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 closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Perhaps this is a good place to start a formal consensus for whether RfA's like this can be deleted. This is not a one-time situation, it happens nearly every week. There is no harm in keeping such RfA's, except that the tally count might reach a maximum at some point and no longer be able to function for the live RfA's. Currently various administrators have been cleaning it out every now and then, usually with either a G2 ("Test page") summary or a G6 ("Housekeeping"). I assumed that everything was okay with these deletions until I found out about the MFD in which it seems that Wikipedians in general are in favor of keeping the RfA's. Does this mean we should no longer delete unused RfA's? Should I bring this to the Village Pump or an RfC to get a wider assortment of views?  — Soap  —  12:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This refers specifically and strictly to RfA's that have been created and left untranscluded for a long time.  — Soap  —  13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only time an RFA should be deleted would be if someone had created it on behalf of someone, and they decline the nomination. Otherwise, past RFA's are useful documents: I can look at what suggestions were made, and then see if they actually followed those suggestions.  Even if the editor claims to never want to run again, that does not mean that they will not run again.  Courtesy blanking may be appropriate in some cases, but never deletion. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But if the RFA was never transcluded, there wouldn't be any commentary on there worth seeing... Courcelles 12:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If there was even a single comment (support, oppose, neutral) then it becomes a live RFA for all intents and purposes. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case it should be logged as a failed attempt. However, this is useless for those purposes, and shouldn't prejudice a candidate's first real RFA as being #2.  Because, whether we like it or not, we all know RFA's have a greater chance of failure the higher the number at the end of them. Courcelles 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur fully regarding this specific RFA. But the question relates to RFA's in general.  I have never questionned this specific one. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time, nor the last, that this specific instance has/will occur. I have deleted several RfAs of new users recently (none that went to MfD and closed as keep, however) after seven days had passed since I notified them of their untranscluded RfAs.  Eagles   24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's no compelling reason to delete - leaving the pages in tact does no harm. Moreover, if user A nominates user B but user B doesn't want to run, leaving the page visible will stop users C, D and E from also nominating user B for adminship in the near future - so the page would still serve a useful purpose, even if it's never trancluded. waggers (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy. There are several sets of circumstances at play here. The key point is that an RFA is not an RFA unless the candidate transcludes it to WP:RFA. Until then, it is a draft - and, my preference, it should be prepared in the userspace. Move it over when you're ready, transclude it, and brace yourself. Unless the RFA is going to be transcluded shortly (say within a day or two), then it should not be in the WP space. Even better, we should turn the practice around for draft RFAs, especially ones where the candidate changes their mind, but might re-apply down the line. Userfy it. They can work on it at their leisure, updating their self-nom or discussing a nomination with their admin coach/mentor/etc. Seems like that would be the simplest option. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy An Rfa is not an Rfa until a user transcludes it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment/Delete - This discussion is based on the process I (with the idea coming from Fastily) have been using for these. I notify the user about their untranscluded RfA (with User:Fastily/RfA Notice), and if they are a new user I warn them about their chances of succeeding, and after seven days have passed without the user replying to the message, I delete the RfA. In the case of Requests for adminship/Kobnach, is there really any point in keeping a declined RfA nomination?  Eagles   24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy - might come in handy someday. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Userfy if nominee refused, Keep if nominee still considering. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. absolutely not.  No compelling reason to delete.  RfAs can and should be blanked liberally (but never automatically) and only very rarely deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely some misunderstanding in this thread. The purpose of this discussion is to weigh in on whether untranscluded RfAs of new users should be deleted after seven days have passed since notifying them of their RfAs and their chances at succeeding. This does not include transcluded RfAs that did not succeed, as these should be unequivocally kept. In cases of users declining nominations, is there really any purpose of keeping these RfAs if only to show a higher number of past RfAs for a user when they officially decide to run?  Eagles   24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, in those cases where the RfA is as content-empty as in StartrekismylifeJadzia's case. (Wow. This person may never make another edit, yet has managed to carve out at least a footnote-level notability in Wikipedia's history thru this one event.) However, if it can be shown that deleting these unfinished RfAs -- & that is what they are, unfinished & undiscussed -- either has no effect on the server load, or perhaps even increases it, I'm willing to not bother tidying up by deleting them. "Tidying up" describes exactly what is being proposed here, the equivalent of straightening the desks or emptying waste paper baskets; since Wikipedia is Not Paper, we don't need to concern ourselves with treating stuff like this like waste paper, spoiled drafts, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Full disclosure: I have not looked at the RFA one bit. If it looks like it's going to be a "noose dangling over one's head", then delete. Historically, we have done this in the spirit of WP:BITE; I don't see a reason to deviate from this when this user may end up being a productive sysop. –MuZemike 08:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.