Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Current issues

Consolidation of threads re; Factory farming

User:WAS 4.250

• See also User:WAS 4.250 personal attack Talk:Factory farming.

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Challenges_and_issues_of_industrial_agriculture User:WAS 4.250 once again launched an uncalled for personal attack against me, including a series of unfounded accusations, and an unspecified call for a ban, simply because I have argued for deletion of an article he started as a POV fork.

In the past I have placed another Incident report here on this very user, and it was ignored, however this is the second time the user does this, and this is extremely unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

In response to my AfD request, he says:

Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks from me to him, and I have not wikilawyered in any significant fashion (in an AfD one HAS to state policy violations as part of a nom), and I am not part of animal liberation movement, nor do I have fellow travelers (I have actually been on the other end of editing disputes with User:SlimVirgin another active editor of Factory farming).

His accusations are false, uncivil and calling for a ban of a fellow wikipedian on no grounds at all is extremely bad behavior. I leave remedy up to the admins, but I just want to know why I can't go to ArbCom with this extreme example of unwarranted personal attack.

I do admit being involved in previous editing conflicts with this user, however he has declined several calls for formal Mediation around the articles in question, and continues free and unwarranted attacks. He must be brought under control. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a related thread going on at WP:AN#Animal liberation POV pushing by admins, started by WAS 4.250. You might want to keep the discussion together. Just a note... —Kurykh 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't inform me of this. Has I known I would have posted there. I will do so now, can an admin close this, as per move to WP:AN#Animal liberation POV pushing by admins? Thanks! --Cerejota 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal liberation POV pushing by admins

Fishing expeditions may be a pleasant way to spend a vacation in Baja California, but please don't ask me embark upon one at Wikipedia unless you're treating me to the other kind too.

There is a group of powerful admins pushing an animal rights agenda here at wikipedia. It is hurting wikipedia. Please help. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture. Thank you. WAS 4.250 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see two comments. One by you accusing people out of the blue, and one by Cerejota, who isn't even an admin. Please explain this disconnection. —Kurykh 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comments both here and on that AfD page strike me as seriously inappropriate and unnecessarily hostile towards Cerejota. I'd suggest that you tone down your language. -- ChrisO 19:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There sounds like there is alot more to this, but you'll need to explain the issue further Was 4.250. You can't expect us to do all the digging. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Factory farming has the dispute in all its nitty gritty. Slim Virgin and her friends are the powerful admins. If they stay out of this, then all the better. Cerejota claims are a puppet like match for SlimVirgin's mistaken claims. I don't pretend to know who is or is not a sockpuppet or a meat puppet or a follower or just a like thinker. But this behavior (animal rights POV pushing) has been going on for too long and it is disruptive. This latest effort is just that. It is part of a larger POV effort that extends back months or years. I believe that some of SlimVirgin's first efforts were in animal rights articles (there are allegations of some oversighting here; but I haven't looked). Interestingly, the actual SlimVirgin edits I've seen on animal rights pages look fine to me. It's slim's edits on agricultural articles that I have a problem with. And her friends like Cerejota appear to me to blindly support her edits and strategies. For all I know, Slim and her actual close friends have decided to back off and the latest effort by Cerejota may be just him left twisting in the wind. I really don't know, and consider SlimVirgin a great asset to wikipedia except for her blind spot in the area of animal rights. I think if enough disinterested admins actually read the articles and talk pages all will work out just fine. That's what I'm hoping for. WAS 4.250 19:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to see some specifics and not continued generalities. No one is going to take the time to look into this if you don't take it serious enough to spend your own time gathering specifics. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia building requires reading encyclopedia articles. I claim Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture is POV motivated. Cerejota claims the article content itself is POV motivated. I ask that people here read the article and make up their own minds. This would be a content dispute except that the claims are either a personal attack on me by him or a personal attack on him by me. Which is which depends on whether the article is as he says or not. That judgment can only be made by reading the article. Please read Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture and let us know who needs to apologize to who. Thank you for your time. "So this is all about who is to apologize. Stop wasting our time and both apologize." No No No. That's not it. Once you have helped with choosing what constitutes NPOV here; this will help at Talk:Factory farming with its ongoing months long off and on again revert war. WAS 4.250 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim that the contents are POV motivated, I claim[1] the article is a POV fork, and that the contents have various issues, mostly WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and geographical bias (i.e. {{globalize}}. Please do not further misrepresent my position. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Specific diffs, please. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that I started this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WAS_4.250 because I had no idea this existed, as WAS has not informed me. I would have appreciated if he would have had the same courtesy I had with him in informing the involved.

My posting said:

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Challenges_and_issues_of_industrial_agriculture User:WAS 4.250 once again launched an uncalled for personal attack against me, including a series of unfounded accusations, and an unspecified call for a ban, simply because I have argued for deletion of an article he started as a POV fork.

In the past I have placed another Incident report here on this very user, and it was ignored, however this is the second time the user does this, and this is extremely unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

In response to my AfD request, he says:

Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks from me to him, and I have not wikilawyered in any significant fashion (in an AfD one HAS to state policy violations as part of a nom), and I am not part of animal liberation movement, nor do I have fellow travelers (I have actually been on the other end of editing disputes with User:SlimVirgin another active editor of Factory farming).

His accusations are false, uncivil and calling for a ban of a fellow wikipedian on no grounds at all is extremely bad behavior. I leave remedy up to the admins, but I just want to know why I can't go to ArbCom with this extreme example of unwarranted personal attack.

I do admit being involved in previous editing conflicts with this user, however he has declined several calls for formal Mediation around the articles in question, and continues free and unwarranted attacks. He must be brought under control. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides this, I must state I am not an admin, and that he re-stated his personal attack here [2].

I must also state that I apologize if he feels I have launched a personal attack, as this is not my intention, however, it would be useful if he described in what fashion I have attacked him, as I can honestly not see any personal attack in my contributions and comments.

I also repeat my request that someone tell me why I should or shouldn't raise this to ArbCom. The user seems unrepentant, and this is not the first time he does this. He also repeatedly refuses to engage on all other steps in WP:DR. If he is not made to understand why his behavior is unacceptable, then ArbCom is the only answer I can think of. Thanks! --Cerejota 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, SlimVirgin and I do agree a lot on these pages, however we have had some less-than-pleasant encounters in the past. Claims of meatpuppetry are beyond the pale and extremely worrying. This is not even fishing. This is out-and-out poisoning the well to protect the POV fork page Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture from being deleted. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WAS has again engaged in unwarranted personal attacks, this time in the edit summaries here and here.

He alleges I have performed vandalism, when in fact both tags where place along with comments in all relevant talk pages here, here, and here.

If he disputes the tags and merge proposal, he is free to discuss in the talk pages in question, but calling "vandalism" what constitutes normal wikipedia tagging and discussion process is really insulting, and a wanton disregard for process, in particular considering this thread here and the AfD.

This wanton incivility is intolerable. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I recently came across this dispute while browsing ANI, and I would like to offer an outside opinion. I'm not sure that those reverts are necessarily examples of "wanton incivility". Obviously it's somewhat abrasive to call someone else's edits vandalism, but the discussion posted on the talk page is fairly inadequate. Some kind of specifics should be used when posting a message like that, otherwise, the tag could conceivably remain up there forever. Hypothetically, if a user decided to post "I think this is in violation of WP:SYNTH" and threw up a tag, the tag could remain forever because the justification for adding it is not "here are some issues", but rather, "I think this is a violation." This is in contrast to saying "X section needs an entire rewrite" or "I think this is SYNTH because X,Y,Z..." No matter now much change happens, the user could still claim it's a SYNTH issue until the page is deleted or there's some huge controversy or whatever. This may give the impression that you're more interested in placing tags on the page than solving the issues set forth by the tags. I'm not accusing you of anything, but please keep in mind that communication is the most important thing to the editorial process. Without communication, other editors cannot effectively understand the problem and thus cannot fix it. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I only just saw this notice. I would request that this thread remain open for at least an additional 24 hours so that I may gather diffs to support WAS's statements above. As a side note, I would ask that readers recognize that Cerejota's remarks regarding personal attacks/etc. are irrelevant to the points WAS raised in this thread. Jav43 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not irrelevant. An administrator asked me to join them in here from a different thread, as clearly noted above. You just arrive and are already engaging in the usual baseless accusations and are failing to assume good faith. Good move. Admins, take note. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is something unhealthy afoot. WAS has not necessarily expressed himself well, but has been subject to a dismissive campaign of unfounded statements of lack of competence in editing the various articles. Farming is a broad subject which deserves proper coverage on Wikipedia. WAS has been instrumental in producing a lot of articles which seem to me to have a coherent structure and are a worthy attempt at increasing the worth of Wikipedia. Cerejota, has been party to a faction who have imposed ownership on the factory farming article. Any attempts to restructure this, even when justified by copious discussion, is dismissed and reverted. Crum375, SlimVirgin and Cerejota have been one side of an edit war. The notable point is that one side's version is dismissed via policy this that and the other, and the other version is supported by poor quality sources apparently sourced by Google searches to fit the points - so called source based research.

Admin User:John undertook to moderate, but for whatever reason is not currently active. Since he declared a fresh start, the faction of Cerejota, Crum375 and SlimVirgin were silent on the talk page. Various discussions were attempted and have not been responded to. Cerejota last commented on the talk page on 25th July. [3].

Since then you can read the discussion page and see that there have been a number of discussion points about issues with the article. These in part related to what should have been fairly uncontroversial edits.

Cerejota then all of a sudden waded in without discussion and did this.[4] with edit note (restore npov intro... "advantages" is a claim, not a true statement). Further edits, with all the usual aspects of edit warring ensued. Cerejota makes comments such as (restore to last good version, please see talk) but this appears to refer to some historic discussion. Cerejota's total contribution to discussion has been to quote policy breeches without explaining how. For example these edits, used to support his case are simple claims of policy breech without explaining why - here, here, and here this is The Bellman's Rule of Three (what I say three times is true). I haven't gone all the way back through history, but I do not see any contributions other than reverts to the article by Cerejota in the last few months. This is an unhealthy characteristic for an editor. Having stood by silently, all of a sudden Crum375 and SlimVirgin joined in the edit war.

I would highlight the SV involvement. I had picked up through my watch page that SV was on some form of WikiBreak. ElinorD has been standing guard over her home page, reverting some trolling and a few innocent waifs and strays who got caught in the firing line. She commented that SV was not on Wiki but was contactable by email. I highlight her history where she appears from Wikibreak and having been inactive since the 7th, the first three edits are on the deletion request and Factory farming ([5] [6][7]). As is typical in the factory farming edit warring, the tag teaming is joined by Crum375 [8]. The sole edit from Crum375 on discussion is this [9] which does not discuss content. In the context of the discussion, it is a discussion which starts with myself expressing confusion as to what the actual problem is. Interestingly, Cerejota for the first time makes a statement based on content, however, whilst making a claim that he has the sources to back his position up, he does not add these to the article to justify his reversion which is taking a position.

What is the point of these ramblings? It appears that Cerejota believes that a continuous campaign of repetitious quoting of policy without reasoned debate, whilst personalising the discussion into his proofs, his views, the wrongness of other editors is all perfectly normal and acceptable and cannot possibly be misinterpreted as personal attack[10]. Further, Crum375 joins in with the edit warring. Complain of this he will look innocent and aggrieved (yet was party to the edit warring that last got the Factory farming page protected). SlimVirgin is the one editor who has been genuinely trying to make a contribution to the page, but has reacted with such ownership that reasoned debate does not seem possible. (I have made my views on the issues with the structure of the page clear on the discussion page and would challenge anyone to assert that I am unreasonable in putting them forward as an improvement to the subject e.g. [11]). SV has walked away from discussion essentially claiming harassment, whereas she cannot see that perhaps the need for lengthy rebuttals is her intransigent position, supported by her edit warriors. Acting in concert is seen as bad thing when it is those against Cerejota, yet if you analyse the contributions, they are coming from different angles and there is no particular organised faction, yet SV and Crum are a well known pairing, Cerejota I have no view of aside from on Factory Farming and related articles, who subscribe to the view that their edit warring is appropriate in the face of all the evil trollers like myself that they face on a daily basis. Spenny 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for silence have been clear: wanton incivility of the type that WAS has presented is the only response any editor that doesn't subject him or herself to his WP:SYNTH, along with a crew of his enforcers, which include you, in spite of your attempt at showing yourself as neutral and uninvolved. I completely disagree I have not made contributions: they are simply reverted by WAS' gang. And in spite of you trying to minimize WAS wanton incivility, I suggest you focus on it to find out what is a foot. His denial to go into formal mediation is at the heart of this situation. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use jargon like SYNTH, you will find that stating what you mean in full will make communication more productive. Secretlondon 06:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and misrepresentations. There are two sides, at least, to an edit war. I do not claim to be neutral or uninvolved. I am not part of a gang. I have ploughed my own furrow on the Factory farming article. I have no contact with any other involved party outside Wikipedia, my involvement is totally traceable. I have no contact with the other parties that you call the gang outside the factory farming and closely related pages. As can be seen if you care to read rather than assume, I do not wholeheartedly agree with WAS. I do explain and justify my edits on the talk page. I recall WAS gave his reasoning as to why he felt mediation was inappropriate, it is a personal attack to use this rather than consider the matter in hand. From his talk page, it appears you have succeeded in your aim in driving him away, albeit hopefully temporarily. Thanks!--Spenny 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Spenny: I suggest you refrain from asking people to do not do "personal attacks" until you speak up against's WAS unwarranted, wanton personal attacks, forum fishing, and POV forking based on his long list of original research. You are an hypocrite.--Cerejota 09:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot speak out against WAS because I do not subscribe to your analysis. I do see WAS an editor who is sometimes overly confrontational in sticking to his position, but my personal interpretation is of someone who is principled. In terms of behaviour, I feel he has been goaded, much as you appear to feel he is goading you. My view is that WAS has constantly presented a logical viewpoint of why things should be the way they are and I find his argument persuasive, and have not been presented with a convincing counter-argument. With respect, you simply list claims of POV forking and SYNTH without a reasoned justification, much as you have not responded to a reasoned justification for a set of edits on factory farming, you have simply edit warred, and suggested that my edits, which were independently arrived at over a period of time with no collusion, are some sort of meatpuppet response to WAS. On that basis, it would be hypocritical of me to intervene in that way that you would like. Thanks!--Spenny 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN deletions

After several months since the last time this was broached, and with little progress made, I have deleted BJAODN and its various subpages. Per WP:DENY, its mere presence promotes slander, copyright violation, spamming, and just plain old vandalism. As Jeffrey O. Gustafson brought up here it is also a violation of GFDL. Since Jeff's initial deletion there has been little to no progress in attributing edits copied to BJAODN. As such it is time for this content to go. Are we Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia? I'm certainly hoping its the former. Lets act like it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll miss BJAODN, but sadly it's true. MessedRocker (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the hell of it, DON'T WHEEL WAR. MessedRocker (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to lead by example when it comes to attributing material. Wikipedians are all too quick to complain when some site doesn't give the necessary attribution, but when things like BJAODN exist on Wikipedia with no attribution, how can we expect to be taken seriously in our requests for attribution. It think it really does have to go this time. Nick 09:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN violated the GFDL about as much as answers.com does. It wasn't very funny, so I won't miss it, but I think it's a silly place to start enforcing the GFDL (why didn't we use a more suitable license?) Kusma (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are so many issues regarding BJAODN... many people find it humorless (I could care less...), the GFDL issues (yes, there are GFDL issues), the copyright flaunting, the potential SPAM and attacks, the fact that they were restored (via wheel war) in defiance of community discussions going on at the time... there are so many reasons why this stuff shouldn't exist (based on both policy, and common sense and dignity), and so few why it should. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but on a lot of pages it says the pages it comes from (where it is available in edit history), and at least that material should be kept. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In far too many cases the content comes from deleted pages or histories available only to administrators with far too much to do, or long since lost from the database. The last deletion and restoration was a serious shot off the bow to say, "fix this, quickly, and correctly." The many people clamoring to get the job done, claiming it could be done, did not do it (nor could they). More than three months and no change. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I fully agree with the above. People were given a chance to fix things, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) they did not. Aside from that, we have plenty of humor pages that are actually funny, as opposed to the mediocrity that is BJAODN. >Radiant< 10:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, I don't think this is a speedy. Shouldn't we have an MfD debate over it? Melsaran 11:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I believe the pages were only restored on the understanding that the histories would be corrected, something that wasn't done. It's regrettable but unless a number of administrators are willing to undelete articles to find histories and such, there's really no way forward. Nick 12:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Another MFD? Why waste the time of everyone when no consensus will occur? Straight deletion of this crap is worth it. — Moe ε 12:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Take note, for both Moe Epsilon and I agree on this issue. Good riddance to this firehose of crap. Burntsauce 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't try to impress me. — Moe ε 22:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Turns out there were 31 redirects to that. My favourite Wikipedia:Firehose of crap. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I heavily endorse Alkivar's actions. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with deletion. We have plenty of jokes within articles. One of the dirtiest can be found here. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia was a small community it could have worked probably, but with the ever increasing number of users (and thus vandals), it seemed inevitable that it would get more and more disorganised. Also even though wikipedia is not censored there is no reason to tolerate for example people’s animal sex stories, like I had seen there. 204.128.192.8 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops that was me who left that message above, but my login had expired. I see there is a fair bit of vandalism from that IP address. It’s used by the Walt Disney Corporation employees :p Jackaranga 14:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse too. Horribly unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the Internet for that stuff. If you want something encyclopedic, there are articles like World's funniest joke and Category:Jokes --Dweller 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the deletion of BJAODN. Yes, I am aware this issue is a source of controversy, and I know some will find my views controversial, but I believe this not unencyclopedic. I'm not a fan of it myself, but I know of people who are. Whether I like it or not is unimportant.

If I was an admin I would try and do the GFDL stuff with regards to this - as it is I'm currently trying to look for copyvios and make sure they are deleted, and fixing BJAODN is a good start for me. The argument that this is unencyclopedic does not stand with me: this is in the project (i.e. Wikipedia: namespace so it's more of an in-joke than anything else, along with all the other meta-documentation in the namespace "Wikipedia:". Humour is a subjective thing, so being careful about BJAODN is the best way to deal with it.

One such BJAODN I have kept was the Persian Panda hoax, at User:SunStar Net/Persian Panda, tagged with {{humor}}, and full attribution - this is one such example where BJAODN has attribution.

My other one, User:SunStar Net/Satan claus needs a WP:HISTMERGE as I admittedly cut-and-pasted it before it got deleted.

I think it could be restored, but only if people are willing to help me with such things - e.g. finding relevant diffs - Help:Diff showing how to do it.

For what it's worth, BJAODN could be kept/restored/allowed, but there would have to be strict limits with regard to things like attribution and linking to diffs - if there is no edit history, or as on Meta, a dump of the history with <pre> tags on the talk page (for cut&paste BJAODNs), so GFDL compliance is kept. (see some pages over there for an example - I can't remember exactly what pages, but regulars who are members here will know!)

This is all I have to say on the matter, and I hope people will have a look at what I've suggested, and if you've any questions, leave a note at my talk page (it's in my signature!).

Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Alkivar earlier today to review his deletion. I think that it's always better to have a proper MFD discussion rather than being this bold. If there's consensus to delete BJAODN then by all means let's do it. But I also think that putting a stop to BJAODN doesn't have to require deletion. A simple archive+protect+cease production+mark as inactive would have sufficed.--Húsönd 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would, if the copyright concerns are valid (and most people seem to think they are). And process for the sake of it is evil, right? Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another admin overturn, I listed it in MFD to avoid a wheel war here. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

MfD will not solve anything. There will be no consensus, guaranteed. DRV is the place, as the criteria use for deletion was valid. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See also the 2 huge threads in June's Wikien-l mailing list archives (titled "Seriously, on BJAODN", and "BJAODN restored again"). --Quiddity 19:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also gigantic threads from May-ish about the issue, including a fairly vituperative one aimed at yours truly. The mailing list is not helpful. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointers: Currently at both Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 14#Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.

Too bold

This was a case of going too far with a bold action. If the results of prior discussions was "No consensus" ( as it was ), the responsible response is to try again, not simply take it on yourself. Elements of the community don't trust admins in general because of stunts like this. I have restored until / unless a MFD or similar discussion (format/location less important than content / topic) proceeds to consensus. Georgewilliamherbert 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your position on the history being absent from a vast portion of BJAODN ? Nick 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My position on this morning's deletion is that there's precedent that you talk about major issues and find consensus first. The (legitimate) GFDL / history issues do not override that.

If Jimmy, Arbcom, Mike, or the Foundation Board decide that we have a problem and must simply fix it then that's a different thing. The rest of us should play by the rules. If it's controversial, seek and respect consensus. Georgewilliamherbert 20:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Georgewilliamhervert. I may not agree with BJAODN, however feel that the appropriate channels should be use. Be Bold, not wreckless. In this situation, instead of going through the proper channels the decision maw bade unilaterally by someone who did not like it. There may be a conesnsus to delete it, out it up for MFD and take it from there. Take it a piece at a time. Just up and deleting it is only going to cause problems. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The be bold policy should not apply to large decisions like this - deleting hundreds of pages (I believe) without discussion. I'm all for being bold and exercising WP:IAR with a single page, but not a controversial series of heaps of pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Matt and others above. The last time this happened, there was a massive and pointless war leading ultimately to their restoration. We should avoid drama for its own sake, and if Foundation members have a problem with it, they can intervene. Orderinchaos 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm all for it. BJAODN is a bunch of crap, and it gets worse with every iteration. Half of it is one-liners about sex (Ha...ha...hilarity. If I was five.), and the other half is defamatory to random people. The very few snippets of it that are funny hardly make it worth keeping, and let's not even get into the GFDL issues. Wikipedia has enough amusing stuff - just look at the weird articles list. What do we need bad jokes for when we've got exploding whales? Kill it with fire, and keep it killed. ♠PMC♠ 01:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

rant

Given past "do it first and (optionally) think later" actions by Alkivar, I shouldn't say I'm surprised. It is objectionable however to delete such a huge batch of pages and not even using a proper edit summary; that is unless you can prove how WP:DENY ties to GFDL violation and when did it become a speedy deletion criterion (no doubt BJAODN was speedily deleted)? "WP:DENY, its mere presense promotes slander, copyright violation, spam, and more vandalism" is just a mix of whatever "bad things" one person could come up in a minute. In future, please use well-thought and meaningful edit summaries when performing mass-actions. Миша13 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Bottom note: while I'm sorry to see BJAODN go and will certainly miss it (gotta bookmark the deleted histories), I fully understand the GFDL problems raised; I just don't condone they hasty way it was done (as if heavens would fall on our heads if we didn't delete it LIEK FRICKEN NOW!). Миша13 22:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

1. This is clearly outside the domain of formal speedy deletion rules. 2. You deleted the entries that supplied history along with the ones that don't. 3. No opportunity was given to interested contributors to locate history for their favourite entries, which isn't a daunting task, and now they lack the necessary info to do so (unless they're admins). This was precipitous action and should have been preceded with discussion to establish consensus around a compromise. Dcoetzee 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be stressed enough that the BJAODN regulars had enough warning when it was deleted three months ago - and they failed to fix the problems with BJAODN. It would take hundreds of editors and dozens of admins to dedicate all their time in order to make BJAODN GFDL compliant, that it did not happen last time means it will not happen this time, because frankly, admins and editors alike have far more important things to be doing: Are we an encyclopedia, or a joke book? And if we cannot be GFDL compliant, than what is the point of the GFDL at all? (And this still doesn't address all the other issues involved like WP:DENY, the spam and slander...) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to source much of the material in one of the 65 or 66 pages within a day. It wouldn't take all that long to source the material in the rest of the pile if we had a team of, oh, a dozen editors and a couple of admins to commit to the task over a couple of weeks. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I note again Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 2, with a DRV for the BJAODN subpages. I'm not sure that is a solid close; it feels more like a concluding remark after facts made the DRV moot than a close. GRBerry 00:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Feh

This is a project which has the odd yet cherished goal of producing a free-content encyclopedia. Its content is licensed under the GFDL, which requires attribution. This is non-negotiable and proves an everyday encumbrance with things like transwiki, commons uploads, and non-compliant mirrors. It is frequently a pain in the ass. However, it's also the law of the land, so we deal. Now, we have here a large collection of pages, chosen at random from the rejected slough, separated from their edit histories, with no evident utility to the project. The amount of time and effort spent at a cross-purposes to the core purposes of this project is staggering. That there are editors prepared to die in the last ditch defending this absurdity is even more staggering and beggars belief. Uncyclopedia is that way. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it, as some of it is funny. I only add stuff that is not from deleted pages, which is available in the history, and which is attributed. Instead of deleting it all, just remove the unattributed, and keep the rest. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From the concept of a free-content encyclopedia we grow a community of people devoted to building one. Every community develops its own local history, traditions, etc.

BJADON is a part of many people's sense of community here. Blowing it up without asking, again, is a rather rude attack on the sensibility of large parts of the WP community.

It may be that the GFDL issues require its deletion (I agree with issues, but disagree with the necessity of the outcome, though that may be what happens eventually). That outcome can come from one of the community processes with due deliberation, from an Arbcom case if need be, from Jimmy or the Board if an overriding external decision is necessary.

On an issue with this history and clear and evident community sensitivity, it should absolutely not come from any small set of admins in the dark of the night. BOLD is not a license to flip the bird to a large fraction of the community.

I don't have any reason to think Alkivar intended it to be seen that way, but it is. That's why it's dangerous for admins to think that BOLD and frustration are sufficient justifications to override the community. That attitude is dangerous to Wikipedia.

This was not the right way to go. Even if we have to walk down this path, this was not the right way to get to here. Wikipedia's community is important enough that we have to get things like this right. Georgewilliamherbert 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Copying my comment from the DRV: BJAODN stopped being funny ages ago. There was no bar for inclusion and all of the entries were mere boring tripe, vandalism of the lamest variety. This is not anything worth preserving. As many others have pointed out, keeping it around as a shrine to vandals runs counter to the principle of Denying vandals recognition. We should take a cue from how real world local governments deal with vandalism: they clean it up as soon as possible, leaving no trace that it was ever there. This is the best way to discourage vandals, by showing them that all of their effort is for naught. The worst thing you can do is put it up on a pedestal where hundreds times more people will eventually see it, and perhaps be "inspired" by it, than if you simply just painted it over and never mentioned it again. --Cyde Weys 02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A good argument, but speedy deleting it like this is still very inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thou shalt fight vandalism - fight, I say! (Bureauracy watch)

I don't think I can really say anything here, but can someone please troutwhack some sense into various discussions at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit? We now have a well-supported proposal here, here, and here, to set up some sort of elite cabal force of superpowered vandal emergency response team. This would appear to me to be bureaucratic process-creep - FFS, it's only reverting a page. Also, proposals to limit CVU membership to people to a certain amount of reverts, and as part of the above, some proposal to set up vandal-fighting "shifts". IMO we do not want a private army. This would appear to be what we're getting. BTW, where's the evidence current RCP practice is failing? Moreschi ^Talk 13:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically we've gone from one extreme to another? Unbelievable. The things I'm seeing in User:Titoxd/Sandbox/CVU FR task force are actually quite alarming. OK - people! Newflash: RC patrolling is not saving lives! Sit around with recent changes open, or Lupin's recent changes feed, exert some clue, whack some idiots, report to AIV, lather, rinse, repeat. Why, oh why, do we require shifts, limited access to tools, even more layering... a 14 year old who knows how to find their monobook can install Twinkle. Please take a step back and read it through fresh eyes, you may realise how silly it all sounds. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can feel Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (fifth nomination) rising up within me. — Moe ε 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tried MfD coupla days ago: didn't work. Since then, it appears the CVU has spiralled from being useless to being actually harmful - at least potentially. Someone please inject clue, with trouts if need be. Moreschi ^Talk 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This actually seems to be a sensible idea: It doesn't need to be as bureaucratic as it seems to be, but having a template of people who may be doing something else but who can help with vandalism if asked and setting up a channel for collaboration would be conducive to the security of the encyclopedia. We'd not have users tripping over one another in the wee hours in the morning, but we'd still be able to deal with vandalbots. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not that template so much. See the comment:

Well why not have CVU First Responders. When I say this I mean a established task force not just the Vandal Fighters who we typically assume to be in the front lines. My suggestion would include a task force where you would agree to be available for a certain part of the day to fight a sudden outbreak of massive vandalism. We could have 2 hour shifts were you could sign up to be involved in one of the shifts. To inform you when it was your time perhaps we could create a bot to leave messages on the users talk pages when there shift began.

This has WP:CREEP written all over it. Glorifying the process of reverting isn't needed. — Moe ε 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shifts and bots do seem a little over the top, but it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to generate a list of available users. Is there actually an issue here that requires the attention of all administrators? --ST47Talk·Desk 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is - the sanctioned development of cliques and potentially elitist groups within the admin ranks. If a specialist action group is formed, with the communities blessing, then they are possibly going to start driving community practices within that area. This would be very bad. Admins are supposed to represent and act on behalf of the community, but those who form part of any specialist grouping will be going beyond that remit; therefore it is up to the rest of the mop wielders to remind those admins of their responsibilities.

Hmmm... I suppose I ought try posting some of this over there. LessHeard vanU 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which specialists? Which new practices? The system that I proposed just allows people to show that they're online or not, in case they so desire. The task force, as of right now, is the template, and not much else. No shifts, no membership requirements, no segregation, no voting, no anything. So what is objectionable about it, besides the connotations surrounding the CVU? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that some sort of shift system or sign-up sheet or log is a bad idea. It would be nice to have a way of guiding people to the times in most need of coverage. DGG (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Moe, want to try actually supporting your assertions with actual evidence? How is anything purely optional problematic, especially when the "mandatory" time shifts were rejected? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  If you want to revert vandalism, then press the "undo" button. Don't bother with this "first responders" team. Sean William @ 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Well, if it were that simple, then there would be no IRC anti-vandalism feeds, nor a WP:AIV. Essentially, this is something to bring the IRC anti-vandalism tools to the wiki. Many of the more "scandalous" proposals, such as time-shifts, and membership requirements, were shot down. All it boils down to is a list of who is online and who can help out if things are needed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I've done quite a lot of RC patrol, and the template idea sounds very useful to me. It would be handy to be able to contact other folks actively seeking out vandalism. The other material, which Moe Epsilon mentions, has been dealt with "in house," as it were, as Titoxd says. --Moonriddengirl 22:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Okay now ladies and gents. The original plan was developed by moi. As were the "scandalous" proposals. I created a suggestion that through consensus has now been brought down to a much more reasonable level of coordination amongst vandalfighters. I realize that my original statement was farfetched, but lets just take what we have now. We have a plan to have a Task Force of the CVU where editors can interact in such a way as to more effectivly deal with vandalism. I'm sure that even some of you who absoloutly despise this proposal would agree with this idea if it had just been proposed without any of the discussion. The discussion has created a proposal that I believe is quite reasonable. If you want to bash me and the plan into a million pieces feel free. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I have one additional comment regarding Moreschi's question on where is WP:RCP failing take a look at these diffs. This one is a edit that was made by a user changing MartinBots soft talk page redirect template to Martinp23 to a "hard-on" redirect template. As you and I well know there is no such thing and we all know the implication. It wasn't until here that i over 24 hours later reverted the edit. There is a example of RCP missing vandalism. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no danger of WP:CREEP in the CVU proposal. WP:CREEP is about instruction creep; the proposal doesn't include instructing anyone to do anything. Secondly, administrators aren't here to police Wikiprojects and the ideas they may discuss, so this is not the place for this discussion. Waggers 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a few responses explaining how and why this is a bad idea, but I suspect another MFD may be needed in short order because circumstances have changed significanly in the past few days. The last organization, to my knowledge, that tried something like this was Esperanza, and we all know how that one turned out. >Radiant< 11:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, Radiant, all of the "bad ideas" you addressed on the page were either discarded previously or are under debate (the name). So, I'm not sure what the Esperanza analogy has to do with this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that until this thing actually forms, don't worry about. I think that most if not all of these concerns are going to be dealt with. --Mschel 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But... but we have to destroy the enemy! We cannot back down from the fight! Ahem, yes. Sarcasm intended. --Deskana (banana) 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

rant 2

What in the world is the problem now? Have you all grown so fearful of cabals, imaginary or real, that you will start closing wikiprojects next? Because this is about what it is - a wikiproject - a gathering of people that wish to improve Wikipedia in an organized fashion. For some reason, they are being shunned instead. Out of those criticizing, I wonder how many actually do the dirty anti-vandal work (read: watching the feeds for hours and reverting and reverting...) and out of those who do, how many use IRC for that and know the ropes of the war - yes, I've spent enough time on this in my live to tell you it is a damn war and stop denying that. If some folks want to form a "professional" army, then let them, and if the want to play with time-shifts, let them, and if they want to introduce discipline among their ranks, let them. As long as they do not impact negatively on the rest of the community (like CVU is said to have) by outing non-members or anything like that, there is absolutely no reason to hamper their efforts. Миша13 12:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Except it's not a professional army, a non-professional army, nor it has time shifts or discipline procedures among the non-existent ranks. Heck, the CVU doesn't even have a member list... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

At most, the CVU should give people tools, not organize the use of those tools. The main invitation appears to not be "do you want to use tools to fight vandalism?" or "do you want to use resources (e.g. IRC, external wikis) to coordinate fighting vandalism?", but "do you want to join us to fight vandalism?". Granted, CVU supports all of these things, but focusing on the latter produces a sort of partisanship isn't the most helpful for vandalism-fighting in general. By the way, can we look forward to seeing any more of these Misza13-rants soon? :) Gracenotes^T § 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's my take: our new proposal is precisely one of, "do you want to use resources (e.g. IRC, external wikis) to coordinate fighting vandalism?" We're not encouraging people to join us, and we're not turning people down; we're just a few CVU members who wished there were a way to communicate with other interested CVU members better and more efficiently. The concerns raised previously (above the rant) have already been addressed, and the problematic areas -- shifts, exclusivity, inclusivity, abuse of new "privileges" (of which there are none), WP:CREEP, and so forth -- have all been amended. In a nutshell: this proposal is for a tool to help interested users contact each other. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Sounds like a reasonable idea, although collaboration for the sake of the collaboration isn't always good. Well, at least conversation brought up an important point: IRC is not accessible to everyone. Which is unfortunate, because the en.wikipedia channel shows all changes made to Wikipedia in real time. This would be a very useful tool for vandal-fighters to harness (it's already used for #vandalism-en-wp). Gracenotes^T § 19:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'collaboration for the sake of collaboration'; both Moonriddengirl and I have expressed the desire to see who else is actively fighting vandalism at the time, so as to get a second set of eyes on any recalcitrant vandalism in progress. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By "collaboration for the sake of collaboration", I meant: don't establish a system just because you can. Make sure it's actively helping Wikipedia, rather than becoming dead weight. You know, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and all. Gracenotes^T § 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd (talk · contribs)

This user is currently on IRC.

This user is an administrator.

Well, more or less what I had thought of is a way to automate and extend the table I put up above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't fight vandals. It's not a war. Vandalism is something to be reverted, and vandals are stupid people who are blocked and ignored. It's no more complicated than that. Moreschi ^Talk 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vandal-fighting" does not necessarily imply militaristic engagement, or at least (in my mind) shouldn't. It merely refers to collaboratively undoing the effects of vandalism. Now, I hate to draw an analogy to war (for obvious reasons), but defense is often more complicated than offense. Gracenotes^T § 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"War is a prolonged state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people." Let's see...

• It is prolonged alright - pretty much ever since Wikipedia was founded and made open.
• I would say it's violent, with many vandals wanting to DESTROY WIKIPEDIA!!!!one!!!1 and a few equally angry admins on the other side.
• Quite large-scale, given that it involves the entire site.
• Conflict this clearly is.
• And involves just about two groups of people.

Yup, checks out as a war for me. Let's also throw in the vandals (not all of whom are as stupid as the average "Replaced page with "pooooo"" vandals) that continuously seek weak spots in the system and ways to abuse and circumvent the defensive measures set up by admins and developers, who also tirelessly work on improving the durability and security, and you might realize there is also an arms race going on. Do not deny what's obvious just because it doesn't fit your vision. Миша13 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

Resolved

 Note: 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC) no action yet taken, would another admin please do so? GRBerry

Someone may want to look at closing this AFD. It was a part of 3 sub articles to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn all nominated together. The other 2 AFDs are closed, but this one is still open (since 5-AUG). Though I didn't participate in the AFD, I was involved in some discussion at one of the other (now deleted) related articles so I'm not really a neutral party to close this.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Isotope23 for posting this notice. This AfD seems to be missing from the category lists of open debates on the main AfD page, which may be why it has not been closed yet. The main AfD page shows the oldest open debate dated Aug 9, but this one was started on Aug 5.

For context, although it was nominated at the same time as the other articles Isotope23 mentioned (I think there were more than three, possibly five, and some were deleted but one of them was kept), please consider this article separately when closing the AfD because those other articles were loosely in the same topic area, but each of the articles is a stand alone page. It was not a group of articles intended to work together. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Troubling. It doesn't seem to have been transcluded into any of the AFD daily logs. DRV regulars would probably recommend a relist solely on that basis. This was an error by the nominator; he forgot the lead "The" in adding it to the daily log. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_5&diff=prev&oldid=149401582 diff). Relist anyone? GRBerry 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's going to be relisted, which I don't object to myself, somebody should really look into the sockpuppetry that's been going on, I think the evidence is pretty convincing, but then I've been wrong before. Anyway, take a look: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. If the evidence is not convincing, could someone at least advse Kephera975 not to canvass for delete !votes by repeating the same arguments over and over to everyone who !votes keep? IPSOS (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought canvassing meant trying to persuade people on their talk pages to side with you. I apologize if I'm doing something out of line. Please do let me know if I have to be less talkative. Also, I apologize for making the mistake with the word "the". Thanks. Kephera975 04:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you were warned on your talk page but chose to ignore, normally one lists their arguments for deletion and then let's the other editors discuss. It gives the appearance of a "campaign" to keep arguing your case with everyone who disagrees with you. The process works fine without such canvassing. IPSOS (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

←I don't know if this needs to be re-listed, since there are 12 editors who have entered comments and there is a consensus to keep, or at least not to delete.

But if wider participation is desired and it is relisted, I ask that the existing page and its history be archived in some way and not deleted. It could be moved to the talk page, or closed as no consensus and then a new relist opened with a new page title, or perhaps the page could be renamed. There is a lot of content on this AfD page that several editors worked on, as well as evidence of possible sockpupptery in the page history that may be useful later and may be referenced in a couple of open WP:SSP reports, so I request that however it is handled, please do not delete the page history. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the usual way this would be done would to be to close and archive the current AfD, and for neutral party who did not participate previously to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (2nd), listing it as a procedural renom, linking to the old AfD so arguments don't need to be repeated at length, and registering 'no opinion' as nominator rather than the usual assumed delete !vote. On the other hand, I think it could be closed as Keep now rather than going through the process again... IPSOS (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So, is it really ok for a non admin to close an AfD?? Kephera975 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes - but never to close as delete, because an admin is needed to delete and they would have to validate the close. Non-admins should only close when the decision is obvious. A no consensus close was obvious; the failure to transclude (successfully) onto the daily pages meant that a delete or keep close would be overturned at DRV upon request. Basic procedural fairness problems, like failure to transclude or failure to tag the page under discussion, mean that the discussion has a non-representative participant sample, and thus can't demonstrate community consensus. GRBerry 05:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating misrepresentations

Resolved

Over the past few weeks, I've been involved with editing Herbert W. Armstrong, after I was brought in as an uninvolved third party during an article dispute. One of the other editors in the dispute has done an amazing job of assuming bad faith. He accuses me of trying to start a revert duel here, and then claims that my logging off due to a low battery was part of an attempt to bait him into a WP:3RR violation. He says that I and an anon editor opened up a complaint against him, when we posted to it after someone else opened it -- before I was involved with the article. He also says that we "cite policy incessantly".

When I attempted to summarize his extremely lengthy talk page comments so that other people could more easily get a sense of what the discussion was about (summarizing everyone else's posts in the same style, and collapsing the original posts), he told me that he "won't allow anyone to summarize or characterize in their own words what I wrote." He says that I have "unfortunately put yourself in a position to get brushed aside". He has repeatedly characterized himself as a "new editor", despite having made his first edit in October 2006.

He also said that I restored a deleted comment of his, when it was someone else who did it, because they felt the deletion put their response out of context.

I'm getting pretty close to the end of my rope here. I don't think this is near the end of the dispute resolution process yet, but with the frequent attacks on my motives, I'm getting close to washing my hands of the whole thing, and I don't think that will be good for the article, or for later editors.

Thoughts? --SarekOfVulcan 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts: I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment here, as I am not an admin; my apologies if I am out of place. I believe the user in question is a very bad wikipedian. He explicitly asserts ownership, always assumes bad faith, is consistently insulting even in his initial transactions with other editors, uses numerous sockpuppets and not-exactly-puppet dynamic IP's instead of his real account despite numerous warnings (which breaks up his edit history, which is going to be tough on the mediators / arbitrators), edits Talk pages, and is a zealot who will not "permit" use of mainstream sources like TIME magazine on his highly-idealized biography of a religious figure. His sole contributions to Wikipedia are about this religious sect, and are highly POV. He has exhausted the patience of several editors, and I am very sorry to read that he's exhausting you, too. I think the solution for the article is to go to arbitration ASAP unless he is able to produce a comprehensive NPOV version by this weekend (FYI to other editors: the problem user asked for several weeks to rewrite the article; time is almost up). I do not think there is a solution to the editor himself. He interprets courtesy as an attack and will not accept help, correction, or reproof from administrators. I've never seen anything like him before in my Wiki experiences. -- Lisasmall 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

From the page header: "This is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on the English Wikipedia. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here."--SarekOfVulcan 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I filed an WP:RFARB here.--SarekOfVulcan 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Prolix

Is there anything to be done about excessive posts to a policy talk page? I am trying to facilitate a consensus following an edit war on WP:BLP, in which I admittedly participated. Another participant in the edit war has added 20,000+ bytes to the talk page and made 51 of the 57 total edits there today alone.

I'm not sure what to do. He hasn't stepped over the line of civility or anything else specific as far as I can tell so I don't want to mention him by name. But his contributions are so voluminous and frequent it is difficult to continue discussion. To my mind they are frequently argumentative, off topic, verbose, and even a little bizarre. He has edit conflicts with himself and frequently revises his earlier comments to add tidbits or change his statements. I'm afraid most people have tuned out and that this will spoil any attempt to discuss the policy and reach consensus to avoid further edit warring. I've asked him a few times to be concise and on topic but to no avail at all.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Is there any policy on this or must we just live with it? Thx, Wikidemo 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy I have ever seen, but posting 20k per day to a talk page is not an effective way to communicate, as this editor will learn in time. I would just ignore the excessive posts and make the person write more succinctly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought...but I don't think "will learn in time" applies here. He's an old timer and has gotten blocked frequently, ten times in the last year. Thirteen more edits today and the day is only two hours old (by UTC). I've given up on actually reading everything he's saying but he seems to have just refactored / reordered things he said over the last day...and now he's giving me all kinds of warnings about NPA, saying he only wants to hear proposals from editors who have been active at least a year, not six months (I've been on about 8 months, he has for a couple years), etc. I have that "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore" feeling about this. It seems to be heading for a meltdown. I should just walk away but the edit protection on the policy page ends soon and I can see it's headed for a renewed edit war if people can't discuss it constructively.Wikidemo 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try to get participants to agree to a word-count limit on the Talk page. See for instance, at WP:COIN, Please limit all statements to 200 words or less. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long, drawn-out speeches. Then if over-long comments are posted, reply to the commenter, and ask them to replace their posting with a shorter one. EdJohnston 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucracy watch

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting, people have apparently gotten into the habit of voting for "coordinators". This strikes me as unwiki. Input would be appreciated. >Radiant< 12:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Other projects do that too. That's where we got the idea.Rlevse 12:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They're asking people to be co-ordinators, not Rulers of the Universe. Co-ordinator is hardly a bureaucratic title. Neil ム 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With 142 members, I do not think they need 5 of them though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It started with WP:MILHIST a while ago. I don't think it's necessary, and I do worry about walled gardens, but there's other things more worthy of attention.--cj | talk 14:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A coordinator is someone who simply coordinates various aspects of the project- we have two sub-projects, we have one editor who is highly competent with image issues, we have one who leads article improvements and so forth. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, we need someone to be the co-ordinator of the Bureaucracy watch... violet/riga (t) 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Except it obviously works extremely well for WP:MILHIST, which is well noted as a featured article generating machine. Maybe stop hating on structures that are only designed to help, and obviously work to do so? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record WP:MILHIST has well over 100 featured articles between the letters A and K. And yet they have NINE coordinators. Wow. I guess they're not that bad for the project, huh? Maybe it's because the job of coordinator helps get articles through the peer review, A class, and other reviews. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators what's wrong with a designated project member helping coordinate/facilitate project activities and/or providing info on a topic, such as image tagging, they're an expert on? Scouting is smaller than MILHIST, but still is improving many articles, many to FA status.Sumoeagle179 21:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Success often follows from effective leadership. Leadership is not itself fundamentally unwiki. The bestowment of titles for the sake of it and with little encyclopedic impact is, on the other hand. Furthermore, there is no admin button (that I have, anyway) which allows me to 'Depose coordinator'. Splash - tk 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators are elected by the calendar year and may retire at any time. Guess I need to do a conventions page explaining this. There are no requirements other than the obvious ones of activity and editorial skill. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do you do yours annually? Milhist does it every six months, and WP:LGBT does it every three months for our deputy coordinators. I think it varies by the needs of the project. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid 142 members is a bit misleading- we don't have near that number really active. This is a bit of a specialty project, but I think we have made quite a difference in the quality of the Scouting articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't bestow titles for its own sake. We ask people to become coordinators, they accept (by acclamation or vote), and do their tasks as well as they can. We do this to improve our project, improve our articles, and so people have known knowledgeable, hopefully expert, project members to go to for certain areas. One of our coordinators is superb at image tagging and licensing, one at getting an article to FA status, etc. I truly fail to see what is wrong with this, these things are prime goals of wiki after all. And Gadget850 is correct, the scouting area of wiki had 0 FAs prior to the project being formed and now there are 14 Scouting FAs, plus A-class, GA, and other many and varied accomplishments of the project.Rlevse 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as there's no illusion that the voted-for representatives are any more than project representatives agreed upon by some consensus process within that project, I don't see any problem with it. Some projects need or favour such an approach, others don't. Orderinchaos 05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How many articles does Wikipedia delete per day?

A few months ago I recall a stastic that this site deletes around 5000 pages a day. Been looking for confirmation of that and can't find it anywhere. I'll accept estimates from the CSD regulars if that's the best we can do. Would appreciate help! Durova^Charge! 14:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This (warning, may take a while to load) shows that the last 5000 deletions (including images, pages, categories, templates, redirects, and so on) took place over a span of last 24 hours 55 minutes. 5000 pages in 24 hours is probably a little high based on that (although it tends to be higher when school is in, thanks to the friends of gays). Maybe 4000 a day. Neil ム 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the stats for all of august:

+---------------------+----------------------+
| date(log_timestamp) | count(log_timestamp) |
+---------------------+----------------------+
| 2007-08-01          |                 5375 | 
| 2007-08-02          |                 5042 | 
| 2007-08-03          |                 7971 | 
| 2007-08-04          |                 3733 | 
| 2007-08-05          |                 5767 | 
| 2007-08-06          |                 9873 | 
| 2007-08-07          |                 4379 | 
| 2007-08-08          |                 3551 | 
| 2007-08-09          |                 4240 | 
| 2007-08-10          |                 7756 | 
| 2007-08-11          |                 4273 | 
| 2007-08-12          |                 7056 | 
| 2007-08-13          |                 5546 | 
| 2007-08-14          |                 4425 | 
| 2007-08-15          |                 3214 | 
+---------------------+----------------------+
15 rows in set (31.88 sec)

August '05 we were deleting about 1000 per day, August '06 averaging 3000, and 6 months ago averaging 5000. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thank you very much for the breakdown. Durova^Charge! 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But how much if NawlinWiki went on break... --W.marsh 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That user only has bout 200/day, so not much of en effect - not even if our #1 admin in terms of deletions, misza13, left would there be much of a dent  :) --ST47Talk·Desk 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts about breaking this down by ns? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Miszabot deletes mostly images though, right? I thought we were talking about articles. NawlinWiki's stats there are pretty staggering. --W.marsh 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually,Miszabot archives talk pages. Misza13 does deletions, but is presumably a real person. Natalie 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm making an effort to get the word out and address this on the non-Wikipedian side of the equation. When more people understand the scope of this project we may succeed in reversing the trend. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Think about all the wasted effort that goes into creating pages that get deleted (and the admin efforts to delete them). Granted, some are created as vandalism. But I'm sure many if not most are due to users not creating appropriate articles/uploading inappropriate images. It is rather staggering. I guess that's what your hinting at Durova? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Very much so. :) Durova^Charge! 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go, per namespace:

date	(Main)	Talk	User	_talk	Wikipedia	_talk	Image	_talk	Template	_talk	Category	_talk
2007-08-01	1584	273	162	64	8	1	3015	56	39	16	141	11
2007-08-02	1376	907	104	83	12	3	2272	39	103	11	122	7
2007-08-03	1406	3790	143	63	9	0	2366	47	56	8	76	7
2007-08-04	1272	336	98	53	30	7	1498	27	62	1	344	5
2007-08-05	1295	2166	99	24	18	6	1914	70	39	4	120	12
2007-08-06	1462	5834	208	171	20	2	1926	124	56	17	51	2
2007-08-07	1352	242	205	232	15	6	2188	34	28	2	68	6
2007-08-08	1378	244	164	164	7	7	1407	16	41	13	100	9
2007-08-09	1661	293	227	250	14	5	1281	26	350	15	108	10
2007-08-10	1359	4379	227	48	10	3	1137	14	36	18	499	23
2007-08-11	1166	235	122	153	21	11	2153	201	35	0	168	3
2007-08-12	1031	3398	145	72	8	3	1841	38	378	8	118	16
2007-08-13	1562	2230	256	184	13	1	931	80	122	56	88	22
2007-08-14	1458	253	115	66	192	45	1650	24	329	65	178	28
2007-08-15	1501	769	142	78	8	6	2131	35	37	3	84	14

Images seem to be most active, although my bot does at most one third of that. Mainspace is less fluctuating. Talk: stats are tained by DerHexer occasionally mass-deleting talk pages of redirects. There's also the BJAODN spike in Wikipedia: on 14th. Cheers, Миша13 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (I tweaked the table headings a bit to make them narrower. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, that's interesting. I think that the image numbers are true for this period also, as opposed to most of July when we were clearing the 30 day backlog. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If these are straight log counts, one small tweak is needed to adjust the numbers. Restorations are in the deletion log, and are effectively a -1 to the pages deleted per day count. In January, when I last did a detailed review, restores were runing about 1.1% of all log activity. This was down from ~2% in December 2006. So net deletions is about probably about 96% to 98% of the numbers. (User space, followed by Main space were the spaces with the highest restore rate, but even user space was below 4%.) GRBerry 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deceased editor

Resolved

 – account blocked / userpage protected - Alison ☺ 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Garden, Baron Garden, lately deceased, appears to have occasionally edited Wikipedia as Tgarden (talk · contribs). If an admin concurs, perhaps it would be best to disable the account? Choess 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to make an unsavory joke here, but erm if he is dead, how is he going to edit ? Jackaranga 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Accounts of deceased users are usually blocked indefinitely, AFAIK to prevent account compromise. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've have indefinitely blocked the account and protected the userpage. An appropriate message has been added to the user and talk pages - Alison ☺ 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See also his section at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians if anyone has something to add. James086^{Talk | Email} 23:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN performing large-scale AWB edits, merges and redirects without clear consensus

This needs administrator attention but I don't know where to report it. I'm posting here on the advice of User:Parsifal after getting his opinion on the matter. TTN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been making hundreds of high-speed AWB edits to add merge or move tags, then doing the redirects himself soon after with edit summaries that claim there is consensus or no discussion. In many cases, he did not allow sufficient time for consensus discussion to take place, or did not make a good enough effort to verify that people were aware of the discussion in the first place. I don't believe he is necessarily violating policies - in fact, he appears to be interpreting several of them (most notably WP:FICT, WP:BRD and WP:N), but his merges are clearly disruptive to a large number of editors (as can be seen on his talk page), and my attempts to talk to him about this have not appeared to help matters at all.

The pages he's moving relate to multiple WikiProjects, including WikiProject Video games (which I'm participating in actively). Many editors on the Wikiproject page have expressed concerns about his behavior and approach, but he refuses to stop. Most of the time, he counters by citing WP policies (even in the face of questions about how he's interpreting those policies), and in some cases stating that he's going to continue on his campaign because he knows what's right. (Here's an example of such a statement: [12]) His AWB tag placements and mass redirects and are easy to see in his contribs because there are so many of them. There is also a long discussion on the CVGProj Talk page, where we basically made almost no headway and in which I repeatedly advised him to slow down and be patient with the discussion. (His general tone came across to me as "Can I merge it now? Can I? Huh?")

Would someone please take a look and either ask him to stop and respect consensus, or advise me where the correct place is for me to post this notice? I thought about WP:AIV, but I wasn't sure if this would be considered vandalism or not. I also considered WP:RFC or WP:RFC/U but he is moving so fast with the automated edits, by the time an RFC could do anything, the damage would be unrecoverable.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Thanks! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind giving an example or two of where he went ahead and performed a merge against consensus? Where there was a discussion, and the proposal was defeated, but he merged anyway? i ^said 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get these together as I have time. I haven't done a great deal of research into this (haven't had the time, and I'm on a tight time budget now as well), but here's some evidence of his tendency to push things through:

• "There is no discussing this part" (preceded and followed by reverts)
• Merge discussion on Talk:Scrubs (TV series) - please read TTN's replies to the discussion. So far, everyone who has responded to the initial merge proposal has opposed it, and TTN has insisted on pushing through a merge anyway.
  • This seems to be the pattern in almost every merge discussion TTN takes part in.
• I cannot find a specific example where TTN violated a clear consensus, but see this diff and a few diffs following that one (linked to the CVGProj discussion) where he merged without a clear consensus.
  • That discussion also has at least one user calling out TTN's apparent general practice of discounting the opinions of people who have dropped out of the discussion or haven't been able to reply in a timely manner.

I hope this will help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For the first diff that was ok per WP:BOLD, and it was reverted without discussion. There should have been discussion by the reverter, and there was not. In the Scrubs discussion, TTN is backed by policy and guideline, (WP:NN, WP:V, WP:WAF) the opposes were WP:ILIKEIT or similar related opinions. As for Goomba, I read the discussion and when TTN merged them, he had asked at least twice for anyone else objecting, and no one did. The converstation had waned. The following revert war (including an admin) was awful. I personally agree with TTN on most matters relating to cruft, but I do agree he is a bit more agressive than he needs to be. i ^said 01:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to address some points the next time I have some time, but quickly I agree that I am fairly harsh and pushy, but there really is no alternative way to go about it sometimes. People are used to the current state of the site. They think it is fine to cover topics without establishing some sort of real world notability, so they either ignore the set, totally non-disputed policies and guidelines, really cannot grasp them at all, or they just completely avoid the topic all together, usually throwing comments back at me any way that they can (usually about the merging).

I have to make it clear to those who ignore them that they cannot be ignored or passed off as nothing, explain it to the people that just don't get it, and deal with the turnabout people without trying to stab myself. They don't take it very well at all, and they are the majority of the people that I deal with. That requires constant pushing (or else everything just somehow falls apart), so sometimes that may leak into normal discussions that actually deal with how the articles can fit the guidelines and policies. I should probably watch that a little more, but otherwise, there really is no actual alternative other than just dropping any sort of merging/redirecting, which I don't plan on doing. TTN 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator category proposal

I edit mostly science articles, and I don’t know how many times I’ve had to go looking for a science-related admin to help with a page move, topic specific help, or what-ever. With this in mind, I would suggest grouping admins by category (as well as by the alphabetized list). Basically, a Wikipedia:List of administrators of 1,100+ admins really doesn’t help editors find the help they need. In addition, with the growing number of admins, I would suggest that there is some effort using (requiring to have) admins that are knowledgeable in certain articles (or afds) to resolve issues (or close) in those areas to which they edit in or have knowledge in. An admin who was a degree in the history of science, for instance, would be well-trained to close on science history related afds, rather than random admins. In sum, I suggest that admins be categorized in some way and that there be some effort in the future to have admins close on afds to which he or she has knowledge in. In this manner, countless hours of volunteer work of well-intentioned editors can be spared, through needless mistakes. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We're janitors, not golden robed priests. We don't need to be a historical expert to see that an AfD on The Ascent of Austrian Royalty shows a strong consensus to keep, etc. Categorizing by skills like 'history merges', 'AFD closers', 'Speedy deleters', etc would be more useful, if you were to do such. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking at the relevant wikiproject; most of those have a bunch of admins involved. >Radiant< 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, Radiant and I agree on something. Yeah! Find the appropriate project from the project list and ask them for help. Start here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory.Rlevse 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the loose ideas. The issue, however, is not just about afds; a grouping would be useful for subtleties, e.g. admins who like doing cleanup in the image categories, admins who like doing page moves, admins who can see the sub-topic (i.e. topic specific) issues in drawn-out edit wars, admins who like doing page protects, etc. I spend enough time as it is on project pages, this really doesn’t help speed the process. A good point to start would be a proposal to have all admins categorize themselves, beyond the standard:

• Category:Wikipedia administrators
• Category:Wikipedia administrators (science)
• Category:Wikipedia administrators (who like doing page protects)
• Category:Wikipedia administrators (who like to mediate)
• Category:Wikipedia administrators (history)
• Category:Wikipedia administrators (who like to help in troll issues)
• Category:Wikipedia administrators (images)

These are just rough ideas, but aren’t editors and administrators supposed to work together? Thus, when I see comments such as “maybe we should hide our mops for a while”, etc., I see an elusive wall building. Adding categories would help break down the wall, i.e. bring more of a connection between administrators and the editors. This is an idea (clean-up project) that I was hoping that one or two admins would take the lead on and get the other admins involved. --Sadi Carnot 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very terrible idea, but I suppose the bureacracy watchers will disagree? :) Seriously though - if you asked me about page moves or history merges I'd have to point you to someone else, but I can more or less deal with vandalism, page protections and images, for example. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in administrators categorising themselves as such, as long as there is no requirement to do so. I wouldn't say this is bureaucratic if there are no requirements or prerequisites to placing yourself in such a category. Of course, we'd have to work on the above names, as calling an administrator to help with a "troll" might be quite insulting if such a person isn't a troll. WP:CREEP wouldn't apply... as they're on categories, not instructions. --Deskana (banana) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest: Category:Wikipedia administrators (who dislike being in categories) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the purpose of more categories. Everyone knows I'm an admin, that should be enough... besides, there's very little a regular editor can't do when it comes to plain article editing. An expert user is the same as an expert admin. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My inner smartass couldn't resist.[13] Durova^Charge! 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here’s an example of where an editor was looking for Iranian admins to ask for a Farsi spelling. From the discussion, we see that admin categories are very useful for users (or serious editors) in need of janitorial assistance, i.e. clean-up things they can’t do on their own, because they don’t have admin tools. As User:Lar (admin) puts it: "It is useful to know who the admins are and categories have advantages over lists". --Sadi Carnot 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One wonders why said user could not have asked a normal editor at WP:IRAN if he was after someone who spoke Farsi. Oh indeed checked Category:User fa. Is there some reason why only administrators are fit to pronounce on spellings? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't need administrative tools to do translations, though. Couldn't such questions be addressed by, say, the Languages Reference Desk? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this idea at all. --Cyde Weys 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of being an admin then if you’re not willing to make yourself available (by category) for users who need your help? --Sadi Carnot 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason not to have some categories,, just as for admins who will userify articles on request. DGG (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin has nothing to do with specific knowledge categories. Admins have the special ability to do a few special things, none of which have to do with actual content. I don't see the point, what is worse is that I see people taking an admin's(science) opinion of a user's(science) opinion.

The categories relating to specific type of behavioral problems may be handy, I seem to remember there was a cat for admins who would deal with heated issues, forgot what it is though. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting news article about attacks on WP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm is a story about a new tool, Wikipedia Scanner. It has determined that quite a few organizations POV push on WP including CIA, Democratic Party, Vatican, Diebold Company. Therefore, everyone should be alert that is someone is stubborn or POV pushing, he or she may be working for an organization trying to improve its image or attack another article. Polounit 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, and that is only a small part of them that would be detected by this tool, because I am guessing it only looks at anonymous users, who’s IP addresses are visible, as it would require sysop rights to see the IP address behind a registered user. I have noticed this on many occasions though, that companies modify the articles about themselves. I wish some of the admins closing AfDs would keep this in mind when examining the notability criteria, and not just going with the majority, and closing as keep so as to not offend the company. I’m guessing it’s the same in paper encyclopaedias though, as regards governmental propaganda. The difference is most paper encyclopaedias make no mention of products, especially such as little known software. What I find more worrying is people pushing badly established points of view on articles most wikipedians know little about. For example on the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, there is a lot of discussion, which can only have a positive effect, but on some articles relating to the countries that used to form Yugoslavia for example, there are much fewer people who are knowledgeable on the subject, and racist or propaganda can leak through undetected. Jackaranga 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Just a minor correction) Sysops can't see the IP behind registered accounts either, actually only checkusers can do that, and even then only if they have good cause to believe you're sockpuppeting or they have some other compelling reason. That scanner is a useful tool, though, as I'd guess plenty of people really do just click the "Edit this page" button. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The news story seems to have travelled. It merited more than a page in today's El Periódico de Catalunya, the best-selling newspaper in Catalonia (article is here at time of posting, but gets archived quite quickly). It has also apparently been picked up on Canadian Radio, who claim to have dug out some silly goings-on from 2006 involving Montreal City Hall and the article Frank Zampino... just to let people know! Physchim62 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral admin needed to close article move discussion

This discussion is now ten days old and needs to be closed with a decision on consensus: Talk:Allegations_of_Saudi_Arabian_apartheid#Proposal. Thanks. Lothar of the Hill People 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins have no special power to close discussions when there exists a consensus. That being said, there does seem to be a consensus. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Merge proposal closed and merge performed

BCBot and commons

Ive started a bot to move images to commons please see User:Betacommand/Commons β^_command 05:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your list is broken at "Wikihermit", FYI. Incidentally, how did you make that list? I see I am on there. I have not had too much involvement in images, and it doesn't look like enough to be all admins. Prodego ^talk 05:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It started out as a subset of admins, (admins that I know) and then I tossed a few non-admins that I know I can trust. then there was the approval process. β^_command 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Batman2005's user page

I removed a few sections from his user page (the section where he labels certain users as "dead to him", calls admins one where he labels a fraternity as gay, where he labels Freddy Adu as a homosexual by linking him to oral sex and sucking. Basically, under no personal attacks and no soapboxing. This happened a year ago, and it's snuck back on there. I removed it, he reverted. I warned him, and removed the comments again, he's just reverted again. I have told him to stopitnow, but a second pair of eyes would be appreciated, as if he puts it back again I'm going to block him. Neil ム 09:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And with a 3rd revert to keep his personal attacks on there, he's now blocked for 3 hours while this is sorted out. Neil ム 09:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You should have just protected the page. El_C 09:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, then it would need to be protected indefinitely, as the second it was unprotected, the attacks and soapboxing would have returned, and not being able to edit your user page forever is a far bigger crimp then not being able to edit for a couple of hours. The hope is that a short block (emphasise short, 3 hours is not long) will make the user understand what is and is not acceptable. He's asked to be unblocked, citing my bringing it for discussion following the block as a reason. I brought it here for discussion as to whether 3 hours was correct, and a review of my actions, not for advice on the initial course of action. Neil ム 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing your "action," which includes everything, from the beginning. Your "I brought it here for discussion as to whether 3 hours was correct, and a review of my actions, not for advice on the initial course of action" is play on semantics. El_C 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was an aside to the fact of his unblock request (complaining I brought it here after blocking him), not your comments. Sorry for the confusion. Neil ム 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, but in any case, it would have helped to keep the discussion unfragmented, if anything. But since the user refused my offer to unblock him and protect the page so that he could participate here (despite arguing that the block was imposed to prevent such participation), it's a nonissue. El_C 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization of his page, and the removal of his "joke" went a bit far. Yes, it was bad taste, but wikipedia is not censored. I do not see him labelling Freddy Adu as a homosexual by linking "suck" to "oral sex" either. Are you perhaps being a bit sensitive? Kyaa the Catlord 09:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyaa, if you say "Freddy Adu [[oral sex|sucks]]", what else could it mean? That was a minor point, the main issue is the incivility, soapboxing, and personal attacks. Neil ム 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was a child, my mother used to wash my mouth out with soap when I said something "sucked" cause it was a dirty word, referring to oral sex. Of course, this wasn't completely removed from the page, it was simply just unlinked. The meaning still remains despite the edit war over his linking to it. The removal of his colorful opinion of admins is just silly, a lot of editors feel that admins are the enemy, but we should not be silencing them when they say this, we should be considering if there is any evidence to back their feelings (and based on blocking this guy, I'd have to say "hell yes"). Blocking him for such minor shit is going too far. Of course, you'll probably block me cause I link to NPA issues that occured to me on my userpage now. Batman2005's page may be a minor violation, but seriously, it was never worth edit warring over. Kyaa the Catlord 09:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't care, or, to be more forthright, tried hard enough to get, those bits (I didn't remove them originally; Neil did, my rollback removed them automatically); my only concern relates to the list of users whom he "will not listen to" and which are "dead to him." Targeting Wikiepdia users negatively, even when this is prefaced to be in the spirit of Cobert Report & not as a personal attack, is still an attack. El_C 09:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)bly not. As administrators, shouldn't ya'll be doing something more important than waging in edit wars over something so bloody minor? Kyaa the Catlord 09:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not "so bloody minor." User pages are not to be used to target other editors negatively. El_C 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User pages are not to be used to target anybody (users or otherwise) negatively -WP:LIBEL covers that. Neil ム 10:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• yawn* Putting ones fingers in ones ears and yelling "I'm not listening to you! I'm not listening to you!" is amazingly minor. To blow it out of proportion like this is comedy. Kyaa the Catlord 10:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kyaa, to be fair, you're the one writing miniessays here. El_C 10:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:USER#Inappropriate content:

"There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense."

The contents of this page do just that. This is supposed to be a serious, or at least not a disreputable, enterprise. Additionally, the "People who are not Alright" section is inappropriate - these are living people, and Wikipedia, as a scholarly resource and a public trust, must not be a platform for attacking or ridiculing them. I propose blanking this material.Proabivouac 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's going too far. "Not alright" is very mild. Neil ム 10:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know…if I saw on Wikipedia a page that said I was "not alright" - bearing in mind that the public might not draw the distinctions between userspace and mainspace that we draw - I would think there was something not alright about this encyclopedia. As the subject of an article, as a bystander, or as a journalist, it would lead me to question the fairness of our coverage.Proabivouac 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think any personal comments are wrong. I agree that "not allright" is hardly the most offensive thing to call/label someone, but it is still negative, and still personal, and therefore still a personal attack, albeit a mild one. Our policy is "no personal attacks", not "some personal attacks as long as they're relatively mild and not overly offensive". Waggers 11:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of the content on people's user pages is neither self descriptive, nor encyclopaedic, personally I think the rules could be stricter than they are now. I would back disallowing any user page content that does not either provide useful information about the user, their contributions, or wikipedia content. Also if someone is repeatedly blocked for the same thing over and over, he should have learnt his lesson. Jackaranga 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say about this entire, ridiculous process. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Batman2005 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very good answer, really.Proabivouac 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Batman2005 feels he is entitled to have an enemy list on his user page, but the lack of restraint is a concern. El_C 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because honesty is never a good answer. Let's all smile and wave and pretend that wikipedia is a nice, happy place where everyone gets along. Kyaa the Catlord 12:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're trying to be intentionally provocational, but you are not helping. El_C 12:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. In my opinion, Bats has been ganged up on and has the right to feel the way he does. There has been no effort to try to keep him here, rather he's being isolated and picked on by the peanut gallery for something stupid. Is he out vandalizing articles? Is he being disruptive on article talk pages? I don't believe so. Why doesn't someone mark this resolved and end the kangaroo court already? His userpage has changed and he's shown on his personal talk that he's willing to compromise. (Or are you only seeking input that agrees with you?) Kyaa the Catlord 12:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You may think that you're helping him, and he might think that, but you've been inflaming the situation, I find. El_C 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not picking on him, Kyaa, when I ask: what purpose does it serve? Jokes don't cut it, as this project isn't supposed to be a joke. All of this is published by Wikipedia, reflects upon us, and is our collective responsibility.Proabivouac 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Refactored. Heck with it. I'm taking step 2 of DR and leaving this "discussion". Kyaa the Catlord 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is one of the oldest pages on Wikipedia, non-mainspace. It was speedy deleted 09:30, 14 August 2007 and now that deletion is being discussed here at deletion review. Please consider participating in the discussion. This two-old day issue has spun into an arbitration request and quickly generated other interest. Some additional admin eyes on this growing matter would be of value. There is a thread above on the matter as well. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Abusive and disruptive behaviour by Yamla

I was blocked for no reason and experienced abuse from Yamla in my attempts to contest the block. I could not raise the attention of adminsitrators to unblock me and so I proceeded to alter my talk page continously. I have seen that this attracts the attention of some. However, instead of helping me, an honest editor who has attempted to contribute postively to this laudable encyclopaedia project, Yamla assumed wrongly that I am a vandal and refused to help. Instead, this user protected the talk page of my account as if I was a vandal. This user has also used false pretenses to remove a suggestion that I made when I was blocked. Yamla has falsely claimed that I made a personal attack, which is not true. Please block this aggressive user or suggest a wikibreak, because this administrator is clearly abusing the user's admin powers. WP:AGF is a policy that Yamla has apparently abandoned in my case. How is it that editors in good standing can be treated so poorly? I demand an apology. Thank you for your consideration. Mumun 無文 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page history is a mess of ... I dunno ... reversions and blanking, etc. A number of admins tried to deal with your unblock requests but it looks a lot like you were uncooperative. You were caught in a rangeblock & there's nothing anyone can do until you produce the autoblock ID. User:Yamla commented that your page was being protected for "unblock abuse" which, indeed, it was. To be honest, your best approach would have been to contact the unblock mailing list at [email protected] with as much data as you can. I don't see Yamla as having been abusive here - Alison ☺ 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the edit I removed as a personal attack. Given the editor's obviously heated emotional state, I did not issue a warning. As to protecting the user's talk page, please see the history. Fifty edits in the space of less than an hour with Mumun man refusing to provide the information we were requesting but instead making edits like this and this, etc. etc. I believe that in such circumstances, temporarily protecting the user talk page is appropriate. In this case, the page was protected for 24 hours (and then lifted shortly thereafter). After being unblocked, the editor then went and left this and this. As requested, I did not comment further on the user's talk page. This was also discussed very briefly on unblock-en-l, though the situation was quite confused there. --Yamla 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Mumun man was very confused by what was happening, but didn't take the time to understand the issue. Instead, he began rapidly editing the talk page which rightly ended in protection. A bit more patience and care might go a long way next time. Leebo ^T/C 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There is nothing objectionable about Yamla's actions. Sandstein 21:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the non-support, all. Another honest wikipedia editor who attempted to do good is retired. Thanks. Mumun 無文 21:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing, no one ever blocked you and you weren't accused of doing wrong until you started rapidly making accusations yourself. Are you still confused about what an autoblock is? Leebo ^T/C 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Step back and analyse the situation for a second here. You were rangeblocked (it happens to us all) and that's no reflection upon yourself nor does it appear in your block logs. You overreacted in a big way and repeatedly didn't produce the autoblock ID which would have been your key to getting out of that mess. When the autoblock was lifted/expired, you went gunning for both Clown and Yamla on their talk pages and on here. So what started with an autoblock needlessly escalated into something else altogether - Alison ☺ 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen the autoblock screen, but I've seen a few people lose it after an autoblock because they think they were blocked directly. Maybe we need to add "Do not take this personally!" in really big letter. And maybe make them red and flashing. Natalie 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext will give you an idea as to what shows up. - Alison ☺ 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot more obvious than I thought it was. Maybe the font should be bigger. Natalie 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I got all WP:BOLD and made this minor tweak. What do you think? - Alison ☺ 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely more noticeable! Natalie 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Alison's bold move implied authority, I made this edit to soften things a bit. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is AN3 broken?

I'm alarmed that certain users are given a free pass on WP:AN3. There is a growing number of pretty obvious infractions that are marked as "not handled". If it is a backlog, the page should clearly say so. If there is some other reason not to implement this policy, it should be identified as well. I don't think that "does it really matter?" is an expected response to a AN3 request. It is unsettling to witness how, for a day or two, some requests are skipped by a bunch of guys who perform the blocks and then declared "historical", with no explanation at all.[14] Since the application of WP:3RR has become so awfully selective, we should either rethink the policy or just throw it out the window. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many people report someone to 3RR they are edit warring with. The more experienced edit warriors know how to game 3RR, only reverting precisely 3 times in any 24 hour period, then getting their friends to revert for them (whilst getting their "enemies" blocked for 3RR or baiting them into incivility and complain about it here, pleading absolute unblemished innocence). We need some kind of bot that flags up (say) 10 revisions in a 7 day period, showing longer term edit warring. As far as the actual operation of WP:AN3 goes, though, it seems up to date at the moment, I just did the last few reports. Neil ム 10:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that people reporting their "enemies" should be a problem? Editors are entitled to work within the rules. That's generally how our society works too. And surely it's one of the most effective ways of ensuring the rule is complied with? If I'm involved in an "edit war" on some obscure page, am I supposed to sit and hope an interested third party comes along and exclaims, "hey, I've just found more than 3 reverts in one day. Shame on them. I'll go and spend half an hour reporting it". If you have 3RR, enforce it. If someone performs more than 3 reverts in one day, and that is shown, they should get blocked or warned. If there's a concern about longer term edit warriors, have a new rule about that. But there are going to be edit conflicts on wikipedia; 3RR is about reducing their impact on mainspace. Arbitrary application of the rule promotes well ... arbitrariness and unfairness. Why is admin lottery better than solid rules when it comes to a concrete and comprehensible policy such as 3RR? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I always look at the history of the article in question. Quite often you find that the reporter is as guilty of breaching 3RR as the reportee. Then I block them both ... HAH! (kidding, usually I'd ask them both to stopitnow as they'd both get blocked if they continue). Neil ム 11:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully at WP:3RR it does allow an admin to revert before the letter of the rules is broken, as 3RR is not an allowance but the upper end of the limit. That is also why we have admins, experienced editors who understand the spirit as well as the letter of the rules and guidelines. As for arbitrariness, if more editors were to realise they could be blocked before the 4th edit (depending on the whim on an admim) there might be far less gaming of the system. LessHeard vanU 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This philosophy is wishy-washy and misguided. Systems will always, always, always be gamed. This is just reality. You either have the rule or you don't. What the thing you're talking about promotes is fear of arbitrariness among good users making sensible reverts against POV pushers. I mean, how is the ordinary user supposed to know where the line is drawn? Premonition and psychic powers would be needed! Admins are just editors (some of them aren't even that) who got through admin votes for whatever combination of reasons, and their powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(ecx2) The trouble with AN3 is that too many reports are motivated by a desire to get even rather then to prevent disruption. Blocks are supposed to be preventative and I personally see no point blocking someone for a violation 24 hours after the revert war if the disruption has finished. By that stage the block becomes a punishment rather then a preventative measure. Likewise, one of the cases Ghirla reports above was an editor who was trying to disengage from a dispute. Blocking them for that would have simply been lame and the reporting editor later admitted on my talk page that they were simply looking to even up the score because they felt that editor was harrassing them. Unfortunately they couldn't document the complaint properly for investigation at AN/I and there we were. Personally, I think that 3RR reports are often indicators of much more serious underlying problems. Both the decisions complained about above were mine. It would have been nice to have been told about this thread or even have the decisions discussed with me one to one before this thread was opened. I'm still relatively new as an admin and very happy to take advice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon of Pndapetzim - the rules on reverting are really quite simple, and are expounded on WP:BRD. You should revert just the once, and then discuss the matter. WP:3RR was devised to allow good faith reverts of vandalism without incurring the wrath of pernicious admins (the non editing kind, I assume); therefore any revert other than the first which isn't removing vandalism makes the editor liable for appropriate action. However, it has become custom to permit (or to demand) 3 reverts per 24hours where it is an edit war on a poor or incomplete understanding of 3RR. I often review reports made to AIV and will block editors who are involved in edit wars with violation of 3RR as an "other" reason. If they want to contest their block on the basis that they were not up to their allowance of three reverts/day then they are quite welcome to do so. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The line is drawn at edit warring period. Wikipedia isn't a court of law. We don't have strict laws for all circumstances and we don't need them. This is just a heads-up, but whenever I end up investigating something like a 3RR report, both people end up getting blocked for edit warring, regardless of how close to meeting four reverts in 24 hours they were. So don't try to play close with the rules when I or others like me are around — you'll end up blocked all the same. --Cyde Weys 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a good example of why powers of discretion to do things like blocking should be limited when and as much as possible. I mean, I am not in any "edit wars", and it sounds like you're trying to bully me. Per above. Systems will always be gamed. Trying to counter this with random fear and admin lottery is not sensible. If 3 reverts per day is too much, lower it. If persistent triple reverting a day is a problem, have another concrete rule. Self-righteous caprice is not the answer. That's not to say that discretion should not be used of course. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it's all the more annoying to see people mindlessly reverting four or five times a day and then, after a report was carefully prepared and submitted, being pardoned with the summary "does it really matter". There should be some consistency in the implementation of the rules. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it. A lot of it has to do with Wikipedia being a volunteer administration. In an employee organization, the owners of the company can set up strict rules which the employees must follow or risk being fired. These pressures simply do not exist on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not very good about consistency, and I don't really see that changing. A lot of outcomes are dependent simply on chance regarding which admin happened to come along the situation first and deal with it.

And do you like that system? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not optimal, but there isn't really any way to improve on it in an all-volunteer organization. --Cyde Weys 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could have a solid and consistent 3RR policy for a start. That'd be a way to improve it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The only time I was blocked citing WP:3RR (and that was my first block, mind you) was when I reverted vandalism by an abusive sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte who made no secret of sockpuppetry when he reported me on WP:AN3. I don't know whether reports by anonymous editors are taken seriously these days, but I was instantly blocked (although no revert was identical) because "3RR is a big red flag", etc., etc. Then there was a period when it was fashionable to block people for two or three reverts because "they should have known better". Now we have a period when people are not punished for four or five reverts because, after two days of procrastination, their behaviour is considered "historical". This is very confusing, you know. Looks like a big mess to me. Either we have a rule on three reverts, or we don't. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking that we block people for something they did two days ago and stopped? You might want to read WP:BLOCK. If they stopped reverting, do you just want to see them punsihed for there actions? That is by far not what blocking is for. Blocking is to stop disruption. If they have stopped themselves then why are we going to throw a block on there too to stop them from doing good?Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't "ask" for anything. I have no habit of block shopping. I welcome comments on whether the rule is still valid and, if it is, why it is applied so arbitrarily. Where's User:William M. Connolley who used to administer the blocks more or less even-handedly and in due time, rather than picking up a request on a seemingly random basis? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Not trying to bite anybodys head off! It is my belief that there is alot of grey area in WP:3RR. It is up to the administrator handling the case to determing the best course of action. I am sure there are lots of factors taken into account i.e. previous block history for 3RR, experience of editor, willingness to discuss. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. But then these reasons should be identified by the closing admin. The bare summary "no action" is not very informative. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wont argue with that. I think transparency is important. At least a simple note saying, "user warned, not blocked for this infraction" or something of the sort would be benificial in my opinion. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, isn't punishment is about "deterrence"? if so, deterrence surely reduces disruption? Of course, that's only if the disrupter cares about being blocked or whatever the punishment is. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Cyde's approach, in that I block for disruption when it seems necessary, though rarely for fewer than four reverts. I more often protect the page if there are two people edit warring. But Ghirla has a point. Regardless of what we say the rules are, we only have the rules we enforce. Since 3rr is about the only one we do reliably enforce, we should probably keep on it. It's helpful to check AN3 once in a while, and to clear a few whenever you make a report yourself. It is tedious and uninteresting work, but it needs to be done. The people who do it deserve credit for their contribution to the project. Maybe the foundation could send William M. Connolley an engraved beer mug or something. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally think that giving "disruption" as the primary reason for a block is a good idea, unless the disruption is obvious and unquestionable, or unless there's already been a decision made at CSN or ANI. A strict application of the 3RR rule is better. Yes, some people will game the system, but as someone pointed out above, this is inevitable in any large community. One of the biggest problems, on Wikipedia and on other wiki sites, is the arbitrary use of power by admins. "Disruption" is quite a subjective term, and, IMO, it's better to have clear-cut rules so that editors know where they stand. Even a well-intentioned admin will make mistakes in issuing blocks; far better, IMO, to enforce the 3RR rule to the letter, in order to reduce the potential for admin mistakes. Yes, some people will game the system and get around it, but that's the price we have to pay; it's more important to ensure that all editors are protected against arbitrary sanctions. Walton^One 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No one questions the validity of blocks for "revert warring" in general (that is below 3RR but still disruptive). But these are discretion blocks not quite the same league as 3RR blocks. "Discretion blocks" should be administered sensibly and, preferably, by responsible admins who write content and, thus, motivated by improvement of the WP as a source of information rather than a self-fulfilling motivation of being in a position to show who is the boss. God forbid this from becoming a "Cyde approach". Non-writing admins should not be anywhere near the block buttons.

Engagement in content writing gives some useful insights that allow to better distinguish the disruptive revert warring between two users who refuse to discuss (block) and repeated reverting (still under 3RR) of a disruptive troll (Bonaparte case in point), copyvio pusher or otherwise nutty editor.

However, reports for "revert warring in general" should go to ANI, not AN3. 3RR is a razor wire, almost an automatic block. Removing the case, like [[15] here], because no one bothered when it was urgent as it is "too late to block anyway" may even make sense when the report is indeed historic. But reports should not get historic in the first place, they should be handled, that's one. And two, seeing Spartaz being not "block happy" is heartening. But his not blocking because the maintenance system failed would have been fine if he would still have at least warned a disruptive user.

Frankly, I am sick of that fellow. Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) goes around articles pushing the fringe Ukrainian nationalist POV for a while and this is long since tiresome. While there are plenty of poorly formed 3RR reports, often to hide the fact that the 3RR is questionable in the first place (still people get blocked for those if the backlog is handled by inexperienced or block-happy admins), it was upsetting to see my time totally wasted. I spent at least half an hour to make a report that is presented without confusion (see original) and was kind of upset to see that my time was totally wasted. Since then, I watch the fellow still editing disruptively but under 3RR and I have to waste my time with his edits.

AN3 used to be the least back-logged task. Was it because too many admins love blocking and this is the place to go when one is in a mood to kick some butts or because it requires less skill and work than updating DYK I don't know. But if now even sterile revert warriors can get off and multiple FA writers get blocked under bogus pretenses (recent example) something needs to be changed. --Irpen 15:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, I regard edit-warring as a symptom of a problem. It's rarely a disease in itself, though that can sometimes be the case. Sometimes I think a better approach, rather than blocking, is short protections, particularly on non-high-profile articles. It's often better to look at what's actually being written. On higher-profile articles, admittedly, protection becomes rather more evil. Example: I recently came across a nationalist POV-crankery-pushing troll and a good guy edit warring. They were both on 6RR, or something similar. Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable. Instead of blocking I locked up the article for 12 hours, and the troll got sent packing a couple of days later when he kept on reverting despite 6 different people reverting him. I'm not a huge fan of wholly mechanical 3RR blocks. Yes, edit-warring is a pain, but implementing 3RR in a completely robotic fashion will do nothing but antagonise people. Moreschi ^Talk 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Much as I would have loved to have infinibanned the troll's arse, doing that without blocking the good guy would be lynchable." That admins get lynched for blocking trolls is a problem in itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Tom. The inability to deal with trolls who know how to stay within the bounds of 3RR and around the bounds of CIVIL is frustrating as fuck. But what do you do with a bad-faith editor who doesn't break 3RR, doesn't use obvious personal attacks, but just sits around aggrivating editors who are trying to build an encyclopaedia? WilyD 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's something that may not be taught, but must be learned. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no automatic administration. If people could make automatic calls on blocks, we could have -bot overlords. The more we praise or seek automatic administrative decisions, the more we abdicate our responsibilities, abridge "community trust," and render ourselves both otiose and destructive. Therefore, investigation, judgment, and communication are de minimis for being an administrator acting in a conflict. The better the investigation, the better the administrative action (the more valid). It takes time. It takes concentration. People who have a lot of experience with writing will be better able, in general, to discern editorial issues, but it would be possible for someone to not be a top writer and yet have Solomonic discretion. It's just rare. The one thing that is absolutely moronic is the idea that something like a block can truly be "automatic." We're people, not automatonic. Geogre 16:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A note. This was initially not about "automatic handling", also a bad thing. It was about non-handling and then archiving without even warning an editor. Agree with the rest. --Irpen 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if that was the concern, that could have been handled by a note on my talk page pointing out my error. That's a good point but the first time its been made to me. If anyone wants to know about why 3RR gets backlogged look at my talk page - the amound of time and trouble that not being block happy caused was amazing yet both cases were symptomatio of other more serious underlaying problms that would not have been addressed by a mechanical block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: partially agree but treating the habitual revert warriors with block of increasing length does help address the problem, not of course being the only thing that needs done. Your not block-happiness is appreciated. Still, warning a disruptive editor would have been useful at that point. Finally, you should not see this thread as just a criticism of your action. The thread originator pointed out at the problem with AN3 in general, hoping that some non-block-happy and content-writing admins would go there helping you. The report on Hillock was crystal clear and he well-deserved a block. He is still around from time to time and, frankly, I am tired of dealing with his tendentious edits. Not that I can do much until he over-reverts again. --Irpen 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely debatable whether the 3 revert rule does more good than harm. I for one have no interest in enforcing such a rule, and I suspect many others see it the same way. Friday (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, even though it's not supposed to be an entitlement, many editors do think of it that way. It eliminates some of the fear of being blocked for edit warring, or even thinking of a bit of back and forth reverting as edit warring. WilyD 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

Not really experienced in the 3RR board. Could I get a quick review on my actions here and here? Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. It's always better to discuss rather than block - if asking nicely works to stop the edit warring (and it can, sometimes, occasionally), then awesome. Even if 3RR has technically been broken in the first instance you give, a polite chat for a first offence is no great shakes. Neil ム 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of people TfD

To all admins:

I'm going to need some help here. There are a total of 490 templates that need housekeeping. Singularity 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:^demonBot2 is flagged for this. Edit all of those to be a blank page, and we can quickly run the bot and subst: all templates (essentially removing them). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Actually they didn't need orphaning, ST47 and I just nuked them all. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they didn't need orphaning. Thanks for nuking them. Singularity 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)

This Talk Page is well overdue for consideration. Please could the issues raised there be addressed. Otherwise everyone is wasting their time posting there. David Lauder 17:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and overturning consensus as one user

Established editors have determined to delete The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and enforced the decision in deletion review: [16]. However, without consensus or any comment on the talk page, user:IPSOS has now unlilaterally merged the majority of what was that article into the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and reversed a decision made by editors previous in consideration for the neutrality of Wikipedia made a year ago here: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . It seems clear to me that user:IPSOS is more interested in portraying a partisan view of the contemporary direction of the historical organization (which bears no direct historical relation to the original Order)rather than in reaching a stance of neutrality for Wikipedia and for the main article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As it even says at the top of the article "this article is about the historical organization of the 19th century." I take that back. User:IPSOS has now changed this as well against previous consensus. He says on the talk page that consensus can change, but one user is not enough for consensus. He didn't even start a discussion on it before making such edits which I would consider disruptive. Can someone take a look at this behavior? Kephera975 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Disscussion for I-35W Mississippi River bridge <- Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge

The discussion has been going on for 9 days and seems to have slow down. I think it is time to close it. The discussion is taking place here at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Since I am not a Administrator here I don't think I should close it and risk getting blocked. so I a administrator to close it for me and determain the outcome and make the merger or not. Sawblade05 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuck with bad coding halfway through a SOCK

I'm sorry to bother you but I am halfway through filing a WP:SOCK and cannot finish the process because the title is messed up. I am at the point where I now need to label the puppet pages and the puppetmaster page with the templates. However, the title is fouled up somehow -- instead of reading "Jebbrady (2nd)" it's got brackets and whatnot, see here. Please, if anyone can fix it so it reads correctly, I can finish this process by giving the puppetmaster/puppets a good working link via the mandatory templates, which I've been struggling with for more than an hour. I'm sorry if I should have gone somewhere else instead of WP:AN. -- Lisasmall 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Better? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, there are no words for my gratitude; thank you so much. -- Lisasmall 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! is pretty good. LessHeard vanU 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in-between a rock and a hard place.

There's a member named Vanilla2, who wants to change his/her signature. But he/she can't figure it out. So what User:Hornetman16 wants to do is send an e-mail and get his/her password and do it for him/her. Would this be OK? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)