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

User talk:WebHamster

There appears to be a substantial edit war at the aforementioned page. I was about to fully protect it for a few days, but being that it is a discussion page (and Hamster may wish to appeal his block), I am not sure if this is the proper course of action. Thoughts are appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. Since PoD engaged Daed on his (Daed's) talk page, I left a 3RR reminder there. While I don't agree with Webhamster's approach to "collaboration", I do think the option to request unblock, and possibly to state they will "tone it down" should be left open to him if possible. Good catch JC. — Ched :  ?  16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much harm in protecting it. He's not using it for any useful purpose, and we already know he's churlish. I don't see that more useful information is likely to come from that page. Friday (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be protected, but on the same token Daedalus969 should be given a 3RR warning for going over the line on 3RR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect it for 24 hours, warn then block anyone who returns to edit war. That is quite enough of this.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Tznkai (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the page should be protected, but no warning to Daedulus69. He's enforcing policy, re WP:CIV. (I've reverted this page as well )

_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect the page, give him the e-mail for the unblock list. Daedulus was correct to not allow hamster to use the page as a soapbox to give the finger to those he disagrees with. Chillum 14:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that- it's better to leave his tantrums in place. It's useful information for anyone considering an unblock. We absolutely want people to recognize what kind of editor we're dealing with here. Friday (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Friday, but for a quite different reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is a no-no and "enforcing civility policy" is not an accepted exception.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. –xeno^talk 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Wonderful. So now only Chillum can have his evil way with the page, and WebHamster is unable to request that he be unblocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't go around calling you evil, just disruptive. Chillum 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • No, the page is fully protected and I would be quite surprised if anyone were to edit it to their preferred state. I've also left information on how WebHamster can request unblocking. If, however, he is prepared to put up an unblock request and would prefer to do it in the usual way, I can unprotect - but that remains to be seen. –xeno^talk 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok this is unbelievable. DO NOT FAN THE FLAMES. The next editor that removes WH's edits to his talk page will get blocked, admin or not. Jesus people, he's indeffed. Just leave him alone until he posts an unblock request. If the notion of a 'civility free zone' offends you so much, permission granted to not navigate over to his talk page. Protonk (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, while a good post, a little late. No changes have been made to WebHamster's talk page since Xeno completely locked it down (only admins can access it) at 10:37 UTC on October 1. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that after posting. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Down Muzzle!--Tznkai (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Birgitte SB's soapbox

I am can't even articulate to all of you how disheartened I am by the recent revelations of admins. First Piotrus and then undertow & friends. Yesterday at EE arbcom, I futilely tried to get EE list members to understand the unacceptability of making ANI reports about suspicions of shared accounts while keeping mum about Tymek's account sharing overtures. This I thought would be an obviously clearcut issue any admin who wasn't named Piotrus. Just now I stumbled on the archived ANI report about undertow which I didn't read entirely, but I gather several admins who regularly participate in ANI kept mum about. That blows yesterday's confidence out the door. How many of these admins felt free to promote the "company line" against sockpuppeting editors they weren't friends with I didn't look into. I don't think I want know. I can only imagine that most of them would have condemned Piotrus's gaming of system while gaming it themselves. Of course these admin weren't that bad, I mean at least they weren't nationalists gaming the system, right? Wrong. They are all in the same league as Piotrus, minus the boldness brought on by years of escaping accountability.

Damn effective leaders, pity about the integrity.

But they didn't harm any articles, you say? Go right now and read Piotrus's evidence.

The heart the matter is this. You see a friend caught in a bad rule, you work to fucking change the rule. You do not rig things so your friend is excused and screw the rest of the world. This is the shit that is killing this place. When you get down to the heart of the EE list, the heart of what drives the Battlegrounds, the heart of what makes people insanely dedicate themselves to subverting an encyclopedia it is all it built on when someone decided to compromise their integrity to protect a friend. And you know what the result always is? The friend expects further compromises; others are drawn in; the group becomes bound by guilt; everyday rules start to appear optional to weaker members; an !attack on a group member must be squashed before it all leaks out. It always leaks out. The friend is worse off than they were in the beginning and a whole group of additional people has been compromised with backsplash. And confidence in system falls another notch and somewhere someone loses their mind and is compelled to write a bot to vandalize articles. Well maybe not the last one. But we really can't afford sink much lower here in regards to confidence. If something on Wikipedia isn't working for your friends, then tackle the issue and evangelize and poke and prod till it will work for anyone, including your friends, or else resign your adminship and cater to your friends all you like. That is the deal with adminship.--BirgitteSB 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I do hear your concerns, but having been involved to one degree or another on at least a dozen of these situations, I can speak from the experience that if you are the voice in the darkness, you will get beaten senseless and even if you are successful in exposing the corruption, the friends of the person you expose will remember your name and eventually you will have enough enemies that they will drive you off the site. I have never seen someone actually be a reformer and not be destroyed, and I have probably seen a good three dozen people try. I sleep at night by sending the improprieties I know of to arbcom and letting the guilt of inaction rest on their shoulders. MBisanz ^talk 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a purely selfish personal stress level, I always like to point at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry where my following the sockpuppet policy to the letter resulted in a 212kb discussion which I became the bad guy and the sockpuppeteer was unblocked by a now-arbcom member within 8 hours. By the third time I put myself through that wringer, I decided I had better things to do with my life than roll a boulder up a hill. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading this makes Wiki sound a lot like a virtual Soviet Union politically. It's sad that there are different rules for different people and cliques of pals can flout the rules and laugh about it but people who have no powerful or vociferous friends are shown the door. The same rules should apply to everyone whether they have lots of powerful pals or not. I guess human nature just is what it is and always will be though. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The choice is not between secretly protecting your friend and being a bad admin or revealing all actions that are out of sync with policy and being a good admin. The choice is between being a consistent admin or not being an admin. Because the desysop is only a matter of time. If you think the sockpuppetry policy is bogus, and you are trying to gather support for reform and pointing out its shortcomings when they apply to situations brought to ANI, I don't expect you to rat out your friend who is out of step with the part of the policy you want to change. But if you block people for sockpuppetry or comment in ANI cases that involve sockpuppetry without mentioning your disagreement with the policy then you better not be keeping mum about someone's sockpuppet. It is not about following the letter of policy regardless of what you think. It about following what you think consistently regardless of who it applies to. Ignore sockpuppets if you like, but ignore all of them and work to make policy match what you believe. And if you don't think the policy is wrong or wrong enough to merit the effort of working to change, then you insist your friend follows the policy. It is really not that hard and if you are truly sending Arbcom private emails while choosing personal inaction, then I am not sure how you are defining a friend. --BirgitteSB 07:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah being a hypocrite definitely doesn't help matters. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not really about being a hypocrite to me; it is much more about making Wikipedia work. If there is a problem with bad bans and the ban appeal process is not fixing them, I guarantee you there is more than one person getting shafted. When a non-admin confides in you about their problem with Wikipedia; it is an opportunity to understand the process from another angle. If the process isn’t working for your friend; then it isn’t working for others. Wanting to help solve your friend’s problem is a good thing. But solve the problem with the process; rather than subvert the process for your friend. I am not pushing integrity because I get a kick out being judgmental towards people, or because I hate hypocrites. I am pushing it because without it Wikipedia is not going to work. And people don't seem to realize this. --BirgitteSB 19:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

there has been at least a comment from a respected Wikipedian that in case of conflict between helping a friend, and helping the encyclopedia, xe would help the friend. (I'm deliberately not pointing to it, because while only one person was bold enough to say it, many seem to feel it. ) Helping one's friends is to some extent inevitable for actual humans, but it is necessary to have some clear limits. The experience of human politics shows that the most effective way to control it is to make some actions where such help would seriously interfere with the encyclopedia impossible: the first step would be to require positive identification of all administrators, both new and existing. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are never so clear-cut as that comment. Help your friends without compromising your integrity and Wikipedia will work itself out. It isn't even a choice. If you choose to help you friend in a way that compromises your integrity; you haven't helped them at all. Whatever ability you might have to protect a friend is tied to your integrity. Compromising the integrity compromises the protection. To be sure there is a time lag, but it is not worth it.--BirgitteSB 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My hope is that, ultimately, if it came down to protecting a friend who had rightfully been blocked (and helping them evade the block) or adhering to policy and honesty, if someone felt they would choose the friend over the project that they would resign their tools and state that it was for "personal reasons". To me, that's the honorable thing to do, but maybe I'm an idealist. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resigning is one option, publicly stating that you are refusing to participate in enforcement for all sockpuppets of banned users who are not currently editing in a disruptive manner until Arbcom reviews their archives and responds to all requests for appeal is another. I cannot agree that we must always enforce policy, we just need to be consistent in how we enforce policy. Before I was an admin I worked to overturn the policy against non-latin users names. I identified many accounts in violation of that policy in my research stage. I did not report these accounts to the Username noticeboard, and if I had been an admin I would not have blocked them. One of my first steps during that campaign was to ask the admins who were most prolific in blocking such accounts to reconsider and stopping making those blocks. Refraining from enforcing policy is a valid step in the process to change policy.--BirgitteSB 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a volunteer organization I think it is entirely appropriate for admins to avoid enforcing rules they don't agree with, so long as they do so consistently. But actively circumventing those rules in some cases while enforcing them in others is unacceptable.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few areas where I strongly disagree with the policies. I deal with that by working elsewhere, but if something unavoidably comes my way I either deal with it according to policy if its really clear, or else refer to another admin. The distinction is between helping one's friends avoid violating policy, and helping them evade it, or disguising their violations after the fact. But, in fairness, Lara has commented on my talk p. that she thinks the comments to which this refers have been over-interpreted, and I refer to her messages there [1]. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD results in merger

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/"Ode_to_Deodorant"/"Brothers_+_Sisters" was closed 12 days ago, with a consensus to merge. But no one has attempted to merge the page, and I was wondering what can be done. I'd merge the page myself, but I don't feel the sources at Ode_to Deodorant/Brothers + Sisters are reliable enough. I realize this isn't the right venue, but I asked at the help desk, but got completely ignored. Deserted Cities (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You could try asking the editors who suggested merging at the AfD to do it. If that does not work, you could just redirect the article to the merge target – which should either provoke someone who cares enough to merge or prove that there wasn't much worth merging to begin with. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse, I'll redirect it. Deserted Cities (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for an AfD merge to sit a while – sometimes months – before being merged or redirected. As this issue affects non-AfD mergers also, suggestions are welcome at WT:Proposed mergers. Flatscan (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If nobody actually merges an article, it may mean that the discussion at AfD didn't truly reflect community consensus, or that those who proposed a merge have changed their minds.

Anybody can perform a merge, if there is consensus that it needs to be done. The purpose of deletion discussions is not to dictate such actions as merges, redirects and whatnot (with rare exceptions), but to decide whether or not the page is to be deleted. Those discussions are necessary because it is not possible for non-admins to reverse deletion, whereas a merge is easily undone. --TS 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a lot of pages that have consensus for a merge, but which nobody has got around to merging. It's not uncommon for a page to be tagged with a merge template and be forgotten afterwards. That's because it's easy to !vote in an AfD, but actually doing the work takes some time and effort. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Conduct

In light of many recent events, I've been left asking a lot of questions that's led me to some research and reading. I noticed that since ArbCom has been handed a "mess in a handbasket", they are revisiting their own conduct. A little digging turned up this old gem of a poll, and it's left me thinking. Perhaps we as administrators need to be clear on what we expect from each other, but more to the point - perhaps we need to be clear on what the community expects from admins.. I'm wondering if perhaps it's not time to dust off Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, have a closer look at it, put it up to WP:CENT and see where we stand today, 3 years after the original thoughts. Input anyone? — Ched :  ?  15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note, I didn't run across this on the "Admins reading list", or anywhere in the "New admin. school" — Ched :  ?  16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Admin accountability, who are these people commenting? I recognise barely a dozen or so names, and it says something that so many are no longer with us and yet were so eager to comment on the discussion. I would suggest, also, that any such updated poll need be run over several pages and timescales - I only read half the page and that is several minutes of my life I will never get back. Per Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, it seems to be a really sensible distillation of the responsibilities of admins and I can only suppose it was not adopted because it was before its time. I think that given a few tweaks it could easily be adopted now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Personally I don't mind sticking to a code of conduct - but I have to know what the rules are before I want to play. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• We're playing calvinball, Ched. Keegan (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Administrators, like all editors, should act to improve Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." <-- code of conduct. kmccoy (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to solve problems instead of making them worse, to recognize their mistakes, to listen to criticism, to communicate when asked, to speak diplomatically when possible, to recognize legitimate disagreement, to exercise restraint and caution and to exercise otherwise their best judgment at all times. Though no administrator will ever be perfect, they are asked to do their best.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great, Tznkai. It covers everything without being WP:CREEPy. hmwith☮ 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in it with any teeth, it's just words and no substance. It leaves admins able to wikilawyer their way out of any misdeeds. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, any suggestions, DuncanHill? Tan | 39 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, he just complains. I would personally suggest WP:RFDA as a framework for stating what administrators may not do, along the general WP (and Western law) convention that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. Or as a framework for providing examples (perhaps hypothetical?) of what would be considered abuse of the tools. The most difficult part will be getting certain admins to comprehend that they are required to uphold ethical standards with regards to things like disclosure and oh, not lying to the entire community. I agree that while Tznkai's statement is a lovely ideal, it has absolutely no effectiveness; language like 'expected to' means any admin can say 'oops' at any time and that'll be the end of it. We need a desysopping process with teeth that is mandatory for all admins, and we need an admin code of conduct policy that lays out a bright line of what is not acceptable behaviour, a grey area of behaviour that may or may not be unacceptable depending on the circumstances, and obviously things along the lines of "Blocking you without warning for posting 'OMG TITTIES' a thousand times on Pamela Anderson is not, in fact, admin abuse," to protect the (increasingly rare, sadly) decent admins from frivolous complaints.

The community, naturally, will never agree on how to do this. Which means that admin abuses will continue to increase, the divide between admins and regular editors (which, frankly, should not be a distinction!) will become a gulf of impassable proportions, and the inevitable death-spiral of Wikipedia will increase in speed and severity. What is needed is a decree--and as much as I despise letting Jimbo retain his power, this is one of the cases in which he could actually do good for the project, and perhaps make it his swan song before stepping down as dictator--from Jimbo laying out an admin code of conduct and tasking stewards and/or crats with ensuring that an RFDA process functions under the auspices of that code without frivolous requests. → ROUX ₪ 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't "only complain" (I recently tried to get "appropriate standards of honesty" addede to WP:ADMIN and am participating in the debate there), but as whenever I do try to suggest any positive change or to support such proposals from others it gets shot down by the usual suspects, I am perhaps less prolific in making suggestions than I would be if I felt that there was a possibility of any admins taking them seriously. Great way to go Roux, agree with me but start by having a go at me. Could you maybe tell me on my talk page why you have such a beef against me instead of dropping it into random threads? DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Candide problems

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User:DreamGuy

I would request that administrators keep an eye on Candide if they can. This article went through an extensive FAC to determine various aspects and conforming to the MoS. Right now, there is fighting over adding of a tag claiming that the "plot" section is too long. The claim is that the page violates this section, which refers to pages that are only about plot. It seems like it is quickly degenerating into edit warring, point violating, and fighting in edit summaries instead of building consensus for such tagging and tag removing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I'm pretty new to this, but I've been trying to clean up Ouachita Baptist University along with some others, and today 67.242.41.170 (talk) came in and reverted many many edits for some reason and then posted on my talk page. I'm not really sure why. Is this a bot? Cmiych (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

When users edit without logging in to Wikipedia, their IP address shows up in lieu of a username; so 67.242.41.170 is either an unregistered user, or someone who forgot to log in. I looked at the history of that article and his unexplained reverts of all your edits seemed odd and unnecessary. I see you've reverted him since. If this continues you should try to start a discussion with him on his talk page (he might not be aware of your response on your talk page). Equazcion (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog demolished. MuZemike 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations has a backlog which needs admins. Help out the poor clerks and close a few cases. :) Brandon (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/James N. Sears

Could an admin with a little spare time please keep an eye on this page? The accompanying article was deleted after a heated AfD. Several users who seem to be affiliated with the subject and have little knowledge of Wikipedia policy have now started personally attacking the other participants and I and insinuating that the article was deleted purely on ethical/legal/moral/political grounds and not Wikipedia policy, which is completely not true (the subject was not notable, there were BLP and spam issues, possible G10, etc.). I pointed them to DRV, figuring that they might calm down if they knew there was a way to dispute the AfD. I would be very thankful if an admin could watch the page for a little while and take necessary action if the users begin getting unruly. Xenon54 / talk / 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be deleted? MuZemike 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is, my reason being is because it only serves as an attack page. MuZemike 01:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I initially Twinkled it back to the first version, but on second thought I agree--this is close enough to the attack page line that I speedied it. Blueboy96 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the speedy speedy, but unfortunately this most likely isn't over yet. The subject of the article has been using Twitter to recruit meatpuppets - not that there's anything anyone here can do about that. Xenon54 / talk / 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In which case, should the title be salted to prevent future recreation? Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(I assume you're talking about the article) Yes, that would be a good idea. Could you please salt Dimitri the Lover (his nickname, which redirected to the article) as well? Xenon54 / talk / 11:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both titles salted. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog, WP:RM

We have a rather large backlog currently at requested moves (larger than I can ever remember). I know it's a specialty area but help out if you can (closing instructions are here).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the instructions were helpful. I cleared out a dozen or so; if tomorrow the backlog is still severe and User talk:Skomorokh is not overrun by headhunters I'll check back in.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleared out another 10 or so. Around 20 remaining, for anyone interested or bored. Abecedare (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great job. Between the three of us it's far more manageable now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Appears to be getting quite busy. An Admin or two might want to pay a visit there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Protactinium-231

Resolved

 – User blocked.

I came across this user at WP:AIV earlier today. Unfortunately no warning had been issued. I left a uw-upload4im at 12:17. At 12:43 Proactinium uploaded this file. Although no warning has yet been posted to the user's talk page, per the Duck test this is apparently an inappropriate image. As I'm sort of "involved" now, would another admin look over the contribution of the image and issue a block if deemed appropriate? Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First, this belong as incidents, not here. Second, I've blocked him. Adding image after image without a source, ignoring all the warnings, isn't productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, apologies for posting at wrong venue. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My idea of transition of Interwiki Policies or Guidelines

Resolved

 – nothing to do here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was making an essay about my idea of transitioning policies and guidelines from other sites such as Wikia and I was wondering if you thought the idea was good. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here; if you want input, try the WP:Village pump. This noticeboard is just for administrator issues, which is not really relevant to general policy or essay stuff. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OpenID

Resolved

 – Normal content dispute; nothing for Wikipedia administrators to do — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

We are attempting to edit the Openid Wiki with cited and verifiable information that someone repeatably is deleting. The information we wish to add is within the History as follows:

Dennis Lyon an inventor from Oceanside, CA was the first to describe the processes that are involved in “OpenID” within United States Patent Application 20060212407. In 2004 Dennis Lyon was convicted of identity theft and subsequently developed the system which is called “OpenID” however calls the process himself authentication protocol or “Authenticol”. Dennis Lyon is currently CTO of Authenticol Systems and CEO for Global Stage Systems.

Can you please help us resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstage (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This board is for requesting the assistance of Wikipedia administrators in their capacity as administrators. The dispute you're involved in is just a typical content dispute, which Wikipedia administrators would not get involved in except to prevent disruption. It looks to me like you're the one being disruptive, by repeatedly trying to add material that several other editors have objected to, so it's probably best for you not to draw attention to the issue. Continuing to discuss this on Talk:OpenID is a much better idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the edit warring by this user, if it continues it may very well be an admin issue. Chillum 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, know. I'm just trying to be nice here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

In light of the absence of Noloop (talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster (talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users

'nuff said, let's get this party started right. Figure out what we can do here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjanag and systematic change of the common spelling of Turfan in all Wikipedia pages

This user (who also has sysop access) has recently systematically changed Turfan to Turpan in all Wikipedia pages. This kind of systematic change is quite inappropriate. First of all, Turfan is more common in English texts (you can search on Google Books to check it). Secondly, when 2 spellings are common in English texts, a systematic change of one spelling to the other one (without any prior consensus) is quite wrong. Alefbe (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for your content dispute. I already left you a message at my talkpage saying where you can look for mediation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Systematic change of the common spelling of names (in all Wikipedia pages and without any consensus) is not just a content dispute. It's disruption. Alefbe (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Rjanag has also edit-warred in Turfan over its title. His action (in moving the page from its original title, e.g. "Turfan") wasn't backed by consensus and was contested by me. The policy is clear about this and Rjanag should file a move request, instead of edit warring over the title. He has insisted to move the page twice today, after I contested the move. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy. Rjanag's sysop access shouldn't be a blank cheque for ignoring the Wikipedia policies and proper procedures. Alefbe (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you reporting me for abusing my administrative tools? (Hint: moving a page doesn't require admin tools.) Are you reporting a concern that affects Wikipedia-wide administrator policy? If not, you need to take this report to another venue. I am more than willing to discuss this with you (I've already left a lengthy response at Talk:Turpan), but this is not the right place.

And by the way...if it's so terrible for me to move the page after you contested, then why is it any better for you to do the same thing after I contested? Are your opinions more valuable than mine? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The original title of the page is "Turfan" and you have moved the page without getting consensus and now you have realised that your move is contested. The wikipedia policy is clear about this. In this situation, you shouldn't insist on moving the page (away from its original title). Instead, if you want to move it to your preferred title, you should file a move request and obtain consensus. Alefbe (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Are you going to move this to an appropriate venue now? Or do I need to explain to you (for the third time) what this noticeboard is? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, I see what you're getting at.... you want the last word. Apologies for getting in the way; I'll leave it open for you, and won't post here anymore. I'll even lay out a nice spot for you below. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alefbe use only – other users please do not write below this line!!!

Alefbe's last word: (insert here) _____________________________