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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

warning template for Hurricane Gustav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, no. I see it now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or worse:

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

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

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

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

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

And another...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prelude to edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actual disaster warning box

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

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

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

visible on this diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Palin

Hi, all - I've spent a lot of time over the weekend on the above article. As I'm sure everyone knows, it's probably our highest-traffic article right now. Serious issues keep popping up there - everything from really bad BLP violations, to POV-pushers from both political sides, and lots and lots of good-faith people who don't have a good grasp of neutrality or sourcing or the Manual of Style. There aren't many uninvolved or neutral people helping right now, though there are a few - Jossi is one standout. Rootology was really helpful but I think gave up.

I really need to take a break from working there; I think I started out pretty neutral but I may be losing my objectivity, as some of the poison I've seen going into that article has given me a lot of sympathy for the Palin family, especially the children. Also, I've been getting a lot of accusations that I work for the McCain campaign, so maybe someone should check back over the work I've done. :) I would be very grateful if some neutral people would make an attempt to keep an eye on things on that and related articles, like Political positions of Sarah Palin and Todd Palin. It can be hard to keep up with due to the editing volume. Thanks, all. Kelly ^hi! 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need someone with a neutral point of view watching over this article as those who have currently claimed ownership (not going to name names) have taken us down a slippery slope of partisanship.zredsox (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly might be Republican. I'm a Democrat, and I'll be voting for the Obama ticket. This is a bi-partisan effort. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly tri-partisan - I'm libertarian. Kelly ^hi! 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not Palintarian? zredsox (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>Just as an example, the beginning of Political positions of Sarah Palin is now once again pushing that she is a secessionist. This is a meme circulating in certain blogs. I'm too tired to deal with this anymore. There are many other of these issues that keep coming up over and over again and there aren't enough people helping. Kelly ^hi! 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The secessionist claims are now once again back in the main article, along with vague insinuations of some kind of prenatal wrongdoing for traveling before the birth of her youngest child, another blog meme. All this stuff has been exhaustively discussed on the talk page (which is now accumulating some kind of libel about her daughter's fiance being underage, another blog meme) but the previous discussions are disregarded and attempts to enforce policy are simply reverted. We're going to get a big black eye over these articles. Kelly ^hi! 07:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Barnstars

Kelly, you and several other admins and senior editors deserve a special barnstar for having tirelessly shepherded the article through the mass waves of partisan POV pushing and rampant rumormongering that have assailed it all weekend.

THANK YOU. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Two more barnstars for Kelly. I think the article is shaping up and the locking is an excellent idea. Many thanks for your calm, neutral sanity in a blizzard of vicious insanity. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Seccession edits

Can we please get someone to step in on the repeated insertion that Palin supports the succession of Alaska from the United States and is a member of this party? We have one user repeatedly inserting this fringe belief. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, Sighted versions, or some of the other associated proposals, would be real useful in a case like this.Just some random canvassing.--Bsnowball (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to bring up a content worry, even more so when it looks like she has indeed belonged to at least one Alaskan secession group (which is hardly a fringe "belief"), maybe two, reliable sources on this are likely to pop up sooner rather than later. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

/me ponders who is next in succession to the throne of Alaska. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that people are checking out information before deciding its either true or a fringe belief. Part of the problem is that in the United States there are government admissions of manipulating the media for propaganda purposes.

For one example the accustions that the White House lied the United States into the war in Iraq with false claims of WMD's. This involved having pentagon spokespeople appear regularly on Fox News and other cable media to present government spin as news. It continued with Scooter Libby and the Plame affair and the use of guest commentators from think tanks. These are now counts of an indictment for impeachment presently in front of the judiciary committee.

For other examples we have the government and industry attempts to muddy the waters regarding Global Warming and peak Oil. In this sense Wikipedia is part of the media

As it happens there is a video of Sarah Palin addressing the American Independence Party in which acting as governor of Alaska she officially addresses their convention, mentions that she considers them an important political influence, says she shares the parties vision of the constitution and otherwise which makes it clear she is more attracted to fringe groups than merely being a supporter of Pat Buchannan indicates... 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This stuff has gotten pretty well sourced, now. It doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation at all, and seeing as the AIP is Alaska's third largest party behind Republicans and Democrats in that order (about 2%, 2.5% of the population) it's not fringe locally there. Everywhere else, maybe, but relative to her bio, early history, and Alaska, it's totally notable. rootology (C)(T) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Da I don't know how things work in the US but in europe politicians frequenty have ah less mainstream political views in their youth.Geni 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be her youth, if true. It would be when she was in her mid-late 30s and already in public service. rootology (C)(T) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update: User I originally complained about was blocked by Moreschi for 48 hours. This users disruption could have been resolved HOURS beforehand had anyone bothered to try. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, when you spelled it succession, called it a "fringe belief" and gave neither any diffs nor a username I took it as a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I typoed the second time, but didn't typo the level 3 header. *shrug* As Kelly requested, more eyes would have been helpful but it does not seem to be a high priority, ya'll would rather point and laugh at my spelling error. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't laugh. Please do provide a username and some diffs next time, you'll see a much quicker response (all the more on an article like Sarah Palin where changes sometimes blaze by at a few dozen each hour, making things much harder to dig through). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin

Anyone else think that the redirect from Bristol Palin ought to be pre-emptively protected? Dragons flight (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin volume

There are a few new users/SPAs here[3] that are starting to get into edit war territory. Could a couple more people watchlist this? rootology (C)(T) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, this fellow's blown past 3rr despite a warning from me and shows no letting up.[4] rootology (C)(T) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

48 hours for him. Thanks, Root. Moreschi (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah damn. I tried to block him myself, Moreschi. Lightning fingers McGee I'll call you from now on....Keeper ǀ 76 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Politics + Religion + Drama = Fail

For those of us watching the Palin article, you'll want to keep an eye on Wasilla Assembly of God as well. I've stubbified the article from a lengthy list of controversial positions of its pastor (Ed Kalnins, whose article is currently at AfD), but - given the attention that Gov. Palin's speech on the Iraq War is receiving, it's probably prudent to watch this article as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin Controversy

This article was created yesterday, then later redirected to the Sarah Palin article. I've gone ahead and protected the redirect per BLP concerns, just as we've done with Bristol Palin. - auburnpilot talk 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages worth watching

It's worth periodically skimming the list of 1000+ pages linked to our Sarah Palin article, in particular checking the list of several hundred in our article space for new POV forks.

Here are some pages on that list that were of particular concern:

• Alaska Gas Pipeline
• Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
• Andrew Halcro
• Andrew Sullivan
• Alaskan Independence Party
• Baby-gate
• Babygate
• Bristol (disambiguation)
• Bristol Palin (redirect page)
• Bristol Palin Controversy (redirect page)
• Bristol palin (redirect page)
• Campbell Brown
• Category:Sarah Palin
• Constitution Party (United States)
• David Brickner
• Ed Kalnins -- currently proposed for deletion
• Electoral history of Sarah Palin
• Feminists for Life
• Gov. Sarah Palin (redirect page)
• Governor of Alaska
• Gravina Island
• Gravina Island Bridge
• Knik Arm Bridge
• Larry Kroon
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Kroon
• Levi Johnston (redirect page)
• List of Assemblies of God people
• List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates
• List of Governors of Alaska
• Lyda Green
• Mat-Su Regional Medical Center
• Miss Alaska
• Palin
• Piper Palin (redirect page)
• Political positions of Sarah Palin
• Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008
• Sara Palin (redirect page)
• Sara Pallin (redirect page)
• Sara palin (redirect page)
• Sara pallin (redirect page)
• Sarah Barracuda (redirect page)
• Sarah H. Palin (redirect page)
• Sarah Heath (redirect page)
• Sarah Heath Palin (redirect page)
• Sarah Louise Heath Palin (redirect page)
• Sarah Pallin (redirect page)
• Sarah Plain (redirect page)
• Sarah palin (redirect page)
• Track Palin (redirect page)
• TransCanada Corp.
• Trig (disambiguation page)
• Trig Palin (redirect page)
• Troopergate (disambiguation page)
• Wasilla (redirect page)
• Wasilla Assembly of God -- currently proposed for deletion
• Wasilla Bible Church
• Wasilla High School
• Wasilla, Alaska
• Willow Palin (redirect page)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Add Milton Kapner to the mix as well. I also suggest that the activities of EricDiesel (talk · contribs) and Elan26 (talk · contribs) be watched since both appear to be WP:COATRACKing. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone make any sense of this?[5] Best I can make of it is that EricDiesel (talk · contribs) is complaining about the application of WP:NOTE on the Wasilla Bible Church and Wasilla Assembly of God related articles and arguing that notability is inherited. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Now theology: several attempts to add Palin based on -- what else? -- a Kos diary. A.J.A. (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Still at it?

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

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

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

So the record's complete, we have two edits from this morning [6] [7] illustrating a similar attitude. Specifically, after being asked not to, he's re-adding links to myspace and imdb that's the same name as the article's subject but different people, and to a mirror page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Charmed36 - multiple concerns

Resolved

 – Editor warned — Realist² 18:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to warn the editor directly, but after reviewing Charmed36 talk page I realized that this editor pay's zero attention to warnings. I haven't done an extensive review of Charmed36's edits, the snappy edit summaries and talk page warning were enough to concern me. The issue that drew my attention to Charmed36 was a recent edit summary whereby Charmed36 reverted an IP with the edit summary "your just an IP". Just as concerning was the fact that the IP provided a source and Charmed36 reverted to the previous UNSOURCED version. See this.

Charmed36's edits, use of edit summaries, elitism and general OWNERSHIP issue's should be punished. Charmed36 has control of a number of articles relating to varies singers and groups. This needs to be handled and Charmed36's recent contributions need an extensive review to find the true extent of potential damage. — Realist² 03:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that isn't even an insult. That's is...pure, demeaning disrespect. If anyone ever told me that when I was starting I would never come back to Wikipedia. Wow. --mboverload@ 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree it is bad, first time I've seen that. Well, I'm sure an admin will read this post eventually....— Realist² 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a AGF level 3 warning template on their talkpage. If this is disregarded like everything else on that page I would consider a 2 day long block sufficient to get their attention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna keep a close eye on it for a few weeks, see what occurs. I'm shocked that Charmed36 hasn't been blocked since 2006. Charmed has been unduly lucky. — Realist² 15:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, I agree this is a problem editor, but I still want to point out that blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't 'punish'. We do sometimes decide that someone is irredeemably not a useful contributor. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Libro0

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

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

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

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

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

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As someone who has had problems with Libro0 after having him accuse me of being Baseball Card Guy's sockpuppet after trying to get the two of them to stop their schoolyard bickering, I have been watching these two. Their recent exchanges at Talk:1950s Topps and Talk:1960s Topps show that they both seem to have some ownership issues and the two of them can't seem to have a any sort of proper discussion. My attempts to contact both of them in the past were rebuffed in the case of Baseball Card Guy and resulted in attacks from Libro0 including two unproven sockpuppet allegations, with me keeping an eye on what he is doing to nip any further false allegations in the bud. This ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [41] [42] that Libro0 is a prime example of the bad faith on his part. On the other hand Baseball Card Guy is trying to bait Libro0 [43] with a trap [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] using Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for all those.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have intentionally engaged in actions that have egged Baseball Card Guy on and he has done the same to you in return. As for how I knew he was setting a trap for you I mentioned it above, but I take it you aren't a Star Wars fan or have no idea of the meme that is Admiral Ackbar. Basically it was said here [51] and he used Admiral Ackbar as the edit summary for the edits I mention above. What is the relevance of Admiral Ackbar with regard to a trap? The character's most famous line in Return of the Jedi was "It's a trap!"

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

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

So the best possible option is to harass and falsely accuse others who contribute? That is what you did to me. You have driven me away from editing the baseball card pages with your childish behavior especially this ultimatum/thinly veiled sockpuppet allegation [52] [53]. That was uncalled for. You state "You clearly want me to leave. I will, if you can complete one of the two following tasks in 24 hours of the posting of this message." Up to that point, I didn't want you to leave, I asked nicely for you and Baseball Card Guy to stop and take a time out and then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Neither of you listened and then you posted your ultimatum. You eventually said the following which basically accuses me of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy: "Given that you did not complete the tasks I suggest that you step aside and allow people who have the information to edit the page. Keep in mind that you have been warned about unwarranted reverts. Further disruption will result in a disciplinary report and any sock evidence will be posted." [54] You dragged me into this mess. Your opponent has dragged me deeper. I have had it with you two. Is it any wonder why I want both of you banned? The two of you have wasted my time, have wasted several other users time, several admins time with your back and forth wars. Libro0 keeps making these passive aggressive and somewhat pompous statements claiming that he is following guidelines and trying to work with the community, yet his behavior reveals the opposite. His opponent Baseball Card Guy seems to do the same thing, albeit on a less grander scale than Libro0. The two of them are dragging the community down. They are both instigators and are both trying to play the system to get what they want. They need to be stopped. I am sick and tired of defending myself against Libro0 and his accusations. The two of them need to be banned so the rest of us can stop wasting our time. It is in the best interests of everyone in the community! Your Radio Enemy (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• Libro0 has already escalated things with this [55] and this [56]. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

You know as well as I do that that is going to devolve into yet another shouting match like this wasting more people's time effort and energy. Libro0 has gone to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to complain about the notice boards [57], boards that that he himself has made use of several times. [58] [59] [60] [61] He seems to be playing the system wasting even more people's time complaining in his typical passive aggressive way [62]. We have wasted enough time, energy and effort on these two and their petty bickering. It is time to say goodbye to both of them. Just ban them both since it is like dealing with the Israelis and Palestinians nobody is going to listen. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. User:Baseball Card Guy has been harassing User:Libro0 using gross uncivility ([63],[64],[65]), using socks ([66]) and Tor proxies ([67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75]) to revert Libro's edits and make comments like [76].

2. User:Libro0 has been fairly civil as far as I can see, but started accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy ([77],[78]). Some are indeed socks, but User:Your Radio Enemy is probably not. Baseball Card Guy has been intentionally editing the same (unrelated) articles as Your Radio Enemy in order to make Libro think they are the same user ([79],[80]).

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

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

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

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

Insult

Hi. The User:Babakexorramdin who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language in this article, has started to insult me on my talk page for reverting this act with regard to what sources say. Can anybody to something about these insults?--ماني (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)--a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as insults go here, it seems fairly minor to me, however, you can always raise it at Wikiquette Alerts if you wish. There seems to be no need for Admin intervention just yet. --Rodhullandemu 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a clear example of personal attack. I'll surely raise it at Wikiquette Alerts. Thanks for your attention.--ماني (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the text of my post on Wikiquette alert. I hope you admins here also do something about it:

Hi. I posted this on admins board and they sent me here: The User:Babakexorramdin who insists on adding non-official languages in front of the term official language in this article, and states his reason for this as "not giving ammunition to the "separatists"" has started to insult me on my talk page just because I try to adjust the fact with regard to what sources say. He supposed that I come from Afganistan and a place called Tafresh and used those names as (in his clearly racist opinion) deragatory terms for humiliating me. And continued with "shut your big mouth" and called my corrections "vandalization". All because I asked him if he speaks Persian? In other wikipedias where I'm active such an insult surely is faced with banning for a long time. I ask you to do something about this personal attack. Not doing anything about this user has boldened him to chase me in another Wikipedias and blindly reverting my edits without any reason or discussion. This is a clear case of harrasment.--ماني (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The User:Babakexorramdin just goes on with his insults and nothing helps to stop him calling other users "childish" etc. Nobody here to do something about it?--ماني a.k.a. [[User:Mani1]] (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

changes to the templates for Birth/Date age

Recently and editor named RockMFR deleted [[ and ]] for Template:Death date and age and Template:Birth date and now dates of birth and death appear unlinked - for example March 27, 1482 (aged 25) instead of March 27, 1482 (aged 25). He did so citing WP:Dates and although in good faith I believe these edits to be in error. WP:Dates cites among other things that linking dates should be avoided unless there is a reason and I believe that this template qualifies. I would have reverted them myself but the templates are protected and although I requested to be an admin in the past, my request was DENIED and I do not have access. I recommend someone fix these date templates. --Kumioko (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, on Template talk:Birth date and age I have requested that the default setting for this template use the international date format rather than American date format. I can edit it as an admin, but don't know how to code it. Can someone help? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - there would be a HUGE problem of going back and fixing items already entered under these templates if this switch were made since they have been around for sometime and 1000's of entries have already been made. If you wish to have the date come before the month all you have to do is add |df=y after the month. MarnetteD | Talk 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It already is a HUGE problem that thousands of non-American articles using the birth date template now appear as using the American dating format, as a lot of people didn't bother using df=yes when the dates were linked as it autoformatted. There should not be a presumption towards using a minority dating system. пﮟოьεԻ 57 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the MOS. There has been a change in wording on linking of dates. One of the articles on my watchlist had almost 300 bytes of linked dates stripped out by a well-known and conscientious editor, and I was ready to squawk until I checked the link he provided in the edit summary. Horologium (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates are no longer being linked, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting. - auburnpilot talk 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I can't remember if linking birth and death dates is an exception to this? Probably not, but if anything was an exception, this would be one of them. We do have categories for birth and death years, so linking to the years seems wrong. Possibly the birth/death year produced by the template could be linked to the birth/death year categories, so people reading the infobox can click through to the category of, say, 1833 deaths, instead of scrolling to the bottom to do that. On the other hand, the year articles do tend to contain sections with births and deaths (eg. 1833), so linking from the pages of people who were born and died that year would be a legitimate way to bring traffic to the year pages. Delinking all the year links wasn't the intention, I don't think. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see where the changes where made to the date text however I do not see any evidence that it was done based on a majority decision. Rather it looks as though 1 individual felt it wasn't right and made the change. I believe that a change of this magnitude should be presented to the mob and then a decision reached as to whether it should go forward.--Kumioko (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there are several bots that do date changes as well as edits built into AWB. If the intent is that we will no longer link dates then we will need to remove all this logic and undo tens of thousands of linked dates.--Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the death date template, can someone please change the grammatically improper "aged" to "age"? Putting "(age 79)" after a death date is short-hand for "at the age of 79", while "(aged 79)" would be short for something like "having aged 79 years". Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn, I appear to be wrong about this, and "aged" is the correct usage. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 01:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help on Sarah Palin

Please, please, I'm begging - will someone help with the BLP-violators, POV-pushers, and edit-warriors on Sarah Palin? I can't even keep up with BLP violators, much less research diffs in hundreds of revisions per hour to report edit-warriors. Please help! Kelly ^hi! 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, could we have full protection for a while to calm things down? Kelly ^hi! 23:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Palin's and associated articles are under full onslaught by SPA's and POV pushers. Kelly and a couple of others can't watch the articles every second, 24-hours a day. Please provide full protection for a few days. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Admin only, unfortunately, until next Monday (sept 8). We all need a break, per Kelly's rationale. Keeper ǀ 76 23:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I think the article is relatively complete with the actual information we have so far, any major updates can be handled through edit requests. Kelly ^hi! 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for your edit summary. I love me too! Keeper ǀ 76 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(a few e/c) I've been watching the page ever since I first saw it at WP:ITN, and I agree, there have been many POV pushers and WP:BLP violators to the article, and fully support the protection. There I noticed I managed to make the last edit to the article before Keeper fully protected the article. :-) Just had to fix some reference placements... -- RyRy (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I also support full protection. There are a lot of things that need discussing and refining before they can be included, and there's no reason to let the article continually fall to The Wrong Version in the meantime. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, and also support keeping an eye on related articles, such as Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal... if those get hit too, we may want to protect them as well. SirFozzie (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure administrators will be bold enough to do so if disruptive editing goes too far. I may as well start keeping an eye on such related articles too. Things should probably calm down when new-year comes along, assuming that the politics drama that hit Wikipedia would be over by then. -- RyRy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"if disruptive editing goes too far"?!? That bridge was crossed a long time ago. As has been said elsewhere, the article is the first Google result for the name of the subject and we have clear responsibilities here. But, sadly, some seem to feel keeping the encyclopedia free for all to edit is more important than stopping casual libel slip through to a worldwide audience every few minutes. It's in situations like these where it is easy to realise how a project that initially offered so much promise can also be used for all the wrong reasons. Lock it - and lock every BLP while you're at it George The Dragon (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the protection but could you make the huge banner a bit smaller? I find it a bit distracting on such a high profile high visibilty article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This snuck in post-protection. Just for The Wrong Version procedural grounds it should be reverted by GlassCobra, I left him a note. Kelly, good luck. I'm not touching this article for at least a week, its gotten far too annoying. I left him a note. He probably just missed the protection. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith in this case and not ask for this to be reverted. It takes a bit of time to prepare an edit and they happened virtually at the same time AND it also had consensus that it's a borderline BLP vio/should not be in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That absolutely is good faith, I told him it was probably a mistake and asked him to revert. The protection policy doesn't allow people to make massive edits/reversions of contested content dispute material. What as bad faith about what I wrote? Admins simply can't do that except for really trivial stuff like bjweeks tweaking a citation format or removing "obvious" BLP violations. I'm just looking out for GlassCobra so no one tries to screw or politicize him for this. rootology (C)(T) 00:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking him to revert. Hobartimus (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't split up the conversation any further, we can discuss it here. It's not bad faith to ask him to revert to the wrong version. That's how our protection policy simply works. rootology (C)(T) 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing the lengthy diatribe about the AIP was good, as it's prejudicial and basically trying to prove a point of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, don't think that edit should be reverted, the content is a borderline BLP vio. That secessionist-party meme has been heavily discussed on the article talk page and there really is no consensus for its inclusion (if anything, consensus is against). Should be discussed at the article talk page. Kelly ^hi! 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if theres consensus to keep it out, cool beans. I just didn't want to see the crazies running around take it out on GC, he seemed to just honestly leap in there. rootology (C)(T) 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then we all agree that it was an honest edit that didn't circumvent policy that was written to stop abuse of protected pages and there is no reason to ask for it to be reverted. Hobartimus (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And support full protection, but till September 8th is a bit too long. 48 hours, maybe 72 max. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call on protecting. POV-pushers trying to cram every scandal they can come up with into the article. A feeding frenzy like I've never seen here. There's plenty of juicy stuff still in the article, but all or most of it is mainstream info. We do need some rest here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to it being a high-importance article on a current event with partisan overtones, I think some of the problem was editing volume. It was the fastest editing environment I've seen here, hard to sort already-discussed proposals from bold edits, and simple mistakes from vandalism. The same edits and discussion topics came again and again - assuming they were mostly good faith it must have been from inexperienced editors or those who could not easily read the entire 350K talk page or edit-a-minute history before proposing the same bad idea that someone else had proposed hours before. I tried to help but most clean-ups of BLP and NPOV violations would only stick a few hours before they were back. I hope the cooling off period works by itself but if not, it might help to figure out a plan of getting from here to there in terms of a stable unprotected editing environment. Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes, support. I've never seen such a riot of BLP violations, SPAs, unreliable sources, and general meanspiritedness on every side. A little break is what everyone needs to calm down and reason things out together. Coemgenus 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I second the call for a reduction in this page's protection. A cooling off period is fine and necessary, especially for all the editors doing their best to keep the POV pushing out, but new information covering the entire spectrum of her biography (including the future!) is appearing by the minute. I would hope that this could go back to semi-protection within 24 to 48 hours, which is where the Obama, Biden, and McCain articles now stand. Joshdboz (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support, but please let's wait to see if the media frenzy dies down a little first. I really need a break. :) There is no sign of many other BLP-sensitive editors (in sufficient numbers to handle this article) coming out to help with things. I know I'm not doing it all, but I'm doing a lot, and few people are helping. Kelly ^hi! 01:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course Rootology and Baseball Bugs are doing fantastic work too, and a couple others. :) Kelly ^hi! 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally have to agree with the decision to lock it down. She's going to be speaking at the RNC in like an hour. God, I don't even want to imagine the hell that would break loose if we relax the protection. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. We can keep the mainspace version protected and create a sandbox version of the mainspace article for continued article development. QuackGuru 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea - the BLP violations will just show up somewhere else then. At this point I think we just need to get the editing volume down, get people consensus-ing on the talk page, and identifying the malefactors who have have been causing problems. Right now they're getting away with it because the volume is too high to ID them. Kelly ^hi! 01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We could put it in a talk subpage with a {{noindex}} tag to keep it off Google. Standard procedure with protections is to create a sandbox. Quackguru (if memory serves) has experience with these sandboxes. BLP violations might occur, but they won't fight so hard because it's not the "real" article. Users would nominate the posting of specific revised versions for consensus. Cool Hand Luke 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page already has a list of 3 or 4 controversial points, and the discussion needs to be kept there for now, rather than allowing more edit wars to foment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully remind people that WP:BLP covers talk pages as well as article space. Thanks George The Dragon (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The talk page and archives of that article are lousy with BLP violations now - I don't even know where to start on cleaning them up. Kelly ^hi! 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest "oversight the entire lot," or at the least delete as I genuinely believe this issue is far more serious than some "ideal". George The Dragon (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, but there are going to be talk space BLP violations unless we lock the whole thing down as well and spend the next few days scrubbing. I thought it might be useful to create a sandbox, but Baseball Bugs is probably right. No time for edit wars. Proposed edits will have to be insular, I guess. Cool Hand Luke 01:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the so-called BLP violations are reasonable questions that have been raised. It's not appropriate to be censoring the talk page unless somebody blatantly makes something up that's slanderous. For example, the Enquirer story is not appropriate for the article at present, but it has to be talked about, because it's out there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs. I have been through most of the current talk page and it's mostly innocent questions/people who don't understand Wikipedia. Comments that are violations of BLP are being reverted on sight already. --mboverload@ 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the protection here. To pick a relevant example, the level of editing activity and problematic edits was a lot higher than that at John Edwards as the latest scandal was breaking. Indeed, so much was coming so fast that even the active editors were having trouble keeping track of what disputes were still disputes and what were settled. And we protected Sen. Edwards article for a week, unprotecting less than 24 hours after a clear and sticking talk page consensus was formed. I make no predictions as to whether we'll be able to form any consensus here - but hopefully with 5 days to work with editors will at least be able to sort out how many different issues they are dealing with.

I'd also suggest that with the article protected would be a good time to review the histories to see if there are editors that need counsel, warnings, or other attention. GRBerry 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The problems here are exactly the kind of thing broad and sweeping sanctions are designed to handle. I propose that an uninvoled admin, at his or her discretion, may take any actions he/she feels neccesary to remove disruptive users/POV pushers/SSPs/vandals/etc from any page related to the 2008 election, until it's over. Let's face it, this kind of crap is not going to go away, and in fact, it's going to get worse. Jtrainor (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even notice this until after the protection was a fait accompli. I'll record for the record my view that protecting this article at this time was a huge mistake. The serious problem here is the volume, as noted by Wikidemon. Perhaps we need to split the talk page into separate subpages to deal with the barrage of topics. I'm not sure how to deal with it but I don't see how protection will help, except by discouraging some people from contributing to the article at all. They'll go do other stuff and come back when the protection ends. We'll be right back where we were except for having spent a few days with this highly visible article protected at a crucial time (global black eye for Wikipedia). JamesMLane t c 07:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a sandbox for article development. Improvements can continue to be made while the article is protected with a sandbox version. QuackGuru 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think that full-protection for a week is too long for an article of this nature. I would of fully-protected it for 24 to 48 hours, I think a week is excessive, especially for those good-faith users (including myself), who are now unable to edit the contents of the page. D.M.N. (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Use {{editprotected}}, anything that has obvious consensus will be in in no time. The sheer volume of egregious policy violations on this article makes full protection amply justified. Blame the idiots, not the admins. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection downgraded

Article appears to have been downgraded to semi-protection by Jossi (talk · contribs). D.M.N. (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed that above discussion, but after reading it, I still see no need for full protection, in particular on a current event high-traffic article. Semi should do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I do trust the people that watch this page when they say they are overwhelmed and are unable to maintain the quality of the article. I would have preferred if you had erred on the side of caution and undone your change, but I won't join the wheel war. I have restored the move protection though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erring on the side of caution is actually keeping the article uprotected. There are ongoing developments on the subject of the article, and material will continue to be added as it emerges. Granted, it would be a battle to keep the hordes at bay, but we cannot simply close the gates. Editing should continue despite the challenges. If a few admins are getting overwhelmed, they should take a wikibreak. Others will step in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Though we really shouldn't be writing articles as news reports adding items as they are reported; instead, the most significant points should be brought in after time has been allowed to digest if news reports are truly significant and finding the best sources to reference those (in light of this being a BLP). If it was only IPs with the occasional SPA, semi would seem fine, but as I see it, there's a lot of signed-in users attacking the article. I've seen articles granted full protection for less on RFPP. --MASEM 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, many of the SPAs that registered when the story first broke will no longer be barred by semi-protection. Users are autoconfirmed after 4 days, right? I don't have much experience in this area, but it seems to me that a flood of angry trolls is about to bust loose. Full protection seems warranted for the time being. Coemgenus 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple, any accounts persiting with disruptive edits, we WP:BLOCK. Let other productive editors continue editing rather than shutting down the article. This is the most trafficked article in WP right now, and we need to show the project and the community can afford people the liberty of editing. This is WP and a wiki, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, and while I don't disagree completely, I find the use of WP:IAR here to be quite unseemely. Maybe occasional blocks will be sufficient, but let's decide before we act. Coemgenus 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See the comments above. The editing volume is too high to deal with BLP-violators, edi-warriors, and POV-pushers, and there aren't any admins helping with that article! Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection removal was against consensus and needs restoring

Consensus should be honored and the protection restored; lone admins have no authority > consensus. If Jossi can't restore protection, can someone else? It would not be a wheel war situation as there is full support from the majority of the regular users there. I left Jossi an extra note. Since Jossi's move was against clear consensus I don't believe we'd need to wait for his OK, especially as Palin is a BLP. rootology (C)(T) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Some edit warring has already resumed from this unprotection. rootology (C)(T) 13:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is insane to downgrade this article to semi-protection. There is no way editors can keep up with volume of POV and WP:BLP violating edits.--Paul (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-establish protection per consensus above. Kelly ^hi! 13:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been constant POV-pushing by muckrakers, and the issues remain unresolved. Un-protecting it was inappropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A current event page as trafficked as it is should not be protected. This is one of the times in which I will WP:IAR and unprotect again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shameful drama-inducing escalation. There's an extraordinarily clear consensus about this above. It's not "IAR", it's called "wheel-warring against consensus". --barneca (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with barneca. It should be an WP:IAR case to protect this page against what might seem like common sense (protecting a high traffic article), vs the protection of the subject of the article. Based on this discussion, there appears to be a quick consensus to protect, we do not have time to have a week long discussion in this case to discuss ad-nauseum. I strongly agree with protection and strongly disagree with jossi's actions. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just protection vs. unprotection; while I disagree with unprotecting, I can understand the theory. It's the blatant disregard for consensus, and playing chicken with the tools. At least 17 people voiced an opinion above, and 13-14 were in favor of full protection for 48 hours at least, with many supporting the full week. Dismissing this as "a short discussion" isn't just hyperbole, it's just 100% wrong. If I were someone else, I'd be tempted to nominate WP:CONSENSUS at MFD, to make my point, but instead I'll just point out this is textbook example of wheel warring (read it!), and were I Jimbo or the ArbCom, and Jossi doesn't revert himself, I'd desysop him; that's how seriously I take it. If we're blowing off consensus and turning this into the Wild West, then we're screwed. Please revert yourself, Jossi, until there's a consensus favoring your point of view. --barneca (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection restored

Restored protection. I am now off my wikibreak, and this is my first action - nice. I'll take it up with any admin who thinks I'm wrong, but both consensus and rationale are correct here. I'll go talk to jossi Fritzpoll (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm. Welcome back? :) Synergy 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost all edits since full protection was lifted have been constructive. Way to go. Joshdboz (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi has removed the protection. The rationale for removal is reasonable, and although I am uncomfortable with this due to the consensus above, I won't take any further action with this. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the insanity and restore the protection. A single admin should not be ignoring the consensus. Kelly ^hi! 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin article is not unprotected - it is still semiprotected. That seems reasonable to me. That's the protection level of George W. Bush, for example. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Carl, have you seen what has been going on with that article while it was semiprotected? Have you been helping to deal with it? Kelly ^hi! 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To kelly: I agree with your point of view, but I'm not going to wheel-war over it. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stepped in to try and help. I am not very familiar with the topic and am fairly apathetic when it comes to politics. I do however recognize a reliable source from a non reliable one and POV pushing. I will try and keep an eye on it. I however feel it should be re-protected and that jossi should undo his wheel warring actions. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Kelly: I think there are more than enough people who know about the article to keep it well watched. We do need to be more proactive in using the blocking provision of WP:BLP. My philosophy is: one stern warning, then a short block (12-24 hours) with autoblock enabled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection has been re-re-restored, and I'm going to start handing out blocks to anyone who continues to war over this. You all know better. Establish a consensus, then take an action. The time for boldness is past. WilyD 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Establish a consensus, sure. But the status qu of Wikipedia articles is that they are free to be edited, and not the other way around. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The original protection came from some substantive discussion, now there's been a second and third. We all know better than to protection war over this; I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it should be full or semi, and don't plan to, but we shouldn't be playing tug-of-war. WilyD 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPBAN

Under the special enforcement sanctions ruling for biographies of living person, I have placed Sarah Palin under full edit protection for a period of two weeks and noted it at the special sanctions log and article talk page. MBisanz ^talk 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A very bad idea. There's nothing here that can't be handled by blocking. This is the sort of article that we expect to have an editing frenzy for a while. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPBAN is not an excuse for wheel warring. Cenarium ^Talk 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Then establish a strong consensus to end full protection. That's needed anyways, nevermind the special enforcement garbage. There has been a solid consensus to full protect, with only a couple dissenting voices, which frankly have been pretty meritless. Continued warring over it isn't going to be tolerated, regardless. WilyD 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Note the wording of the ruling that requires discussion at WP:AE; a discussion thread there has commenced. Mike R (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first i'd like to thank you for the protection as the article's edits were unbearably and icreasingly chaotic. Unfortunately it seems that as a consequence we now have BLP violations like poor citations, controversial materials and lots of bad editing on this very prominent BLP. I don't know the solution, I just wanted to point out the new problem that now we're stuck with a potentially libalous BLP. Thanks. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection Wheel Warring on Sarah Palin and RFAR

Any further admins that unprotect again are into total wheel war country against consensus and will be brought to RFAR. If you enjoy being an admin, respect the community consensus, please. This is shameful for a BLP. I'm as liberal of an American as they come, probably more than most of you, and I'M advocating protection on Sarah Palin. BLP and consensus > your wishes. And I just removed a vote that Jossi put up about BLP protection. We vote on a lot of stuff, but not that. Sorry.

Log so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sarah_Palin rootology (C)(T) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from refactoring this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is not a !vote, but a way to assess what kind of consensus, if any emerges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from misuse of admin tools over BLPs, and obey consensus like all of us are required to. rootology (C)(T) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. Wheel warring over protection is not the way to go about doing it, especially when you cite "IAR" and "consensus" for semi-protection, when I can't find consensus for that -- among others who agree. In addition, who "enjoys" being an admin? :) seicer | talk | contribs 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Until the first flush of frenzy settles down, there won't be any happy way to handle this. I support semi-protection but do understand why some editors think full protection is more in keeping with WP:BLP for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The wheels on the war go round and round. MZMcbride just semi-ed it again. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

At least two admins have said they'd block any more admins who protection warred this page. What, if anything, should be done regarding this? Oren0 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for three hours, and left a note on his talk page. WilyD 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering MZM was urged not to take this action by his peers on irc before he did it and was aware of the special circumstances and the discussion at AE, I would say this block was appropriate. Chillum 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to assume good faith. Then I read the arbcom started on him. *sigh* Why can't we all get along? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#MZMcBride for reference. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I posted warnings just about fuckin' everywhere to stop warring over the protection and have a god-damn discussion and it was fuckin' working and people were sitting down to discuss it like good colleages over tea and crumpets like we are all friends or coworkers or shit and rational fuckin' human beings and someone who already knows fuckin' better comes along and does some shit disturbing? Inexcusable. MZM knows better. Every admins knows better.

Sorry about my sailor talk but this all is a wee bit stressful. WilyD 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wheel warring is NEVER appropriate. Wheel warring with as many "don't do it" red signs as are out there is unbelievable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Without being so colorful myself, I will say that the discussion was pretty much settled at AE before this wheel warring happened, there was a developing agreement that the protection was good and that we should reconsider on Saturday. This latest action by MZM has only served to reduce productivity in this area. Chillum 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I didn't think anyone would actually be so stupid as to wheel-war over the (appropriate) full protection, I didn't comment a few hours ago, when I last logged on. Since I was obviously wrong, and the Arbitration thread contains several claims that there is no consensus for full protection, please add me to the list of admins who support full protection. Horologium (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh bloody hell, what a mess. I really don't think that fighting out ideological differences with admin tools on a WP:BLP that has been subject to an absolute deluge of grossly defamatory edits will play terribly well with ArbCom. I would have thought that the est way to preserve Wikipedia's principles here would be to make absolutely sure that uncontentious edits are speedily agreed and implemented via {{editprotected}} - I am minded of the way the railway companies handled the first Glastonbury Festival in about 1970; they were taken completely off guard by traffic to Glasto, but for the returns they pulled in every loco and carriage they could find, removed the station windows to make extra ticket counters, brought in everybody who was off duty, sent out a small army of clerks with every portable ticket machine they could pull in from around the network, and processed the massive crowds in something approaching order. To stretch that particular analogy somewhat, lifting protection is a more like removing all the barriers and gates and handing out first-aid kits to the station staff. Protection keeps the worst absurdities off the article and out of the headlines, and takes the patently acrimonious debates to the talk page which is slightly less high profile. That page can then be clerked to within an inch of its life and good suggestions moved into the article in an orderly manner well before the deadline. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow... after seeing the first few edit comments I assumed that there was a brief wheel war which was quickly ended, but this is train-wreck-tastic. Whatever the correct level of protection for the article is, the wheel-warring has to stop. If we can't agree on what that level is, that's all the more reason to discuss the matter here, rather than for individuals to unilaterally impose their own view. IAR is a wonderful thing, but we have to take extra care with it when we can't agree on which course of action constitutes "improving Wikipedia".sorry if this sound sanctimonious; trying to help SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Any wheel war is a trainwreck. Protection was implemented after days of dealing with an unprecedented volume of edits from POV vandals in a blp and nowhere near enough editorial help dedicated to keeping it compliant 24/7 as the frenzy continued to rage. Removing the protection without a realistic plan in place how to manage the page wasn't a helpful solution, and now editor resources are further compromised arguing about the justification for protection or its removal instead of producing workable solutions.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• In fairness, I've never seen a topic with so many edits/hour over so many days, it's a cultural fluke beyond the bounds of what Wikipedia has been built up to smoothly handle (that's ok, this is going to happen now and then and editors do learn from it). Cheers to Kelly for all she's done throughout the trainwreck. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto - Kelly deserves special praise for her strenuous efforts on behalf of that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support full protection for 24 or 48 hours. The BLP issues have gotten too far out of hand for now. If the article on 44 years or Sarah Palin's life is missing one or two days worth of material that is a small price to pay - if it is important the information will be available in any newspaper anyway. And invoking WP:IAR to ignore consensus and instead wheel war by unprotected a page in desparate need of protection is ludicrous. Rlendog (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

modest proposal for Sarah Palin

I think that the structure of the article, as a whole, is pretty stable right now. Therefore, my proposal is to leave the main article protected, but to break out most sections as semiprotected transcluded subpages (with their own faked-up "edit/view source" and "talk" buttons). This would untangle the edit history and talk pages of the separate sections. The scurrilous rumors would tend to be confined to certain sections, and defending, or, if necessary, protecting those sections would be much easier. If they showed up in inappropriate sections, they could be easily recognized and treated as vandalism. I think that this would help resolve this issue, and free up the article from a lockdown which I don't think is good for its quality.

I recognize that this proposal is unconventional, involves some degree of work, may have unanticipated consequences for some bots/spiders/whatever, and might be seen to set a precedent. However, in my opinion, it would be worth it, as it would be helpful for the article itself, which is my main concern here. Homunq (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no mechanism in the MediaWiki software to support such an action, unless there are some extensions that I don't know about. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is, you just create some subpages and transclude them into the main page. Where's the difficulty? --Tango (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple. Just create only one subpage and editors can continue to update the article and when consensus is reached it can be placed in the real article. QuackGuru 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary advantage of my proposal is that it splits things up. Each section has its own history and talk page. This makes it much easier to revert vandalism, because there are not always three unrelated edits before you notice it. It makes it easier to see who is doing what and to catch 3rr, too. And the discussion can be a little more organized and focused. A single subpage has no such advantages. 216.106.170.103 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal reposted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Another_proposal:_transcluded_subpages, move discussion there. Homunq (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cascade protection on Sarah Palin

Cross-posting from Talk:Sarah Palin

Just so everyone knows, I copy/pasted Sarah Palin to User:J.delanoy/Sarah Palin and cascade-protected that page until September 8. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Have there been problems with templates on Sarah Palin? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to save me trawling through megabytres of talk pages, why have you made this fork? Guy (Help!) 11:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a fork, he is using it to protect the templates. BJ^Talk 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I see. The article itself is protected now, isn't it. Perhaps cascaded semiprotection when the full protection ends? Guy (Help!) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot enable the cascading option with semi-protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism on BP?

Resolved

 – Figured it out and fixed it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone check out that page? I am pretty sure there is vandalism involving the infobox template, but am not myself familiar with their working intimately, certainly not of that particular one. Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which template, but it's the Zodiac vandal. D.M.N. (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fixed. D.M.N. (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out and warned the IP. Don't know about this Zodiac thing, so maybe I shouldn't have. Oh well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Need move-protect applying to 50+ articles

I would normally request articles to be move-protected at WP:RFPP, however over 50-articles here need to be protected as Grawp appears to have struck at over 50 articles. Therefore, can someone move-protect all the following articles (and related talkpages) for an indefinite amount of time. I don't think any are likely to be moved in the future for legitimate purposes. Here goes:

I apologise for making such a request here, but as a lot of articles need move-protecting, I didn't want to clog up RFPP by making a request for 50+ articles. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but I think some IP blocks are better remedies here. Also, when I look at lists like this and this, I can't help to think that we should raise the number of edits required to move. Cheers, Face 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grawp hops from IP to IP on a daily basis, causing mass-destruction to articles by moving them. He's been doing this for most of the year. The only suggestion I can think of is to make the "Move" tool available to admins and/or rollbackers. D.M.N. (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar: perhaps "Move" needs to be granted only to trusted users. Whether it's bundled with rollback is a different question. As a not-developer, I don't know the costs of implementing such rights-control features. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is possible to set a very high edit threshold in order to be able to move articles, why not do that? The time it takes to accumulate that number of edits would be a disincentive to continuing this kind of vandalism, but the number would have to be high enough to prevent a would-be vandal from doing a lot of extremely minor edits just to reach the goal. Why not 500 edits, or a thousand? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly agree to a 1,000 edits. D.M.N. (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly way to go about this unless the same page is being targeted repeatedly, and even then the "indefinite" setting is a bad idea. Once the people doing this realize that indefinite move-protection is the knee-jerk response to a single instance of page-move vandalism they will probably start targeting pages which actually need to be moved, causing pages containing a spelling/capitalization error, or needing to be disambiguated, etc. to be locked onto the wrong title. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've move protected a set of core biochemistry articles that are at their correct title, such as DNA, enzyme, photosynthesis or metabolism. There is essentially zero chance of these ever needing moved, indeed I can't even think of any reasonable alternatives for these titles. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deoxyribonucleioc acid? Enzymatic proteins? Conversion of sunlight to energy? Biological energy flow? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 18:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunlight is energy, not all enzymes are proteins and metabolism is a larger subject than energy flow - it is the sum total of chemical reactions occurring in an organism (that title would a mouthful indeed!). The only possible move contender would be DNA, and the abbreviation has been chosen as the best title on the talkpage several times over the past few years, so that consensus seems very stable. Honestly, the chances of any of these articles needing moved is near zero. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously something needs to be be done, look at the logs of ClueBot: [81], [82] for a small sample. What can we done ? We have move-protection for articles with no need to be moved. Think of what is best for Wikipedia, and the subject of the articles, example [83]. Our existing tools are not able to deal efficiently enough with this. Cenarium ^Talk 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RBI seems to be working just fine. ClueBot is catching it, what's the issue? We could give admin rights to ClueBot so it could delete the redirects and block the vandals, or we could get a consensus on installing the Abuse filter extension. Both of those would be far better than mass move-protection (since the vandal will just move on to other titles) or creating ridiculously high standards for allowing pagemoves. Mr.Z-man 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Has the abuse filter still not been installed? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion kind of died around the end of July. Mr.Z-man 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We could try restricting moves of pages with more than 1000 revisions (or some other arbitrary number) to admins. Since we already have a limit for deleting pages it can't be too hard to implement, the high profile pages will tend to be those with lots of revisions and such pages should have some sort of discussion before a move anyway. Hut 8.5 19:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that's going to stop Grawp- he'll just find articles that have less than that, and move those instead. We have to limit moves entirely if we want to stop him. Or, we simply remove all rules against him. He's willing to play dirty, so maybe we have to fight back harder. Aggressively DMCA his host for anything we have a legitimate claim on on a certain other wiki he hangs out on. Or even start complaining to the host- they're a well known hosting firm, and I doubt they'd want to be associated with the scum we're talking about here. Publically speak out about the other wiki on any site you can. Checkuser and publically release the IP addresses of all his socks- there's got to be non-Tor IP's behind him or his imitators, and why are we providing any privacy to one of the worst vandals ever? No more abuse emails- have volunteers call the ISPs personally to report abuse. To hell with the privacy policy, and to hell with it all- revert, block, ignore is what he's counting on. Once we're done cleaning up the mess he makes, he makes another one, then gloats about it.Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad, juvenile and annoying, but nothing that we can't deal with. It's just a complete waste of everybody's time. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Abuse Filter is coming, I promise. :) — Werdna • talk 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ACC Backlogged

Resolved

 – No longer backlogged —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Any available admins want to tackle the backlogged requests over at ACC? Would be appreciated, —— RyanLupin • (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, it's not letting me (as an administrator) create the accounts, I get the "too similar" notice. John Reaves 19:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a little checkbox at the bottom of the creation screen that says "Ignore spoofing checks" or something, you need to select that to create the name. MBisanz ^talk 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...making sure of course that the accounts the desired name is too similar too are inactive... –xeno (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with the new features apparently. John Reaves 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Long-standing attack articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all public figures. The normal BLP policies cover this. Public figures can't sue for slander. If the comments/criticisms are not original research, but are cited from reliable and verifiable sources, and there are no personal attacks, the articles should remain. We have to remember that criticisms of Bill Clinton and criticism of Barack Obama are fair game also. As long as we allow fair, cited, verifiable content for any public figure, regardless of their political affiliation, we are being Neutral. For instance the following would be allowable, "Bill Clinton was impeached by the Senate on December 19th, 1998 for among other things, perjuring himself when he denied having "sexual relations" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky." What should not be allowed would be things like "Bill Clinton Will Remain the Worst President Ever"[84] Clearly no one like to hear people criticism a political figure that they have supported. But essential to the political process is free speech that allows our system to correct for problems. Political speech is the highest and most respected form of free speech. Atom (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Main page

The article on the main page has been vandalized! That's not why I'm here tho. :P There is currently a contest going on with proposals to update the main page. Although this isn't admin-related, wide community attention is needed on the contest. So please check out the page, look over the proposals and leave comments for the semi-finalists. Thanks, Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

erm...linky? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I liked it to "contest", but here's the full link: Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam

Possibly one of the worst AFD nominations I've ever seen. See the last few contributions for the nominator. D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy closed. Not an article so shouldn't be at AfD. Also, I think the prohibition on memorials is about encyclopedic content not projectspace/userspace. WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

One outstanding question: Should the AfD notices on the pages be simply deleted? I'm thinking that there's no point filling out the {{oldafdfull}} notice. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The {{oldafdfull}} is irrelevant in cases where the discussion was closed on procedural grounds (as the above was) since it is primarily a tool for judging "former" consensus in future deletion discussions. Shereth 17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with keeping it, I think the rationale is slightly off. I fear the rationale utilized in WJB's comment above and in the AFD imply that people can come here and create memorials in their Talkpages. I do not believe this should be allowed and is the implication for not a memorial. That being said, there is a difference between coming to wikipedia with the intention of starting a memorial and memorializing an active contributor to the project. The former shouldn't be allowed, the later I have no problem with. The later kind of tells people why a colleague they may have worked with is no longer active.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you might be talking about my rationale, in which case, I may simply have worded it sloppily- I think a memorial for an active Wikipedian is useful, because his absence is noticed and affects the project. I don't necessarily think that my userspace would be a good place for me to create a memorial for my late grandfather. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with 100% wit this. I just wanted to make sure that we don't set a presidence that memorials are ok, if they are in people's userspace. I think by countering Jeff's memorial with it's not applicable to wp:NOTMEMORIAL because it's in the userspace, open's that door for others to say, "But my memorial is in my userspace."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The guideline is clearly focused on articles. We may still want to delete memorial pages outside of articles, but they should nominated at WP:MFD and there needs to be some argument beyond WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As ever, we are more relaxed about the userspace of good contributors. If a good contributor wants to use a subpage of their userspace to remember a deceased friend or relative, I suspect few will have a problem with it. If someone's sole purpose here is to create such a page, rather than to be involved in creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, I suspect opinion would be quite different. WJBscribe (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When you start making memorials in your userspace, I think you are starting to get into the realm of wp:NOTMYSPACE---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And you are entitled to that opinion and would no doubt voice it were such a page to be nominated at WP:MFD, which is where the matter will ultimately be settled. A speedy closed AfD of a non-article doesn't establish any precedent at all... WJBscribe (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In the end, this was a bad AFD and was correctly closed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an editor (KoshVorlon) who routinely attempts to enforce his/her complete and utter misunderstanding of policy. KV has also nominated numerous articles (List of Jewish American_Musicians, List of Jewish American musicians, List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350), List of hooligan firms, List of cities by longitude, and List of snowboard tricks) for deletion, simply because they are lists, claiming WP:NOT prohibits lists. I've never been a fan of the mentor/adopt a user program, but this editor could be the test case. - auburnpilot talk 17:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is looking very POINTy. Several months ago, the same user tried nominating Deaths in 2008 at AfD using the same rationale. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, there's no attempt at WP:POINT. It's a memorial, and as I stated in the AFD, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL it's not permitted to have memorials in Wikipedia pages. BTW - if anything, the AN should be on the admin who closed the damn thing after 5 minutes and called it proper. However, like I said in the AFD, I expected to get hate thrown my way because of the two AFD's.

BTW - comment on contribution not contributor please! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether these things should be deleted or not, but from this edit you still seem to think that Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians is an article. It's not - it's in the Wikipedia: space and therefore needs to be discussed at WP:MFD. As such, I fully endorse the procedural close of the AFD. –xeno (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)First, Deaths in 2008 is not a memorial; it is a collective list of notable people who have died, and links to their own articles - for which notability has already been established. It is also useful for generating new articles, even stubs, for these people. And the AfD, which was inappropriately so per procedure, was closed by a 'Crat, not an Admin. --Rodhullandemu 20:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We can have a proper understanding of the policy, and no need for the assumed dichotomy; WP:NOTMEMORIAL specifically refers both to articles, and has language that refers to the creation of pages. The Jeffpw page is in userspace, and it evolved from an ordinary userpage - none of which is covered by the policy. I would also we had this same discussion around about the time when the page became what it is, and the consensus (you may be surprised to find we have a policy regarding that concept, but I assure you we do) was that it was to be kept. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if KoshVorlon follows proper procedure to nominate this as MfD, it just really stings as very poor taste, and insensitive in the extreme. The idea that Jeff, or for that matter, any Wikipedian including KoshVorlon or myself, could be so easily erased from the community because of policy is misguided. I don't know why Jeff's page, or any talk page expression of sorrow or grief would have to be deleted. This community is obviously made of editors. When one of them dies, it is a natural response for the community to react to the loss. We do not function as a community unless we allow ourselves (without going crazy myspace style) to communicate with each other. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• {{courtesy blanked}} and full protected the AfD discussion. That was an embarrassment. Viridae^Talk 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, yes it was. An innapropriately closed nom with an invalid reason with too little time. I totally agree. Just so we can all drop the bullshit, if I put up a page in my userspace with a memorial for the deceased father (who recently passed) it would be AFD'd and gone by now, for the exact same reason I nominated both memorials for . It would have not mattered one bit if I tried to tell you "It's not an article" or "that was in poor taste". YOu'd remind me first, that wiki is not a memorial, and secondly you'd point me down to the bottom of the page that appears when you edit that says:
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
Bottom line, this was not done right at all, and it was embarassing.
HEY! Here's an idea, why not just throw out the policy since you don't seem to want to follow it when it becomes "inconvenient" for you to do so. Just so you know, I will re-nom both items (not today, nor over the weekend) for no other reason that they don't comply with current policy. You know I'm right. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, KoshVorlon, are you really that dense? Maybe it's an age thing, or a language barrier, I don't know. But clearly something is standing in the way. That page WAS NOT AN ARTICLE. You cannot send a page that is not an article to AfD (Articles for Deletion). Do you really not understand the difference between a page that honors a committed Wikipedia editor and one that honors your father? They are not comparable. If you nominate either page again, you will find the same result. The AfD close was correct; no debate. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Drop it and move on. At this point it is approaching a certain level of disruption to make your point. Everybody has tried to explain it to you and you are just ignoring it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request block review

I've just blocked User:115.130.2.169 for 24 hours for repeated, unrepentant edit warring on Homophobia. I hesitated to do it since I edit the article, but after 11+ reverts and no response on AN/3RR he needed to be stopped. He was warned several times on his talk page, in edit summaries and on the article talk page. Requesting review. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on your block, but you probably should have simply posted to WP:AN/I to avoid the potential conflict of interest as you are (admittedly) in the dispute. Its great you are asking it to be reviewed, but honestly when you are in a dispute, its best not to play admin and editor at the same times. —— nixeagle 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block. As clear-cut as it gets. Next time though you could post on AN/I to avoid any accusations of a conflict of interest. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I had also posted it on the 3RR noticeboard to avoid COI, but we're having trouble with this user coming back with a variety of ips and one sweet li'l sock. Could one of our tech-savvier friends take a look and see if a brief rangeblock would be helpful? It is getting just a teeny bit irritating. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've got more IP addresses, we can check. I only see the two on 3RR, and that's not enough to justify a rangeblock. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a few more at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WesternPacific; just added another one a moment ago. But we can just keep up with WP:RBI if that is the better strategy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is a previously-blocked editor just block socks and IPs on sight. There is no need to go to a noticeboard if their edits are clearly recognisable. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that semi-protection of Homophobia should be considered, due to the high recent volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. The article was rather quiet until the last couple of days, so two weeks of semi might be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection... why didn't I think of that? Yes, that would work just as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Wouldn't ordinarily have stepped in myself in that type of situatino, but it was getting ridiculous. As long as no-one objects to the block... Exploding Boy (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent block - firstly, this is a new ip picking up from where a same general range editor left off, and, secondly, this is very sophisticated POV emplacement (the distinction between "Fear" and "Disgust" responses reconciling an anti homosexual viewpoint was quite clever) that could easily be lost in a pre sanction discussion. Other than the pseudo technical language, it was also simple 3RR violation/gaming. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple admins editing protected page

Could someone take a box of clue bats to the admins who have decided to continuing reverting each other after Sarah Palin was protected? I don't want to see more arbcom cases today. Chillum 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grr. I'll up the count of those I've notified about the first arbcomm case again. GRBerry 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OH DEAR LAWD. Someone get Kelly to smack some sense into these people. Admins should not be editing the page - only on behalf of consensus reached by editors on the talk page. I am going to be pissed if this shows up on the 40+ papers that have had articles dedicated to the Wikipedia page itself. The second that happens I am going to come back here and trick someone into deleting the main page. --mboverload@ 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From Sarah Palin (cur) (last) 11:58, 4 September 2008 TimVickers (Talk | contribs) (73,362 bytes) (Blank edit - I'm going to block the next Admin that edits this article with no talkpage consensus.) --mboverload@ 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim Vickers. John Reaves 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very serious. Acting like that is completely unacceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. Protection status for the article has changed 10 times today --mboverload@ 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I made this clear on the editnotice, MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Sarah Palin. Cenarium ^Talk 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, though the edit summary of the last admin to revert is fairly ironic: Protection Warring is not acceptable RxS (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John McCain are all full protected. Sarah Palin should remain full protected at least through November 4 as well. —Travis^talk 01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those pages is fully protected, and none has been fully protected for a some time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ach! This is, I guess, the type of hurried editing I do after the wife announces that the bread pudding is ready to eat. My apologies. —Travis^talk 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oi vey. Sometimes passion gets the better of us. Let's start TALKING before doing stuff such as this. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront

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

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

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

Royce Mathew's Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Mountains, mole hills, etc. Also WP:DFTT. —Travis^talk 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP of the previous user Disneysuit, none other than Royce Mathew. He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against me for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He has been blocked, several times, but he won't stop. I don't want to lose my position at Wikipedia as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be greatly appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. Here is what he has written, and what he will probably send to Wikimedia Foundation against me: [85]. It has been deleted, but I'm not sure if he got the link the following commenter gave him against me. I don't mind a checking of my contributions, but I do not like it when someone is willing to take something so far as a legal threat and my possible blocking when all I've done is try to enforce the rules with both myself and others so as to make Wikipedia a better place! BlackPearl14^talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this back to BlackPearl14's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

My message has been carried on to George's page. BlackPearl14^talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanceburg, Kentucky

Could an administrator please look at the article Vanceburg, Kentucky? It's showing a lot of activity lately regarding some police scandal, and there are some very questionable usernames editing the article. Special:Contributions/Reformcorruptrivercity, Special:Contributions/Vanceburg, Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburg, Special:Contributions/ReformVanceburgNow, Special:Contributions/Lewiscountyky. -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I bother to inform these users that I've posted this, or is it not worth it? -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's customary to do so. I've removed the section, as it was completely unsourced. Dayewalker (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the users. -- plushpuffin (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... this hits very close to my hometown. I do recall the incidents being in the newspaper (the latter, about the officer) and the charges that were wiped under the rug, so to speak. I'll try to dig up some sources tonight or tomorrow and at least give some credibility to that. The former, about welfare and all that jazz is completely garbage. seicer | talk | contribs 00:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed the socks: ReformVanceburg, ReformVanceburgNow, Reformcorruptrivercity. The main account appears to be Vanceburg, and if they wish to discuss the matter, they can use a single account. seicer | talk | contribs 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. I wasn't sure if I should have posted on WP:SSP. It just seemed too obvious to be sock-puppetry. -- plushpuffin (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

JUST FOR THE RECORD THIS IS THE USER VANCEBURG AND I AM NOT THE MAIN USER!!!!!!!! THE ONLY THING I POSTED WAS ABOUT THE BASEBALL TEAMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was too obvious. I'm sorry, Vanceburg. I noticed all of those edits adding unsourced material on the police scandal and all of them had the city name as part of their username. I grouped you with them by mistake. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you very much.VANCEBURG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll amend the notices on the other talk pages, but leave them indef'ed as it is obvious they are stemming from one account. seicer | talk | contribs 17:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad checkuser access

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temp unprotect a template please

Can an admin temporarily unprotect {{ArticleHistory}} please? This is needed to fix a problem with the way Featured articles are counted at Wikipedia:Featured_topics/count. In a nutshell, some categories have incorrect page counts stored in the database so we need to temporarily depopulate them - this will force a recount. A little time will be needed to let the template update the various (130 or so) pages get through the job queue, then I can notify again once the category pagecounts are rebuilt.

For the longer story, see the initiating question, the current discussion, test page showing the problem and my followup VPT question. Or just unprotect the damn page for a few hours :) Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The damn page has been unprotected. Please request protection here or at WP:RFPP when you are done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A little strange that the issues wasn't raised at the talk page of the template in question, where Gimmetrow would have dealt with it. I hope the edit doesn't break other pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that Sandy, I'd been in discussion with some people who were chasing the problem and I just wanted the first available admin. In any case, the operation was a (partial) success and the patient is recovering nicely. I'll check around to be sure I didn't leave any swabs inside the incision. This was strictly about depopulating and repopulating some broken FT categories, you might want to read the threads I linked above - we're going to need lots of help to figure this out. (PS I asked for re-prot at RFPP) Franamax (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Automatic AFD closing script

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Devunia and User:Cicaneo

These two users appear to be using their userpages as some sort of chat system. While I assume this is some sort of violation of WP:NOT, I'm not entirely sure what should be done. I have warned them on their talk pages, but they seem to have ignored it. Horselover Frost (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone where the woodbine twineth. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock 85.214.74.80!

My bot (User:Numbo3-bot) runs on a Strato server, and it took me forever to find out why my bot seems blocked on en.wp!

I finally found out that User:Spellcast did uniformly block the whole Strato IP range, what is pretty rude!

My bot was/is doing good work, so please unblock at least User:85.214.74.80! --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that IP range should be blocked or not (that is, whether it qualifies as an open proxy), and that can be discussed separately, but in any case I've made the bot IP-block exempt, so there shouldn't be a problem anymore. Chick Bowen 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --- Greetings, Numbo3 (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit requests

Resolved

Would appreciate an admin to deal with protected edit requests at Sarah Palin - thanks. Kelly ^hi! 06:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done, though I'm sure there will be more. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reprotect a template please

In re the thread above, Gonzo_fan2007 was kind enough to unprotect {{ArticleHistory}} so I could conduct my surgery, I asked for reprot at RFPP and it has still not been done.

Since {{ArticleHistory}} is used on talk of most featured content and is quite complex, I think it qualifies as a high-risk template. And since I've gotten SandyGeorgia mad at me in the process, it's just all-around high-risk! :) And since I asked here first for it to be unprotected, I will ask again to please restore the protection level for {{ArticleHistory}}. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, back to fully protected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx Bw. Now if you could just get select and update and access to the en:wiki DB, we could fix those rotten pagesincategory parser-function errors! Franamax (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PZL-Mielec -> PZL Mielec

Resolved

This page needs moving (due too incorrect name - see talk page), however I have no privileges to do this. Skalee (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved as uncontroversial. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Support}} {{Oppose}}

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

They have them on lots of other projects. I'm sure someone will soon complain about voting, but I don't see the harm unless someone can prove there is a technical science/server reason not to. They were deleted by an ancient and probably not valid consensus from 3+ years ago: [86] I'd say its overdue for review. rootology (C)(T) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'''Support'''

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

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

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

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

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

Image:Ambox_style.png broken

The image Image:Ambox style.png is broken right now. I haven't seen this behavior from MediaWiki before (either the image page exists or it does not, but an image page with a broken image is new to me). This is affecting any use of, for example {{prose}}. -207.172.212.147 (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, it works for me. I have purged the image just in case. Do you see it in every page or only in a single page? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's working on commons, and popups gives me a thumbnail - but the full image view is a red x. Commons had some image issues this morning, could this be related? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to download the commons version, delete the en version, and reupload. It looks like the server lost or corrupted the en version of the image. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Village_pump#Massive_image_loss and Wikipedia:ANI#.svg image issue...Wikipedia or me? Try and keep it it one place. Might be something to do with this. 3000 images were accidentally deleted from the database. Woody (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been  Done. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Right, when I read about these problems on other pages I immediately checked all images I am "responsible" for and fixed the two damaged ambox images.

Lucasbfr: At the time you typed your message above I had not yet fixed those images, so your browser was probably showing you an older version of the image that was in your local web browser cache.

MBisanz: For the future if similar things happen: Don't delete the old image page and re-upload the image, instead just re-upload the image to the current image page. Otherwise you loose the image page description, image history and the protection settings for the image.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh good to know, I assumed a corrupted base image would cause problems to the new upload. Thanks for the info. MBisanz ^talk 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse filter

If people were interested, this discussion has restarted, probably prompted by the recent annoyance of cleaning up after that juvenile pagemove vandal Gwop. See Wikipedia_talk:Abuse_filter#Final_consensus-gathering. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Report on User:Bart Versieck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unnecessary protection at Political positions of Sarah Palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nigzakilla

Resolved

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

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

Edward Sanchez

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

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

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

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

User:Opinoso

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

Take a look.

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

Bizarre block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Another problem seems to be that Slrubenstein is targeting and deleting IP talk pages where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) has left warnings. [87] That's not good. - auburnpilot talk 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a link to this discussion on Slrubenstein's Talk page, but instead of responding here, he's only dealing with people on his Talk page. His most recent edit on this subject: [88] indicates that he has no interest in actually stopping this bizarre behavior. Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOLD ON a second

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

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

Thread closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Chick Bowen's comments in the section above

Please read WP:AIV:

Important! – your report must follow these three points:

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

2. Unregistered users must be active now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corvus, that's not quite true. Whilst I'm less likely to block an IP that hasn't been warned completely, if I look at the contribs and see that it's clearly an IP on a vandalism spree and isn't likely to contribute positively any time soon, then I'll block anyway [89] [90] [91] [92]. However, what I won't do is block if an account is insufficiently warned and appears to be a clueless newbie editor or content dispute (in fact sometimes I won't block these even if they have 4ims). I know a number of other admins work like this too.

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

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

Tree Cannon (talk · contribs)

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

Tree Cannon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, from what I can guess based on his user page and contributions, a Japanese user who is unhappy that the English Wikipedia has fair-use images and the Japanese Wikipedia does not, and think it is "discriminatory". About a month ago, they decided to act like a sort of copyright police for Japanese media and removed fair-use images that were Japanese in origin ([93], [94], [95]). This got him blocked for 72 hours.

The account remained silent until now, when the user began adding random Japanese and some vandalism to his previous targets ([96], [97]). When other editors informed them that their edits were undone, this user began replying entirely in Japanese ([98], [99]). One of these replies, [100], appears to be inflammatory as the text for it translates to: It is from the English [wa]. Another calling and. Already immediately September 11th, the party of arrogant America and the European person died the multitude. It is very happy important commemoration day. The exemption [ji] [te] permitting to that. The [ze] which probably will celebrate that day together. Toast! Another inflammatory comment, this time in English, was added after he was blocked by User:VirtualSteve for the previous edits.

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

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

The text of [101] reads, roughly, "I don't know English, but whatever. Soon it'll be September 11, when lots of arrogant Americans and Europeans died. It's a joyous, important anniversary. In deference to that, I'll forgive you. Let's celebrate that day together. Cheers!" Exploding Boy (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background and updates

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

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

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

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

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

Malfunction on User:BJBot

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

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

Kingdom Now theology now a target for the Palin POV pushers

Resolved

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

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

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

Query about User:Crommorc

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

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

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

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

Template:Reflist

The template is not working properly. The columns options is no longer working. I believe this edit [102] messed up the code. Please fix this a.s.a.p. — Navy  Blue  14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg

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

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

Inappropriate conduct of administrators on Sarah Palin

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

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