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

Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy? (which was archived but then restored to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
5. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for closing Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags

Does Kumioko (talk · contribs) have (or need) approval to add WikiProject United States tags to hundreds of articles at a time? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add the related question "Is it really conducive to a project's value to the encyclopedia to cast such a wide net?" It looks as if Kumioko is marking each and every article that's in any way related to the United States as being under the project's purview, which would result in a huge number of articles being the responsibility of the project, many, many more than could reasonably be dealt with by a WikiProject. I would think it would be better for WikiProject United States to deal only with those articles which are specificly important to the entire country, and leave other articles to be dealt with by more tightly focused WikiProjects. The model here would be the relationship between WikiProject New York City and WikiProject New York (state). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Kumioko is an active member of the WPUS project. In the end, it should be up to the project what criteria they want to use for tagging their articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not questioning the right of the members of the project to decide what the project's scope is, I was questioning the wisdom of their decision (or their apparent decision, as indicated by Kumioko's actions). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there have been internal(?) disagreements about the project's scope in the past; see especially, most of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States/Archive_6. As an FYI, Kumioko's AWB access was recently restored after being removed for cause; partially related to WikiProject tagging without adequate consensus. I have not reviewed this situation in detail so cannot comment on whether this is a regression to past problematic tagging. However, as the administrator who both removed and then restored his access, I will say in advance (as I will probably not have an opportunity to review this thread again) that I do not object if an administrator feels his AWB access should be removed again following this discussion. –xeno^talk 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to comment here at another ANI. Was busy in real life. To answer the first question I have no bot approval and IMO I do not need it either but if its required for me to do this then let me know and I can support that but I would have done this long ago if it didn't take months for bot tasks to be reviewed. I would request that I not need to do it for every task though if possible. I could create a list of the articles I plan to tag currently for review.

To answer the next question/comment I have not tagged all articles relating to the US but I have tagged content relating to the projects being supported by WPUS, I have also been tagging content that contains United States, US, U.S. or in some cases American in the title (there are still more to b tagged that fit this criteria). I have no intention to tag all the articles in all the states or most articles relating to US Roads, NRHP, and a number of others. There has been some overlap of tagging as I add projects to the supported projects list though.

I understand that some people have a problem with the scope of the project and that's ok but part of the reason I restarted the project was to help to cover some of the inactive and defunct United States related projects. Also speaking of scope for a moment, WPUS has just over 100, 000 pieces of content, of that about 41000 are actual articles. For from the massive project that its being made out to be. Especially not when we compare it to the mammoth WikiProject Biography with 930, 000 pieces of content, most of which are articles. Yet no one is screaming that project is too massive and unwieldy nor are they complaining about WikiProject Military history and its 114, 000 articles. The large scope is contentious I grant you but not unmanageable and not the scourge of the pedia.

The last issues mentioned by Xeno relates to the projects debates about scope. That was not an internal debate, That debate was mostly by people outside the project, specifically one user, having a problem with our projects scope. The other issue mentioned relates to my access of AWB. My access was briefly revoked true but that issue was resolved and was also due in part to hurt feelings about the scope of the project, the rate of my tagging and the types of edits. All have been resolved.

The end goal of this project is to improve articles relating to the United States. If you are not interested or you have a problem with the scope thats ok. There is no requirement for you to join the project nor help with it if you are not interested. We are all volunteers and we all choose the topics that interest us. I would submit to you however that with over 130 current members, not counting the members of the additional projects that WPUS supports, that the scope has consensus with the project members. So you will excuse me if it does not bother me as much if editors outside the project don't like the scope.

With that said, there are currently 8 more projects on my list that could be added to WPUS in the next few months including a couple states. I am only adding them to the supported projects list after I contact each member of that project, start a discussion on the projects page and if the project members want it. Some projects are very active (like California and Oregon), some are not and need help (like South Carolina and West Virginia).

Now aside from arguments of scope and mass tagging, we are doing a lot of good work in the project and more editors are always encouraged to join and help out if you are interested.

I am also growing a bit tired of this project bashing, constant complaints about scope and bickering, etc. we should be here to improve the articles not argue about this foolishness. I would also encourage you to not revoke my AWB access unless you are willing to take on the burden of the tasks I perform using it including but not limited too: Sending out the newsletter (which I need to automate via a bot I agree), tagging articles for WPUS, performing maintenance on articles in the scope of the project (AWB general tasks, cleanup citations, add infoboxes and portals, add persondata and categories, reorder sections to meet WP:MOS such as See also before references and External links after references. revoking my access would effectively kill WikiProject United States if that is your goal all it will take is one stroke of your admin powers and the project will be effectively dead andn all the article improvements, newsletter, collaboration, portal, noticeboard, etc. right along with it. I would suggest that you make your decision carefully and wisely.--Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this conversation bears directly on the scope of the project I included a discussion string there for the members of the project to comment. This will hopefully clarify to all, including me, what the other members of the project wish the scope to be and avoid others outside dictating what they feel our scope should be. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is consensus within the WikiProject itself that your tagging is appropriate, I agree and support the ability of WikiProjects to set their scope or narrow or wide as they wish. Though, having it done from a bot account would be ideal - to reduce impact on watchlists and recent changes. –xeno^talk 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to tag any articles until this AN is completed! This includes the 2 projects that were just added to the support list of projects supported by WPUS in the last couple days nor the 2 more that I have pending. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO (and speaking as a listed member of this WikiProject), I think this WikiProject (or at least Kumioko) has cast much too wide of a net, and I don't agree with a lot of the tagging. Automated tagging also is problematic. Back in January I started a conversation about the related topic of bot-like article assessment for this WikiProject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Assessment#Importance ratings are out of whack after I discovered that many of the bot-like importance ratings were obviously nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for what the scope should be? --Kumioko (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Internal project discussions about scope should be held at WT:WPUSA, with a view to achieving an active consensus. –xeno^talk 03:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That was one of the things I commented on back in January. Racepacket added extensive additional comments. IMO, the project would do well to focus on topics of U.S. national scope or that span state borders (such as Midwestern United States) and that are intrinsically related to the United States. There's an enormous potential scope there for a single WikiProject to address without distractions from articles about TV shows, popular songs, archaeological sites, neighborhoods, individual Medal of Honor winners, sports, and other topics that may be related to the United States but can be more effectively addressed by existing "supported" WikiProjects that have narrower scope. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Folks, seriously step back and try to take in the lameness of this issue. This is exactly a WP:BIKESHED issue; there's absolutely no need at all to raise an objection to somebody adding a tag to a talk page which identifies the article as dealing with topics related to the United States if, in fact, the article does deal with topics related to the United States. It has absolutely, and unequivocally, and with no inkling of a doubt, absolutely no bearing on the quality of article text whether the tag exists on the talk pages or not. None whatsoever. So, at worst Kumioko is silly for adding it, which makes people who object to his adding it an additional layer of silly (raising objections over an inconsequential action is at least doubly as inconsequential as the first action) and if Kumioko finds the template to be useful, why do we wish to stop him? Seriously, this is the biggest non-issue I have seen here in a long time. --Jayron32 03:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a proud tradition on Wikipedia of objecting to mass actions done via AWB. Why stop now! :)

Anyway, I didn't think that United States Academic Decathlon had to be tagged. Why was it? NW (Talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because maybe Kumioko found it useful to tag it. Let me flip the question back to you: Why is it so important that it NOT be tagged that you would find it necessary to remove the tag from the article? --Jayron32 04:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If K's actions are silly, and my inquiry about them is sillier, then perhaps silliest is a meta-discussion such as yours, Jayron. Issues were raised, questions were asked, answers were received ... all well and good. There's really no need to denegrate such good faith discussion by belittling the participants and unnecessarily extending the discussion in a totally different direction. Better, I think, just to chill a bit and allow the conversation to die down naturally, or get redirected to another venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you say about the inherent silliness of my level of contributions to this issue is in any way inaccurate. --Jayron32 06:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nuke, because it has the term "United States" in its title. Ergo, it should be tagged! ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Most (all?) American states have their own WPs. IMHO, like categorisation, articles tagged for WPs should go as far down the root system as they can. Articles under WP:US should therefore be those which are about the country as a whole, whereas those specific to one or a few states should be tagged with the relevant state WPs. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We should all be dropping barnstars on Kumioko's talkpage instead of starting an AN thread. He has resurrected an important project, updated the portal, and fought off a nasty troll at the project. With his inter-coordination of the US child projects IMO he epitomizes esprit de corps. This "issue" is really an internal US-thing. And believe it or not, I have a bone to pick with with K: he keeps breaking the wikiprojectbannershell. Anyway this guy is making a difference: let's try stay out of his way, ok? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Kumioko erroneously tag articles that shouldn't be tagged under WPUS on quite a few occasions. I wouldn't attribute this to using AWB necessarily, but pausing to think of whether an article should actually be tagged before hitting "Save" would be quite beneficial. --Rschen7754 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Mjroots - The problem is that there is no problem with multiple projects tagging the same article. For example, Take the Barrack Obama article. Which of the 20 or so banners do we tell they don't rate to be on the article because another project tagged it. WP Hawaii maybe, or WP United States? There is more benefit to multiple projects tagging an article than having 1 or none. Also in regards to the state projects, some are active, some are not, some city projects are more active than they state project they fall under. So should we really be adding a banner to an article of a project that is inactive or should we be adding the banner of a project that is active and has intent on working on the article?

Reply to Rschen - The statement of erroneous tagging is again an issue of Symantics. Is the Declaration of Independance out of the projects scope because it predates the 1783 creation of the United States? Should it only be in the United States History WikiProject?

Reply to Multiple - The larger issue here aside from my mass tagging iis should WikiProject United States act as an overarching project to help support the other US related projects that are Defunct, inactive or struggling? Should we simply let dormant projects die rather than pull them into a larger project like WPUS and give them support to keep them going? Why are we even making such an issue out of projects? Whats the purpose of them? Is it to generate discussions about scope, on how one project is stepping out of bounds and how this article shouldn't fall into that projects scope because this other project already has it? I would argue the answer is no and the important thing is the articles! The articles are what we are working ot build, not the projects, the projects, portals, newsletters, collaborations, noticeboards, etc. are all just tools to help us manage, maintain and construct articles! Not to burden our users with unnecessary and meaningless aggrivation. We should be encouraging people to participate not discouraging them. Regardless of the intent of this discussion it is a huge waste of time because it has been said time and time again in multiple discussions by multiple people that projects are free to set thier own scope, they are free to tag the articles they feel are in that scope and contribute how they wish too within the bounds of the guidelines of WP. If a user feels I am wasting my time then thats fine they are free to think so and its my time to waste. --Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like this discussion is pretty much over and all interested parties have had a chance to speak their piece. Can someone close this out so I can finish tagging the articles in the two projects that were recently added to the supported projects list for WPUS. I also may be adding 2 more small projects based on some discussions in MFD for WP:Franco-Americans and WP:Asian-Americans. I will be out of town a lot of over the next month with limited or no internet so if I don't get them tagged in the next few days they will have to wait till august when I return and have internet again. --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The why of tagging

It seems to me that the issue boils down to 'why' articles need to be tagged, and that there are two competing, and unfortunately contrary, influences at work.

1. If the purpose is to direct editors to a place where they can ask questions before they make a change, then it is better to have as few tags as possible and make them as specific as possible so that the editor can easily select the right venue.
2. If the purpose is to attract the attention of editors to the page and help improve articles, then, perhaps, more tags are better than less tags because they broaden the population of editors being made aware of the article.

So, which is it? If it is both, then we'll just have to leave it to individual article talk pages and projects to pull and tug their tags this way or that. --rgpk (comment) 16:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO There is a little more to it as well. The project tags also allow the article to fall into the scope of the project for things like Popular pages, recent changes, recognized content, article alerts and others allowing the project to have visibility of the article. This helps with Maintenance, it helps with identifying what the good content is and what could be improved, and others. By removing the banners, these articles disappear from these various different tasks thereby less maintenance is done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. On the face of it I can see that it is better to publicize something like an AfD to a wider audience, albeit one that has some interest in the subject matter. But, wouldn't a bot that posts a deletion notice on the New York City project automatically also do so on the New York State project. Or, to put it another way, is there an inbuilt notion of sub-projects similar to categories? --rgpk (comment) 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, different tags for different projects so if the article has the NYC tag but not the state tag the state wouldn't know about the AFD. --Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You can have "sub-projects" (see WP:TASKFORCE), but you can't actually force one group of editors (say, WikiProject Texas) to merge with another group of editors (say, WikiProject United States). A WikiProject is a social group of editors who like working together, not a subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The many reasons to tag articles are summarized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. Multiple bots depend on these tags for everything from deletion notifications to WP:1.0 statistics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help with a disagreement

I am currently having some trouble with a user reverting my edits when I add teh WikiProject Banner to various articles they feel are out of the proejcts scope. The user in question is User:Markvs88 and he/she insists that articles prior to the 1783 establishement of the United States are not in the scope or interest of WikiProject United States (eventhough he concedes that they might be for WikiProject United States History) because the United States did not exist yet. Therefore, in his opinion, articles like the Mayflower, American Revolutionary War and things that happened prior to 1783 shouldn't be tagged. He is not even a member of the WPUS project (although he does appear to be a member of WikiProject US Government which WPUS supports). He has already tried to gather support for his opinion here but knowone else agrees and he continues to persist in his arguments. He has even pointed to this discussion in his arguments saying that there was consensus and agreements with him there and there clearly wasn't. One user even came back to say that he was misinterpreted and wanted to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried some of the steps noted at WP:DR, such as RFC, request for third opinion, WQA, or any of the other noticeboards or processes designed for this exact thing? There's two issues I see: 1) There are currently at least 3-4 discussions about the scope of WPUS spread out across multiple noticeboards, and/or the behavior of individual people involved in the debate over said scope of said project. Its becoming a bit like WP:FORUMSHOP, and as the discussion bifurcates over and over, it gets harder to follow. 2) Unless an administrator is needed to use an administrator tool right now to fix a problem (i.e. block someone, protect an article, delete something) or act as an impartial judge in closing an existing discussion (i.e. admins usually are needed to close RFC or AFD discussions, though many processes do not explicity require an admin to close them), the admin noticeboards are not normally the correct place to raise issues such as this. If you have a problem with another user, seek outside opinion from other editors using the non-administrator aspects of WP:DR such as mediation, or WQA, or whatever process works. Admins can be used to step in and enforce the conclusions reached through dispute resolution processes, but admins have no special power to act as "judge and jury" when deciding who is right and who is wrong in a dispute. --Jayron32 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I have User talk:Markvs88 on my watchlist, I have been following this disagreement (with dismay over its pettiness). I wish to point out that the focus of your disagreement with Markvs88 is not on Mayflower and American Revolutionary War, but rather on some less iconic topics like King Philip's War and List of Colonial Colleges. I also see that there has been some battling over whether Connecticut-specific articles including Blue Laws (Connecticut), Connecticut General Assembly, and Charter Oak deserve to be tagged as part of the U.S. WikiProject. Honestly, I'd have more respect for the U.S. WikiProject if it focused on improving encyclopedia content regarding the United States, instead of marking territory by adding templates to articles that do not have broad relevance to the topic "United States" and are already included in multiple WikiProjects that are listed as being supported by WPUS. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Jayron - Well yes, Markvs88 submitted an RFC where knowone agreed with him so he just started his little crusade to undo my edits. I agree there are different discussions but they are all different topics because a couple of people, most of which aren't members of the project and some rarely edit articles don't like the scope of WPUS. IMO the AN above started by Sarek about my edits was a direct result of Marks activities as evidenced on his talk page.

Frankly Dispute resolution is a joke and a waste of time and nearly everyone knows it. Arbitration is just the same but takes even more time. So basically what your telling me is I just need to deal with his harrassment, and continue to edit war with him? I'm not sure what else I can do besides that. I have tried to explain things to him but he refuses to listen arguing his fringe theories about project scope and reverting my edits. The policy clearly states that any project can determine its own scope and that project may tag articles they feel are in that scope. It does not say that other editors who disagree should feel free to revert the edits (which are also undoing other improvements to the page BTW). But I guess thats not a policy that is enforceable maybe. Or not enforcable today?

What I am about to say is no reflection on you but I think its kinda funny that when I do something an admin will immediately revoke my AWB rights, submit me to an ANI or block me out right. But if I come with a problem with another user I am told to deal with it and suck it up (this is not the first time I have been told this). All I am trying to do is grow the project and improve the pedia and the articles in it and I have to deal with time wasting discussions and clowns who want to revoke my access, revert my edits and bicker about project scope. Its really a shame and makes me wonder why we act so surprised when we see that our editors are walking away at an increasing rate...A couple more years and Jimmy will be the only one left.

Reply to Orlady - Your right in one respect and that is that knowone seems to care much for WPUS. Maybe its me, maybe its the discussions, maybe its the scope. I don't know. What I do know is that knowone helps with the Newsletter, only a couple help on the portal, only a couple help with the collaboration and only a couple help with various other daily tasks. So if I am doing such a poor job then I recommend some other editors (such as yourself perhaps) step up and help out so I don't feel like I am making all the decisions. When I leave comments on the talk page of the project they go unanswered, so I assume that I am doing ok and knowone has a problem. If they have a problem, speak up, thats why the discussion is there, not to hold it over my head in discussions like this. On the points that you bring up about articles, if you give a mouse a cookie hell ask for a glass of milk. Either these articles are in scope or they are not, if they are not, thats fine, but the arguments given for the reasons they are not would exclude a vaste number of extremely important articles like the American Revolution and Declaration of Independance. So if I agree to Marks that yes the WPUS project should not go beyond 1783 then all these get thrown out because regardless of importance they are out of scope. Also, what happens if WikiProject US History gets added to the supprted projects list in the future. Sorry WPUSHistory but we can't support you because the articles in your project are out of our scope. Many of the connecticut articles Marks had a problem with were added because they were in the US Government or US Governors when we added them tot he supported projects list. The same will happen when we add a couple of the states. Do we then tell these projects that in order to support them they have to agree to drop any articles in their scope prior to 1783 when the US was formed. Of course not, who would agree to that. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't a joke and a waste of time to go through the proper escalation process. If all you have is "I say so-and-so is wrong" and so-and-so only says "I say you are wrong", what do we have? What you need is a collection of otherwise uninvolved people, that is people who don't have a stake in one side of the arguement or the other, and those people need to give an impartial opinion over who is right and who is wrong. That is called dispute resolution. There are literally half a dozen possible outlets where that exact process can go on, and this noticeboard isn't necessarily one of them. There's nothing in any of that which requires an administrator, it just requires you caring enough about being correct in your opinions to gather support for your opinions from otherwise impartial editors. All you are saying here is "I can't be bothered to prove that my opponent needs a block by getting some impartial judgement on the matter. I still want admins to take action." Quite simply: No. Admins are not going to take action simply because you were the first of the two parties to complain to the admins. If you had, prior to coming here, gone through the trouble to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everyone thinks you opponent is behaving badly, and then your opponent continues the same behavior, we'd be able to act. Right now, however, all we have is your singular opinion that he is behaving badly. Seriously: What action do you want admins to do to help relieve your situation? None of the three admin tools I have availible to use (blocking, protection, deletion) seem to be justified in this case, so I seriously have no idea why this discussion is at this noticeboard rather than at a more appropriate one... --Jayron32 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough but let me counter that with how do those tools apply to the "Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags" discussion above? Would the argument you present also be valid for that discussion as well since those tools would also seem innappropriate for that topic as well? Perhaps my lack of administrative tools is the reason theh discussion is not warranted. Perhaps simply warning the editor that edit warring is not ok. Perhaps telling them that WikiProjects are free to set their own scope and tag the articles in that scope as policy doctates? Or perhaps asking the editor to open a discussion at the appropriate forum and discussing the matter (as I have done, although granted perhaps in the wrong place) rather than simply continuing to revert a good faith edit? I believe those are the things I would do if I were an admin. But since I am not I will leave it up to those that are to decide on the best course of action they feel is appropriate, which may in fact be, to close this AN as unwarranted, uninterested or undesired. I apologize for my tone but as I mentioned before, I have been vlocked and had rights stripped away on the sheer whim of an admin but when I take the time to lodge a complaint its dismissed so its got me in a fairly foul opinion of the process. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I once offer the opinion that you were doing anything worthy of sanction in the above thread you cite? I think if you read closely, I clearly said that there was nothing for us to do regarding your actions, and that you shouldn't be bothered. I don't see how my position there is inconsistent with my position here in any way... --Jayron32 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies my rant wasn't directed at you at all but the situation. You have been very consistent and fair I would say. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies back atcha as well, I was ranting a bit too, though at a different situation. Wikipedia's admin boards (this one and ANI) have become the place where other editors "run to get mommy" when things don't go their way. If the dispute resolution process doesn't work, its only because people refuse to use it, and instead jump straight to "tattling" on people at the admin boards, expecting summary punishment to rain down from the admins. Admins don't hand down punishment, and, I don't know how often I can say this, the role of an administrator is not to be a "supereditor" whose opinions matter more than non-administrators. Let me bold that. The opinions of administrators do not carry any more weight than the opinions of any other editor at Wikipedia. If all you want is confirmation that you are correct, and the person who is opposing you is wrong, administrators don't carry any special powers which can do that for you. For that reason, the admin boards are not the place to take a dispute like this. Admins can only do 3 things: We can block, we can protect, and we can delete, and unless one of those three things needs to happen now, there's not really a need to have a discussion on the admin notice boards about a dispute. Sorry, I guess I ranted a bit more there, but this is an all-too-common misconception about what it means to be an administrator around here. We aren't your parents, we're just your colleagues. --Jayron32 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a WP:Guideline that directly addresses this issue. You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. It says that if a WikiProject chooses to support an article (e.g., by wishing the bot to notify them if it's put up for deletion), then someone outside it may not remove their banner. You may not remove the WikiProject LGBT banner from Eleanor Roosevelt, you may not declare that Alternative cancer treatment is outside of WPMED's scope, you may not declare that folks at MILHIST are not welcome to take an interest in the biography of Archduke Ferdinand. The basic rule is very simple: You don't get to decide what they are interested in.

The only question that needs to be answered here is "Is Markvs88 actually a member of this particular social group?" If the answer is "no", then Markvs88 is being disruptive, violating the guidelines, and needs to stop. If the answer is "yes", then the group needs to continue its conversation about what is within the scope—and if they decide that these articles are within its scope, then Markvs88 either needs to go along with the consensus, or to leave the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it says "Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner." This is not equivalent to "you may not remove their banner".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It wouldn't make much sense for a rule to disallow "outsiders" from removing a tag, since anyone can join any WikiProject at any time, and, as far as I know, there's no way the Project can force them to leave. Since that is the case, it's trivially easy for any "outsider" to become a Project member and therefore be authorized to remove a Project tag. If there's a dispute about a Project tag on a specific article, the question should be settled by an open consensus discussion, just as every other conflict is supposed to be settled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the objecting editor could join the group, although that effort at gaming the system basically never happens. Even if s/he declared himself a member, the one editor is still only one editor, not the WP:OWNer of the group (or the article). If the other members say that Example is an article they want to support, then they are allowed to tag it—even over the objections of a newly joined "member", or the objections of the regular editors at the article. Nobody except ArbCom or the community as a whole has the right to tell a group of editors that they may not take an interest in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is Markvs88's view of the situation

• A wikiproject is a group focused on improving the articles of a *particular* subject. The Wikiproject: United States History is a seperate project that works in the area of history. I have no problem with it tagging articles on United States history, nor do I mind WPUS overlapping on any articles AFTER the US existed. Note, that the WPUSH's mission is to "To serve as the central point of discussion for issues related to the history of the United States in Wikipedia." as opposed to The "mission statement" of (see Wikiproject United States) they describe themselves as: "We are a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the United States, with an emphasis on subjects with regional and national significance". Which means something must be "United Statesian" to be considered a part of the project.
• The United States did not exist before 1783, (or, as I've said many times: I'll grant 1776 as valid date too). Either way, the United States has a START DATE as a nation, and therefore the WPUS cannot go around tagging articles from before 1776, nor tag articles that don't have a regional/national significance.
• For months, Kumioko has been tagging articles that do not relate to the United States. I reverted them, such as Talk:George Wyllys (CT colonial governor, died in 1645, was never an American) and the 14 others from Talk:List of colonial governors of Connecticut. Note that I taken pains to ONLY revert tags of articles that are definitively NOT within the scope of the WPUS -- that is, stuff before 1776.
• Now, why are they not relevant to WPUS? You can see my debate points at these locations: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States governors, User talk:Markvs88 and a few others, but to sum up: Governors of Florida that were installed by various Kings of Spain for 250 years and were not citizens of the United States, much less US Governors. The United States did NOT fight in King Phillip's War, and at that time Connecticut, Rhode Island & Mass WERE all colonies loyal to the King of England. Christopher Columbus discovered Hispanola, Ch uba et al for Spain, and never set foot on what would become United States soil, and even if he'd had... he would have been dead for 270 years. May as well tag Clovis Culture for WPUS at that point, as far as I'm concerned. And hey, if Columbus is, then I guess Juan Ponce de León was an US explorer too? Needless to say, none of these topics are the least bit "American" in nature.
• In the regional/national significance mileu: I'm sorry, but the Connecticut Senate and its elections are NOT a national issue -- you must be a CT resident to vote in them or be a candidate!
• Please note that I have no problem with WPUS per se, and that I routinely remove other inappropriate project tags on articles when I see them. As a member of the WikiProject Connecticut, I had a stake in every article I reverted.
• In my view, Kumioko is blindly tagging anything that ever was, occurred, or is on US soil as a WPUS article, and sometimes other articles such as Talk:U.S.S.R. national rugby union team as well. He does not seem to stop and consider (given he tags hundreds of articles at a time) IF an article should really be included, he just assumes everything is inherently "United Statesian". I wonder how many other Soviet articles got tagged?

I am happy to discuss this with anyone, either here on informally on my talk. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, well and good. Could you address one more point: How does Kumioko's tagging of the article talk pages in question have a negative effect on the quality of the article text the reader sees when they come to read the article? --Jayron32 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply to Jayron - Thank you. Quite simply: the wide majority of readers on Wikipedia are novices. Some of these become editors. If an editor goes to a project and asks for help on an article, will the get it? In the case of articles that are in scope, sure. I doubt many WPUS editors are going to jump at the chance to do research on Connecticut Senatorial Elections or obscure Governors of Florida. I'll ask you a similar question: how does it benefit? The tagging of articles not within scope of a project also runs afowl of Wikipedia:No original research as well: there aren't any possible citations that can be made in ANY of the articles I un-tagged WPUS from that the Unites States was ever remotely invovled in them. It's a total lack of WP:Verifiability.

If Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico started tagging every article invovling the areas of California, Nevada, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas & Colorado, would there be no complaints? How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia for every article in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California? Is there an end? Can Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia & Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic tag every article on the Moon because Eugene Cernan was of Czechoslovak parentage? I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here: that a project must have some reasonable association with a topic to tag an article. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the stuff you mention is still just a behind-the-scense political pissing contest with no bearing on article content. I never said that I found there personally myself to be a benefit to the tag. However, if Kumioko finds for himself personally there to be a benefit to the tag, why do I have the right to tell him he doesn't find the benefit in the tag. That makes no sense. If it doesn't harm the article text (and you, so far, have still not stated how it harms the article text) and if Kumioko himself finds it helpful for him to help in maintaining the article, where is the harm? How is the article text itself worse because the tag exists? And if someone from Wikiproject Mexico was going to start maintaining articles about California, why would it matter if they tagged the article's talk page or not? If they are taking responsibility for the article, how does that make the text at the California article worse? --Jayron32 17:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jayron: You've made this point a number of times, and, of course, you are correct: tagging does not have any immediate appreciable effect on article content, it is indeed a "behind the scenes" kind of thing. But, of course, what happens behind the scenes can have an significant impact on the quality of the Wikipedia experience for the editors. In that respect every argument between editors, every incivility, every snipe and snap and arcastic remark doesn't directly effect article content, but is still (possibly) appropriate subject matter for AN or AN/I when things reach a certain point. For that reason, I would say that it's not particularly helpful to continue making that point repeatedly, since the noticeboards deal with many things which don't have anything to do with article content -- in fact, content disputes, per se, are routinely deflected.

But in any case, I should explain that, yes, the question is silly, but no, it matters. Kumioko is given credit for revitalizing a moribund project, and that's great, but it seems to me that his unbridled tagging is probably not the best way to go about it, as it is as likely to bog down the project as it is to get it going again. Military History can handle their very large number of articles because they've got a very large number of editors, which is not the case with WPUS. Better, I think, to be a little more controlled in throwing the net, and getting better quality in a smaller number of articles, that mediocre quality in a much larger number.

That's my opinion -- as I said above, I wasn't questioning the project's ability to decide how broad their mandate was, just questioning the wisdom of the choice made. After seeing on my watchlist any number of quite silly tags placed by Kumioko, and laughing it off, I simply took the opportunity of SOV's "bot" comment to broach a comment of my own. I wouldn't have opened an AN thread on it, but I took advantage of an opportunity. I trout myself for opening a can of worms, but it also seems to have uncovered a possible dispute/behavioral problem, so there you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • @Markvs88: The argument that events before 1783 which were seminal in the formation of the United States are not part of "United States history" is a remarkably silly one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply to Beyond My Ken - Thanks for such an erudite opinion! So... do you care to share WHY you think so? However, if you wish to discuss individual examples, I'm all for it. What I'm against is a blanket "everything that has ever happened is American". Again, is Clovis Culture WPUS? If yes, then I may as well start tagging everything Wikiproject Milky Way Galaxy. If not, thanks for seeing a bit of rationality, now how about we come up with a workable solution? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Since Clovis Culture wouldn't qualify as being "seminal in the formation of the United States", I would agree that it is not appropriate to tag it for the Project. However, all of Colonial history, the French and Indian War, the voyage of the Mayflower, etc., all of which occured before 1783, are very pertinent to American history and are appropriate to be tagged for the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • @Markvs88. I think you need to reread the projects mission statment. It says "topics related to...and with an emphasis on. I don't believe that means articles prior to 1776 can't be tagged nor does it mean that articles with regional/national significance can't be tagged either. Some articles prior to the formation of the US would certainly have relevance to the US. The tagging of Juan Ponce de León or Clovis Culture would have some relationship to the US, as would Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis, Mayflower Steps and Runnymede. The tagging of Juan Ponce de León or Charles Cornwallis by the US Project would in no way indicate that either of the two were citizens of the US. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Reply to CambridgeBayWeather - And I think that "related to" means "RELATED TO". Why do you think that? Of what possible relation is Talk:George Wyllys, a colonial Governor whom was dead 130 years before the Declaration of Independence to the US? How can you possible defend tagging Clovis Culture? If you're willing to do that, what isn't WPUS? Magna Carta and thousands of other (unrelated) articles are all closer to WPUS than that. On the flip side, you're saying that you're for tagging United States for WP:WikiProject Greece because the founders took their ideals of Democracy from ancient Athens. Where does it all end? I think some sense of scale is necessary here... how thin a relationship is enough? Because for these articles, the relationships are non-existant. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • On the specific points of the articles mentioned before by Markvs88 I would like to say that the specific reason I tagged Talk:George Wyllys and Talk:List of colonial governors of Connecticut are because they fall under WikiProject United States Governors which is now directly supported by WikiProject United States. This is true of a number of others as well when projects such as United States Government was added and will be true if others are added. On the specific issue of the Talk:U.S.S.R. national rugby union team articles. This was an error due to tagging articles that contained US and U.S. (I remove the roads related ones and have spoken with them about tagging the roads related articles and redirects as their project), United States or in some cases American (but I scrub a lot out of this list as not related). Its true I have tagged a few like this and normally I return and fix those. I run through every piece of content associated to WikiProject United States every single month so if I don't catch them on the initial tagging I will almost always catch them when I do the updates. They should be rare but there are a couple I am sure. I have also tagged a number of articles as relating to various states and to Milhist. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply to Kumioko - And they're still not US Governors... they didn't send taxes to the US government as there was no federal structure at all. And that's what I keep getting at. I'm not against inclusion of *some* events before 1776 if they are of direct relation to the project (ie: Boston Tea Party or Intolerable Acts. But there is obviously a limit. Not everything that ever happened on what is now United States soil is of a national, US interest. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
      • They were colonial governors in territories that would become the original states of the United States. I think the association to the scope of the project is pretty obvious and warranted. Were not tagging the King of England during the Colonial era, were not tagging the British people or ships that participated in the American Revolutionary War (although a couple of the people and ships might be warranted due to their role in certain key battles but they would be by exception and not rule). I still think your making this into too much of a black and white situation when its more gray. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"A wikiproject is a group focused on improving the articles of a *particular* subject. "

No, that's actually wrong. A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. They do not have to focus on "a particular subject". Most of them do, but "WikiProject Our favorite articles" or "WikiProject Articles we found through Special:Random" is perfectly fine. The scope doesn't have to make sense to anyone else. We encourage logical scopes, but it's simply not required. (Additionally, many WikiProjects focus on particular kinds of editing, regardless of the subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... What about Wikipedia:WikiProject: "A WikiProject is a project to manage a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia." ? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With all of the work that needs to be done on this wiki it boggles the imagination that Markvs88 is expending so much effort over such a trivial issue as project tagging. So the justification for engaging in what appears to be a slow edit war over numerous articles is that an editor may ask for assistance at the project talk page and that query could go unanswered? Don't you have anything better to do? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you're weighing in, you obviously don't either. It boggles the mind that someone would take the time to ask such as silly question if they actually READ everything the poster (me) has written about this. (So: Just because you think it's trivial, it doesn't mean everyone else does.) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, except that pretty much everyone does think its stilly as can bee seen by the responses above! --Kumioko (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be going beyond the scope of AN, and focusing on minutiae. From what has already been discussed, this dispute probably needs to go through WP:DR, but I don't see anything that really needs admin tools to fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's because there were three distinctly different discussions that were all merged into one because they all pertained to WikiProject United States. I don't have the time nor desire to move this huge discussion to another venue nor do I desire to restart it from scratch.

Since the discussion has verified the questions submitted I am going to go ahead and continue to tag the articles and if someone feels that I am moving too quickly or whatever then just let me know. As I mentioned above though I will be gone for the large part of the next month so I don't have the time or desire to discuss again the symantics of whether a project does or does not have the right to tag an article. Especially since that has been repeatedly verified in multiple venues by multiple different editors.

As for bot like edits. I use AWB to do a lot of tedious tasks faster rather than relying on manual edits so if there is a solid number of articles that should not be exceeded by an AWB user per day (100 is ridiculous, I would suggest something like 1000 as long as they are meaningful and meet the other criteria) then let me know and enforce that across the board for all users, not just when the mood strikes. This is especially true if you want to slow the growth and development of articles in WP so it takes longer to build them up! (Sorry for the slightly sarcastic tone there). --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

Would an admin (or admins) close:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement
2. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

For the second RfC, the creator wrote:

I want to add here that I'd like the RfC to remain open for 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved admin, not one involved in previous discussions about fair-use images please. I'm requesting this because this issue is affecting several content contributors, and it's likely to continue being contentious unless it's sorted out by clear consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 3 on that list closed. NW (Talk) 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare, for closing that RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

History purge. Am I doing this correctly?

I am not an admin, but what I tried to do was to remove the old history (which had copyrighted content) and replace it with a fresh one. What I did first was to move the page from Synechron to Synechron*, then I copied and pasted the non-infringing content from Synechron* to Synechron, thus replacing the redirect with the content. Finally, I requested Synechron* to be deleted because of a history purge (using Twinkle). I hope this makes sense and that I did this correctly, but the main request is, I would like the old history (Which is in Synechron*) to be deleted. Minima© (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of individual revisions is now done using WP:Revision deletion. One can request deletion of specific revisions using {{copyvio-revdel}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion should be preferred whenever possible. Minimac, I'm afraid that your approach (even in those cases where rev deletion is not feasible) strips attribution. You can't copy & paste non-infringing content from one page to another unless you give full attribution in the edit summary when you do so. (For instance, if all the content was placed by one user, you could write, "All content in this edit created by User:Example" in the edit summary.) Alternatively, you can make a full list of contributors and store it in a safe location.

I only use selective deletion now when rev deletion is rendered effectively impossible by the number of edits that would be affected. For a recent example, the article at Richard Ramirez had a massive copyvio inserted in 2007. Subsequently, the article had 1,283 edits. Rev deleting 1,283 edits is pretty impractical. I used the old technique of splitting the history, placing the deleted revisions (as per Wikipedia:Selective deletion) at Richard Ramirez/deleted revisions. (I did not use a date for the deleted revisions, as rev deletion makes it unlikely that this will happen multiple times.) Standardizing the title to which you move the content is a good idea, since it makes it easier to find in the future.

But, again, revision deletion is preferred and {{copyvio-revdel}} is the way to request this, as Flatscan says. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I realise that my approach wasn't a very good idea, because not only this removes the content, but it also removes the edit summaries and their usernames. I have used the copyvio-revdel template before, but I was just trying a different method to remove that copyvio. I'll stick with my old method the next time I remove a copyvio, as that is easier than the method I've described here. Minima© (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on User:CharlieJS13

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – He gone--Jayron32 17:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

---

What it is exactly needed to get somebody banned from editing this project? I've seen many users banned from editing due different reasons, but I do not know if it is possible to have this user banned. The user, which I withheld his name for now has been violating many polices and guidelines: WP:NPA (including death threats), WP:V, WP:SOCK, WP:NOR, WP:Civility and WP:NPOV, for a whole year. Is this enough to mention his name and open a ban discussion? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BAN. If s/he fits the criteria for a community ban, open the discussion here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There are methods and stages of dispute resolution which can precede an outright ban (though they may be dispensed with if an individual's conduct is sufficiently egregious). Either way, it would be helpful to know the exact circumstances; administrators are unlikely to be able to assist you if they don't know what's going on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This is the first time I do this so if it something is missed notify me.

For a whole year, CharlieJS13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been breaking many polices and guidelines on Wikipedia: WP:No personal attacks, WP:V, WP:SOCK, WP:No original research, WP:DE, WP:Civility and WP:Neutral point of view, at least. All of this began in April 2010, when Charlie started changing legal names (Stefani Germanotta) to stage names (Lady Gaga). In general, there were no consensus to use either, but per consistency with many articles, birth names were preferred. I told him and refused to search a consensus, but started vandalizing my userspace (a constant is his editing). This edits were the reason he managed his first block. After a consensus at WP:GAGA (here), it was decided to use what reliable sources say in the writer parameter, in this case BMI and ASCAP, something that he did not agree, and giving him his second block. After his persistent disruptive editing (e.g.), it was decided to have him indefinitely blocked). Later, Kww (talk · contribs) decided to give him a last chance -> WP:ORR, something he ruined in a few days.

Charlie then started to use IPs and create accounts (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CharlieJS13 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CharlieJS13), in all those socks the constants are:

• Changing music genres with no sources, with arguments "It is [music genre], listen to it" or "The other genres are not sourced as well" (not a valid reason for add unsourced content)
• Blanking of my userpage and/or my talkpage, many times leaving WP:RD2 and WP:RD3 messages, including personal attacks, xenophobic messages (calling me fajita) and frequent death threats (see also filter log, and deleted editions.
• Bad faith reports to WP:AN/WP:ANI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
• Making threats and personal attacks on people, not only on me, on alot of users:
• User talk:Chasewc91 -> e.g.
• User:Legolas2186 -> e.g.
• User:Andrzejbanas -> e.g.
• And the list continue (e.g.)

The reason why I opened this discussion is that I, and many others, have enough with this user. Since May 2010, he has not stopped trolling and, according to his edits, he has no intention to do it (1). I told him to stop his DE in the last months and he preferred to continue. He is wasting my time, he is wasting other users' time (including admins), he has 21 years, 4 months old, therefore he is not a kid and he perfectly knows what he is doing. Also it is fun to mess with me. 06:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban as nominator. (I'll notify all users mentioned above). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support permaban – Amen. Enough of this nonsense user. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban this seems pretty straightforward. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban My goodness. The behaviour of this person is downright unacceptable according to the evidence provided by Tbhotch. Minima© (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• support This is a pretty clear case of constant abuse--Crossmr (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Make reverting and blocking socks simpler. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly their presence here is detrimental. The ability to form consensus and work with others or at least communicate properly is a core requirement. This editor doesn't appear capable of or willing to do any of that. The sockpuppetry is just another reason why we don't need this person, and I'll also note that a very gracious attempt at mentorship by Kww totally failed after only a month. Night Ranger (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, though this isn't technically necessary. The main user account is already under an unlikely-to-be-lifted indefinite block, having blown a last-chance conditional unblock/mentoring arrangement last year in less than two weeks. Any edits made by this individual while logged out (or using an alternate account name, should one be created) can already be rolled back on sight for block evasion, and any accounts or IPs used for editing can be blocked; a(nother) formal (re)statement of the ban here isn't really required. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with the same feelings as TenOfAllTrades. The only thing a community ban provides that isn't already in place is that it prevents any admin from unblocking him without community consensus. I don't think there's a risk of that.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm calling this one. Its been open over 24 hours, and there's been no one to come to his defense at all. Maintaining unanimity on this board for longer than 5 minutes is nigh-on impossible. This is telling. Consider him banned. --Jayron32 17:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Redirecting a page

Resolved

 – Article moved to correct name and history merged. --RL0919 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Two years ago an editor redirected Robert Vernon Spears to {Richard Spears. Unfortunately the redirect is wrong. Robert Vernon Spears is the correct name. Here is a obituary for him.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690503&id=GP0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yHsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5150,1886847

How do we redirect the current Richard Spears article over the one that is at Robert Vernon Spears right now? I tried redirects as you will notice- William 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What you need is a history merge. I'll take care of it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of article on my user page

The article User:RoslynSKP/Battle of Jaffa (1917) should be deleted as the information in it has been incorporated into the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article. Can you please tell me how to do this or arrange for it to be done? Thanking you :) --Rskp (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Ched :  ?  09:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In the future you can add {{db-userreq}} to the top of any page in your usespace (except talk page) and an admin will stop by and delete it. GB fan (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yisroel Friedlander creator not informed of deletion by nominator

Resolved

 – No issue here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The creator of Yisroel Friedlander has not been informed of its pending deletion?! Someone isn't following the guidelines. Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, a nominator is not required to inform creators that an article is up for deletion if they don't want to, and besides, the creator, User:Srulyf has not edited since Nov 2008. See this: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, so it was just discourteous. Well what can we expect these days!? Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems likely to be an informed decision based upon a review of the creators edit history - an example of due diligence; however, your response is discourteous and perhaps you should attempt to practice at which you preach. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, how about you stay away from User:Debresser for a while, OK? (given the tumultuous history between you two) –MuZemike 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned editor using WP's email system to discuss topic

Resolved

LevenBoy (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
LevenBoy was topic banned in May 2011 from all discussion and editting about naming disputes relating to Britain, Ireland, and the British Isles naming topics, widely construed[1] (see WP:GS/BI). Since I implemented that ban LevenBoy has made 1 edit not relating to the topic[2] and 1 seemingly joking coment (on the topic) to another sysop's page[3].
About a week ago I recieved an email through wikipedia's email system from User:LevenBoy raising the topic (in partiuclar his view that another editor is in systematically removing the term British Isles from articles), I did not reply. Today I recieved a second.
It is clear that although LevenBoy is not editting wikipedia he is following edits in the area from which he is topic-banned. And I am concerned that this user is attempting to game the system with their use wikipedia's email system. I realize that emails themselves are beyond the scope of the our control but it is becoming clear that LevenBoy is not getting the message vis-a-vis being a single-purpose account or about pointy behaviour relating to wikipedia. I'm not sure how to proceed, input on the matter would be helpful--Cailil ^talk 17:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Alas - since you were the one implementing the ban, contact with you is fairly proper as long as you assume good faith. Were you not the one implementing the ban, you might have a point, but I suggest you simply allow that contacting the person who made the ban is about as proper as one can get (as it appears he is trying to draw your attention to a user who is making, in his opinion, improper edits). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from Collect, but up to a point. The reason that LevenBoy was topic banned (& placed under civility parole) is his repeated unsourced reversions and incivility towards users who in his opinion are editing improperly, in short violating WP:BATTLE. Hence my problem, as the emails (through the WP system) are displaying the same mentality from LevenBoy towards other users--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Collect on this matter. Definitely worth keeping an eye out for breaches of the topic ban though. The comment at my talk was silly but it was a while ago and not blockworthy, in my opinion. --John (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No the comment (or joke) on your page John was silly and definitely not blockable, however I'm worried LevenBoy hasn't got the message. Anyway, fair enough - I'll respond to his email with a comment on his talk page--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop offensive bot

 Fixed

Can somebody tell this moronic bot to stop tagging my article and my talk page with deletion/bot warnings? I've created over a 1000 notable articles, and the bot annoyance is preventing me from working on my latest one. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not your article; it is the community's article, and once you hit the "Save page" button, it can be edited by others within our policies and guidelines and common sense. Having created "over 1000 notable articles", you should be well aware of that. –MuZemike 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess he realises that it is not his article. It's just a turn of phrase - you know, like you say our policies and guidelines; which could be taken as not yours. LevenBoy (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter how many articles you have created. There is a community consensus that users cannot remove CSD tags from articles they created. Period. This has been discussed multiple times, and the consensus remains unchanged. This bot was merely carrying out the community consensus. If you thought the tag was placed incorrectly, you could follow up with the editor who placed it, or ask another experienced editor to remove it. Singularity42 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a wider issue with the article in question, related to WP:NOENG for the sources. What route should be taken to resolve this? I am hitting similar problems with several India-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using non-English sources, it's just that English sources are preferred. Google translation is quickly and easily available to all, so really, NOENG should probably be remaindered or revised to reflect this. Night Ranger (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for drifting OT here but, for example, GTrans does not handle Malayalam and this is a frequently used language in cited sources for India articles. I have not checked but would be surprised if it does not handle Polish. I am not an admin, btw, but rather a watcher here. My suspicion is that this is the wrong venue but if someone could point me to the correct one then I would be grateful. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think a part of the problem with India-related articles is that NPPers like myself get tired of seeing page after page of unsourced puffery written in horrendously mangled English, which is frankly what a lot of new India-related articles look like (not yours, Sitush, I've seen your work before and it's quite exemplary); I've actually seen the local taxi driver being glorified at least twice in articles about Tamil villages. There was a thread about this on Jimbo's talkpage in February. That being said, I also have seen the problem you've run across, and I think other NPPers would do well to run a Google translate; it's not particularly good, but in my experience it's enough to at least get an idea of whether it matches up with the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Praise at AN ? Glad I am sitting down. <g> GTrans barfs at Malayalam entirely - it is not yet a recognised language. Doubtless it will get there, eventually, and then I will be able to decipher the (apparently) numerous insults/threats of violence etc that are aimed in my direction. Then again, I may not bother ... - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the same issue with Burmese and Karen, I know the feeling. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just a thought here, but why don't people regularly write articles in their userspace and move them to main space only when they're ready to "hatch"? That would minimize conflicts of the CSD-tagging nature like in this situation. --87.78.22.233 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Especially in this case, where Piotrus took it from 300 bytes to 6k within 2 hours. Had he simply waited two hours to click 'save' there would have been no problem. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I tend to use {{inuse}} when I am actively creating a new article. {{Under construction}} works, too, but {{inuse}} suggests more immediate efforts. I've only had one article tagged for issues with the {{inuse}} tag, that I recall. (Wasn't tagged for speedy deletion.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Underconstruction isn't ideal for new articles. As the template doc states, "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content. Instead, the sandbox should be used to develop the article so that it has reasonable content when it is copied into namespace."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Imho, it should be policy for editors to start articles in a sandbox (WP:SB, or one in their userspace) and move them to main space only when they meet the bare minimum standards. That would also solve the problem of "placeholder" articles which is rampant in some areas. --84.44.230.33 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that no one on this thread has mentioned is that this "offensive bot" was only doing what it was programmed to do. It was warning the original author of an article that they were not supposed to remove a speedy deletion tag from an article they created along with readding the tag per policy. All Piotrus had to do is click on the contest button or even just edit the article with the speedy delete tag in place. The offensive part here is that the article was tagged for speedy deletion 2 minutes after creation. The tagger is who Piotrus should have been upset at, not the bot doing its job. GB fan (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Singularity did sort of mention that. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your right, I missed that comment. GB fan (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe he preferred venting his anger by ranting about the bot rather than a fellow fallible human editor? Maybe he's even a bit angry at himself for not doing what Mdennis' suggested above: Piotrus could at least have tagged the article as being under construction. (However, you're still right that the tagger was overeager and Piotrus is also right in that the tagger could have checked Piotrus' record and made an educated guess about the development of the article.) --87.79.225.139 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

By motion voted upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Some RFCs that could do with closing

• Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Did_recent_currency_image_deletions_go_beyond_the_proper_aims_and_objectives_of_the_NFC_image_policy.3F
  • Launched 10 May 2011
• RfC on whether images of historical importance must themselves be the "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use for them
  • Listed 4 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• Poll to gain consensus on use of hyphens and dashes in relation to a request for arbitration
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011
• RfC on improving account security
  • Listed 3 June 2011, archived 5 July 2011

Not necessarily an admin job, but this seems the conventional place to ask for closures. Rd232 public ^talk 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The account security one has seen a few additional comments today, so perhaps hold off on closing that one for a couple or days more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures

The promotor, the french department of sports and the ASN use the name Circuit des 24 Heures, more Wikipedia:Verifiability is not possible.

As discussed at Talk:Circuit_de_la_Sarthe#Name_of_the_track, please move Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures. Thanks and Regards, --Pitlane02 talk 15:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Following a content dispute at 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision, some drama at ANI, and discussion at talk:2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision, I've created a new version of the article at 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision/temp, which now needs to be commented upon by those involved in the discussion. I hope that there will be consensus for the /temp article to replace the current mainspace article.

So far, I'm the only editor to the /temp page. I attributed it on creation to the version of the article it was taken from. For reasons of copyright, I'd like to remain the only editor of the /temp page. Therefore, I would ask that the page be fully protected, and that an edit notice is created requesting that nobody else apart from myself edits the article. If the article can remain with myself as the only editor, it can be copy-pasted to replace the current mainspace article without any attribution needed. Should another editor edit the /temp article, then we get into merge problems, and the necessity to retain the /temp article as a permanent redirect, rather than being able to delete it.

This is the situation as I understand it, but if I'm wrong on this, please say why this is so. Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the temp article for 1 week on the basis of Mjroots' analysis above. If I'm misunderstanding licensing/attribution requirements here, feel free to unprotect without consulting me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek. I've added a prominent {{Pp-protected}} template to the article, and placed the request that no other editors edit the article there, rather than creating an edit notice which will need to be deleted once the /temp page is deleted. I envisage that consensus will be reached soon and that the content dispute will then be resolved. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Table is getting out of hand, they won't let me delete anything unrelated

The "Smartphone OS Comparison" table on Mobile operating system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is getting out hand filled with doubtfully relevant topics such as "Keeps browser state on shutdown or crash" or "Videoconference front video camera". I've tried to delete them with an in-depth explanation but numerous non-member IP-addresses keep reverting my edits(see discussion page and cleaning the table) . My two prime reasons for removing these categories are: 1. They are not that relevant to the actual OS and 2. it is impossible to keep up with that many feature since people tend to find a difference between Android and iOS and add a category for it leaving the rest of the OSs empty; thus lowering the over all quality of the article. What are the administrators opinions of this query?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit to that page was back on February 19th, so your posting here seems to be a bit moot. But I don't believe this is the correct noticeboard for this type of deal as it does not involve an admin. WP:ANI is better suited for this kind of issue, or the content noticeboard perhaps.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about the huge time leap but the situation hasn't become any better since I left it. I posted on content noticeboard but I don't know what other users can do here.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:3O, WP:RFC. I see there was a spat of edit warring a mere three months back (not involving you) which might have warranted administrative action at the time, but even that's long stale. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked from blocking

I'm trying to block 74.88.5.96 for 31 hours for vandalism, but keep getting a database error:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "Block::purgeExpired". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.46)".

Embarrassingly, the block notice went through without a hitch. Anybody know what's going on? I'm trying it again but I have to run in a minute--maybe the notice alone will scare them straight, haha. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the problem for you was caused by, but my block of the IP was successful. —DoRD (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The database errors happens all the time. I've been noticing more of them in the past couple of months. It usually takes a couple of minutes, then everything's fine after. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. I wish editors at the Content noticeboard were as eager as you lot! (us lot?) Drmies (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse

More community input is needed with regards to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse, as the debate is currently getting out of hand very quickly. From what I gather, some community consensus is needed to determine whether or not sockpuppetry has occurred, absent positive technical evidence saying so. I currently have no opinion on the matter, as I have not looked into the case much at all, aside from two suspect IP edits today, which look fairly unrelated. –MuZemike 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I have reverted the last few blatantly disruptive attempts to re-open this closed case and protected the page. I have directed editors to open a user RFC on BarkingMoon if they feel that his status as a returning vanished user making a clean start in accordance with policy is inappropriate. SPI is no longer the proper forum for this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To add to what Hersfold has said, if the community wants a block, then we need to reach a consensus for a block. In my opinion, anything less than that would be considered "unilateral" and hence "admin abuse", not to mention a failure of WP:AGF. –MuZemike 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a violation of "Right to Vanish" by a former Arb (if i'm reading it right)? Not sure if a sockpuppet investigation is either here nor there (it seems pretty clear who it is). The former arb in question left under a bit of a cloud (major concerns about plagiarism, particularly over at DYK, that were never addressed at the time out of respect to the "vanishing" editor}. Isn't a "vanished" user who returns simply linked to their old account with a redirect or something, and the history moved to the new account? That seems the best course, particularly as there's a chance similar problems will arise.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever comes of this, it would appear that WP:VANISH may need some review, as it states that (bolding included) "The Right to vanish (RtV) means the right of any user, upon leaving Wikipedia finally and forever, to request renaming of their account and deletion or blanking of pages in their userspace....The right to vanish is not a temporary leave or a method to avoid scrutiny or sanction, is not a "fresh start...". This may not be reflective in policy and may need to be tightened to avoid future confusion if necessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment I just left Off2riorob on my talk page has some relevance here; I'll copy it below:

If you ask me, I'm fairly certain BarkingMoon is the user everyone thinks they are. However, if they are, they seem to be making a perfectly valid WP:CLEANSTART. In the absence of evidence that they are being disruptive, which presumably is what the AN discussion is for, they can neither be blocked for sockpuppetry nor any other reason, as their actions are in accordance with policy. From what I've heard from the Arbitration Committee, there is some evidence that my convictions may be wrong, in which case we have no idea who BarkingMoon is. Either way, in the absence of any normal reason to block, [...] BarkingMoon is not obligated to reveal their original identity and any effort to force them to do so is a violation of their privacy, as per policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, now that I read WP:VANISH, it does include that little nuance. In which case I'm not sure what to do here; from the SPI it's quite clear that Rlevse's "vanishing" didn't go terribly well, since everyone knows what the account was renamed to, so does it still count as a vanishing or not? And if so, what is the "penalty" for trying to return? The policy doesn't make that clear. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking why his latest manifestation was spotted in the first place[4] [5]. Attacking me on a page on which I was (at the time) completely uninvolved is a gross violation of "right to vanish." While I am grateful to "BarkingMoon" for attracting my attention to the arbcom leaks, I don't think a former Arb can be excuse behaviour which would not be overlooked in others. The checkusers and the Arbitration committee all know this - so what it the problem? I have no wish to see him blocked, I just like to know thine enemy as he has clearly shown himself to be in order to know who is who Giacomo Returned 22:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Since it's about avoiding scrutiny, treat the BarkingMoon account as if it were renamed (merge the histories there) and put a redirect at the rlevse userpage with some boilerplate that "this count was renamed to BarkingMoon." If people want to bring up the earlier problems at an RFC/U or something. That's up to them. At the time, there was some sentiment that he needed editing restrictions/or mentorship. That sentiment may or may not remain (and it may not be sufficient to see it carried out if so) but that would simply be up to an editor that wanted to get the ball rolling.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially the recommended protocol at WP:VANISH; restore the old account's history and link it to the new account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's a no-brainer. I have the feeling that it might not be treated that way though.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Treat it as "Oh. You meant 'Clean start' nor 'WP:VANISH'." and go from there?

Somehow I think that is an end run around purpose of "Vanish" and the situation that precipitated the editor to chose that option.

"Vanish" seems pretty clear that by choosing that option the editor intends to never return as an editor. Now while situations change and a vanished editor may have a reason to come back, I would think that would require contacting a bureaucrat or similar, asking to "unvanish" and outlining why it should be allowed. Then I can see treating it as a clean start or wikibreak. If that contact and approval is missing here though...

- J Greb (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is (and I don't know if all the CUs share my view) at I know that I don't have any information at all that links BarkingMoon to the former arbitrator, and hence I do not have anything to check against (not to mention I had no stake in the original incident, and I'm not an ArbCom member). I suppose what is being asked here is that all CheckUsers are obligated to make a cursory check on a vanished user to be used for future purposes, but then we risk violating one's privacy in doing so (though I'm sure others are going to say it's nothing compared to the massive ArbCom leak going on), assuming that is not a very good reason in doing so. It feels like there are people on one side screaming "AGF! AGF! Don't BITE!" while the other side is screaming "DUCK! DUCK! QUACK!". I get the feeling of being caught between a rock and a hard place, especially in situations like this.

My concern right now is how are we, the community, going to rectify this? Should someone draft some "findings of fact" and "proposals" and vote on them community-style? Failing that, what else? –MuZemike 22:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

When a returning user takes verbal shots at someone he's had a history with, that is NOT a so-called "clean start". The admins had their chance with the SPI, and they royally F'd it up. They are unwilling to do their jobs, and should resign their adminships immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: I guess there's some wiggle room that it isn't Rlevse. But it's clearly a returned user who's carrying old conflicts about with them (who's refused to name the former account on his talk page and said that's "his final word). If they won't come clean on who they are, then just block as a sock. If they do come clean, reconsider. They could clear this all up by addressing the past accounts identity in a straightforward manner.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Who gives a flying freak who they were? They violated "clean start", and should be sent packing immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So, let's see...

• It's not a comeback from "right to vanish", nor is it a "rename", because in those cases the history has to come along.
• It's not a valid "clean start", because an editor is not allowed to go back to previous disputes, and BarkingMoon did just that.
• Admins know what happened, they know what to do, and they refuse to take action. (Other than locking the SPI page because they didn't want to hear about it; and passing the buck to this page where they're hoping it will fizzle.)
• I'm sure the folks at Wide Receiver are getting a lot of yucks out of the gross incompetence displayed by some members of the admin corps in this case.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Admins know what to do" – they do? I don't think we enforce vanishing. Possibly undo the vanishing. Which can't be completed by crats (let alone admins) since the account has too many edits. Amalthea 23:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not RTV at all, it's a bogus "clean start", and the "privacy" issue is totally bogus. The editor has been deceptive from day one (May 1, specifically). Sockpuppet-like behavior. What do admins do with socks? Hang them out to dry, is what. Or at least they used to. Now it looks like they palm the cases off to someplace where they hope they'll just "go away". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys who think I'm Rlevse are wrong, and I've told you that, but you won't let it go. Nor am I a sock. You keep looking for things that aren't there, just like at the Salem witch trials. I try to edit peacefully, but you keep at and don't even have the common decency to tell me about this thread, which I found by viewing a user talk page. Then you wonder why users, especially new ones, leave in droves. Well, count another new one gone. You condone far more disruptive users than for years because they're in one of your cliques, but me, you abuse and hang out to dry before getting all the info. This place is so full of meanness, prima donnas, and the powerhungry. You guyes deserve each other, good riddance and goodbye. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Request for admin intervention to allow an RfC to run its course

I just undid Jechochman's premature closure of a user conduct RfC and warned him on his talk page. RfC's normally run for 30 days. He openly stated in his closure that he was closing the RfC because he disagreed with it, and used a pending RfAR request as further justification. Because he is openly biased about the RfC, I placed his comments in the RfC itself as a "view". I ask for admin help protect the RfC and allow it to run for its full time period and block any editors who try to close it before it runs its alloted time period. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a bad thing to do, because an uninvolved admin had already endorsed the closure. And you are very clearly not involved; you are very clearly deeply partisan and should neither be closing nor unclosing such things. Fortunately your meddling has already been reverted [6]. Back off; if you feel action is needed, get someone uninvolved to do it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[7]? --JN466 23:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See-also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FCirt William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper thing to do would have been for Jechochman to announce on the RfC talk page that because of the RfAR, they were considering closing the RfC before the standard 30 days. Then, they should have allowed comment for a day or so. Then, if there was consensus, they could have closed it early. We're supposed to do things in an orderly way for a reason, one being so that the dispute resolution process will have credibility and rule of order. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The proper thing to do would have been for a partisan like you to have stayed well clear of the closure. Anyway, RA is now bouncing back and forth like a yo-yo [8] so who knows what state it will be in by the time you read this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember, there is currently no ArbCom case, so the RfC needs to at least remain open until a case formally opens, if one opens. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)