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

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ban national(ist) barnstars

Dialogue among Wikipedia contributors is already heavy with all kinds of biases, including those caused by competing nationalisms. Barnstars that are nationally denoted, without carrying any other qualification, should be banned because (a) they promote divisiveness, when barnstars are supposed to be a playful pat on the back by a fellow wikipedian, and (b) actually denote a compromise in the principles of Wikipedia through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased. Note that such barnstars are almost always "awarded" to fellow compatriots, thus adding to cliquishness and tribalism. (I submit a random example of such a barnstar for purely illustrative purposes.) -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

		The Albanian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work in Albanian pages, keep up the good work, cheers!x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to y by x (talk) --x 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with them. They are used in a similar fashion like thematic barnstars. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I. Most WikiProjects, which this appears to have come from, has their own barnstar. WP:VIRGINIA has their own (see at the far bottom; my creation) and that is in the US. So, this isn't just countries, but states. It is something to award members of that specific WikiProject when they do well inside that WikiProject. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Working "in Albanian pages" could mean helping keep them neutral, as opposed to acting "in the interests of a certain nationality". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:MFD or similar as its not really something admins have any particular influence over. I personally don't see the problem with this kind of barnstar, though I suppose it's possible for them to be misused by some editors (in which case the best response would be to sanction the editor using barnstars to reward bad behaviour rather than delete the barnstar itself, unless it was created for some kind of offensive purpose [eg, a 'barnstar of the greater Albania Wikicrusade']). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. Od Mishehu: Yes, in theory it could mean "helping to keep them neutral". In practice, it never does. I cannot remember ever having seen any of these "national" barnstars awarded in any scenario other than the one where it's awarded by one nationally-driven agenda account to the other in reward for helping to fight the fight. – The other thing is that even if they were intended in a neutral, constructive way, their wording and symbolism typically doesn't fit. Using terms like "national merit", together with political symbols like flags, practically screams "patriotism", i.e. a pro-nation-X agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's one - User talk:KnightxxArrow#Barnstar -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I was afraid people would focus on the Albanian barnstar, and this is what happened but Albania -or any other specific country- is not the issue. Picture any other flag here, your own country's, if you want. The issue is that national(ist)-tagged barnstars and symbols tend to worsen the significant and already extensive problem of competing nationalisms in Wikipedia editing. It is indeed, as Fut.Perf. reminds us, extremely rare to see national barnstars awarded to someone for objectivity or pure encyclopaedic work. Time to re-adjust our focus, methinks. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Golden Maple Leaf Award Nation themed barnstars are not a problem, and for editors that work on articles related to a specific country, offer a nice local touch when rewarding good work. Resolute 22:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In principle, these barnstars are fine. I've awarded threeMalaysian barnstars of national merit: one to a quiet wikignome and the other two to editos who got Malaysian articles to FA or GA status. It's a way of recognising good work within a national wikiproject. But, they can of course be abused. Per NickD, if an editor is found to be giving barnstars to editors as a reward for pushing a nationalist POV the community, or if discretionary sanctions apply, administrators, can impose sanctions for battleground behaviour accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sorry, but the notion that these barnstars "compromise in the principles of Wikipedia through rewarding contributors who act in the interests of a certain nationality, when contributors should be instead neutral and unbiased" is nothing more than editor bashing. What The Gnome's statement contends is that one's heritage does not promote a desire to share and inform the world regarding that heritage based on reliable sources fairly and accurately represented and to bring awareness of that heritage to a wider audience. Rather, The Gnome tars and feathers as intrinsically disruptive to Wikipedia anyone with an identifiable national background. I suggest The Gnome work on promoting reliable content regardless of the venue instead of attacking editors en masse based on a label. This sort of insulting pontificating only polarizes the community and results in uninformed editors believing that their ignorance equals lack of bias, as if it were some sort of inoculation against by-definition biased editorial positions espoused by carriers of the nationalist plague. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is my suggestion "editor bashing"? I raise the possibility of a certain act of "harmless fun" in Wikipedia degenerating into an incentive and a mindframe for biased, non-objective contributions. I have no specific editor in mind, nor any specific nationality. This is not about editors ("en masse"!) doing some ...horrible things on purpose but about the threats inherent in accolade and success. The rest of your post seems equally misguided ("insulting pontification") and full of ad hominems, so I cannot comment on it. I was hoping for an exchange of experiences of other editors and some informed opinions. Hopefully, we'll get some of that.-The Gnome (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's editor bashing as your comment in no way discriminates "nationalist" bad from "nationalist" good. Wikipedia has already degenerated, barnstars are not a symptom, not an instigator, not a reward, not a problem. A barnstar is an "Atta Boy!" with a picture attached. Unless you are going to ban the passing of all on-Wiki congratulations between "nationalist" editors, there's no point in banning barnstars. The issue is not that I'm engaging ad hominems, it's that you don't even realize your position regarding "nationalist" editors is itself an ad hominem. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is about the misuse and the excesses of nationalist viewpoints, already causing significant problems in wiki editing, the least of which is time wasting. There is nothing in Wikipedia about "nationalist editing", so, therefore, trying to protect the integrity of the site from it (by definition, a non-neutral kind of editing) is entirely legitimate. And, incidentally, this better not become a political discussion ("nationalist" good vs "nationalist" bad); the distinction between "good" and "bad" nationalisms is irrelevant to the point I'm making - and it's a point clearly about nationalist viewpoints going overboard here. (Call 'em "bad nationalisms" if you want.) It's gone beyong the "atta boy!" phase a long time ago. The barnstars, in themselves, are not the problem; but they do seem to amplify it. Let's turn down the volume a bit, I say.-The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Short version, discuss the edit not the editor. You do know that principle, no? Just because you're not naming anyone specific doesn't make your contentions any less offensive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gnome has a point, albeit a philosophical one that applies to all barnstars, which isn't really that far from PЄTЄRS J V's position. Creating boy scout badges means some scouts will aspire to get them all, and arguing they are not symbols of merit doesn't prevent them from being sported as such. If they have to exist at all, they should be for general merit relating to encyclopedic achievements devoid of all other characteristics. Facts are facts, right? Good copy is good copy no matter who writes it, right? A barnstar for contributions that suck but fill a perceived gap somewhere is just mutual masturbation.

That said, if barnstars really don't mean anything, why do they exist at all? That question is entirely relevant to the recent invite to comment on statistics about contributors and how to make newcomers feel more welcome (http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update).

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  11:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What The Gnome decries is known purveyors of nationalist clap-trap trading barnstars with their cohorts. Quite frankly, I'm prepared to live with that. The (random) choice of Albania is telling, as twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of Eastern Europe is still held hostage to a general ignorance of its history. Bringing that history and culture to light is a noble purpose; casting aspersions based on labels one has indiscriminately hung on editors only serves the ignorance which those very same editors are seeking to dispel. I'm happy to receive any barnstar for any good work I've done. The Gnome's going around suggesting more ways we can rain on each others' parade doesn't do anything to make Wikipedia a friendlier place to contribute. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, what about a HISTORY (or MODERN HISTORY; or POST-EASTERN BLOC HISTORY) barnstar? It would be awarded ("Atta boy!") to anyone who's judged by a fellow wikipedian to have contributed to that topic, irrespective of the specific topic's geography.-The Gnome (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As for making Wikipedia a friendlier place, that's not possible now that WP is at the top of every search engine. For every editor seeking to bring reputable balanced content to WP in an area of contention you have two trying to persuade us the Earth is flat. That is why Wikipedia is steadily losing editors. Unless you have a very thick skin and make the conscious choice to put up with the escalating level of crap, you leave. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On a personal level I couldn't agree more about flat-earthers and charlatans in droves trying to re-write history, adding utter nonsense and wasting everyone's time. I have been involved for some days now in an effort to ensure that certain aspects of Soviet history published on WP are reviewed to ensure accuracy, neutrality and an absence of the kind of revisionism that used to make unpalatable facts and people disappear from official records in the Soviet Bloc. But I don't see how doing so under the banner of any particular nation would assist; in fact, it might act as an automatic signal to distrust the motivations of the bearer. The efforts to improve WP must be neutral about nationality, and about personal loyalties or affiliations.

It is true, too, that it would be entirely rational to walk away from time-wasting disputes fuelled by irrational zealots who count on the fact that some good-natured but wrong-headed admin will try to seek 'consensus', which is really to be understood as a term for killing truth in order to pander to personal agenda: there is no committee version of truth, which is never ever subject to a convenient consensus. But defining and defending truth is never a national concern for the same reasons. It must transcend all personal allegiances to stand on rationality and facts alone. I think this is what The Gnome was getting at.

National emblems displayed with pride have their place, but not as adjuncts to discussions about language and sources worthy of an encyclopedia. Similarly, not all the barnstars in the world guarantee that their bearer has or will always produce worthy contributions, or that those contributions should not be subject to careful scrutiny, or that a many-decorated contributor's comments are always more worthy than those of others with no barnstars at all; truth, facts and rationality are not subject to any kind of seniority, rank, title or majority vote. That is why I am against barnstars of any kind.

Having said all of that, I recognise that I am expressing a personal opinion fully contestable in open debate, and subject to the same rationality I try to champion. That rationality tells me that if people want barnstars, they will have them. My best effort, then, can only be to make my case, as I hope I have, and to keep making it when it is challenged on grounds that do not persuade me. For what it may be worth, and without meaning to patronise, I recognise in you, PЄTЄRS J V, the kind of passion necessary to overcome the petty or sinister subversion of facts and rationality we have already touched on. But that will not happen if we walk away in disgust. Regardless of the outcome of this or any other debate, I hope to encounter many more engaged and interested people like you and The Gnome because I think no matter how much we may disagree or agree on any issue, by debate we learn from each other how to become more able not only as contributors to Wikipedia, but as versatile thinkers in our lives in general.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that barnstars are abused is not a reason to ban them. I've seen barnstars abused, but amusingly, not wikiproject one, but regular ones (like giving a barnstar to another user for disruptive behavior...). Also, calling project barnstars nationalist is hardly nice. We have country-themed noticeboards, wikiprojectts and awards. I cannot speak for all of them, but the ones I am familiar with are quite helpful for this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the objectives behind banning those barnstars will not practically be accomplished upon banning those barnstars, I would think it's a pointless exercise. That is, some could argue that some WikiProjects promote cliquishness and tribalism and that they promote divisiveness; given that, merely eliminating the barnstars will not accomplish anything useful because such contributors would still find ways to congratulate one another, praise one another's contributions, or to show their "pride" in some other manner which doesn't require the use of barnstars. And the converse can also be said about some WikiProjects; that they promote appropriate collaboration (in which event, the same could be said about barnstars when used appropriately/effectively). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• This request to ban nation-related barnstars reminds me, in a way, of the userbox wars of early 2006. Okay, a lot of things recently have reminded me of the userbox wars -- but I had to put that out there before I make my point. Which is the problem is not with the barnstar -- or the userbox -- itself, but in how it is used. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which strengthened both Wikipedia & knowledge about a given nationality, that is a good thing. If a barnstar is awarded for an edit which weakens Wikipedia while promoting some nationalistic agenda, then it is a bad thing & the barnstar should be revoked & the person awarding it sanctioned. But that's just my opinion as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia for many years. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't really see it as a problem. While nationalist barnstars are given out to both NPOV and POV editors, it does not take long to realize which is which, and in the case of the later, it can be a useful warning that this marked editor promotes nation X's agenda, beware. Passionless -Talk 21:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Pretty much any flavour of barnstar can be abused, not just "nationalist". This is a moot proposal, and debate should be closed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is very obviously false. Not "any barnstar" can be abused. Moreover, abuse (wrong, malicious use) of other barnstars at worst causes friction between sender and received. But nationalist barnstars indicate far more widespread and significant anomalies in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not "any", but certainly more than just the "nationalist" ones. I have seen examples of individuals (who shall remain nameless) who deal out barnstars for "reliable sources" and similarly innocuous-sounding things for pushing certain POVs. Indeed, I believe that the banning of "nationalist" barnstars would just open up the door for the abuse of otherwise innocuous ones.

"Nationalist" barnstars are as about as well-established as political userboxes. They serve some divisive purposes which are unappealing to those Wikipedians who refuse to deal with the fact that the encyclopaedia will inevitably end up becoming a forum for national/historical/policitcal/otherise-unspecified ideological battles. Banning them will pose an unnecessary headache. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. These decorations serve primarily to create an even more welcoming atmosphere for nationalist cliques. This by far outweighs the benefit of easier identification of those cliques per Passionless (though I agree that such badges on userpages, sometimes combined with NPOV and similar userboxes, are a pretty good indication that something is wrong with that user as well as the one who decorated him.) The award templates should be redirected to show something like the box below:

		National Merit Award Notice
		Editor <Insert name here> has identified your edits to be of "national merit" and tried to award you a respective virtual medal. Those medals are typically designed like military decorations and are usually awarded by editors pursuing some nationalist agenda to editors they perceive to be "on the right side" in their virtual battles. Now there are two chances: If you find yourself glorifying duely presenting true facts about that nation's greatness and heros and messing up correcting articles whitewashing that nation's enemies and traitors, go away. Neither the majority of people you think of as your compatriots nor the majority of the wikipedia community will endorse your edits. If you have not yet come across an admin enforcing the respective arbitration or community restrictions against you, that has more to do with the admins than with you. If you reject the idea that your edits have any "national merit," you might chose to either ignore this notice or leave a respective message on Talk:<Insert name here>.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd have to oppose any ban on country-based barnstars. There are lots of country-specific articles that need attention, and the barnstars are a way to recognise good work. The majority of the world's countries don't attract nationalistic POV-warring, and those that do should not be allowed to spoil it for the rest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, and the Wikipedia:Barnstars 2.0/Barnstar of National Merit versions are much nicer than the old ones - I awarded one recently for good work improving Cambodia-related articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Got a mop but nothing to clean? Between today's ripe-for-closing discussions and the backlog, there's now an unprecedented 160 discussions needing to be closed (or relisted) at requested moves. We need some new blood. If you're unfamiliar with the area it can actually be quite educational and interesting. If willing to help out, but not very familiar, I'd suggest before plunging in reading:

• Wikipedia:Article titles
• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
• Wikipedia:Official names
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and of course,
• Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a cheat sheet with some text that you might need to use a lot on closes, and some of the code and instructions for the mechanics of doing the close:

{{subst:polltop}} '''move per request'''.--~~~~ ← replace the requested move template, just below the 
 ----                                           ← section header, with something like this, as tailored
 
 {{subst:pollbottom}}                           ← place at bottom of discussion

 Fix double redirect                            ← edit summary when fixing double redirects

 closing requested move survey; moving          ← edit summary on the close
 
 Requested move; see talk page                  ← reason given in text box when performing the move

I don't have a lot of backlog time available with "now" issues, but I am more than willing to help the inexperienced with history merges. I'm quite good at it. Email me or contact my talk page with questions. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick: I've found that the automated message Redirected page to Whatever (produced by a blank edit summary field) is a lot more helpful edit summary than "fix double redirect". It's also faster, so you have time to close more requests! :P Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is very slightly faster (though ctrl+v takes milliseconds), but the edit summary is not as useful in my opinion. When I see "redirected page to X" I think "why was that done?" and may investigate. When I see "fix double redirect" I know the page was already a redirect and not an article, and knowing that it was doubled informs me (by implication) that there was probably a page move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID

In short, User:HCPUNXKID is continuing to edit 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests in a disruptive manner pushing POV regarding Western Sahara, the users' home country. User has been unwilling to stop despite a clear consensus against the users' actions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what consensus are you talking about. The issue is that some users avoid the inclusion of relevant related sourced content to the article, depending on what user edits, while accept the inclusion of dubious or directly false claims (source gambling). Some users are trying to erase any presence of W. Sahara in the article, while others had put a fictitious date of start of the events. So consensus doesnt exists even between that users. Also, the only time the issue had been voted, 4 users agree to include the W. Sahara protests, while 3 disagree. I also point the issue that the POV & Unbalanced tags had been removed without any discussion, only because some users opinion.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For that past month you have been heavily edit-warring (see his contribution history starting from Feb.19). Wikipedia is not a vote. Also, making a retaliatory report on Muboshgu just shows how much disruption you caused. TL565 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment : I tried to discuss this issue with HCPUNXKID, however the discussion wasn't successful. The fact is that there is a consensus about the information added to the article (discussed in the main+7 archives talk page), but HCPUNXKID stated that "only him got the truth". These are 2 discussions of what was supposed to be a discussion : [1] and [2].

On the other hand, there were (I think) more than 6 users reverting HCPUNXKID's edits, which are clearly POV.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment : The issue is also discussed here : [3]

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The user in question has made a number of POV edits to the 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa Protests page regarding Western Sahara. A quick view into the history of the user's page[4] reveals specific POV, including (translated) "This Wikipedian supports the independence of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic." and "This user supports the right to self-determination referendum of the Sahrawi people." This user's repeated POV edits reflect this particular viewpoint. ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Imho, he has the right to have an opinion about WS issue (as I have have the right to have mine), however, he hasn't the right to edit articles according to his views, which is considered as extreme-PoV.

The problem is that his edits shows extreme PoV, for example, this [5] is a case of WP:OWN and WP:POV : I can't understand how an "activist" pro-Polisario woman can be cited as a source, as it is a primary one? I think the author should read WP:IRS, especially paragraph 4.2. :::--Omar-Toons (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I had just warned him about edit warring in 2010–2011 Sahrawi protests (had 10 reverts and also looks like a case of WP:OWN). This was his response, [6]. I STRONGLY recommend something be done about this user. He is disrupting articles wherever he goes and no one can discuss with him. TL565 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment : He reverted my edits and removed the Unbalanced template despite I started the discussion about the fact that he refers to activists as specialists, to some sources as the truth while adding "according to" to the ones related to the other side of the conflict (I fixed that but he reverted my edits). We also see a case of Own and Personal attacks.

Can an admin intervene and make sth to stop that? Thanks.

--Omar-Toons (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Histmerge needed

Today, Hasteur (talk · contribs) made an AFD for Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but Rtkat3 (talk · contribs) edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) before Hasteur could complete the nom so now we have a misleading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains in Power Rangers Samurai (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) when there's only been one AFD. Could someone histmerge the pages so there's only the one AFD?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the hist-merge is necessary, really. Rtkat3 made the first AfD page in an attempt to contest a PROD, which was removed from the article regardless. Then Hasteur nominated it for AfD. I've deleted the first AfD page and moved the second one to its title without redirect, so everything should be fine now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All right then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You left four red-linked transclusions lying around in places, which I've repaired. If you're going to move an AFD without a redirect, please make sure you change the transclusion on the daily log and the Deletion Sorting pages. Courcelles 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Ryulong did not follow the big orange notification box for the page and did not include any sort of notification to me regarding this. I only bring this up as their interpretation and application of core Wikipedia policies as evidenced at the above mentioned AfD and one other currently in discussion. I will be notifying the user to extend the courtesey that they have failed to demonstrate during our interactions regarding the articles. Hasteur (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in this concerns you directly. It was a housekeeping issue that you did not need to be notified of. The "misleading" is the "2nd nomination" part of the page title when it is only the first such nomination of the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point at what specific exemption you believe is valid for this case. The rules for the page say you must notify. You mentioned my name 2 times in what appears to be an attempt to throw dirt on me regarding the process, therefore you are obligated to notify me so that I am aware of discussions in public administrative forums. Ryulong, you want to put this to bed? Apologize and accept responsibility that you failed to follow the letter of both the page rules and the edit notice and we can move forward. Hasteur (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not the subject of this discussion. There was a minor snag when someone made an AFD and put it at an incorrect page title. That someone just happens to be you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Roman888

This is a de facto to de jure ban proposal for an indefinitely blocked user. Roman888 (talk · contribs) was blocked on 8 March 2010 for violating copyright on the mainspace after multiple warnings. The following activities, many of which were engaged in the months after the block, indicate that a formal indefinite site ban is warranted:

• Abusive sockpuppetry: Roman888 has socked with 31 confirmed accounts and one IP address. There are a further eight suspected sockpuppet accounts. The ongoing SPI shows that the sockpuppetry has persisted through almost the whole of the nine months since the block.
• Copyright violations. This CCI demonstrates that over a period of two years (March 2008-March 2010), Roman888 engaged in systemic copyright violations. Just about every text that he/she contributed to a mainspace article was lifted directly from a non-free source. Roman888 was blocked temporarily for copyright violations in September 2008, yet continued to violate copyright with the account until March 2010. Sadly, the pattern of copyright violations continued with Roman888's sockpuppets. At first, the sockpuppets sought to restore copyvios that had been removed as part of the CCI (eg [7]). More recently, Roman888's socks have created new content (eg Batu Sapi by-election, 2010, created in October 2010) that again copies material from copyrighted sources.
• Harassment of other contributors. Roman888 through sockpuppets has harrassed and sought to impersonate:
  • the administrator who blocked the account -- talk page rant and Monkeybuttgirl23 (talk · contribs);
  • myself -- talk page rant, attempt to frame me for sockpuppetry, bad faith edit-warring report, and MforMkativerata (talk · contribs); and
  • other contributors (happy to provide diffs on request but I thought it best to keep the other contributor out of it).

I thought Roman888 had given up some months ago. But regrettably, Roman888 is back and has been back for months. Before xe was blocked, xe edited articles about Malaysian politics (where xe took an unrelenting anti-government editorial line) and also engaged in disputes on articles relating to Gordon Ramsay (see for example Talk:Ramsay's_Kitchen_Nightmares). As it turns out, I have been suspicious about some recent IPs from Australian addresses editing articles about Malaysian politics; User:Drmargi has been similarly suspicious about Australian IP hopping on Gordon Ramsay articles. The recent edits of 203.45.23.61 -- an IP pushing POV on Malaysian politics and getting into a dispute on a Ramsay TV show -- are irrefutable evidence that Roman888 is back and has been editing from Australian IPs. Amongst other things, he is continuing to violate copyright (violated source can be read here). A full site ban is sought from the community to bed down the ability of editors to deal with Roman888's ongoing socking and disruption.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, having dealt with Roman888 through various socks. We can't take chances with serial copyright infringers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is an editor who refuses to work within process, both in terms of copyright and in terms of respecting consensus and working toward new consensus. Roman has also attempted to frame me for sockpuppetry [8]. He appears to have relocated to Australia late last year, and is using that as an opportunity to push his agenda once again using a variety of IPs. In addition to the Malaysia articles, Roman is actively IP hopping and disruptively editing on two articles related to Gordon Ramsay and shows no inclination to stop. The rhetoric coming from these IP's is consistent both with what is seen on the various articles related to Malaysia on which he has edited, and with his rhetoric on the two Ramsay talk pages under the Roman888 user name. Most telling: I've referred to him as Roman on the RKN talk page twice recently, and he hasn't bothered to question my use of the name. Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to my earlier statement: Roman888 has now edited both a Malaysia-related article and the RKN article along with its talk page (still not denying he's Roman888) under a second (new) IP, 121.222.16.89, further strengthening the case that he is IP hopping for the purposes of block evasion and disruption. His "rationale" for not registering is that he doesn't want his personal details available to what he calls the Wiki Nazis, and he continues to insist existing consensus somehow doesn't cover the specific contingency he's using as an excuse to edit war. Drmargi (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Copyright violator, harasser, and "Monkeybuttgirl23"? Ban. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support This seems a no-brainer given the editor's record and they're effectively banned at the moment with all the WP:DUCK blocks at SPI, so we may as well make it official. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban. We don't need editors who are willing to engage in this behavior, and be persistent about it, too. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• comment: seeing "xe" sprinkled throughout this makes me want to hit myself in the head with a hammer. Ugh. Are we really that afraid of gender issues? Especially considering that the English language obviously isn't! Anyway, my apologies for the slightly OT post here. Back to the community banning...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. MER-C 01:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and if there's any way to make an edit filter for that user, that would spare everyone some work. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Codifing what constitues a revert

Hi, I've noticed there are many instances where whether an edit is a revert or not is very murky, so I have begun to codify what is a revert here. I of course need consensus to introduce the codifing officially so I ask that interested editors join me to fill in the question marks in the examples I have written out. As I will be posting this elsewhere as well, please talk on the talk page of the article. Thank you, Passionless -Talk 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like rule creep to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked for breaking the currently very vague rules, maybe I go too far, but if half of what I wrote is clarified in the official rules than I would be happy. Passionless -Talk 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, none of what I propose is CREEP, it is still quite general. Passionless -Talk 05:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Before worrying too much about the proposal, it would be necessary to see examples of an actual problem (has someone been inappropriately blocked for 3RR?). The principle is much more important than pre-defined details of exactly what editors can get away with (see WP:BURO). Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I am afraid I can't show some of my blocks for fear of being accused of WP:BATTLE, but here is an example from today where I was warned even though all I did was make three reverts in 17minutes with the only intermediate edits being for grammar. I've been told many times consecutive edits like that count as a single revert. Now that I try to find this codified I get nothing, turns out that was an unofficial rule... Passionless -Talk 06:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also a closer definition is a lot more important to people like me who deal in areas which are under permanent 1RR. Passionless -Talk 06:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't really make head or tails of the page to be honest. But on a general note; most people are able to avoid being warned about inappropriate reverting, pinning down the exact definition of a revert seems to be more akin to wiki-lawyering and completely ignoring the spirit and intent of the 3RR policy. Perhaps the issue is not in defining what a revert is more closely, but with editors regularly being warned for revert violations failing to critically assess their own actions & looking to see how they can avoid such problems in the future. The rules have never seemed vague to me. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless, I too think your proposal is instruction creep and that it places more importance on what editors can get away with. In terms of the warning you're referring to, there's nothing to dispute about what Gwen Gale has said or did; "the least one could say is that you skirted the edge" as she said on her talk and she warned you rather than blocking you. That is, "you shouldn't be reverting GF content at all in IP topics. Please use the talk page." If you want to be able to continue contributing to these topics, heed the warning; that's how you can avoid such problems in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have to agree with Errant; I can't make much sense out of the tables provided. Moreover, as much as I agree that interpretation of what constitutes a revert is very inconsistent around these parts, I don't think a rubric such as yours is the answer. Anything this cut-and-dried makes no allowance for judgment, and that always has to be a factor in situations such as questionable reverts. That said, I do think the parameters for what is/isn't a revert, and when one it edit warring need a serious re-think generally; I also find the three-and-out notion highly problematic in an environment that allows the freedom of access this project does. Come up with something less proscribed and more along the lines of a problem-solving model, and I could be persuaded to get behind it. Drmargi (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist, I'm afraid that many editors are either not making positive edits out of fear their edit be constued as a revert or they are making these positive edits and are being brought to ANI/ARB/EW where punishment is as random as the admin you get presiding. So by making the rules more clear in both what an editor can do and can get away with this will help all parties. And if you fear clearer rules will help edit warriors well I don't think so because it is more the behaviour than just the revert count right?

@Drmargi and ErrantX, I have added text to help explain the ideas gonig on in the tables and I have removed the first table which I think was probably most confusing(especially with a critical typo in it) and yet least important. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "problem-solving model" though if you explain I will try to do that too. And to Errant X, like I said above this whole matter is much much more important to those working on 1RR articles than to those on 3RR articles. Passionless -Talk 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you follow wp:BRD and be aware that some editors will use reverts to try and wp:BAIT you into getting blocked, you should be able to avoid most warnings. Focus on the talk page discussion, and be slow and persistent about editing the article. make an edit, let it be reverted, discuss in talk, wait a day for a response; repeat as needed until you stop being reverted or you get an effective talk page discussion going. trying to define it more than that feels like you're trying to find the edge of the system so you can push on it without going over; that's not the best approach. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried that one time, but it went on for a few days with no progress so I went to 3O, but they didn't show for days and it kept going for a week until I brought it to ARB where both I and the other guy got sanctions put on them, yay. Passionless -Talk 18:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, if one's actions are sufficiently like reverting that one needs to consult a detailed rulebook to determine if they're reverts or not, then they're almost certainly reverts for the purposes of the 3RR. If one regularly finds oneself making multiple reverts (or 'revert-like' edits) of good-faith, non-vandalism edits on the same article over short spans of time, one's editing probably does warrant scrutiny. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

BAH, I'm not talking about 3RR but 1RR where making two edits can suddenly turn into a block because some admin says you broke 1RR solely based on their opinions of reverts rather than based on a policy created out of consensus. The clarity right now is about the same as if speed signs on roads said slow, average, and fast instead of actual numbers, and the police would ticket you based on their feelings of what fast is. The lack of detail hurts well meaning editors too. If a group of admins went and filled out the question marks in the tables I created, there would be a large difference between them all. Passionless -Talk 20:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It should go without saying that editors who are under ArbCom-sanctioned 1RR-per-week editing restrictions should be particularly cautious about their editing. Attempting to nail down precisely how large and complex a revert an editor under such restrictions might be entitled to is rather missing the point of why such restrictions are applied in the first place. Try to find a way to contribute in these areas that doesn't involve reverting, or work on articles in a less contentious area for a while.

Understand that a 1RR-restriction isn't meant to be a licence, quota, or allotment. It's a very strong warning from the community that we're this close to topic banning (or just banning outright), but we're willing to give an editor enough rope to hang himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not about me, this is still about wikipedia and the murkiness of this particular policy, and the harm this causes. Passionless -Talk 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The "harm" of having an inexact (although I find it fine) definition of what precisely constitutes a revert is negligible to the spirit of WP:Edit war/WP:3RR - that discussion and consensus at the talkpage is the appropriate method of resolving disputes, and not the disruptive repeated amendments to the article. As has been noted by commentators above, drawing a hard bright line over what is and is not a revert is a recipe for brinkmanship editing and rule wikilawyering. It appears that you do not comprehend the concern of most people; repeated confrontational text amendments between two or more parties is disruptive and needs a generalised technical term to enable dispute resolution processes to be applied to the parties involved. I would close by noting that the definitions used to determine what constitutes a revert are robust enough for several topics of potential disruption to have 1 or 0RR applied to it, and sanctions enacted without much legitimate complaint. It ain't broke, and I don't think what you desire is a fix anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish people who actually work in 1RR areas would join this conversation. And as I have seen noted by others before, 0RR is an absolutely retarted policy as it means any additions which are non-vandalist/BLP can never be removed, and other course veiled insults are not appreciated. Passionless -Talk 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

After going through a fast moving page's history that is under 1RR, I see that if the rules where more clear and more enforced several respected editors would be in trouble, so maybe this lack of clarity of 'what is a revert?' does stop 1RR from harming progress on a page as much as it could.

With that said maybe I should just be asking that the unofficial policy, that sequential reverts (with minor/grammar edits inbetween not counting against it) count as a single revert, be added to the appropriate policy. Passionless -Talk 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure who you think you are talking to, but I have done some admin work in 1RR environments - and I am perplexed to what I said that might be an insult; your comments are becoming increasingly confrontational as your points are refuted. As for 0RR, such a restriction does not mean any non-vandalism edit remains "forever". Usually a 0RR restriction is placed on an editor (or group of editors) relating to an article, so reverts may be done by others if required but where it is applied to an article that a revert must first have consensus on the talkpage. It certainly makes editing an article more time consuming, but that is part of the deterrent effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I took a look at your talk page/recent contributes and did not see alot of 1RR related topics and the "I don't think what you desire is a fix anyway." is what I took poorly, though I see there is the chance you could have meant something non-bad faith. Anyways, I agree with you that "repeated confrontational text amendments between two or more parties is disruptive", but the way reverts are counted currently leds to cases where "repeated text amendments is disruptive". An example would be how I got warned and almost blocked this week because instead of making one large edit I made three over 17 minutes, with no major edits inbetween the three. If I could get you opinion on Gatoclass and ZScarpia's comments at the discussion that would be appreciated. Passionless -Talk 18:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to revoke sanction no longer needed: WP:GS#Tony Abbott

Resolved

1RR restriction lifted. Mjroots (talk)

• Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw this while cleaning up WP:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Update: the cleanup has been reverted, so the direct link no longer works; discussed here) In summer 2010, the article Tony Abbott, about an Australian politician, was made subject to 1RR because of politics-related edit-warring. The sanction was logged at WP:GS as "indeterminate duration, but likely to be in place until September or October 2010", apparently because of the Australian federal election, 2010 due to be held then. The election has now passed and the article is no longer edit-warred over. I therefore propose to lift the sanction as no longer required.  Sandstein  10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why have the users who commented on and enacted this sanction not been notified of this proposal? Perhaps they may note that the article's decrease in activity is due to the semi protection which has been in force since November (scheduled to expire in May)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The semiprotection seems to address a different problem, namely, repeated BLP violations by IPs. I didn't notify the users you refer to as this concerns a community decision, rather than any particular user(s), but I'm leaving a note on the article talk page.  Sandstein  11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

When a total of 5 users have commented in a "community decision", it would (in my opinion) obviously be wise to notify all of them rather than leaving a post on an article talk page which hasn't been used for a month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If the reason for the need of the restriction no longer applies, then I'm happy for the article to revert to 3RR. It would appear that the need for semi-protection remains in place. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had this article watchlisted for years, and it's been pretty calm since late last year, so the 1RR restriction doesn't seem necessary. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As an ordinary user who has not engaged in content disputes about this article, may I request that any restriction for which there isn't a prima facie case at this time be lifted, and the editing status be returned to normal.

Regards Peter Strempel | Talk 13:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the restriction from the edit notice, will sort out GS next. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes RFC

I know, everyone is sick of it. We're almost done. Phase three, the review/recommend phase is now up. It is a questionnaire you can fill out with any reply you want, without having to argue or read fifty thousand words before participating. We really want users who haven't yet participated to join in in this phase, along with everyone who participated in the first two phases. The more responses we get, the clearer consensus will (hopefully) be. It will only take a few minutes of your time so fill one out whenever you have a moment. Thanks!

There is also a small but vocal group who want PC temporarily removed, not shut off just removed from all articles, during this phase. The Foundation has ok'd this move. I'm a bit too involved to feel comfortable evaluating consensus on this issue, if anyone wants to consider this and reply either here or on the talk page of the RFC that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "small but vocal" group. Almost half of participants appear to agree that PC should be turned off - to finish the "trial".

I object to this imposed phase 3 - I've tried to explain why, several times - but I'll state it here, for those who have not thus far been involved:

Phase 3, question 1 is, "Do you believe Wikipedia should continue to use Pending Changes in some form, or should it be turned off entirely?"

This is implying no choice other than NO PC EVER, or SOME KIND OF PC. I do not accept that those are the only options.

a) I believe that we should "continue to use Pending Changes in some form" - probably some trial, decided through consensus, to actually work out in a measurable way exactly what works and what does not.

b) I believe we should turn it off. I don't think we can meaningfully establish consensus for policies on usage, scope, and all the rest while it continues to be used without consensus.

a) and b) are not mutually exclusive.

I am not the only person who thinks this.

Over the past few days, since Beeblebrox announced this "phase 3" plan, it has been discussed on the talk page of the RfC. The overwhelming majority of people discussing it have serious concerns about phase 3.

The entire phraseology of this "phase 3" is leading users into supporting some form of current, immediate continuance of PC - again, as a "fait accompli". It leaves no scope for discussion and compromise.

I am extremely frustrated and disappointed.  Chzz  ►  19:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Commenting only on the removal of PC: I started doing this back in September just after the trial ended (I removed PC from nearly 100 articles), only to be "reported" to Jimbo: User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 64#Removing pending. I would be happy to help with this task again, but only if I knew that this move truly had support and that other editors would not pounce on me for doing so (and I don't think I'm the only admin who holds this view). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal. Some probably will pounce on you, but all they have are non-consensus polls from long ago that proposed interim usage periods that are now over. —UncleDouggie (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

so do I. The necessary data is now available for analysis, and the continuation of this system of a small number of articles is confusing and unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DGG & DaBomb, the Foundation has approved this, you both agree with it, and it is derailing the RFC. I suggest you go ahead and do it so we can end this distraction that is stalling forward progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, on the other hand, you are way off. There is absolutely room for discussion and compromise. There is no "fait accompli" being pushed by me. This is the sixth time by my count that I have suggested that those who feel having PC on is an impediment to further discussion go ahead and remove it. Why is it not happening? And the idea that users are pressured into accepting PC is obviously untrue since the first question(the one you object to so much) asks them if they would like to see it removed entirely. I am also extremely frustrated and disappointed that these circular contradictory arguments and straw men have been used to derail what was a very promising process. For some reason you believe that users submitting their own proposals without fighting in an free-for-all discussion is a bad idea that will be impossible to draw any conclusions from. It will be hard, but as you told me some time ago most things worth doing are hard.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for a volunteer

We are at an apparent deadlock on how to proceed. Or more accurately there are several proposals that are exclusive of one another being floated on the talk page. What we need here more than anything is a referee. Not to decide the future of PC but to decide the future of the RFC itself. Is there an admin bold enough to step in and help us resolve this? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: does it have to be an admin?  Chzz  ►  18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Don't worry about that; it's not worth bothering about that point, here. Sorry.  Chzz  ►  18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Update It looks like we are quite close to a compromise and there has not been further edit warring so the failure of the cavalry to show up wasn't so bad after all and this thread can probably be closed as we shouldn't be discussing this in so many places at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sega 6-Pak

Earlier this month Sega 6-Pak popped up on my watch list. It was recreated after one or more deletions in the past years. As far as I remember at least one of the older versions was better than this new one. Could someone please follow all that older versions under its various names and bring them back at one location or see wether this new article should be deleted for the same reasons? --32X (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a mess. It looks like the article existed at both 6 pak and Sega Genesis 6-PAK, and was deleted here, although the only consensus was for redirection, not deletion. It looks like we'd need to restore the deleted history at the redirect and do a history merge to preserve attribution, but I'm rusty on history merges. Someone with history merge talents want to restore 6 pak's history and use it to restore this article to the better deleted version? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The easiest solution: Move the existing article to the name of the deleted one (without creating a redirect), restore the deleted versions, continue these steps, and finally move the article back to its original name. --32X (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for a hist-merge. Sega 6-Pak is a clear G4 (the AfD'd version was far better) and doesn't seem to have had any information ripped from old versions, regardless. So, I've gone with the second option. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Rosanacurso

I'd like to propose a ban of User:Rosanacurso so we can quickly revert his edits. He has been wardriving (please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosanacurso and has 50+ blocked/tagged sockpuppets (who knows how many other unblocked and/or non-tagged socks). His socks primarily edit food and drink articles. Thoughts? --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I find this superfluous as the editor hasn't really made any significant contributions (most of their edits are to the sandbox) but I'll support. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Resurrected from the ANI archives due to premature archival. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin to close contentious RfC

Resolved

 – RfC closed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at the Family Research Council page related to whether the lead should mention the controversy about the hate-group listing by the SPLC. It was originally added after a long discussion before it was removed after a vote counting discussion. For that reason, I opened a RfC on the question. A major issue I see with the discussion I see is that various people, at both sides provided arguments that have nothing to do with the question at hand, but everything with their personal dislike for the facts (this happened at either side of the discussion), and I think the Admin closing should be well capable of sifting the non-policy arguments from the policy arguments. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 11:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. (By the way, since this isn't an "incident", but just a request for admin assistance, this board is probably the more appropriate one to use.) --RL0919 (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology bannings

People may want to look over this. Briefly, there has been a big astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the Astrology article, detailed here, resulting in a whole bunch of single-purpose accounts arriving to edit-war, some of them new, some of them not. These are Aquirata (talk · contribs), Petersburg (talk · contribs), Costmary (talk · contribs), Erekint (talk · contribs), Apagogeron (talk · contribs), and Gary PH (talk · contribs) (this particular account participated in the last edit-war before this one, which I picked up on after seeing this ANI report).

I am banning all the accounts linked above from Astrology, its talkpage, and any pages that relate to Astrology, broadly construed, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

People may also want to keep an eye on Robertcurrey (talk · contribs), a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter which may also prove ultimately incompatible with continued editing of the article. Moreschi (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why Robertcurrey isn't included in that list? If you read the blog post (mentioned below), it makes comments to an "RC" who participates in the blog postings....just saying, since without proof it's him, it's just his behavior here we can use. He happens to be one of the pushiest of all of the ones you mention above, although Aquirata is the nastiest. So, why isn't RC included? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• All now notified and logged. Moreschi (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi, could you please explain on what grounds you took this action against me? I am a long-standing neutral editor with a spotless record, interested in a wide range of subjects. Petersburg (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in a wide range of subjects then please do edit in those other areas. There is nothing preventing you from doing so. I think the concern is that for the last 3-4 years you have a couple of dozen sporadic edits, then in the last week you have equally many, all focussed on this astrology issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy, guideline or rule will indicate that an editor needs to be banned for taking an interest in one topic? Petersburg (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point. You claim to be a "long-standing neutral editor ...", but the reality is that you were almost totally inactive on the project until you showed up to join a cavalcade of SPAs many of whom were probably enticed to come here from those offsite blog posts. It makes sense that you would be treated as one of them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And you misunderstand my point. No, it doesn't make sense from a neutral perspective. No, it doesn't make sense in light of Wikipedia policies, rules and guidelines. No, it doesn't make sense given my history of posts and edits. Why is it you who is answering my posts, by the way? Petersburg (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of those named in this action, can I ask if there is any recourse for appeal or arbitration? Please take the trouble to read my posts to see that I have not pushed a POV - in fact that appears to be the real problem (to those who want to see the sceptical innacuracies go unattended). I am not interested in the pseudoscience issues and have constantly striven to move the discussion beyond that. The suggestion that I am part of an organised plan is offensive - I have no idea who most of those other users are and no one has influenced my posting behaviour in any way. I thought it demonstrated Petersburg's neutrality when s/he supported the call for arbitration, since it is crystal clear that s/he is not pushing an astrology agenda. It seems that anyone who does not obviously use the page as a debunking exercise to undermine the subject rather than explain it is now under censorship or suspicion. I know of Robertcurrey but have not been involved in any of his discussions - its amusing that he has to be watched too. Is it his knowledge of the topic of the page which gives cause for concern? This is shameful for Wikipedia - it appears that anyone who is knowledgeable on the topic and can see the innacuracies that need attention is going to be censored now, for fear that the consensus of opinion that has been reached through discussion is allowed to impact on the content of the page.

No doubt now you will get a stream of applause from those who didn't want to discuss it anyway - even though it was the administrator's recommendation to negotiate consensus, following my earlier request that the disruptive actions of a skeptical editor be monitored for intentional vandalism of approved content correction (see first editing break after "ironically not the stars"). There has been an agenda here to avoid discussion or neutrality, and to refuse the call for arbitration from those who would hopefully not be biased against appropriate content Costmary (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. Brilliant. The circus has been going on for long enough. Hans Adler 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Costmary - if you fail to get the consensus of uninvolved sysops here to overturn my decision, the final court of appeal, so to speak, is WP:RFAR. Moreschi (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hate to be the obnoxious bureaucrat here, but I do want to point out that a number of these editors had not even edited since I informed them of the pseudoscience arbitration. As such, I'm not sure how valid implementing any sanction is... NW (Talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See [9], which is where this is all coming from (linking to google cache because the original blogposts and replies have since been deleted). These people know the system, and the arbitration case, very well, and are quite carefully trying to game it in a suspiciously successful manner (I wonder what a checkuser would turn up, incidentally). Plus, the pseudoscience arbitration case is actually linked to, in big bold letters, in the header of Talk:Astrology. I don't think a pointless round of formal warnings will get us anywhere. Moreschi (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. NW (Talk) 18:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• The page history makes for interesting viewing as well...all the accounts revert in sequence, nobody breaks 3RR...hmmm. There might actually be closer coordination going on here than meets the eye, but I suppose we'll never know, beyond what the cache of the blog tells us. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for that information on the appeal process Moreschi. Since your ban immediately followed NW warning that he would ban me if I continued my comments - can either of you indicate where I have supposedly pushed a pro-astrology view? The intention behind my contribution has been to correct inaccuracy and misrepresentaive distortion by offering typically encyclopedic information supported by up-to-date, respected, academic secondary sources. I have argued that the page should be neutral and seek to define the subject appropriately *and also* include appropriate discussion on the valid criticisms - and I have personally offered references to support the use of the statement that astrology is regarded as a pseudoscience, even though I believe the exaggerated promotion of that point in the lede is bound to cause continued dissent. I have also asked others who object to the skeptical stance to compromise in order to help the move towards consensus develop. So at what point do you consider my efforts to have been part of an "astroturfing rent-a-mob campaign dedicated to disrupting the Astrology article"? What suggestion have I made that has not been a sensible one, clearly motivated by ther desire to improve the quality of the article?Costmary (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly, I think people can judge this for themselves. As a minor gripe - apart from the obvious - "Eastern nations"? Really? All of them? Are you sure you don't mean Hindu astrology? Because Medieval Islamic astrology tells quite a different story. That particular edit was - at least in part - low quality, anti-consensual, and disruptive. It also quite heavily pushed a particular point of view, removing as it did all explicit mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede, leaving some token weaselling behind Moreschi (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have stomped into action without checking the history of the discussion, or being involved in it. The example edit you gave (“I think people can judge this for themselves”) was the result of a long consultation process which had definitely gained general consensus that it offered improved text – much of this discussion has now been hidden from view by WLU’s personal decision to categorise all that discussion as “a waste of time”. Even now, remaining editors are calling for most of those suggestions to be retained (though not without some alterations which destroy the accuracy of the quotations). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Can_we_save_some_of_the_pro-astrology_contributions.3F

As for your “minor gripe” (which could have been accommodated in the discussion if you had involved yourself in it before banning most of the active participants) - that was not my suggestion but was subjected to lengthy debate. For my view see my opening remark under the now hidden “Proposed Introduction: Collaborative v.4” where I express the opinion that it should be included “because this makes an important point about astrology’s global standing too. But again, this should be done without making too much out of it, or trying to present that as a dominant viewpoint either; or leaving the impression that this answers or removes the need for scientific criticism.” (04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I repeatedly asked for constructive criticism and proposed alternatives, and the only editor to rubbish the whole proposal (and all the previous discussion) was WLU (who then hid all the previous discussion). I don’t see how it is low quality being a matter of globally reported fact – scientific journals have included coverage of this in neutral terms, and if anyone had queried the quality of the text or references I could have cited these and would have followed consensus. However, there was no constructive criticism of that point proposed.

As for the supposed removal of “mention of astrology-as-pseudoscience from the lede” – check my (now hidden) post today of 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Proposal where I explained the non-controversial element of the edit that I then made, whilst stating:

At this point we have a choice between adding an extra comment which says something like “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences.[1] Or we can link this through to the existing comment which currently states “Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific".[7]

How is “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences (citation)” “token weaselling”? The page does not need two separate discussions of the pseudoscience issue within the lede, and the discussion was dealing with this when you censored it.

Unfortunately the page on Medieval Islamic astrology contains many significant flaws. The suggestion that “Muslim astrologers defined a new form of astrology called electional astrology” makes the page look ridiculous – electional astrology is demonstrably an important branch of practice in the ancient Babylonian and Hellenistic period (cross ref with the history sources on the ‘electional astrology' page). It is equally ridiculous to suggest that “The Muslims also developed a system called Arabic parts by which the difference between the ascendant and each planet of the zodiac was calculated. This new position then became a 'part' of some kind”. It is firmly established that the so-called ‘Arabic Parts’ are a misnomer, being an important, integral part of Hellenistic astrology practice. The example of how the part is interpreted is also incorrect and does not reflect historical practice. Alos, most of those listed as “refuting” astrology were actually famous astrological practitioners who published renown instructional textbooks on the subject, and there is a confusing mess of information at the end where the view of modern Muslim scholars are not differentiated clearly from those of historical philosophers.

The whole of the astrology section is in need of improvement and better quality up-to-date references, but how is that going to happen when anyone with real understanding of the subject is banned for suspicion of having an agenda to push a pro-astrology POV? Costmary (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia's coverage of astrology is just gonna suck for a while. Ah, well. Good bans, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur, good decision. I have zero faith that accounts recruited and coordinated off-site via a pro-astrology blog are here because they wish to see neutral, unbiased content on Wikipedia. The protestations of those accounts that have responded above are unconvincing. EyeSerene^talk 09:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily standard fare for administrators, but you're all in a unique position to help out with the added userrights you posess. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dallas Davidson

Can I get some more eyes on Dallas Davidson? There is no excuse whatsover for a a blatantly obvious copyvio/COI edit going unnoticed for SIX FREAKING WEEKS. The article has had problems with COI editors since I first made it almost two years ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Semarang State University "Papat Limpad" competition

For NPP and CSD admins, you may have noticed a slew of student accounts being created. There appears to be a competition host by Semarang State University with apparently celebrity endorsement by Christian Sugiono. So if you see a bunch of user pages created by edits with a prefix of "JV" all creating pretty much the same user page (Hello, My name ...,I am participant for "Papat Limpad" competition from Semarang State University Faculty of Language and Art), this is what it is all about. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects#Semarang State University "Papat Limpad" competition to see if somebody is willing to contact the organizer and possibly coordinate something. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study

Hello all!

We bring together the forces of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and Sciences Po Paris to conduct a large-scale research project on the microfoundations and dynamics of online interactions and behavior. To this end, we invite internet users with many different profiles to fill out a survey on LimeSurvey which combines decision making involving money with substantive questions about attitudes and practices. As a part of our research agenda, we would like to achieve the highest answer rate possible among Wikipedia contributors.

For this purpose, we presented our research goals and methods to the WMF which agreed to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians (to make sure, please check out the list of research projects which have the Foundation’s recognition or contact Steven Walling). We planned to invite Wikipedians to participate in this broad study by posting individual invitations on the users’ talk pages through an automated procedure.
So this message is both to let the community of admins know about what we intend to do (as our aim is surely neither to bother people nor to disrupt the editing process of Wikipedia!) and to ask for some clarifications and advices about some particular aspects of our invitation protocol, namely:

1. Is there a risk that our account could be blocked while we are in the process of sending our invitations to participate and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
2. Is there a risk that the external link to the study that we will include in our invitation messages could be blocked and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
   

At the end of the study, research outputs will be made available under an open access license and we intend to share them at a Wikimania conference. If they wish to do so, participants from Wikipedia have the possibility to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation.
We remain at your entire disposal for any further question or precision about this research project (if you like, please consider that you can also reach us by e-mail at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr).

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Many thanks,

The Harvard / Sciences Po research team. SalimJah (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi SalimJah, I'm from the Wikipedia Bot Approvals Group. The correct place to get approval for mass message delivery using an automated process is WP:BRFA. Alternatively, you can look at getting a bot which already has broad approval for message delivery, such as User:MessageDeliveryBot, to do the job for you. Getting an approval like this reduces the risk of the bot or link getting blocked, if you use a bot without approval it will be blocked as soon as possible, for violating the bot policy. However, users often object to mass messaging which they have not specifically opted in for, as many consider it spam. An alternative would be to use a watchlist notice, or one of the other three site notices explained at the top of this page. Using this method would completely remove the risk of the link being blacklisted or the bot being blocked, as it would not be editing repeatedly. Hope that helps, feel free to contact me or any other BAG ember if you have further questions. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you please provide more details about how you will be contacting people? (ie, the exact text of the message and which groups of editors you will be sending it to). As this is a WMF-endorsed study I don't see any generic problems, but you obviously need to make sure that your approach is appropriate (and posting this message here is a great way to start things off). One problem I see with your current approach is that posting access codes in publicly-viewable user talk pages will mean that these codes a) won't be private and b) are very likely to be used by people other than the intended editor in some cases. This will obviously impact on the quality of your data and may cause some privacy problems. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)