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. 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

Tony Danza

Resolved

 – Blacklisted the fake news domains. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A few more eyes on this might be useful. According to one and only one report he's died which may lead to more of this. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if it's fake news or something. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, talk about embarrassed. I even managed to miss the "tony.danza.swellserver.com" I am now off to yell and swear at my boss, that always makes me feel better. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault! There was one of these a while ago that caused quite a bit of a scrap - seems the trend today is to fake death reports and try to use them as reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Tabloid-on-demand. See [1], [2], [3], etc. Might be a good reason to blacklist these domains, at least in article space. — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, that'd be an excellent idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested here. Matt (Talk) 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And done Matt (Talk) 02:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment, Bullying and Unfair Treatment of editor Worldfacts

There is a thread in the archive about the recent 24 hour ban of Worldfacts. I edited that thread but my edit was reverted on the grounds of not editing an archive. OK I accept that.

My statement regarding the treatment of Worldfacts (regarding the USS Liberty article) is : "And with the bullying and harassment WF has been dealt why would WF want to participate ?" WF is obviously being harassed and bullied. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Diffs and links would help, here... // roux   19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I, uh, fail to see how issuing a block to shut down a blatant WP:3RR violation (see the history at USS Liberty incident and this report for background) is harassment and bullying. The admin who issued the block noted that the editor in question hadn't participated with discussion on the talk page for well over a month. Discuss, don't revert blindly, is a good policy that wasn't followed here. I don't see a problem with the block. Tony Fox [[User_talk:Tony Fox|(small> 20:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would urge admin to check Henry Winklestein's contribution history for the context in this. The user's only real contribution is running around wiki talk space supporting WorldFacts (With one contribution to article space on Six Day War to add in a diatribe about the USS Liberty incient which was soon reverted). Though my own behaviour in the debacle is hardly stellar, my good faith has failed and I have let myself get drawn into the silliness, I would still suggest that the whole thing does need to be looked at, as it most certainly is not a great atmosphere ATM. For my part I am only going to be involved in the debate around that article now via the efforts of BQZip to mediate. Edited to add: There was a ANI about the article that fizzled here --Narson ~ Talk • 20:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC) edited 20:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Narson is right: Henrywinkelstein seems to be behaving in a very odd manner for a genuinely new and separate editor. See [4], a very unusual distribution of edits. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead --- do a checkuser, check my IP against theirs, I happened to come across this issue and its perked my interest. You wanna come see my computer and look at my eMails too ?? gee - I'm sorry I do not agree with the "in" crowd. So be it ... The plain and simple truth is that WF has been constantly and consistently bullied. WF has asked the same question several times and has yet to receive a legit answer. All anyone ever does is hide when it comes to this. What a whitewash. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Among those edits are barnstars awarded to WorldFacts and to PalestineRemembered. Need I say more? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And whats wrong with awarding barnstars ? Or do you need to be in a particular "club" to award them ? Are they not worthy ? Just as worthy - and probably more worthy - than most of you. NEED I SAY MORE ? --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened to civility? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Winklestein: please tone back the rhetoric. You are bordering on becoming disruptive with your comments here and on other talk pages. I highly recommend that you reread WP:CIVIL and comment on content, not the contributors, in future. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I hadn't seen this thread before I started one on WP:AN/I. The first thing WorldFacts did on his return was to edit war with another revert. Apologies, if this came across as forum shopping. Justin talk 00:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have blocked Henrywinklestein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive mission poster who seems unable to assume good faith on the part of those with whom he disagrees, coincidentally a large proportion of those he has encountered in his short time on Wikipedia - this kind of thing: [5], [6]. No objection to an unblock if anyone is prepared to mentor him or can get him to grok the problem. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

WorldFacts launched a direct personal attack calling me a liar here [7], I'm surprised given that he launched this attack on AN/I that there hasn't been any admin action. There have been persistent personal attacks against any editor that disagreed with him on the USS Liberty Incident. Just how personal does it have to get before any action is taken? Justin talk 19:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Feh. Ignore it and move on. It's no big deal. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would but this has been going on for a while and I'm sickening of it. Justin talk 20:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I define personal attacks as X is an idiot, not as X said this and it's a lie - to say that it's a lie is hyperbole but part of the legitimate process of disputing a conclusion. If the user persists in describing it as a lie after it is proven that it is actually true, then it becomes uncivil, and if the user spreads the "it's a lie" meme beyond the very narrow scope of the original dispute then that, too, is a conduct problem requiring addressing. Yes? Guy (Help!) 12:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. Have a look at Talk:USS Liberty incident and you'll find that describing anything said against WorldFact's proposed edits is nearly always a LIE, or its censorship or its suppression of the truth. However, this may have slipped admin attention as so much hyperbole is posted there that an automatic archive has been set up to regularly clear the Talk Page. So yes it is a conduct that needs addressing IMHO. I wouldn't be complaining if this was a one off event, I've had a lot worse on other articles and I ain't no shrinking violet. Justin talk 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been pondering this over yule and I have to say that Henry was the editor whose only purpose was to raise pressure. WorldFacts seems to have big misunderstandings on how wiki operates and how to put himself forward. If the view is that there is an editor there that can be salvaged into a productive editor, perhaps the solution is removing him from the midde east topic area by topic ban or by using a mentor to steer him? As it is, it is no problem for me or someone else to revert him every week or so, as that is how often he pops around, but I doubt it is an enjoyable experience for him and it is a big wiki. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD needs reopening?

This AfD was non-admin closed, after running only 6 hours, by User:Ecoleetage as "nomination withdrawn"; but I believe that such a close is justified (by WP:SK) only when no "delete" opinions have been registered in the discussion. Here the opinions, discounting the nominator's, were evenly split 3–3. Shouldn't an admin reopen this one? Deor (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the bottom of the AfD -- the editor who put forth the AfD requested that it be withdrawn. I was not being bold -- I was simply following the nominator's request to withdraw his nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that matters as long as some users have advocated deletion. See the link to WP:SK in my message above. Deor (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (2x ec) IMHO, there is no reason to reopen; the AfD would likely result in "no consensus" anyway, which defaults to "keep." Process for process' sake is to be discouraged. Hermione1980 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Reopening an AfD that has already been abandoned by its nominator doesn't seem like a practical use of time and energy. The nominator has already made it clear that he considers the subject notable and has added to the article. If you feel the subject demands erasure, you are welcome to renominate it for AfD consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominators don't own deletion discussions. Withdrawal by the nominator does not suddenly close a discussion. It certainly does not close a discussion where other editors have opined to delete. (The correct thing to do is to invite the other editors to review the discussion and their opinions in light of the additional developments.) Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nothing to do - someone nominated, withdrew their nomination and it was process-closed. Orderinchaos 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As above: Nominators don't own deletion discussions, and a discussion is there to form consensus. Consensus isn't formed by steamrollering the discussion closed after 6 hours. That doesn't even allow editors in other timezones the ability to comment, let alone to form a consensus. There are good reasons that AFD discussions run for a period of several days, and that is the process, not closure without letting all members of the editor community at large a chance to comment if they wish to. A closure after 6 hours is not in-process. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• The point stands that "nomination withdrawn" is part of the SK criteria and we shouldn't be closing AfD's well before the "appointed" time unless they are snow closes, bold closes or speedy keep/delete. Arguably any action is 'bold' if taken without prior consult, so I can understand this. I think this closure was wrong. I do not, however, think that it should be reopened (even though an admin could just revert the close). Eco, I have your talk page watchlisted and I see admins come to your page every so often telling you they have reverted your NAC's. Usually you judge the eventual outcome correctly--if you said keep and close it XYZ hours early, it is often 'keep' when closed finally. I have also seen you make something of a production about 'being vindicated' by this outcome. I would suggest gently that you are probably better off just waiting and closing AfDs which would be less controversial to someone interested in preserving the process. There is a fine line between bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake and process for the sake of process, but the AfD procedure is written the way it is for a reason. Most of the time when people raise their eyebrows at a close like this it is because they are concerned about the integrity of the process. XfD & CSD need to be viewed as fair (meaning impartial, equitable and predictable) in order for them to retain community trust. In order to ensure that fairness, we have to push back against certain closes. This doesn't mean reopening them or seeing whether or not they match the eventual outcome. It means ensuring that the guide to deletion appropriately matches what we see on a daily basis. Just some thoughts. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Protonk, you are referring to three isolated incidents regarding reversions of AfDs that, in turn, were re-closed very quickly (one within an hour's time, the other two in less than a day). I find it amusing that you are able to see how I am "making a production" over commenting on the closure of an AfD that should not have been reverted but you somehow miss the comments by the reverting admins who made a production by rudely calling my intelligence and competence to question (not exactly in keeping with WP:BITE and WP:NPA). Ecoleetage (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably because they aren't there. I for one certainly never said anything about your intelligence, although I spent almost a whole day continually patiently explaining AFD shorthands and why we don't close discussions early to you again and again, in the face of refusals to listen and outright straw men. However, as Protonk notes, you do make a production of being "vindicated" when in fact you aren't at all. You do not understand the process at AFD and, despite your claims that you do and that no-one has challenged your closures, you will continue to get into hot water like this until you follow the advice that I gave to you and stop refusing to listen and learn. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Uncle G., and a Merry Christmas to you. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved on this. This is not resolved. The AfD should be re-opened. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, it shouldn't. The issue "a non-admin close was made outside SK and NAC" does not necessarily require the remedy "reopen the AfD and let it get closed as keep again" in order to provide relief. What possible good could reopening the AfD do? Is the article likely to be deleted? Does it fail to meet our inclusion guidelines? If the answer to those questions is no, then re-open it. If the answer is yes, then opening it would waste everyone's time. Let's just move on. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• This specific situation was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Withdrawal of AFD. Flatscan (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A speedy close is not appropriate when there are delete !votes. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand that. I'm saying that recognizing a specific wrong does not require overturning that decision. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Considering that the AfD received multiple varied votes that weren't in any way inclined towards a speedy close, a withdrawal of nomination shouldn't directly result into closure of AfD. It is obvious now that there are members who are against keeping the article. The nominator's withdrawal should be noted and the discussion should run its course. However, I'm not in support of reopening the present AfD. It is obvious that this was more or less procedural close that was done purely in good faith, albeit hastily. Those parties who feel that the article be deleted should simply renominate it and see what the outcome is. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 06:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Process for process sake alone is a waste of everyone's time. Article was originally nom'ed on the basis of notability, which has now been established by two references. As has been said before in this discussion, the AfD, if left to run, would have been a "no consensus", and now if re-nom'ed, on what basis would that be, since notability has been established? Seriously, let's move on, folks. AKRadecki^Speaketh 06:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Process is important. Deor (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Process is critical, especially in deletion debates. My point is that Eco has seen the feedback on this thread and that's what we can do. We can recognize that the close was inappropriate while refusing to relist the article at the same time. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with Protonk. This particular article seems unlikely to gain a consensus for deletion, and the "delete" votes were not terribly persuasive, so it wouldn't serve any good to immediately re-list it. The closing editor has seen some objection and will likely be more careful in the future about applying WP:IAR to one of Wikipedia's more rule-based procedures. Unless it becomes a persistent problem what more can we do? I would ask for another few sources to clearly establish notability. They're almost certainly out there, but if nobody can find them and you really think the subject is not notable, I see no harm in waiting week or two then re-nominating it, carefully explaining your reasons so as not to appear sour grapes. That creates a lot less drama than overturning a close. Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you people are still misunderstanding. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted, and I certainly won't be renominating it for deletion. I simply think that this was a bad, out-of-process close and thought that an admin might want to deal with that. I was clearly wrong. Deor (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think so. You were clearly right. It was a poor out of process close. I'm not sure what an admin was going to do about it, but Eco did get some "forceful backup" about this. I just think that people agreed the right action was a warning, not a reversal of the decision. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Could you give me the lottery numbers for the upcoming draw? This AfD was only open for 6 hours of its normal 7 day run time. How can you know which way public opinion may swing in the next 6.5 days? Just because we have a split in the beginning doesn't mean 20 people won't suddenly show up and decide its not needed. I've seen it before.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
          • First, AfDs normally run 5 days and not 7. Second, if you are so much concerned about that article being kept and feel that it doesn't pass notability, why not just renominate it? Like Protonk said, Ecoleetage has seen the response to his premature closure and hopefully would be careful in the future. Reverting the closure would merely serve to prove a point. Could someone restore the resolved tag on this one? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• I can't believe this conversation is still going on. C'mon, people, stop beating a dead horse. I made an honest and completely benign error -- I thought a non-admin could close an AfD if the nominator withdraws the request for deletion (I recalled seeing being done before -- maybe by someone who got away with a mistake?). It won't happen again, okay? You know, it's really ironic -- since I've become active on Wikipedia, I've done at least five or six dozen NACs without any problems and I never once got a thank you for helping the project on that front...but I make a single mistake and I get dragged in here and everyone jumps on my back. What a sad commentary. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Except that it's not one single mistake in a whole raft of closures. It's at least the second such mistake. Certainly it's the second time that you've been explicitly told that what you did was not the correct AFD process, and that there are good reasons that AFD has a deliberative and inclusive process. If you keep thinking that it is a single isolated mistake (which is what you argued when you made this error the last time, too) each time that you do this and are chided about it, then you'll fail to learn that you are repeatedly getting this wrong. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If no one has anything further to add, I apologise for my error in regard to the closing of the AfD on the Monserratian population in Britain and I would like to wish everyone present the best for the holidays and the coming year. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Eco has gotten the message and won't be doing anymore controversial NACs of AfDs. Should this issue arise again, I'm sure he'll be happy to no longer take that particular duty on himself again in the future. If anyone really feels the article should be deleted, send it to AfD again and I'm sure the closing admin will take the previous discussion into account. AniMate 15:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unblock reviewed

It's hard to believe it's over two years since I created {{unblock reviewed}}. I'm glad it seems to be useful. I have a suggestion, and I'm not sure whether it would be best in that template or a new one.

There exists a class of blocks where the user requests unblock, and we then call the blocking admin (who is most familiar with the case). In such cases, and to keep the unblock category clear (and thus avoid wasting people's time) I would suggest we should perhaps have a template called "unblock pending" or some such, which will put these requests in a sub-category until the blocking admin has had a chance to review.

Such cases are generally the non-obvious ones: not blatant vandalism, but blocks for patterns of disruption that require knowledge of the history, which the blocking admin presumably has. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes all sorts of sense. // roux   20:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a great idea, really. Would be very very useful. — Aitias // discussion 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good (er... Is there an opt out situation re "assumed knowledge of blocking admin?") LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point (slap me, slap me, bad man, not Dec 26 yet) . Do you mean where the admin has not left a note on the talk page saying the conditions under which they would support unblock? Incidentally, I think a statement of that nature is a great idea for long blocks, in case one is on Wikibreak or some such when the appeal comes. Nothing wrong with letting the user know the realities, and if the unblock condition is the heat death of the universe then we should say so right up front. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... not really. More like, "when blocking admin knew it was the right thing to do when reported, but after all this time - perhaps days, maybe hours - is a little foggy on the reasons why..." sort of thing. Y'know, past the hot white heat of the present situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think this should be triggered manually by a reviewing administrator, such as by adding a parameter like "needscomment=1" to the {{unblock}} template. That should leave the unblock request open, assign the talk page to a subcategory of Category:Requests for unblock and add text to the effect of "the blocking admin has been notified of this request at xx:xx UTC" to the {{unblock}} template. The actual notification could be done by bot, perhaps by DavidWSBot (talk · contribs), who already does block notification.  Sandstein  08:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the reviewing admin should be the one to leave a message - he can, in addition to notifying the blocking admin, leave a personal opinion (i.e "a block of six months seems to be too much for a single [link_to_diff personal attack] by the anon" - a real case I handled, where I found out some useful information by contacting the blocking admin). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Created

I have created Template:Unblock on hold and Category:Unblock on hold. — Aitias // discussion 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tested everything, works well. :) — Aitias // discussion 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The template needs to NOT be substed - otherwise, it's a painful amount of wiki-gibberish to figure out what to replace with the decision template. Just like the unblock template, this one needs to be left in place as is until someone replaces it with unblock reviewed. --B (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed that. :) — Aitias // discussion 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm touched....

How thoughtful of you to wish us a Merry Kitzmas, as it's an American holiday...you've warmed my heart, thank you. And Merry or Happy Christmas or Saturnalia or Yule or Belated Solstice to you as well. Where I am, it's Christmas all the way,no Jewish temple in a town of 120,000, the closest mosque is 300 miles away, and being a Wiccan et al. will just end up getting you shot at. :)

But as a Buddhist/stoic, I really don't care, I just go with the flow. Although if I could have a preference, I'd like one of those later holidays, like the 6th of January that the Catholics celebrate. Though I'd hate to have to convert just for that... :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Scots say "Happy Xmas" like the Brits, right? I wonder where in the hell we get "merry" from... Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry...did you post this in the wrong place? either way (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Any right-thinking BRITON would choke on "xmas". It is "Merry Christmas", sometimes colloquially Chrimble or Chrimbo, and for those who are not too inclined to invoke the name of the Christ-child "cool yule" is acceptable. The error is an easy one to make, though - Christmas is the religious festival falling on December 25 (checks watch: nearly time for midnight mass here in GMT), whereas Xmas is the trading season stretching from September to the start of the January Sales, traditionally on December 26 (boxing day in the BRITONS' Britain). And with that I will wish all Wikipedians a Merry Christmas or Cool Yule according to personal taste. Slap me if I edit again before December 26, I am supposed to have a family and a life. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never actually heard anyone use the term 'Briton' IRL. How do you pronounce it? Is it like Bry-tawn, or like Brit-in? I don't think it sounds good though. Call yourself English or Scottish or Welsh or whatever, but don't call yourself a Briton.--J. F. Mam J. Jason Dee (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you not? So, when someone refers to themself as a "Brit" what do you suppose they are referring to? Also, I have just a little problem with referring to myself as English - since a quick review of my grandparents surnames brings up a mix of English, Scottish, Norman French and Huguenot French (and who knows how many other "ethnicities" have passed through those families). My major problem, though, is how on earth you refer to British citizens with (recent) ties to China, Asia, West Indies/Africa, Australasia, Europe, etc. Are these not now Britons, and if not what then do you call them? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not aware of anyone calling themself a "Briton"- all too reminiscent of the long-dead nation of Brittany. Better "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "British". J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

@ LHvU - coincidence. John André was one of my forebears, I also have Gaelic ancestors (from Ireland in my case). The capitalisation of BRITONS comes from that fine publication The Weekly, maintaining Britain's standards since the dawn of the Electric Internet. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year ... -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dammit, this is an encyclopedia, folks. Doncha read yer own damn encyclopedia!?! Just to be pedantic: Xmas. Just to be Brittanic: [8]. Just to be semantic: In New Britain, Connecticut, as the WP artice helpfully informs us, the good citizens pronounce it "New Breh-EN" with a glottal stop imported from Poland (New Britainites would call it "gloh-UL") [9] And it appears that those overly commercial Anglo-Saxons were messin' with "Christmas" for over a thousand years now, including in that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of theirs. [10] (Just to be Germanic.) Or at least since 1551, according to OED. Byron, Coleridge, Lewis Carol, Oliver Wendell Holmes are all on the Xmas side of the "BAH-ul" (just to be cite-anic). [11]. It was used in the Canadian North in 1896 [12]; and as far south as Oz [13]; and closer to the equator [14] (just to be tropic). But it's true that the usage is informal and frowned upon by many, so sometimes not a good idea to use (just to be politic). So don't get yer knickers in a twist about any of it, but if you do, New Bri-ENites can help you with that, too. [15] (just to be hygenic). -- Noroton (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Noroton, if you really want to twist their nickers, tell them how we pronounce "Thames River", the one that runs through New London, Connecticut. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The correct way, of course, just as it's spelled. Unfortunately, Connecticutter Noah Webster was unable to reform the entire English language as he did the American version before passing on to a better place than even Connecticut. Nutmeg-state superiority in these (and all) things, of course, has had its ungrateful reactions and tratorous apostasies. It is, however, flattering that so many other locations have been named after places in Connecticut, sometimes even before the Connecticut places were named, which is even more flattering. We can't expect them all to get the pronunciation right, but give 'em time. -- Noroton (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, snap...(blushing) Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion needed

Resolved

 – The category is no more!

Can someone please delete Category:Poschiavo. Reason: To make way for a move or author request. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, after seeing this, I'm not so sure about this deletion. Could you explain more why you need this deleted? either way (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Aitias // discussion 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I deleted it one minute before either way posted his question here. — Aitias // discussion 22:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Make way for a move? I thought Category: pages couldn't be moved... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Seth hilton

Strange case, this one. He's using his user and talk pages for self-promotion and band vanity. Frankly, I think his claims are somewhat inflated. Not only that, he's ignored all attempts at contact. Kind of like MascotGuy with a resume.  :) Anyway, Merry Christmas, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of old IP talk pages

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

---

About 45 minutes ago I left a message on the talk page of MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) regarding his mass deletion of IP talk pages (is that supported by policy?). Over the next half-hour, I left him two more messages ([16], [17]), however none have elicited any response. In the meantime, he has deleted approximately 300 more IP talk pages at a rate of 5 - 7 per minute. Since past experience with MZMcBride has shown him to be a very diligent and responsive admin, I am concerned that he may not be in full control over his account (either due to some run-away script or the account being hijacked). --Kralizec! (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is Christmas Day. One could safely assume that he's not watching his talkpage minute by minute. Give it some time... I don't see any reason for this to be here, given that you have contacted him on his talkpage. // roux   18:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That is actually part of my point. I am not aware of any admins that would ignore the orange "you have new talk page messages" bar for over an hour all the while continuing to delete pages by the hundreds. If these sorts of deletions are not supported by policy (and I do not pretend to know either way ... hence my query on his talk page), then we are going to have an awful mess to clean up since he has deleted over 4000 IP talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehh.. I dunno. There are times when I (not an admin, obviously) ignore the New Messages thing because I'll deal with it later. I think it's fair to assume others do the same. Note I'm not commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of the deletions. // roux   18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The point is correct though, I never heard of mass-deletion of IP talk pages being housekeeping. He responded at User talk:MZMcBride#Mass deletion of talk pages though, but I fail to see why this is done by him. It looks like a standard task for a bot to me... Regards SoWhy 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride continues to delete IP talk pages despite users (myself included) voicing their concern over those deletions. That's rather inappropriate. --Conti|✉ 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless the IP is static (such as a school or corporate firewall) there is very little point in maintaining a history of warnings when the offender moved on to another IP ages ago. Although I generally only blank the page ("archive to history") I do not see anything broadly harmful in deletion. Thatcher 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that with people voicing concerns over this, it is rather inappropriate for the bot to be continuing. Bots are not supposed to be run without permission. If people are unhappy with the idea of a bot deleting old talk pages, it should not be running. What do we do now? Majorly talk 19:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If he does not respond, maybe it will be needed to block him until he responds? SoWhy 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is little harm in deleting the IP pages, I agree, but then again, what do we gain from deleting them? It seems rather pointless to me. Blanking seems like the more sensible option, if one wants to empty a rather crowded talk page. Anyhow, this is besides the point. No admin should use a bot (unauthorized or not) without responding to user's concerns. This is definitely not the first time this has happened with MZMcBride, either. --Conti|✉ 19:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have left this comment at MZMcBride's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite has blocked MZMcBride for 12 hours. I find this appropriate, all things considered. Majorly talk 19:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect he left his bot running by accident - no big deal. As soon as he responds someone can unblock him, we just need to know he's in control of his actions. --Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate this noticeboard. Anyway, I've responded to several posts on my talk page over the past few days about these deletions. :-) (That's mostly in reply to Conti.) I think everything else is pretty clear. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please point those of us who are unfamiliar with this practice toward the policy or guideline that prescribes these deletions as being standard housekeeping? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure anyone's bothered to write it down yet. (Much like CAT:TEMP, I suppose....) Is there a particular issue you have? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While blanking of IP pages is fine, deleting seems problematic as non-admins will be blind to any past warnings an IP has received. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very likely that the IP has been re-assigned or there is a different user behind it. Also, without any blocks, templates on the page, edits in the past year, or talk page activity in the past year, how much do you think there is to see? There's also the issue of the new messages bar and a quite confusing diff... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"without any blocks, templates on the page, edits in the past year, or talk page activity in the past year, how much do you think there is to see" - well, then what's the harm with just leaving the pages intact? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a nice experience to come to Wikipedia and be accused of something like: "Racism is not amusing. Kindly refrain from posting it, or you may be blocked." --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very likely that the IP has been re-assigned or there is a different user behind it Just curious as to how you are determining the length of the DHCP lease? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Does that matter? And if so, how? (Short answer: I'm not looking at DHCP records at all.) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If an IP is a long-term abuser, deleting the talk page deletes the history. Some ISPs assign their IP addresses with long-term reservations, 6 months, longer or perhaps even permanently. It'll still be same person behind the address. Will we be able to determine a long-term abuser if we (non-admins) can't see the history? Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How many long-term abusers have 0 blocks and 0 edits within the past year? ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While I am not opposed to this practice as long as we only employ it for "old" talk pages and then do it consistently, this cannot exactly be called "standard housekeeping" if no one has ever bothered to write it down. Without some form of standardization here, I could see new but highly enthusiastic admins running with this idea and deleting month old talk pages, which I am sure we would all agree hinders instead of helps the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. With things like CAT:TEMP, we wrote down the instructions on the category description page. With IPs, is there a similar place? Perhaps a project-space page somewhere? Wikipedia:User page, perhaps (as that covers user talk pages as well)? That seems pretty reasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Started a conversation there. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bluntly, I for one consider this to be worrying enough. — Aitias // discussion 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Scripts are far, far more accurate than any human could ever be... (Addendum: I suppose it would also be prudent to mention RSI here too. As much as I enjoy this project, I'm not going to hurt myself for it. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of deletion over blanking. Deletion ensures that only admins can see what has happened in the past, and most of the people who work against vandalism aren't admins. It would be useful for them to be able to click on the history and see patterns of abuse, if any, which will inform whether they will warn or get an admin involved to investigate whether e.g. it is a school IP and needs a longterm block. // roux   20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• So, you're browsing Wikipedia, clicking around and suddenly you have a new messages bar. You click "last change" and this is what you see. How is that fair to our readers / potential editors? I know if I weren't familiar with Wikipedia, that would be incredibly confusing. Look at the right-hand column.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I see what you're getting at, but if you just had your bot blank the pages with either an edit summary or a note on the page saying something like "Everything older than X has been removed, as this is the talkpage of a dynamic IP" there should be no issues I think. And maintains transparency for non-admins. I just don't see why deletion is necessary. Or, even, the bot could make a double edit; one to blank, one substing {{null}} into the page. Then the IP would see nothing untoward in the diff. // roux   20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems rather silly given the dynamic nature of editing anonymously (and wasteful with all of the extra revisions). The German Wikipedia deletes these pages; and without any edits in the past year, any talk page activity, no blocks, etc., I just don't see the need for them to stay around indefinitely. And then of course there's the issue of blue links leading to blank pages which drives me mad. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You're making a common error. Wikis are not filesystems. Deletion does not free space, nor does it reduce the size of the database. Deletion of a page actually increases the database size. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • What? Dynamic whatsit? A fair bit of the planet would still have no idea what you are talking about, for sure. Even more confused, on top of seeing something about how they've been abusing the site, are racist, an edit warrior, "sockpuppet", strangle puppies, etc. I can see plenty of benefit to deleting these over blanking them, in 99% of cases. SQL^{Query me!} 01:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Well.. I dunno. I just don't see why we should be reducing transparency for non-admins. There's a general permanent backlog of things that need admin attention, and I'm not sure that adding "Can you please look at the deleted history of this talkpage for problems?" is something we need to be adding to that list. No great harm is caused, but no great benefit is gained, by deleting instead of blanking. Alternatively, couldn't ClueBot (or clone) be configured to visit IP talkpages and archive after X period of time? // roux   21:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you may be forgetting that any contributions by an IP are still completely visible to any user... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
          • That just puts the onus on people looking to comb through the IP's contribs and figure out what they may or may not have been warned for in the past. Leaving the page undeleted lets non-admins skim through edit summaries looking for things like 'warning' and 'monthname year'. Again, what I'm saying is about transparency to non-admins; why make it more difficult to suss out patterns of abuse? // roux   21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides that: I don't think MZMcBride's deletions can be justified here at all (cf. WP:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F and Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_pages). There is no reason why this policy can't apply for IP talk pages as well. — Aitias // discussion 20:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users and registered users are treated (sometimes very) differently in the software and in our social customs. I don't see the point you're trying to make. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)User talk pages are normally not deleted because they have content that might be relevant at some time in the future, such as a discussion or sockpuppet templates (though I question the usefulness of putting a sock template on an IP talk page). In this case, any content is going to be completely irrelevant. For example, my current IP address is 71.227.54.220, one address in a block of 16,000 dynamic-ish IPs used by Comcast in Michigan. It was used for vandalism in 2006, then again nearly a year later in 2007, then a few months later, it reverted some vandalism. In the time between the first instance of vandalism and now, its probably been reassigned at least 3 times. Any message on it or in the page history (how many vandal patrollers seriously check the page history for warning?) is going to be completely irrelevant after each reassignment. Mr.Z-man 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MZM deleting IPs which have had no posts or blocks or contribs for a year seems innocuous and perhaps beneficial. Thre should be some consensus that 1 year is the correct time, so someone does not run around deleting IP warnings from 1 month or 1 week ago. Does deleting the talk page remove the block log? I look at the block history to decide how long of a block to give an IP. Edison (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't delete the page if the IP has ever been blocked. :-) But to answer your question specifically, the block log (and user contributions) remain visible and fully intact regardless of whether the IP has a talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering [18] implies that the issue was not clear-cut last week, and is likely not clear-cut now. MfD seems quite capable of dealing with problem pages, and has not been overwhelmed with requests to delete the (thousands?) of pages unilaterally deleted. Collect (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Paperwork for the sake of paperwork? ;-) Seems a bit antithetical to our principles of (trying!) to avoid bureaucracy. And I think quite a few more people have commented here than that Village_pump thread (understandably, really). --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to keep talkpages around, especially for IPs, where vandalism might be spread out over a period of months or years. We routinely block school IPs for a year at a time, so it would cause a hardship on other admins if the entire page, including the {{SharedIPEDU}} template, were deleted for inactivity. --Elonka 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Err.. you seem to be missing a key point or two. :-) If the page has any templates, it is skipped. If the IP has ever been blocked, it is skipped. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From time to time I get a message from an irate anon giving me grief because I have left a vandalism warning when he has never edited WP before sample 1 sample 2. It usually turns out that the warning was left in another age for another person. So, I can see some utility in clearing IP talk pages, and I'm fairly sure there used to be a bot that did it. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think blanking the page can be equally confusing and irritating to an anonymous user, if not more so. Did you see my diff above about this? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd think an anon who is knowledgeable enough to look at a diff is knowledgeable enough to know that the earlier message was aimed at a prior user of the page. I agree that we ought to have a policy for clearing out old IP talk pages (I actually just finished blanking a batch of about 20,000). I'd say a one-year-old warning should be blanked, and anything over two years should be deleted - even if the IP has been blocked, or was identified as a school IP or the like. Any school-assigned IP address from which no edits have come in over two years is likely inaccessible to students anyway. bd2412 T 21:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh? A bright orange bar with two bright blue links to click isn't too difficult for most of our anons. ;-) But I think what you're saying makes sense, though I do see a glitch or two. (For example blanking the pages essentially resets any clock...) Discussion of this should probably continue at WT:UP, though. I've started a thread there. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

While many of MZM's arguments are sensible, I have not been convinced that deleting these pages is preferable over full transparency for all users. Whether messages are 1 day old or 1 year old, whether an IP has been used yesterday or last year, history of use and interactions should not be purged. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

These aren't "interactions." In 99.9% of cases they're template warnings that probably received no response, or vandalism in response. They were left for a person who is by now using a different IP. Please tell me what possible use the content of User talk:71.227.54.220 is, keeping in mind that that IP has probably been reassigned to different people at least 4 times since 2006? Mr.Z-man 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the content of that page has little utility, which is why I (and others, I believe) support blanking the page in such cases. But I strongly feel we should strive to keep the historical record of all messages left for all users (exceptions for privacy violations, etc). To me, the argument that "because they are old and reassigned" might be true, but is not sufficient to merit purging all history. Transparency and openness should be paramount. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? There is no use for these pages. What's the point of useless transparency? MZMcBride has pointed out several small, yet real benefits to deletion here and/or on Wikipedia talk:User page with regard to making maintenance easier. This is like making the foundation employees post what they had for lunch on their userpages. Its transparency, but its information that no one's going to use. This though is just template warnings, its not even interesting. You keep talking about "interactions" and "messages" like there's conversations or something. Its just the standard vandalism warnings repeated on thousands of talk pages with no incoming links. You seem to agree that the content will never have any use. If we have an article that's completely incorrect (its attributing vandalism to the wrong person after reassignment), we don't blank it, we delete it. Usefulness and reasoning based on logic and cost-benefit analysis should be paramount, not ideals for the sake of having an ideal. Mr.Z-man 06:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ARGH... I hate forum shopping... I don't mind this if it were to inform this page that a discussion is ongoing elsewhere: hereand here --- Plus Mz's talk page. I think we need to consolodate these three conversations into one area an hash out specifics for incorporating this into G6 or a new criteria.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Something seriously wrong with Alaska Airlines

The article on Alaska Airlines appears to have been replaced with an advertisement promoting Nazism, however the article's source code is perfectly normal. This only happens in the article. --Nat682 (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism? Looks OK from here so has probably been fixed. --Rodhullandemu 22:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow. That made my eyes hurt. Hermione1980 22:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST seems to have been hit by a spammer, but I'm having a dickens of a time finding the template. // roux   22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See here. Special:RecentChangesLinked is usually pretty good for finding template vandalism. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that highly disgusting/insulting version. — Aitias // discussion 22:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked an anon vandal who hit 4 or 5 templates around 21:32, and would appreciate advice as to whether the targeted templates should be semi-protected. I don't know if this was the same vandal, but it's probably the same payload. If anyone wants to delete the "highly disgusting/insulting" version of those templates, be my guest, although I don't necessarily consider it important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sprotect should suffice. Keeping the despoiled version in the history may help to form a case if there are further examples of such vandalism, so deleting is likely not necessary. Full protection may be required if a few autoconfirmed accounts start vandalising again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

6 articles protected or sprotected. Please review my choice of which ones I fully protected under WP:HRT, and which should only be sprotected, or which should only be sprotected for a period of time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The two IPs caught so far are the same user, by behavior. They are using open proxies. These should be blocked for a long, long time. Last time I asked, the standard was five years. Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I blocked a couple of IPs (also open proxies) that were doing the same thing. Unfortunately it appears that Santa did not give our friend anything better to play with today. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Economy of India article has a Nazi advertisement. Could someone more knowledgeable remove it?Lalit Jagannath (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Qadian article is also vandalized because of similar issue, please help fix it. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong with Alaska Airlines... it's called having a monopoly on flights in and out of Alaska and thus being allowed to charge $900 for a flight from Juneau to Seattle... whoops, wrong queue. l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

At least their flights to Vegas are cheap. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Shirley field" should be "Shirley Field"

Resolved

 – page moved

// roux   23:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I created an disambiguation page (Shirley field) and inadvertently named it with the second word uncapitalized. Would an administrator please fix this? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done didn't need an admin. // roux   23:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it didn't need an administrator, but it did need someone with a clue. Thank you for being that person. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Midway class aircraft carrier

Resolved

 – Offending templates deleted and salted by J.delanoy and MBK004

Could someone please look at Template:Midway class aircraft carrier? There is a speedy tag embedded in it which I can't remove, and that is leading to several articles which transclude that template being listed for speedy deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Refresh your cache, someone was messing with the {{USS}} template earlier today. We took care of it. (I don't see anything wrong with this particular one right now) -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A concerning RfC

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

---

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Law Lord, Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be asking the community to allow him to mandate a particular version of the content of his user page. I am concerned by this because it is a fundamental denial of WP:OWN and WP:SOAP, but a lot of people seem to have been drawn into the side-issue of whether a particular vague criticism is uncivil or legitimate or not. Regardless of the merits of the comment itself, I would say that what the user is specifically asking in the RfC, which is to be allowed to maintain a particular version of the content of a particular page on Wikipedia, is something which policy forbids the RfC from delivering. Am I wrong there? Guy (Help!) 11:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well certainly it is not a particularly equitable form of dispute resolution to come into a debate saying, "I want X". There doesn't appear to be a negotiation as such occurring. So on that I agree, however I also agree that the comment is general enough, and non-fringe enough to be taken more as a current phenomenon rather than wild accusation (q. v. Adminwatch etc.). Anyway, how is it any worse than this farewell statement?, and I am sure there are others around too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I was accused of making a personal attack where I saw none. Therefore the RfC is about whether I did in fact make a personal attack or not. Consequently, if I did not make a personal attack, my statement should be allowed to stay, because a user i allowed to voice criticism on his user page. I am not going to litigate against you but I certainly do not share the view that WP:OWN and WP:SOAP applies (at all!). WP:SOAP does not apply to criticism of aspects of Wikipedia (how then would the project ever improve?) and WP:OWN deals with article ownership. I do not think there has been voiced any Copyright claims over my one-line-farewell. At least not by me.

I could be bold and suspect that your post here may in fact be caused by the RfC not going the way you wanted? --Law Lord (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You could be, but it would be better to go by his actual words: to whit, the RFC is being side-tracked by irrelevancies. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It would appear certain admins want the comment removed and will try any tack; ironically, some of those have had civility issues in the past. Minkythecat (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this topic isn't being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord where this whole situation is already being discussed by several administrators.

Also, just as a note, the majority of people who have commented on the issue there are against the position that JzG has taken. Not only my words but another user's as well: [19] . Anyways, since you've brought the issue here:

WP:OWN has absolutely nothing to do with this matter as WP:OWN clearly is not referring to userpages. Users actually have a certain degree of ownership over their userpage in that they can decide what material remains on it (as long as it doesn't violate any guidelines of course) as opposed to others getting to decide what material they want on someone else's userpage. WP:SOAP has to do with advertising, promotion, self-promotion, etc. Opening up a request for comment from the community to give their own opinions on a dispute does not fit into that category. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly have no current opinion on the matter, or none worth posting, I do want to point out to the poser above me that yes, WP:OWN does apply to user talk pages, WP:UP#OWN. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he merely typed in the wrong shortcut: WP:OWN instead of WP:UP#OWN. If you're going to base your entire case on a mistaken link and on not reading the relevant ones (1) WP:UP#OWN: 'As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community' and 'Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere'; 2) WP:SOAP: 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages), you'd best re-think it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And the community seems to have spoken on the RFC in question, predominantly in the direction of supporting this user's right to opinionate on his user page, though also with strong undertones of criticizing everybody including him for participating in so much unnecessary drama about it. JzG seems now to be forum-shopping and wikilawyering in order to keep the drama going. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. Why are we pandering to an already-banned user at the Danish Wikipedia for much of the same crap? Speaking of forum shopping... User talk:Jennavecia#LawLord Case seicer | talk | contribs 16:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, is this the Danish Wikipedia?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Dan, actually the issue is precisely as I stated it: a user appears to be attempting to use RfC to enforce his being allowed to own his user page for soapboxing. If that is indeed acceptable then it is a very significant change in policy. I know you are a militant free-speech advocate, but that is a battle we are not even fighting here. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that the agreement is about the wrong thing. People broadly agree that the comment, inflammatory and useless though it may be, is not prohibited. That, however, is a long way form saying that the user can use RfC to enforce a particular version of his page. WP:OWN and WP:SOAP, two long-standing policies, suggest that we should not use RfC to deliver that outcome. As I have noted before, Cheers dude, if you are a new and inexperienced user as you claim then you should probably steer clear of this kind of debate, since your judgement calls appear to be based on gut feel rather than policy, and you've backed the wrong horse most of the time as far as I can tell.

As a wider question, at what point do we consider Law Lord to have become excessively disruptive? He has clearly violated WP:CANVASS in respect of this RfC, he is asserting ownership of his user space, he has gone round giving barnstars to anyone who agrees with him in the RfC, and he is already banned on the Danish Wikipedia. This is beginning to look like a disruptive drama-monger. [20] (Interiot's tool) Guy (Help!) 16:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly, and without commenting on Law Lords's edit history, he is not using RFC to "to enforce a particular version of his page" so much as to seek community consensus. Consensus so far seems to be that he is allowed to issue generic criticism of certain admin behaviour. I do wonder whether there is any link between the growing consensus and the increasing quantity of "playing the man not the ball". MikeHobday (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's nto what he's asked. He has asked for endorsement of a particular linked version of his user page. And judging by the Danish ban discussion it is well past time he dropped the stick and backed slowly away from the deceased. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right. I wouldn't disagree. But the same doesn't apply to you? MikeHobday (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to count up my total edits in involvement with this dispute? I've given it maybe an hour of thought in total. Law Lord seems to have thought of nothing else for a very long time, to the extent of being banned form one project because of it. I've only looked at it at all because of the crossover with Guido den Broeder's block. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG, as if we hadn't beaten this horse to death at the RfC. The statement is one full sentence which NOBODY can deny the accuracy of. Anybody who takes offense to this statement needs to grow a thicker hide! FACT: There are admins who lack civility. FACT: LL is tired of dealing with them. FACT: If the statement, I have had enough of administrators who lack manners is a personal attack, then we have gone so overboard in our demands for perfect civility, that reality no longer exists here at WP. That's right for those who haven't read the objectional user pagematerial, it consists of, in entirety, I have had enough of administrators who lack manners. This is perhaps one of the most begign departure statements I've ever seen, and yet a few thin skinned hypersensitive individuals are crying to mamma. It is the most ridiculous RfC, I've ever seen, and the fact that somebody has decided to whine about it here, it even more ridiculous. And in case anybody has missed it, this isn't the Danish Wikipedia. There are a number of people who are admins or even 'crats on one project who would never be given the bit on a sister project. Plus, as I've said before, let's assume the worse, the comment was made about a single admin. Who will read "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners" and interpret a specific editor? This whole drama could have been avoided if LL was allowed to leave in peace. Let him get his rather benign pot shot off, and walk away. Hell, hold the door open for him this is ridiculous. I have had enough of administrators who lack manners is not a personal attack. Let him have his EIGHT words, and leave.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Guy's own talk page has the appropriate quote for this situation: "the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers". لennavecia 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you're seriously calling drama-mongering and canvassing on Law Lord when you're bringing an RFC which is already being commented on by several admins here? Him being banned on the Danish Wikipedia has nothing to do with his edits here. And WP:OWN doesn't apply, nor does WP:UP#OWN. This statement wasn't a personal attack. As Casliber pointed out, there are much more detailed retirement statements on this site that have survived MFD and such. The fact that such shameful and pathetic amounts of time have been invested in this one sentence does say a lot about those who've chosen to battle over it, but Law Lord is not the one who needs to be chastised for not dropping the stick and walking away from the deceased. One vague sentence should have never been an issue. And you bringing it here does nothing to help the situation. You are forum-shopping and wikilawyering to further drama. Admins shouldn't be in a position to strong-arm editors into removing things from their userspace that are not in violation of policy, which is basically what you're promoting here. And Seicer, you may want to read up on what forum-shopping is. Calling a post on my talk page forum-shopping... that doesn't even begin to make sense. لennavecia 17:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's actually quite a tradition of users (including departing users making parting rants) saying possibly-inflammatory stuff about what they dislike about Wikipedia on their user page... such as "This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia... If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much." But if one is to engage in any sort of boxing, soap or otherwise, they've picked the right day for it at least. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And absolutely no tradition whatsoever of allowing users to enforce particular versions of any page, unless you can point to anything that has changed in the relevant policies lately. There is a difference between "wide latitude" and ownership, as the relevant policies make clear. As such, the requested remedy would represent a significant change in policy, I would say. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Okay, I did not realize that Guy had placed a statement in the RFC and then come here to gain support for it. This is just ridiculous and, as Dan pointed out, hypocritical. لennavecia 18:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't realise it because it didn't happen. I made a comment there and then came to ask fellow-admins (and the experienced users who hang out here) whether my reading of it is right. I think it is. I think Law Lord is asking the RfC to deliver a result expressly forbidden in policy. Dan always says that everything I do is hypocritical, that's just Dan. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, you didn't just make a comment there. You posted a statement then ran here with your loaded wording to gain support. It's pretty clear from the RFC what's going on. If you need to ask others to explain it to you, perhaps you should refrain from dropping your opinion. When it comes down to it, it's about whether or not his statement is a personal attack and whether or not it should be allowed to stay. You came along and introduced OWN and SOAP. Well guess what, Guy, that's HYPOCRITICAL, and if he's forced to remove his statement from his page, I'm removing your much worse statement from yours. لennavecia 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is now three users. Jennavecia, Dan T., and myself all wondering why this has been brought here instead of the talkpage of that article where it belongs. As Jenna stated, it's nothing more than forum-shopping and wikilawyering. Also, if this is such an issue, Guy's statement is far worse on his userpage. Glad that has been pointed out. Cheers_Dude (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no statement on my user page. My user page is a redlink. HTH, HAND. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Same as hypocrisy doesn't look good on you, neither does smartassery. User talk:JzG:

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.
If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much.

لennavecia 18:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the quote above, I can reply to that "smartassery" comment by repeating that hypocrisy does not look good on you. Cheers_Dude (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't know any more about usage of the English language than you do about Wikipedia policy. Now if I had a comment stating that I was opposed to anyone mentioning things which would imply significant changes in policy, then you might have a point, but I don't, so you don't. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on the talk page of the user at the center of this, the offended admin has recently offered to drop his objections to the user page content in question if the user in turn makes a statement to the effect that no personal attack is intended by it; and the user seems to have agreed to this. In light of this, the best course of action for everybody else is to regard this as settled and move on to something else, even if there isn't as much fun drama in it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh Dan, how bored we would be without our dramas. I have no caring, myself, as long as the RfC is marked as archived and not used to assert ownership. That (to my eyes) implied policy change was all I cared about. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Dorksandlosers

Resolved

 – I left a cautionary note. JodyB _talk 14:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of this users edits have been to add external links to the same website. Last time I checked the user had created two articles and to both of those articles as well the user added a link there. It appears that this user is promoting this website on Wikipedia articles. This username was also reported by a bot as an unappropiate username at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot. --Knowzilla 13:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, no one has warned him of the error of his ways. I will. JodyB _talk 14:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow up. Apparently no one had spoken to the user about the links or the username. Please do not bring things here for us to solve before making an attempt yourself. Second, the links are to a significant music review site which has a Wikipedia article at Blogcritics. That site has been noted by Forbes.com as a notable site. He has been warned to use caution. JodyB _talk 14:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

please rename local file

Resolved

 – commons image showing through Skier Dude (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Doug E. Fresh.jpg needs to renamed because there are picture with same name in commons, could someone help me--Musamies (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted it as a useless, encyclopedic photo. --Deskana (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya, because, you know, we aren't making an encyclopedia here! Who needs those silly encyclopedic photos anyway? (I bet Deskana meant "UNencyclopedic photo" but I'm not one to immediately assume good faith when I can squeeze in a riff on a typo first.) ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I got one of the deletion summaries wrong as well. Shucks. --Deskana (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry.

[21] read that and tell me what you think.  Kalajan  18:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see socking. There should be a note on the Dumpster account that the person now edits under Contra, but there are no blocks and I don't think I saw any time overlap in contribs.// roux   18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is anything abusive here? ayematthew ✡ 18:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec's)I think you need to tell me what exactly your query is. FYI I checked the page and noted a lot of pro wrestling newsletters; believing that that may not be the problem I noted that the "Update" title was an account noting that they were previously a different name - one which had been "taken down"... Well, I checked and that account has no blocks, and although there are several notices and comments in the history there are no high level warnings. As for "taken down", I would surmise that this is a common phrase in pro wrestling fan circles to denote "kaput", broken, etc.

Under the circumstances I fail to see why this is being commented upon here, and if I am missing some big piece of info it may be best to assist me and others in future by spelling out your concerns when reporting something. It sort of helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my bad.  Kalajan  17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

contents on Nazism in Intrauterine device

I am a sysop at chinese wikipedia, today when I checked interwiki Intrauterine device on en wikipedia , I found the page was full of red and with contents on Nazism like this:

<wikicode removed per WP:BEANS>

I've tried different browsers , but this problem always exists. When I logged out there's no problem. I'm wondering why this thing could happen? Is there any way to solve this problem? Thank you.--Kegns (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted on my talk page. I do not see the content he's talking about in the article, not even when in edit mode. Could this be something caused by his ISP or if he's in China, the Chinese firewall/etc issues? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a spree of template vandalism and is being dealt with. I will respond on your talk page so the OP will see this. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, disgusting template vandal. See also this section above. Regards SoWhy 19:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I hope you can fix it ASAP. I was just confused about that , I've never seen such vandalism at Chinese wikipedia..... --Kegns (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the code, hope nobody minds. Garden. 21:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all-important in this case, but imho it shouldn't even be mentioned that something has been removed. Nor that you did it. Nor that it happened based on BEANS... just my 2 cents. 78.34.130.247 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing admins should do if look at articles attacked and check for all unprotected templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Numero Uno

Unresolved

 – This 'article' is now a soft redirect to Wiktionary — Gavia immer (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This 'article' is a fragment of a sentence and 2 stubs, one about a band, one about a music publishing group. I'm not sure what the best way is to straighten out the mess. dougweller (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The redirect was called retarded in the next editor's edit summary. I guess the next step is going to be AfD, it isn't an article or a dab page.

Reverted to {{wi}}, but a disambiguation page would be possible. (I decline to call the union of 4 stubs with each of its categories "retarded", although that seems a reasonable description.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of request for adminhelp

Resolved

User blocked 24h for this edit [22] which violates WP:DE, WP:NPA, WP:RS and WP:COI all at once. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm looking for impartial editors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:News4a2 [diff]News4a2 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Two impartial admins and at least two impartial editors--myself included--have attempted. You don't seem to have much interest in any opinion which doesn't agree with you. Given that so many don't, perhaps you should consider the idea that you are wrong. // roux   21:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't give you the right to delete my request for adminhelp.News4a2 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You had already been helped, you had already been told the same thing by two admins. Continuing to use the template is a very strong indication that you will keep asking until you get the answer you want. Seeing as the answer you want will never be forthcoming, there didn't seem any point in leaving it there. Note that I haven't removed it again, but I would strongly counsel you to remove it yourself and learn something from this experience. Namely, that you are wrong, ZZB didn't hound you, and you need to be a bit more civil in the future. // roux   21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG

C:CSD is empty. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. Majorly talk 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, damn you! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I promise I won't let anyone know the next time. Unless all the SD backlogs are empty, of course :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, that's... hey, wait a second... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that a few days ago as well, I wondered if I should report it as a bug of our users ;-) SoWhy 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to POV tag

I've brought this up here because I think this is a very important issue. Just before Christmas, three or four users at Template talk:POV decided to change the wording of the POV tag. I only noticed the change a couple of days ago when I went to an article I myself had tagged and couldn't find the familiar POV tag.

The tag wording was changed from:

The neutrality of this article is disputed

To:

Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message.

I am strongly opposed to this change. I believe that where neutrality disputes are concerned, it is vital that our readership is clearly informed that the article's content may be biased toward a particular POV. A failure to properly inform on this issue, which I think most of us would agree is one of the most damaging problems we face here, is essentially handing a freebie to every POV-pusher on the project.

I have expanded on my views at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#POV_tag but I think this issue is important enough that it should be discussed here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such a major change in substance on a widely used mainspace template without a wider consensus was premature; I have reverted it with a suggestion to seek opinion in a wider forum. — Coren ^(talk) 06:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Coren! I greatly appreciate your intervention. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Users transcluding Template:Administrator who aren't admins

Resolved

 – template removed from those pages on the list. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

These are likely the result of poor copying and pasting, but can somebody please deal with them?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jk29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bloodholds
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SkyBullet
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J1nxwiki
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samo00099
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Petero9
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gnrl._Galmer
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OdedraA
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robyc73
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hex1106

Just remove the template(s) and leave a note on the talk page explaining the removals. There may be others, so somebody might want to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Administrator more thoroughly as well.... Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with those ones you've listed. Raven4x4x (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All have been removed. I didn't bother to notify. So if you want to go through and do that. Please do. I figured saying what was removed in the history was enough. Rgoodermote  07:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Parichha article hijacked

Resolved

The article on Parichha, a town in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India has been vandalised by an expert pro-nazi group. I don't know how to fix it? Its article history shows nothing!--KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 08:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be some form of template vandalism. I can't see how to fix it either though... It's certainly very awful. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the templates which appear on that page through the edit window, but I can't find anything... D.M.N. (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to an old revision of the article as an interim measure. I'll try to reinclude any constructive edits that were made since - if I miss something, please do add them back in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody explain wtf just passed us by? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 09:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was a cache issue—some template vandalism was included and even though it was fixed, the article still displayed the prior vandalism. Thus, even checking the templates wouldn't reveal anything untoward. I've seen this happen a few times. A null edit might have taken care of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mind-boggling when something like this happens, but I also couldn't find anything. Anyway, excepting one or two edits which aren't that helpful, everything should be restored. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was template vandalism here, with the offending edits having been removed from the page history. _Gb^T/c 09:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Suspected Sock Puppets Major Backlog.

There are 29 open sock cases there, some dating back a month. The Backlog tag has been on the page at least 5 days. Can it get cleaned out? I note this because among them is a report I filed, wherein the puppetmaster is now engaging in edit warring. ThuranX (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The backlog was recently up to 61 cases. We need more admins to help here. Jehochman ^Talk 16:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the huge backlog is so large because hunting out sockpuppets of people is one of those admin jobs that only a select few admins feel qualified to do. Perhaps we should be hunting out those with skills in that area to assist, be they an admin or not. I also feel since sock-hunting does not really have anything to do with writing an encyclopedia, many feel it not worth it. Majorly talk 16:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd encourage everyone to skim it at least, some of the cases are sufficiently obvious that no magic pixie dust is required. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Many feel hunting socks is not worth it until socks disrupt the article they are working on, because it is impossible to write an article under those conditions. No special skills are required. You just look at the contribution lists of the users, and the edit histories of the relevant pages and apply common sense. If there are doubts, requests for checkuser may be filed. The sysop bit is needed to apply blocks, but any user can review the evidence and post comments as to whether there has been socking or not. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. Very often the input of an experienced non-admin with knowledge of the articles in question will be of particular value. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From the couple times that I tried to help out there, the main thing that drove me away wasn't the hard work, it was the people making the reports. Rather than reporting blatant vandals who also happened to be socks to AIV, they'd report to SSP, where the user might not get blocked for a week. Groups of IP addresses in the same /24 dynamic IP range would be reported as "potential sockpuppets." New users who hadn't really done anything disruptive are reported and asked to be banhammered. Diffs given as evidence show that 2 users are likely the same person, but no disruptive edits and no actual attempts to deceive. Its just one big WP:ABF party with a few legitimate reports occasionally sprinkled in. Mr.Z-man 18:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating to have SSP reports ignored. Block durations are absolutely meaningless unless we are vigilant against socking. There are certainly reports that are filed out of ignorance and stupidity, but it's important to get those cleared out quickly so that real reports can be noticed.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the good thing about working on SSP is that you never seem to get any edit conflicts. :-) Hermione1980 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think sometimes when an administrator makes a conclusion in the conclusion section, and blocks users, they forget to add {{SSPa}} to the SSP case page, so the case pages sit there and the bot doesn't know to archive them - making it look like the backlog is larger than it actually is. Perhaps clearer and/or more prominent instructions about the use of {{SSPa}} is warranted. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Having worked on SSP for almost half a year but stopped recently, I can tell you the real reason why SSP gets less admin attention than RFCU. The underlying truth is because in SSP, most blocks are judgement calls based on behaviour and editing patterns. If the admins made a mistake, they take the full responsibility. In RFCU, the false-positive ratio is much lower and admin can pass the burden of mistake to CU result (or blame it on the CU because it is them who calls the "very likely", "likely", "possible", etc.) It's just being a human, nobody wants to risk losing their tools in return for gaining little from it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's back up to 33 cases. ThuranX (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• And back down to 21. I closed a couple and then realised that EBotII hadn't worked since 0615 UTC today, so I manually archived everything that was closed (don't worry, I added them to the archive!). Black Kite 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English (2) Wikipedia‎

There is a proposal to close the Simple English Wikipedia. Additional comments would be appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this post a few times, but was reverted. This is off-topic for this page, and this Wikipedia really. What does the proposed closure of an unrelated project have to do with English Wikipedia, let alone Wikipedia admins? While this is not directly canvassing as such, it will be skewing the overall result with bias from English Wikipedia, be it in support or opposition. I should also note that closure of active projects will never happen, so the proposal is going to fail anyway. I suggest this off-topic post be removed. Majorly talk 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if the project was closed, the content would need to be merged here and we would need to figure out a reciprocity policy for individuals holding admin rights there, so it probably would make sense that we discuss it, even if it is only how we should plan. MBisanz ^talk 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there is valid concern that if closed, we might be forced to merge content from some 41,000 aticles there, and what about the very active community... they would need some place to continue to contribute in English, yes? Perhaps this is a valid post. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing will get merged, the project won't get closed. It will most likely be moved to Wikia, where people can continue productively. As I said already, nothing to do with English Wikipedia, especially not this page. I am more lenient with the village pump, but it's off-topic all the same. Majorly talk 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps we should wait for the project closure discussion to conclude? Or should we make pre emptive preparations? On another note: STOP ADDING ARCHIVING TEMPLATE TO MUTE THIS! NonvocalScream (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do you know what will happen, Majorly? Got a crystal ball? Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I lent him mine... Majorly - You are holding it upside down. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a guess based on other such proposals that have happened in the past. Majorly talk 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the proposal, but can we please stop archiving and de-archiving this, at least? It's of some vague interest to the community, at minimum, and the archiving is making my watchlist asplode. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you guys don't already know, then I should tell you, most of the active contributors on simple wiki are banned editors on english, and I have seen while talking to this users on IRC as to why they were banned here and believe me, I'll have to agree with them that it was unjustified. So if that wiki closes down, you can expect more vandals on enwiki because simple wiki has become a vandal-reforming wiki because enwiki admins keep sending them their, we are like Australia, a land filled with convicts from the bigger nation which within the last 150 years has become a powerhouse...Happy Holidays ...--Cometstyles 21:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You just alienated Simple English Wikipedia, by calling their userbase "like Australia, a land filled with convicts". I'll ask you not to attack other projects, I'm sure they are not full of banned users and vandals. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hum, please be aware that Cometstyles is an admin at simple, with almost two thousand edits there. I think that he is not "attacking other projects", he is describing his own project. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still an attack. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he is meaning that they learn not to be vandals there - ie he's saying it functions as a self-paced reformatory for some users. (I'm not commenting either way, I'm just concisely rewording what he said.) Orderinchaos 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment. It's absurd to extend the logic of NPA to descriptions of places or organizations. It would be a personal attack for me to say thay Judy from accounting at DHS is incompetent. It is obviously not the same thing to say that DHS is incompetent, or that DHS is filled with incompetent people (despite the fact that the latter statement is a completely indefensible generalization). Beyond that, he clearly wasn't attacking simple. It tok a heroic act of misquoting to make it seem so. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I took something out of context. Nobody wants to see simple folk attacked at all. If that was not the case, then disregard me. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alienated??, on contraire, Australia is one of the most successful nations in the world which grew because of its people and same as simple wiki, it has succeeded because of our community. We really didn't care that they were banned on other wikis since they did a good job to build this wiki. Just over 18 months ago, the same wiki was slow and barely had 12,000 articles, now we have over 42,000 and the editors are trying hard to get it to 50,000 by January end, and no I'm not attacking any projects, just preventing a good project from being attacked and thanks Eric, I know people always misunderstand what I say..nothing new ;) ...--Cometstyles 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ThePageChanger was a bullet of pure drama who continued to MySpace and create sockpuppets. How SEW even considered unbanning him after he claimed he committed suicide is beyond me and it only took the miracle of his absolute stupidity in sending ten emails with the middle finger ASCII to finally get the community to ban him.

There is yet to be a wrestling FA (HornetMan/ChristianMan's expertise). Ionas68824/Jonas D. Rand's proudest contribution is an article that's largely a stub. Steve Crossin/Samekeh has done good work, but he wasn't banned here for any serious behavioral problems like the others, just for account sharing. Punk Boi/Da Punk repeatedly keeps retiring and unretiring and creating various accounts (Da Punk '95/'08, Spiderpig). I cynically view it as a power game, especially when you consider six RFAs for PB/DP, six for HM/CM, and three for SwirlBoy39.

Who contributes the content? The Rambling Man, an admin and b'crat here, has five VGAs. That's the most notable thing I can think of. RyRy/RyanCross, who has 1 VGA on the simple, has 1 FL/3 GAs on here. The point? I think the belief that SEW is a place for banned en users to rehab isn't as strong as you seem to indicate it is. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm failing to see the relevance to en's admin noticeboard. Orderinchaos 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see why this is being posted now, after a 3:1 majority opposes this after almost a month... NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And we will probably never know... why now?  :) Want my crystal ball? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposal looks likely to fail; not much more use in taking it up here. I also agree that it would be far more likely in the unlikely event that simplewiki was closed, it would move to Wikia rather than merging here. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern at Daniel Rodriguez article

Could someone please check on a recent activity by a KP Botany who has suggested that all my previous additions of recent months maybe undone at the Daniel Rodriguez article. What is this about. I have been trying to build, as Wikipedia has noted that they would like to expand this article. I have no conflict of interest. Not sure exactly what is meant to infer, but I have not vandelized or in anyway done anything other then try to do what Wikipedia seems to be trying to do, in building on a good informative article to make it even better. I won't be able to spend time for several months now, but please could someone watch over this situtation. Thank you kindly. 71.87.55.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC).

• He's right. An unpublished biography ([23]) is not an appropriate or acceptable source. Please see our sourcing guidelines. Most of the article has good sources, I don't think the content is at risk. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Links, for the Daniel Rodriguez talk page here and for my user talk page me here. Talk pages for articles can be found by clicking on the tab that says "discussion" right above the article lead. Thanks, JzG, for checking some of the other sources and for removing a few problematic links. Yes, please, there have been past problems with edits to this article, all editors who wish to check this user's and any edits on the article, please stop by. Please feel free to discuss any issues on the article's talk page, also. --KP Botany (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD Survey

Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options:

1. Agree with criteria for deletion.

2. Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria.

3. Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies.

4. Disagree with speedily deleting the article.

To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Reminds me of one of the optional questions from my RfA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Wikipedia article by Google

Resolved

 – article is indeed showing up on first page of Google hits. Not really sure what else can be done here.

// roux   20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not an issue relevant to administrators, if it is an issue at all.  Sandstein  15:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)}}

Our article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_engineering is, apparently, blocked by Google. Does anybody know why? Thanks, Shustov (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "Blocked by Google"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you search Yahoo or Copernic, to say nothing of Wikipedia, for Earthquake engineering, you will immediately receive Earthquake engineering. In the case of Google, you will not receive it at all. Shustov (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a matter for admins? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia administrators should be concerned about selective black-outs of Wikipedia articles by a major Web search engine, shouldn't they? Shustov (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as the "black-out" is not achieved by deviously manipulating content on our end, not really. — CharlotteWebb 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:GWA perhaps? OK, not...that applies to editing, not to just viewing. Stumped as to what happened. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Google is not blocking the article- if it was a search with the string "Earthquake + engineering + Wikipedia" wouldn't return the article as the first hit- which it does. Remember that Yahoo works in a fundamentally different way than Google, the results are rarely the same and almost never in the same order. This could even be a bug. I really think it's a non-issue, but if someone here disagrees they should contact google. I doubt, however, they will much care about our griping that we can't show up first for every possible string... l'aquatique |✡| talk 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Our article? Thatcher 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When I google for earthquake engineering, the Wikipedia article shows up on page 3. Google is not blocking anything. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there's an important difference between 'excluded from Google's results' and 'not on the first page of hits for a particular set of keywords'. Incidentally, it seems that large portions of the article have been plagiarized from U.S. Geological Survey documents. Give credit where it's due, people! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Google filters out duplicate content. If we have a page that is in large part a copy of a document that Google has already indexed, they may decide to downrank or filter out our page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just because we tend to be the first page on Google, Yahoo, MSN, or whoever for a given phrase, doesn't mean anything is wrong if we're not, nor should we expect to be/think we're entitled to be for any specific topic. How search engines do their thing is their business, not ours, since we're here to make articles, not worry about marketing. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The only Wikipedia value for the world community is its articles. If any of the articles is maliciously blacked-out, that value will decrease. I highly appreciate any (!) of the above opinions, but not untrue facts. Unfortunately, Wikipedia article Earthquake engineering remains completely invisible in Google search engine. Aecis•(away)’s statement that when he googled for earthquake engineering, the Wikipedia article showed up on page 3 is not accurate up to this moment. Again, it is not a matter of being on the first page, it’s a matter of the complete blocking! By the way, wouldn’t TenOfAllTrades mind to prove that ”large portions of the article have been plagiarized from U.S. Geological Survey documents”, please? Shustov (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In my case, it appeared on page 4: [24]. The copying is being discussed on the article's talk page, where it belongs. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, the norsk version of the Google search results differs from the english one. However, the issue remains! Shustov (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems pointless. Google has no reason to "maliciously black-out" one of our articles- they've done some weird stuff but that's not part of their MO. It's one article. We can't be first everytime. Now, can we get back to things that actually matter? l'aquatique |✡| talk 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue doesn't remain. Search on the string earthquake engineering (without quotes) and the article comes up on the third or fourth page of hits. The nature of Google's backend means that the results won't be in precisely the same order each time. Search on the string earthquake engineering wikipedia and our article comes up at the first hit. Nothing to see here. It just means that the rest of the internet hasn't defaulted to our article as the most reliable or popular source on this topic (yet). (See PageRank for more details.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If anybody does not like the word malicious, forget it: you may find a better explanation. Of real importance are these facts: 1) I started improving the article in June 2008. 2) Since then, the traffic to Earthquake engineering has increased dramatically, from 436 viewers in May 2008 to 9832 viewers in November 2008 (22.6 times!). 3) During this period, the article first showed up on the page 3 of Google, then slipped to the page 8, and, finally, disappeared for good some two-three weeks ago. Any questions? Be my guests. Shustov (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what TenOfAllTrades wrote above. The article does appear in Google. Indeed, on the first page of results. Not really sure what you're still concerned about here, so I'm marking this as resolved. Again. // roux   20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And it's currently on page 6 of English-language Google. Seriously, calm down. Google are not part of the Massive Conspiracy against your article. – iridescent 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorrrrry, I have seen it neither on page 1, nor on page 6, no anywhere else (I browsed Google up to page 22). Anyway, thank you all for trying to help! Shustov (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Click this link
2. Hit ctrl-f
3. Type "wikip" in the search window
4. Watch in amazement as your article is displayed
5. Quit flogging this dead horse which doesn't appear to affect anyone other than you, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia admins even if it did. – iridescent 21:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Google doesn't just have one server (can you imagine how busy it'd be?) -- it has multiple servers, and sometimes they output results in different orders until they sync up later. Nothing to worry about, just don't expect everyone to see the same things you do. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Google also gives different results depending on what country you search from, and even the language you use. Searching from Spain it automatically sends you to "google.es", where the article appears on the fourth page [25], searching from "google.com" it appears on the second page[26] (but only if the interface is set to english language! my browser is set to prefer the spanish language so google will automatically set it, and then it will display the same results as google.es), searching from google.fr it appears at the end of the fourth page[27], etc. This is because google will give preference to pages linked from local websites (pages hosted on IPs on your own country, or written on your own language), and other tweaks to fit your locale (your browser is surely already set to your own locale).

Also, these national-dependent influences will change over time as new websites are written on your language and old websites are modified or taken down, even if you don't take into account the regular maintenance tweaks to the algorisms. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sgt dizzle guy/LouPepe indef blocked

Just a heads up: tonight I indefinitely blocked the following series of abusive sockpuppets of already indefinitely-blocked troll Newcrewforu (talk · contribs) after recent checkuser confirmation.

• Sgt dizzle guy (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• LouPepe (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 347Editor (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

He has been casing quite a bit of trouble, to put it mildly, over at beer style and flag football for some time. He shows a certain degree of aggressive persistence, so I expect that he will reincarnate shortly. – ClockworkSoul 09:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More details at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/96.247.37.61 (3rd). BradV 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Article at wrong title due to technical restrictions

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual. This is a very odd situation. In the browser window it is displayed as Wikipedia: The Missing Manual (the correct title) but the article's location is at the title mentioned, with a dash. If moved to Wikipedia: The Missing Manual it would be in Wikipedia project space, but is there not a way the software could be changed to overcome this technical restriction?--CretinInsiduous (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of this seems more appropriate for the Village Pump, than for the Admin noticeboard. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

La academia

Could somebody please move La academia to La Academia? Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And La academia USA to La Academia USA? Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the first one, but "La academia USA" seems to be the capitalization used in the second article, so I'm not sure which capitalization is correct. Wickethewok (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The official website at http://www.terra.com/laacademia/ seems to use both capitalizations, but it only seems to lower case in the logo, the rest of the website uses upper case. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

La academia USA is still not moved...Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Added at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_uncontroversial_moves --Enric Naval (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Spring-return toggle switch

Resolved

This page is requested, and it seems that it would be useful as a redirect here. However, the page name is for whatever reason blacklisted. Could we have a sysop create the page? Thanks. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Created and redirected. Not sure why that is on the black list. Protonk (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

88.111.44.234 (talk · contribs)

This anon user is being very hostile regarding edits made on Radiohead, and is refusing to assume good faith. I went to his talk page and tried to point out that he was acting rather rudely, and directed him to WP:GOODFAITH, but he simply became even more hostile and called my message on his talk page 'abuse'. I have left another message to him, telling him that it was a very normal edit dispute over wording and nothing to get upset about and left him another link to WP:GOODFAITH, but I really don't think he's even going to look at the link I gave him. Zazaban (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the editor has had several comments on their talkpage, and the article remains in their preferred version - which is grammatically better, IMO. Providing that there are no further inappropriate reverts and use of uncivil comments/summaries I think we should just move on. (ps. I have modified the header to allow any other reviewer quicker access to the logs - I trust this is okay?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is what I did appropriate?

Today, I handled an unblock request of Pope Rory Spencer, in which he admitted being a sleeper sock of Hamish Ross and requested an unblock for his IP address. Upon investigation of the Hamish Ross case, I decided to block Pope Rory Spencer in a similar manner to the recent Hamish Ross socks - e-mail blocked, can't edit own talk page. Later, when I remembered that A dark handsome stranger seems to have a similar record (from when I responded to his unblock request), and saw that he only had a standard VOA block, I modified his block in a similar manner. Is what I did correct? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a suspectsock template on the userpage, but I think a notice under the declined unblock request noting the sockmaster account and the inability to edit and email would also be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed the suspectsock templates on both user pages around the same time I handled the blocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no record of User talk:A dark handsome stranger receiving a template. Perhaps that could be rectified when noting no access to email and talkpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when I blocked I didn't realise this was one of a series of socks that should have the edit talk page block enabled as well, given that its only contributions were harassment I just blocked it on the spot. Interestingly, the given IP is a workplace one, which may leave some options if the harassment continues. Black Kite 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benjamin Lister (talk · contribs) and his socks may be related. Acroterion _(talk) 23:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at Pope Benjamin Lister and one of his socks, I don't think they're related. Hamish Ross tends to harass The JPS, mostly by accusing him of being a pedophile. Pope Benjamin Lister seems not to be doing that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is part of a large amount of sockpuppets that I discovered after I blocked some accounts harassing other users. He has since begun harassing myself, and Sam Korn, FT2, and a few other checkusers have been working on preventing this user from editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

When a user makes an unblock request like this, it shows that he is doing his/her absolute best to harass a specific user, and is proud of it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Review of Protection of User talk:KoshVorlon

Resolved

 – Unprotected. Admin trout-slaps himself. --Smashville^talk 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I reverted an edit of KoshVorlon's instead of blocking him for 3RR (I let him know he had already broken it and warned him for continually harassing another editor). He went ahead and reverted my edit...I guess by making this edit, I became an involved editor. After his block, he continually referred to my edit as "vandalism" and posted a notice on his page (which he later reverted) that he was being censored by the blocking admin. After a discussion with him went nowhere, I protected his talkpage for his own protection because it seemed as if his anger was escalating, and I didn't want him to do anything to extend his block. So...was my protection out of line since I seem to have unwittingly become an involved party...despite the fact that my involvement is predicated on notifying him to stop the behavior which lead to the block and ultimately my page protection? --Smashville^talk 20:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with your actions, you were clearly acting form an admin viewpoint rather than that of a involved party, I would have done the same thing--Jac16888 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering because I think by reverting his edit and pulling out another one, despite my initial intent, I unintentionally became involved in a content dispute with him...--Smashville^talk 20:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You protected the page because of inappropriate use while blocked. What exactly was inappropriate (could you provide any diffs)? That would make a review much easier. :) — Aitias // discussion 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute... so instead of blocking/warning/protecting for revert warring, you ... reverted him, continuing the revert war? That doesn't sound like a very good solution. The point of having rules against revert warring is to prevent disruption. I don't see how this was supposed to do that. This is not at all de-escalating the situation. Also, there was no edits between your last response and the page protection? Why all of a sudden protect the page. Lastly, we have the "Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked." blocking option specifically so we don't have to full-protect user talk pages like this. Mr.Z-man 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I brought it here...I had second thoughts and so did another editor...I'm sorry if my finger didn't immediately go to the block button the first time... --Smashville^talk 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have unprotected KoshVorlon's talkpage, so that they may make whatever comment they wish - and to take any consequences of editing in a way that does not help resolve the situation. I have done this because, primarily, Smashville requested review of his actions and, secondly, I do not believe we should be presuming that a blockable/protectable action is incipient; sometimes you do have to wait and see if they cross that line. As I have taken this action I do not feel that I should comment further on the block and matters that immediately preceded it - although I do commend Smashville in raising it here. 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs)

I'm fine with that...that's why I brought it here. --Smashville^talk 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted a talkpage please

Resolved.

Hi, could someone undelete talk:Trojan Knights? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-identifying minor

Is the information on this page too self-identifying? Should it be removed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with the user page and given the user some instructions as to how he should be editing articles more than his user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

vandal only 70.136.121.160

The user 70.136.121.160 has vandalized four sections of the FC Dallas page (the vandalism has been undone). It seems that the only thing this user has ever done is vandalism.

who is reveals this info:

AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80 (NET-70-128-0-0-1)

                                 70.128.0.0 - 70.143.255.255

Heath Netport, LTD .6327 SBC07013612000021051121121215 (NET-70-136-120-0-1)

                                 70.136.120.0 - 70.136.127.255

Charliehelms (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV, the user concerned hasn't received any warnings and hasn't edited in three days (so blocking them will probably do nothing). Hut 8.5 10:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vanity, all is vanity...

That is enough about me, though... I would like a sanity check on a series of deletions I have just made; if people would care to see the deleted contributions of Jaeda123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and especially Asyrafa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); much of the deleted content relates to supposed contestants of Weekend Splash Concert season 6, all of whom appear to be colleagues of the author, or the musical releases by Asyrafa - all around this Christmas. The competition does seem notable, in that there are ghits, but I have a suspicion that a bunch of friends decided to live out their fantasy life a little. Anyone more familiar with the South Pacific media culture may be able to help here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee work

For those who are interested, a brief update on work behind the scenes. Just a bullet list and outline at this point (too early to really say more).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA Backlog

Resolved

 – All gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks there's a bit of a backlog over at WP:UAA... – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic edits by IP user

Resolved

95.112.248.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) has been adding categories such as "Jewish fraudsters" to various pages. He has not received any warnings, and frankly, I'm not sure if this qualifies as vandalism, tendentious editing, or something else entirely. I just thought that you, as the "powers that be", should know about this. --Eastlaw (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Next time report similar to WP:AIV for a likely quicker response. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We really don't mess around with stuff like that. Thanks for bringing it up. Grandmasterka 04:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disabling indexing of non-content namespaces

There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NOINDEX of all non-content namespaces regarding disabling indexing of non-content namespaces. Comments would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Deep sock drawer

Posted above at #Is what I did appropriate? and described in short at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive179#Request for unblock of a 2-year IP block, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Palm Tree Tommy, and several accounts listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Man with a tan (user whose name the RFCU is for is unrelated), there have been a slew of accounts created by Hamish Ross (or someone simply easily linked to that name) were created in an approximately 2 hour period on a day that I will gladly give out if necessary. Lately, a few of these accounts decided to show up again and harass some users, and my blocks of these accounts made me one of his new targets. I've been bugging checkusers to try and shut down this idiot (Sam Korn, FT2, and Coren have all helped out) and I've got a list of approximately 400 accounts created in this range that have no edits (Hamish Ross seems to like creating several accounts in a short period and let them be unused for a year). When new accounts showed up, they all came from the list that I initially compiled.

As I previously stated, these accounts have zero (0) edits. The user's most recent sock posted this and this account is on the list I have. What I am looking to do is put this list through a script to indefinitely block these accounts with a message along the lines of "This account has been blocked to prevent abuse from a user who has created possibly dozens of accounts in a specific time period. If you wish to edit, please use {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page, and someone will get to you as soon as possible."

I'm aware that this is extremely controversial, which is why I am proposing it here, first.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, as you note, you’re going to be blocking innocent accounts that aren’t socks. There’s not simply a chance of this, it will happen. I don’t like the idea of that one bit. People create accounts to change their settings and don’t edit for years, then they might decide one day to make an edit - if they find themselves blocked then they’ll be unimpressed to say the least. We should never block accounts unless they are abusive and we have evidence to show that they are. Here, the only evidence is a 90 minute time frame – that’s going to pull in too many innocent accounts as well. Just blocking the socks as they appear is the best way to go here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While that is what we are doing now, another issue (that I forgot to mention) is that this individual has solely been editing from IP addresses that belong to the National Health Service, which seems to be something that may affect more innocent users. I'm very aware that innocent users may be affected, but I do not know the probability that users who registered in 2007 and never edited from them will remember that they made an account (the 30 day log out thing seems to affect anyone remaining logged in indefinitely) or remember the password. This sock master seems to be proving this wrong. A good percentage of this user's accounts come from this single time period. There seems to be a low cost/benefit ratio if innocent users who have never editted get blocked, which is why I worded the block message I plan on using the way I did.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably support a move to do this for the 2007 accounts, but not for anything more recent. However, one thing I'm curious about... how would a helpful admin know how to respond to an unblock request? --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing more recent (mostly because a lot of the NHS's IPs have been blocked as a result of this user's anonymous edits). And for unblock requests, I would take a look at what has happened at #Is what I did appropriate?.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And what if the unblock request has no self-condemning information? The admin unblocks, presumably. Not sure what we've gained. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This user, as far as I can tell, has no use to edit constructively (if he did, then my suggestion would not have occured).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sleeper socks from 2007 with zero contributions? Yup, block them indefinite. Legit accounts will have either forgotten the password or even their existence, or have an outside possibility of them created as anti-impersonation accounts (so a block will actually be effective in that situation). I do not see blocking these particular will have such collateral damage potential to count against the likelihood of reducing future disruption. Should there be consensus for blocking I would be prepared to work through a list, using the agreed wording. Other more recent accounts can be tackled either as they pass 1 year since creation, or if others of that vintage start being activated for vandalism/block evasion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Front of House Gary Howard is one of the socks who is on the list of accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support block of all such accounts with 0 edits, subject that any unblock will require a checkuser to confirm it's not working from Hamish Ross's IP address. Additionally, block them with autoblock disabled, so that there won't be any collateral damage from any accounts which are used merely for watchlisting pages and using personalized settings. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh there'd better be some collateral damage!!! Dame Sue Napier (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested block on above user. — neuro^(talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Not sure how to tag but it's blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. — neuro^(talk) 12:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsupport for the blocking of newly created accounts unless checkuser supports that they are socks. I do not like collateral damage. Due to a bug in the software, I was blocked yesterday while logged in, and I was disappointed. Imagine the feeling for a new user who is legit but never edited logged in. They log in and they get the block message? Wait for the disruption, then block. We are not on a hunt here. And we are not at a game. Very best! NonvocalScream (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  This is standard WP:DUCK. It is utterly blatant. — neuro^(talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  It's not standard DUCK - in one 10 minute period about a year ago (same time period which we're talking about, although the specific 10 minutes have nothing to do with the 2 hours), there were 18 accounts created with currently 0 edits. Assuming that all times of day are equally represented in creation of accounts which will never be used, this would mean somewhere around 216 innocent accounts out of 400. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  There are no newly created accounts at all. They are all older than one year old.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, I completely misunderstood Nonvocalscream. I thought he was in opposition to the blocking of socks reiterating the message on this page. — neuro^(talk) 16:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to recent sockpuppets, I have extended the range I searched in an additional hour and now have 200 more unused accounts, two of which I've already blocked due to a match with this user's other account names (there are very little similarities, but those that do exist I've picked up on). This now brings the count to a little over 600 accounts made in a 150 minute period over a year ago. These accounts still have zero edits to them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it's better to block 270 innocent accounts which will probably never be used to edit, than to leave 330 likely sockpuppets unblocked. (The number 270 comes from the 18 accounts per 10 minutes above). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Block them all. Year-old accounts with no contributions are very unlikely indeed to suddenly start editing productively. In fact, I would be tempted to suggest an adminbot that goes through old accounts and blocks those more than, say, six months old with zero contributions automatically (with autoblock disabled, of course). We would always add a note on the user creation page to say that this will be the case. Black Kite 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense, your sleuthing, why are we on this witchhunt? There is no secret conspiracy for "secret" dormat sleeper socks. If any wake up, block them then. Anyone remember User:!!? This is reminiscent. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  You mean that where at least a few dozen accounts that all come from this range, with more showing up as this user decides to take them out to play, they should not be blocked? These accounts have never edited. This is why I've constructed a block message as neutral as possible and one that says "Hey, you can edit if you want to. Just tell us." and at that point, we can tell if we're working with a sockpuppet or not. I can tell you that the two accounts that have posted in this thread come from the 600 or so that I acquired. And as Od Mishehu says, the cost-to-benefit ratio is fairly low if there is consensus for me to go through with this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  User:!! was active, and had edits misinterpreted - these accounts have never been active. Different situation entirely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  In the following context: We have found a new and interesting way to block accounts that have not done anything disruptive on the premise that they might.  !! was selected using a new and interesting way, on the premise that s/he was a sleeping sock. That is the context I used to compare and contrast. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between an arbitrary never-active user, and sych an account which was created in a 2 1/2 hour period when several known socks of a single user were. I strongly oppose blocking the first, and strongly support blocking the second. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And the second is exactly what I am proposing. I'm not saying "I'm going to pick this arbitrary time period, get every account that never edited, and block them all." I have a known range of accounts created, and have taken a list of them that haven't edited, ones that Hamish Ross has, and proposing that I block them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  NonvocalScream, may I suggest that if the recent spate of SPA/socks do come from this range that we block now - and then continue the discussion on whether we should stop disruption from potential sleepers. Really, if a legitimate account has been unused for such a long time then it is extremely likely it will never be activited - they will have created new accounts by now. In fact, as you seem to be the only voice against it I feel that we should declare consensus, recognising your objections, and get on with cleaning out this drawer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think you could wait a couple of days. See nick's comment below. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I blocked a suspected HR sock myself a few days ago. Under these conditions there's a low risk that we will alienate good-faith contributors, and it seems worthwhile to eliminate these as a source of annoyance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Any risk to a new contributor is too great. Just wait for disruption. I doubt we are going to be overthrown by sleepsocks. They are not going to infest and destroy everything good about Wikipedia. Just leave them be... incidentally, has checkuser assistance been requested here? Perhaps a check can be run on a handful to see if there is technical evidence that they were all created by the same system? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Too old for checkuser. Any with recent edits can be checked (and probably was), and any making a reasonable looking unblock request can, but the others can't be checked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Last time I checked the public site code SVN, checkuser data is maintained for 90 days. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  These accounts are 420 days old. These accounts were created in November 2007 and in a few hours it will be January 2009.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And even then, how would accounts created over a year ago be "new contributors"? In all reality, the only person who has seemed to remember that they had these ancient accounts is Hamish Ross. And his "claims" of having thousands of accounts would very well be quelled once we get rid of a hundred or so based on what he has done so far.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  And this by definition, we are sleuthing for the hidden thousands of accounts, so we can quell them. I don't see a pre-emptive battle strike as a high priorty, in fact, I see collateral damage as an avoidable outcome. We ought not be doing this thing based on a perceived threat, instead wait for disruption. I encourage checkuser participation into this discussion as well. Perhaps the tool can help here. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Does cost of the users in this 600 who might begin editing again being blocked outweigh the benefit of blocking this user's sockpuppets, of which there are already several selectively blocked in the range? I don't think so. It is a very small probability that the users, if they would be innocent, would be blocked and then decide that they come back. It's a higher probability that Hamish Ross has more accounts in this 2.5 hour range of which I've already narrowed the field down.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Too risky. Why mess with it? Just block them if they disrupt. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Because I may have found them before they disrupt. Your arguments aren't really saying much here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to query the db to see how many dormant accounts (say dormant for 1 year or more) begin editing (and don't end up blocked). It seems to me that we're shooting in the dark and some information would help in making an informed judgement on whether or not we should be blocking potential socks. Nick (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be possible to check all such accounts which were created since 22:16 on September 7, 2005 - the earliest the user creation log goes. However, deleted edits are a complication here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support blocking the dormant accounts per Ryūlóng and Black Kite. In other areas, we make the tradeoff that we can't stop abuse without inconveniencing some innocent users. This happens with range blocks, where the innocent users will have to make a request to get around the block. Since the case proposed by Ryūlóng has been carefully studied, I think the risk of inconvenience is low enough to be worth taking. In fact, the number of legitimate users who will be inconvenienced is quite likely to be zero. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User Block Templates

I am wondering what the policy is on USING them. There is a revert war going on at User:Betacommand's page over his indef block template, is it appropriate to keep his userpage intact, though he is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia? I was looking for some sort of policy/consensus discussion about the issue. If it's not required, why do the templates exist? Then clearly the block log is the only useful item in that situation.

Could I get a non-biased opinion please? Neuro√Logic 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect the userpage in the condition you find it for edit warring, and await outcome from community dicussion or RFAR (if it happens) to determine the template. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares is my honest opinion - It's such a minor deal that this edit war is rather silly. Just redirect it to his talk page if anyone else continues it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Ryan, that solution also works. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I wasn't trying to make mountains out of mole hills, I promise. I was just wondering why I got such a scathing response from both an admin and the user on IRC. I wasn't attempting to troll, or make the situation worse, but...Blocking isn't supposed to intended you got "Pwnt" by "Administrative Justice" so I don't understand the strong feelings, maybe it's just me? Either way, I agree with the redirect to his talk page, and the discussions on it. Neuro√Logic 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the indef block template still carry the temporary userpage category? Don't think Betacommand's page should ever be in that particular category, so maybe that was the impetus for the edit war? Avruch ^T 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside

Whoever created User:Betacommand is stupid, throw rocks at him! is obviously an established user. If it weren't fishing, I'd be asking for a CU to be run and for the perpetrator to be severely chastised in public for being such a WP:DICK. It's not okay, it's not appropriate, and it's just taunting a user who has been blocked. I think it's relatively fair to assume, whoever you are, that you're watching this page. So I have two messages for you: the first is to grow up, the second is about sex and travel. // roux   18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect it isn't a user in good standing, rather a troll who's had dealing with us in the past and still lurks here trying to find areas to disrupt. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter}

sloe eyes

Why does this topic redirect to Prunus Spinosa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faucon24 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The plant is also known as the "sloe" and its color is the origin of the phrase "sloe eyes." If you want to write an article about the phrase, you could give it a whirl. Avruch ^T 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that a whole article is needed. The "Cultivation and uses" section defines the term "sloe eyed" and gives its origin, and there's not a whole lot more to say about it. --Masamage ♫ 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File Name Uploading Conflict

It has been some time since I have uploaded an image to this site. Since that time, it seems that people have changed things aroung a bit. I am interested in keeping the formatting of unit emblems in the Air National Guard the same as I have uploaded them before. A quick glance at any modern Air Force Unit page will show that the names of the emblems follow a kind of standardized order. I'd like to upload a file to the site that is named AFG-080109-029. Keeping the name makes it easier to find what one is looking for on the site. It also doesn't significantly mess up what the government did. I would like to keep this system in place and I know that I have more files to upload, that begin with the AFG-080109-0 designator. In keeping with a spirit of not having to go against what I have done before and to keep with the style of others, I would thus like to have permission to continue loading unit emblems with this name style kept the same. I would also like to thank the one who responds to me beforehand for any help that they might bring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. Honestly I don't like those filenames as they're really non-descriptive. e.g., File:AFG-080109-092.jpg might be better called "192nd Airlift Squadron emblem.jpg" with the string "AFG-080109-092" in the summary; you'd still be able to locate the file by that string via searching. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically I there is a sort of way that they are uploaded, and this is more like a list fashion. I'm trying to keep their names as close to the others that were uploaded before the policy change. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably hitting the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (and rightly so in my opinion). Please use descriptive file names. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama article probation

Would an uninvolved administrator please check Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories where the article's title is being discussed. Things seem to be going in circles and getting disruptive. I encouraged one editor to start an RFC, which seems to have helped establish a consensus, but now there are multiple threads being started and an allegation has been made that proponents of a fringe view may be attempting to wear down other editors in order to get their way.[28] A community article probation is in effect. Perhaps it is time to issue warnings about the possibility of topic bans. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And do you think "that proponents of a fringe view" are "attempting to wear down other editors in order to get their way"?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

I'm writing here to request input on a form letter for reporting possible threats of violence to law enforcement organizations, which can be found at User:Mendaliv/TOV letter. I'm hoping to make the page more like what's found at Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter, at which point I'm guessing it should be moved out to the Wikipedia namespace. Thanks in advance for your help! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Review Board

Consensus having been reached on the core of the WP:Review Board (with the scope limited to auditing CU and OS use only), discussion should proceed to making this policy once the last details have been hammered out:

• Method of selecting candidates for the board;
• Exact name; and
• Procedural details.

Wide community participation is encouraged on the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)