Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive206

There are two pages at AfD which are blatant hoaxes. They are

• London City F.C, AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London City F.C and
• Ardwick Association Football Club, Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardwick Athletic F.C. (page moved after AfD started.

Both were created by a sockpuppet of the much-banned The One & Only Fools and Horses.

I have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before, but is it normal practice to nominate hoaxes, copyvios etc for speedy deletion while an AfD is in progress?   pablo_hablo. 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between hoax and copyvio speedies and other kinds of speedies? Or are you asking if any speedy deletion during AfD should be allowable at all? (I'm confused because you said you "have seen items speedily deleted during an AfD before".) -- Atama頭 01:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that these are different from other kinds of speedy deletion. At AfD, hoaxes, copyright violations, 'attack' pages tend to be more speedily dealt with; due, I suppose, to the potential harm they could cause to either the project or the subject of the page. Here's an example of a hoax at AfD. What I wanted to know was - if it becomes apparent that an article at AfD is a speedy candidate, should it be nominated for speedy deletion?   pablo_hablo. 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. My understanding is that there is no policy that governs this. There's nothing written at WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:DP, or at any related policy that states whether or not speedy deletions occurring during AfDs are allowed. The closest I can find is in the speedy deletion policy, where it states, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."

That suggests to me that speedy deletions should be allowed if an article has had a large number of delete !votes, meets one of the specific criteria, and nobody opposes deletion (I would consider a "keep" !vote to be equivalent to an editor removing a CSD tag). They should also be allowed for copyright violations discovered during the course of the AfD. Hoaxes and attack pages, while potentially harmful, shouldn't be given the same treatment as copyright violations because a copyright violation is a pretty cut-and-pastedry issue; either someone copied the text or didn't. Whether or not something actually is a hoax or an attack page is usually a subjective determination that can be determined in the course of the AfD itself.

This is my personal opinion based on the analysis of what is written in the CSD policy, and what I feel the "spirit" of the policy is. It would be nice if our existing policies directly addressed this issue. -- Atama頭 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should be considered during AfD depending on the sort of speedy deletion requested. G7 or G12 are no brainers: just nuke it, assuming the trigger criteria are genuinely met. Others should stand if uncontested (G10), but never be used if there's a good-faith dissenting vote. I do G3 for obvious hoaxes if someone has asserted it's a hoax, it seems like a hoax, I can't verify it, and no one else defends against the allegation. In short, CSD-during-AfD is an art, rather than a science. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing to stop an article being speedied during a discussion - generally this is because new information comes to light - eg a copyvio is discovered. Obviously this its a no-brainer, I'd personsally say deleting something as a hoax during an afd is fine. If someone doesn't like the outcome there is always DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would generally tend to agree with Spartaz. If the AfD discussion has made it evidently clear that a subject is a speedy candidate, and no one is objecting, then I'd generally tend to speedy it—no use wasting time on finding out the obvious. If the issue is less clear cut, or someone has objected (for example, there's a comment such as "I think I've found a source that confirms this and am working on it"), I'd be much more inclined to let it run its course. But there isn't, and shouldn't be, any hard and fast rule against nominating an article at AfD for speedy deletion if it is speedyable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all.   pablo_hablo. 12:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree a little with Seraphimblade -- but it may be just a slight difference in emphasis. Unless it is proven to be a hoax during the Afd--which certainly do happen , I would regard the 7 full days of discussion necessary more for this than other deletion reasons, because for the minority of ones that turn out to not be hoaxes, it often takes a while for someone to come around who recognizes it. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Obvious hoax really depends on who considers it obvious. If it's outside of my subject areas (which is 99.9% of the time), obvious must be proven reasonably well. tedder (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The guiding maxim should be (with the exception of offensive BLPs) "if in doubt, don't delete". Granted, on some occasions factors (such as creation by a known vandal) will mean there is really no room for doubt.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a proven hoax, tag and zap. If it meets the criteria of "blatant" hoax but someone sent it to AFD out of timidity and during discussion everyone says "why didn't you speedy this" or equivalent, tag and zap. Otherwise, let the AFD run the full week or until it gets WP:SNOWed under. By the way, it doesn't hurt to have one editor, admin or not, tag it for speedy when it's proven a hoax or when the consensus is that it should've been speedied in the first place, and have a different admin do the actual deletion. Unlike attack pages and copyright violations, there's no time pressure with most hoaxes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at this article. A user is reporting that the edit history is not displaying anything since 16th December. It is displaying fine for me. See Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#Malfunction of this Article on Wikipeida Processor. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks up-to-the-minute to me also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a cache issue on that person's local machine, not a problem with the article. Chick Bowen 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like I had a similar issue sometime this month. I just assumed I was hitting a database with a stale copy. The problem went away on its own within a reasonable period of time. This was just one of several minor mini-glitches in the past month or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I noticed that we don't have a standard set of warning templates for users who repeatedly upload images without copyright status, fair use rationale, sources, ect. I've drafted several warning templates in hopes we will be able to use these to warn repeat offenders instead having to type out a block warning each time. Since these are still in draft form, it would be greatly appreciated if willing users could help to improve the drafts below. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics1
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics2
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics3
• User:Fastily/Sandbox/uw-ics4

I've recently added notes to {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} showing that both templates are required for copyrighted images. This should prevent some instances of images being uploaded but missing one or the other template (made this mistake myself recently). Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fastily, your templates look great to me. Nice work! — Kralizec! (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT, there's no place to deal with long-term users that need discussion before blocking or banning. After a user has been warned many times and blocked a few times, what's the options? WP:RFC/U (aside from its issues) is best geared for users who are productive. As an administrator who is somewhat involved, where should I turn for an admin consensus of disruption? (ANI hasn't been too useful) tedder (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From a non-admin but ANI-contributor view, I raise an eyebrow whenever this happens, which is often. From WP:UNINVOLVED-- In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. Problem solved! Things done with discretion from outside parties at the existing incident boards! ...But not. It's sadly obvious this happens less than 0% of the time. Alternatives given there are an RfC/A or RFAR but I'd assume this was meant to be rare. Even the existence of such place for discussion would be a confession of "above the law" status... I'd have to agree with that, and my opinion of sysop work in the Encyclopedia are incredibly high versus most users. ArbCom? It's unlikely it was ever thought that day-to-day civility disputes that involved familiar usernames would stalemate constantly and get a shotgun wedding to them over one half-controversial block. Same of long-time friendships between users causing a "no consensus". cont.

Why not work it the same way as with any other users? No one ever demands mass consensus for what are "obvious" infractions where a block is common, so why a desperate fight over any length of any sanctions whatsoever for an admin? Admins are normal users at their core that can do silly things or act the fool like anyone else, after all. What's stopping actions done at low levels? Blocks on 3RR, civility and disruptive editing that are short and precisely-defined if done to a "normal" user should not differ at all for some persons or admins... but do. Some things I've seen let slide are really ridiculous... it happens a lot. Users see what those people can get away without sanction, act the same way, get blocked and are rightfully upset about the double standard. ...This is just op-ed; I don't understand why normal methods aren't used, and I'm in no position to offer possible solutions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think ANI is the only real forum for that situation. Admin or not, the best tools here are clarity and good diffs. Succinctness helps, too, but is usually beyond me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator accountability has recently been marked as {{rejected}}. I've posted a number of questions on the talk page (here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator accountability#Questions for the future) to consider. If anyone can provide insight into some of these questions or can contact someone who can, that would be very much appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to deal with an enforcement request concerning conduct on Mass killings under communist regimes (an article I am unconvinced can exist safely) and I do not believe it is properly within the auspices of arbitration enforcement. I do think the article and the dispute needs a lot of volunteer eyes, so I am asking for the help of those with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene. Expect some infighting to follow below.--Tznkai (talk)

• (Rhetorical comment) "with sufficient clue and fortitude to intervene" (beautifully said) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• This was already the subject of an ANI report prior to the AE report Tznkai mentions. This is a legitimate content dispute, no one is being disruptive, formal mediation would be the appropriate venue to handle this, not admin intervention. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal mediation requires the assent of all parties. If ya'll could manage that, you wouldn't be at AN, AE, or ANI.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case, no one has attempted formal mediation, so it can't be said that assent was impossible to obtain. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please, attempt it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has a number of legitimate content disputes. These have been proceeding relatively normally given the article, and are currently uncovering new textual sources and broadening the understanding of existing textual sources. The original ANI, and Request for Enforcement were about a very limited set of behaviour by one user: User:Termer who has a habit of repeatedly mischaracterising, misquoting, and selectively quoting important secondary works and other users to the point that his actions disrupt the article. For example, while the Request for Enforcement was ongoing, Termer was busy requesting that a user to supply extensive quotations, and when these were made, attacked the user on a [Too Long; Didn't Read basis]. The effect of Termer's engagement in this thread was to derail it from an evidenced discussion of the credibility of a particular academic source, and redirect it into the discussion yet again of Termer's conduct and random quotation of policy (this time, primary). We rely on Termer to quote and characterise accurately in an article that is fundamentally reliant on an accurate literature review of academic sources, and he has not done so. We rely on Termer to participate in the article without mischaracterising and misquoting the immediate previous statements of other editors. Termer is incapable of doing this, and the result is disruption. Other editors with similar opinions to Termer within the content debate are perfectly capable of civil, appropriate discussion, and in my mind the content discussion will eventually resolve itself on the article talk page (the primary content disputes resolution method) through reference to highest quality reliable sources if the climate of discussion is not damaged by disruptive conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Fifelfoo's characterisation of Termer. Unlike Termer, Fifelfoo has actually been recently reported to AN3 for edit warring the article in question. This is real disruption, not questioning Fifelfoo's interpretation of the sources on talk. Fifelfoo has pursued Termer on ANI, then AE, and now apparently here. This WP:wikiviolence must end. --Martin (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Also forum shopping etc. on what is a content issue best suited for informal mediation (which takes a fraction of the time that formal mediation usually entails). A completely outside editor willing to concisely state what the issues appear to be, and working with them on a one-by-one basis, can make things work (see Talk:Judaism for what I consider an example of separating the issues). Collect (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:wikiviolence is not an appropriate accusation in this case. There's no doubt that Termer's behviour is dispruptive. However, I think he is also a bit of a lightning-rod for more general issues. Mediation may help, but since the basic question is really "should this article exist or not", I say: good luck to the mediator. I suspect the article in question is just one for "evidence why Wikipedia is not always so great". "Hope no-one ever looks at it" might be the best that can be achieved. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I definitely have disrupted the editors who after the third failed Afd [1][2][3] keep arguing on the talk page that the article should be still deleted, and meanwhile keep massively blanking sourced material [4]from the article instead of adding any alternative viewpoints to it. Just that anybody who has accused me, please make a difference between disrupting Wikipedia and disrupting the disruptive editing by attempting to engage in a discussion about the changes in the article instead of going along with the edit war. Other than that, I haven't taken this witch hunt on me personally that has already made it to a third notice board, it just tells me that whoever has chosen to use me for a "lightning-rod" (according to FormerIP) just don't have any reasonable arguments about how the article could be improved. And the bottom line the way I see it, as it is now, the article is pretty much unreadable due to massive blankings and a long lasting edit warring.--Termer (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.... It never stops, does it? What we have here are two sides with opposing viewpoints on what the page should contain, and both sides legitimately believe their version is correct. As such, it is natural for each side to believe that their side is the one that is policy abiding and that the other side is biased or against policy. And since each side is deeply rooted in their editorial stance and believe that their opponents are the policy-violating ones, it is natural that they will accuse the other side of edit warring, disruption, vandalism, etc etc. And since that other side being accused believes that they are in fact the ones who are right, they in turn accuse that other side who is accusing them of battleground-ing, harassment, personal attacks, witchhunts, etc. And this goes back and forth ad infinitum.

Termer, you have indeed harassed your content opponents with vexatious complaints. You opened up 2 AN/I threads, a frivolous RFC/N thread and a baseless sockpuppet investigation all against a certain editor. It may well be that Fifelfoo is harassing you, I don't know. However you need to realize that you are guilty of exactly what you are accusing your opponents of. Triplestop x3 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct Triplestop on one thing that I have overreacted on Wikipedia once after I was insulted with name calling. But I've learned my lesson and don't see such insulting remarks as anything that should be my problem really.--Termer (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would point out again, this time to Triplestop, that what was advocated for "Communist genocide" is simply to relate what reputable sources state regarding the subject. Instead, the "topic" was assaulted on the basis of requiring some formal "definition", etc., etc. This is not about opposing viewpoints, this is about editors waging every Wiki-lawyering point they can to censor content. There's no conflict in "beliefs" here—that is, however, what the content censors would like you to believe.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand - are you saying that the inclusion of all genocide by totalitarian regimes (a stable feature of such regimes of whatever political hue) has been censored by those fools who want to portray Communists as being uniquely evil unlike the cuddly fluffy right-wing totalitarians? Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to realize that this is not a one-sided issue like you believe it is. There are valid arguments that one could argue for not including certain things (synth, pov, or, undue, indiscriminate, etc) yet you believe that what you are advocating is the only right way, hence your accusations of censorship. My comment above applies to everyone. Triplestop x3 00:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To JzG, I was stating that there was a reputable non-controversial manner in which to deal with a topic and it was ignored in favor of arguments stating sources did not exist, no definition, et al. regarding communist genocide.

   To Triplestop, I am not advocating my personal right way, I am advocating the proper manner in which to construct an encyclopedia article regardless of the subject. It is when editors begin to create their own definitions that the issues start. The "definition" of a subject is the compendium of what reputable sources state about it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that most of the article is compilation or overview of other articles. Little of the content prior to the "Causes" section ties together the different regimes' genocides. It might be better refactored into a WP:List-class article, content in the specific articles, and a succinct new article discussing the common characteristics of such events. Such a new article might be better if it included all stripes of regime, not just communist. If they come after your family, you don't care much about their motivations. LeadSongDog come howl 19:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that nobody can ever bring themselves to create an article on foo under totalitarian regimes, but always feels the need instead to make out that it's only the Left who do this? And that's before you get into the crap about how the Nazis were obviously socialists like Obama because they used the word socialist in their party title. It would be really nice to see an occasional political article that wasn't surrounded by the ground-down nubs of a thousand axes.

I wish I could exist in that world too. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We checked. List class articles follow the same rules on there actually being an object of study. The presence or absence of an object of study (the Synthesis argument) is a major debated point. So listification won't solve the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Róbert Gida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a "brand new user" whose first act on Wikipedia is to tell us we need to add to the biography of Barack Obama that Obama is personally responsible for the fact that more banks failed under his administration than under that of Shrub. Clearly a disruptive WP:SPA but also almost certainly a sockpuppet. Does anyone recognise the style sufficiently to help identify the sockmaster? Incidentally, Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also needs reining in, he's pursuing a neocon agenda on Talk:Barack Obama and seems unable to understand that being a liberal is not actually evil as such, so there's no need to use {{evil satanic communist}} on the article... Guy (Help!) 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Róbert Gida; RBI per WP:DUCK, and perhaps adding a request to a friendly CU? As for Jzyehoshua, being a self declared liberal I doubt my input would be regarded well (although I suspect that anyone requesting a reigning in of neocon comment will automatically find themselves categorised as a liberal - it is a mindset appealing for those who find thinking hard work.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that by comparison with Jzyehoshua Ronald Reagan was a liberal. That's not such an issue as his apparent inability to see the difference between the New York Times reporting the National Right to Life Committee as saying that Obama "supports infanticide", and the New York Times saying that he supports infanticide. He seems to think that the reporting of this particularly extreme view in some way validates the POV or makes it fact. That is a serious problem, and given his very limited contribution to the project it's hard to see him learning better. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to direct their attention to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation#How to avoid being subject to remedies, and particularly bullet point 4? The discussion has been had, the consensus is that the reported interpretations of a few fringe organisations and individuals regarding Obama's views on abortion is not sufficiently notable within the context an biographical article - per the stringent application of WP:BLP - to be included and that further insistence on discussing the matter (let alone editing it into the article) leaves them liable to sanction under the probation. The sweetener would be a promise to discuss the issue again should it become a topic raised within mainstream opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: A little humor is healthy, but over-extending a joke and edit-warring over it is disruptive. Lets all stop now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Thou shalt not block for being mocked (Inspired by this topic: an "essay" by an admin.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, look at that horsie! tedder (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above user conduct request for comment is now live and open for community comment. I sincerely hope we can have a civil and productive discussion regarding the issues described there. While acknowledging that User:ChildofMidnight makes excellent content contributions to Wikipedia, the RfC argues that there have been some serious problems with this editor's behavior, particularly with respect to issues of civility, general style of discussion with fellow contributors, and a "battleground" mentality.

If there are any problems with the formatting or set up of the RfC (I'm new to this) please let me know. Also I'm only posting this note here per the RfC instructions, but if it should be mentioned elsewhere please let me know that as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The instructions were a tad bit outdated with respect to announcing here (as we didn't have the list of RfC/Us transcluded to the top of this page at the time). Making a note here that the RfC instructions have been updated since this posting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Documented here. 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam S. White (talk • contribs)

Could someone please ban this guy and his sock ASAP. Things are getting real creepy real fast. - Schrandit (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer's actions are intended to get my IP blocked: look at how she decloaked on the ChildofMidnight RfC. So, don't worry, a block is forthcoming. In any case, it doesn't matter how big an asshole she was; what she said about you is true. As usual, you attack others to deflect attention from yourself. - Carrie 69.121.221.174 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/69.121.221.174
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sam S. White (approved by clerks, checkuser underway)
• poor man's checkuser
• WP:PLAXICO

Cheers, Durova³⁸⁶ 04:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ;)

Durova, if this were solely my concern, you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't. If you look at Schrandit's talk paged, you will find that the following people complained about his tag-and-delete tactics: User:71.139.35.53, User:Thesoxlost, User:Spotfixer, User:Dr.enh, User:Benjiboi, User:Otto4711, User:Exploding Boy, User:Tony877, User:Hiroe, User:Scarykitty, User:Badmachine, User:Reinoutr, and User:Awickert. This is a real problem that must be evaluated on its own terms, not some stupid feud. I know you're probably just trying to help, but all you're doing is protecting Schrandit by helping him focus attention away from his many, many bad edits. With all due respect, you're being played. - Caroline 04:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk • contribs)

Have manually readded the autosignature.[5] Note also.[6] Please do not revert this manual post. Cheers. Durova³⁸⁶ 04:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sam_S._White Multiple holiday socks in the Christmas drawer. One hung itself on a nail at the Child of Midnight RfC. Seeking admin to pick up the presents left behind (in plain English, please blank the drama-stirring posts per WP:BAN). Ho ho ho and troll the ancient yuletide carol. Cheers, Durova³⁸⁶ 05:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I just did this, before seeing your note. Their ban status may be a little fuzzy, but I think it is very much the right and fair thing to remove their comments. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 05:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :) Durova³⁸⁶ 06:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above. A summary of the decision may be found at the Arbitration Noticeboard.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Mailer Diablo 17:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally, is what is them acceptable upper limit for users caught in a rangeblock? I calculated a block and it came back with ~32000 IP's blocked. That seems high to me, but I'm not sure what the norms are. TNXMan 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. The largest allowed by the software is a /16, but with a little elbow grease, one can often pare that down quite a bit. It also depends on the collateral damage, which is why if your are planning a large rangeblock, it pays to make a Quick request at WP:SPI to see if it is advisable. What in particular are you considering? -- Avi (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

These IPs in particular (109.79.137.215, 109.79.170.218, 109.79.174.61, 109.79.193.159, 109.79.245.126, and 109.79.234.115). The details are on my talk page (bottom section) and involve a banned user evading his/her block. TNXMan 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That is part of a pretty dynamic /15 block, let alone a /16 block. You could cover all of the above with an /18, a /22, a /23, and a /24 for 18,176 instead of 65,536 IPs of a /16, but I'd have to see how busy the ranges are. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Check the actual range first using ARIN or the appropriate WHOIS authority. The blocked range should be no bigger than what the authority reports, unless you are deliberately blocking multiple ajacent ranges as a shortcut to blocking each one separately. That's an upper limit. In practice the range is smaller or reduced to a single IP. If the block range reports /16 and you can't shrink it, you may be stuck with the choice of blocking a single IP or not blocking anything, due to collateral damage. A few weeks ago there was a case where someone blocked a /16 when ARIN reported the block-size was /21, and innocent people were unnecessarily caught in the block. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ARIN reported size is a /15, IIRC, thus the issue :) -- Avi (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't seem like I have a lot of options. The user has jumped to a new range entirely (again, see my talk page), so a rangeblock may not even be a good option now. If anyone has any suggestions though, please drop me a line. Cheers! TNXMan 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

With very dynamic IPs such as that, there is not much we can do, but play whack-a-mole and block the individual IPs for a few hours. :( -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Or semi-protect the requisite pages for 24/48 hours, and see if it lets them lose interest. SirFozzie (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've ended up doing for the past hour or so (and have semi-protected the page in question indefinitely). It appears to have died down, so maybe I'm in the clear. Thanks to both of you for the advice. TNXMan 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  Resolved

 – User blocked per WP:DUCK at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.204.29.215 Momo san ^Gespräch 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vianello (Talk) engaged in a serious 3RR violation, and I don't know how to report it, as there seems to be no mechanism. It was done at 68.204.29.215 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iambadatpickingnames (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is the 3RR board.. but let me take a look at the situation here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked per WP:DUCK at the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.204.29.215, so it's pretty much resolved now. Momo san ^Gespräch 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seeing quite a few AFDs that have been relisted three times. At what point should they just be closed as no consensus rather than relisting? I mean .. really? A month+ AFD? tedder (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if an AfD attracts no notice, it should be procedurally relisted once. I would procedurally relist an AfD that has attracted notice but in which no clear consensus has emerged once. I'd stop with once, unless there was ongoing, productive conversation, in which case I'd think relisting again could be appropriate. It's hard to imagine AfD sustaining ongoing, productive conversation for a full month, much less more than. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - if an AfD is relisted and still has no !votes, shouldn't that be akin to an expired prod... and deleted? Not that I've done this, just thinking. Tan | 39 16:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Rarely does a relisting produce much more than maybe 1 or 2 additional comments (if you're lucky). It is more likely to produce nothing at all. The problem with a lot of AfDs is simply lack of awareness. Even though anyone can freely browse through the list of open AfDs, very rarely do the people whose input is most urgently needed become aware that a relevant AfD is going on. The articles that are most likely to get an AfD with little participation tend to be obscure topics with few people outside of the article's creator having it on their watchlist--even though other editors interested in the main subject area may have relevant input. Yes, we have deletion sorting, article alert services and other ways of notifying people but for some reason we still seem to have a vacuum on participation. I don't know if there is an easy solution for how to increase more awareness and participation but relisting itself doesn't produce much results because it isn't trying to tackle the root cause of low participation. Some how, we need to address that issue instead of continually relisting an AfD. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agne, there's a category for relisted AFDs. Perhaps that's one way to draw attention. I do agree, I'm not sure there are any advantages to relisting multiple times due to inactivity. Not sure what to do about it. tedder (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more broadly advertizing the category (maybe Village Pump?) could offer some benefit. Maybe occasionally a bot could put a notice listing the number of active AfD and request "urgent" attention to the relisted AfDs kinda like how a bot puts a notice on the admin board when WP:DYK is overdue. It is a thought. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan, a !voteless AFD should be treated just like a prod, if no one cares to say it should be kept in a week, how is it any different. relisting it just prolongs the inevitable--Jac16888^Talk 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends. If the article was previously prodded and contested prior to AfD then it really shouldn't be treated as a prod and just deleted without discussion. If the article wasn't prod and has run due course without any comments then it probably is an uncontroversial deletion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it depends on specific circumstances. I recently restored CyanogenMod, which had been deleted twice before following AfD's. I figured it would end up in AfD again, and did soon after I restored it. This time through, the article survived because notability had in fact changed. The third AfD helped sort this out. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just piling on in support of not relisting repeatedly and deleting an article if nobody has bothered to defend it. I think the low participation at AFD lately is a side effect of how contentious AFD has been in the past, although it doesn't seem as bad right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  Also agree with Tan, Beeble, etc. Wizardman 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, note the discussion is (was?) about relisting the same afd more than once, not creating a new AFD. tedder (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A careful application of WP:BEFORE, especially the options for merging and relisting, can be a good approach to many of these articles. I would not say that "nobody has bothered" to defend an article unless I knew for certain that everyone previously involved in the article had been notified who was still active, & the workgroup had been notified effectively. And, if it is still undefended, if I were handling it like a prod, I would investigate myself before deleting, as I do with expired prods that are not totally obvious. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just found that WP:RELIST says, in bold, "no debate may be relisted more than twice". tedder (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that relisting should be done with common sense, on a case by case basis. Either an AFD gets closed as no consensus or gets relisted. I don't think it hurts to relist when you need those 1 or 2 extra !votes. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like the idea of treating uncontested but low-discussion AFDs as expired PRODs after 14 days, but for anything else, the decision to close or re-list needs to be at admin's discretion. However, I don't think something that is 2 "delete" and 1 "keep" should be closed as "delete." We've had conversations along these lines at WT:AFD in the past few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would think it should depend on the circumstances. If an AfD for a local television show has one "delete" !vote that points out that there is absolutely zero coverage in independent sources, a second "delete" that points out that the show was canceled after 2 episodes, and a third !vote to "keep" the article because they saw it as a child and liked it, I'd think that the result should close as "delete". -- Atama頭 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Relisting has been a fairly frequent topic in the past few months. See WT:Deletion process (Multiple relists; Made change to relist policy: stay open for 7 days; WP:RELIST wording: only one or two commenters; Another idea to make relisting less of a problem: default decision) and WT:Articles for deletion#AfDs without replies. Flatscan (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles listed for deletion (why deletion and not discussion?) should IMHO be publicised at the relevant Wikiprojects. Possibly this needs discussion by the community though. Maybe it could be made incumbent on nominators to publicise the fact that they have nominated an article for deletion at the relevant Wikiproject if that Wikiproject is not subscribed to Article Alerts via the bot. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is fine if there is an existing wikiproject tag on the talk page or the person taking it to AFD can easily figure out the appropriate wikiproject. This isn't always obvious.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Idea for widening participation: have relisted deletion discussions listed at Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask. Fences&Windows 19:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I had a couple suggestions that might result in more AfD attention, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#add_categories_from_articles_to_AfDs and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Enable_single-click_watching_of_all_pages_within_a_category. I'd also had the odd idea more with respect to the problem of biased samples but which could work for this, that "It could be interesting if there could be some random assigning of editors to articles and AfDs, if that would have an effect. There are no doubt ones I don't take the initiative on out of lack of interest or particular expertise that I conceivably could participate in, TV shows I don't watch or religions I've never read about that I could quickly read up on (essentially this is true of some of the ones I edit already), although some things like the finer points of astrophysics I'd probably be lost. But people might resent the imposition, even if it were optional." Another way of implementing that would be that people could subscribe to random assignments, like WikiProject newsletters and other things bot-posted to user talk pages, or in the left-hand bar with the Navigation, Interaction, and Toolbox there could be a "Random task" one could click, operating like "Random article," which could be subdivided into "Random relisted AfD," etc. Incidentally, I tried a few searches to get an idea of how often it happens that an AfD is relisted three times, but the number of times that has happened and it was commented upon (at least with these wordings) hasn't been especially high: "third relisting" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "third relist" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted three" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "relisted 3" prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The total number that mention relist* prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is 20,414, but sometimes that word is used to refer to subsequent AfDs on the same article or may be used in other contexts as well. Шизомби (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Random task"!

A SuggestBot-like bot could put AfD suggestions on the talk pages of editors who sign up based on their article editing and/or prior participation at AfD (but I don't know how to program bots). Fences&Windows 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• In general, if a discussion is up for a second relisting, only in extremely rare circumstances should it not be closed as "no consensus". Whether by even split or apathy, if no consensus is forming, then close it as such. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think Atama, in her/his post above is on the right track: if there are only a couple of comments in response to a nomination, but they set forth persuasive arguments to keep/delete, then the closing Admin should not worry overmuch about the light participation. (Just to comment on Atama's example, while I wouldn't give much weight to a low profile in a Google search about a tv series, I would be interested whether any notable show biz persons were involved. But then, if I were the closing Admin & this point was important to me, I would investigate it before closing.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A 'Community De-Adminship' process proposal has been under consideration and development for some time.

A motion has been raised to declare the proposal discussion closed and retire the proposal. A vote on the motion is underway on the proposal's discussion page. Participation is welcomed, encouraged, and requested at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Motion to close. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check why Wikipedia:Deletion today is showing up at C:SD and fix it? It first showed up on there when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia was tagged G6 (someone repurposed an old AfD and transcluded, and that was tagged G6). I just reverted to the closed AfD, and removed it from the day's logs; given that this was the only edit by the AfDer and the fact that the article wasn't even tagged, I figured nothing more was required. However, while the other transclusions fell off C:SD, the Deletion today page doesn't seem to get off and I can't find any reason for it to stay on there. Maybe I'm missing something or did something wrong? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is protected

to

[7]

Hyperstar 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Philip1992

We don't usually do cross-namespace redirects (as with this one, from an article named "This page is protected" to a Wikipedia page). The only link to that title is this page and related admin pages, so it's unlikely that the lack of a redirect is causing confusion. Ironically, This page is protected does not actually appear to be protected, which seems bizarre. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It also does not appear to exist, which would explain why it is not protected.—Finell 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une page protégée. Deor (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't exist, then we should rename it to This page does not exist  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WP:VPR. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied here from User talk:MBisanz On December 15, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name.[8] Since you were the admin who actioned that request I thought I'd address this to you.

Bowei Huang has been on a crusade to automate everything which, while commendable, has caused several problems because his method of doing so has caused numerous errors requiring multiple reversions in multiple articles. He first came to my notice when he attempted to automate the approximate population of Australia which resulted in, at the time, an easily confirmable error.[9] After I reverted that mess, he made other changes on different occasions, all of which were subsequently reverted.[10][11] After seeing several warnings on his talk page I was a little suspicious after his name change request. Despite his request for an obscure username, User:A1DF67 hasn't made a single edit.[12] Instead, he has continued editing under User:Bowei Huang.[13] making mistakes and not correcting them and conducting testing in articles, rather than a sandbox.[14][15][16]

Getting to the main reason for my post, what we now have is a user who has requested and been given a name change. The new name hasn't been used but now holds all of his past edit history and more importantly, numerous warnings, while the old username has been cleaned of warnings and has effectively been given a fresh start. There is no indication by either username that it is an alternative account of the other. I don't think I need to connect the dots. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue I am copying to WP:AN. MBisanz ^talk 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) of this discussion. On the face of it, the choice is simple - which username does this editor wish to use? The other one needs to be blocked indef. Can a name change be undone? The block logs for both accounts appear to be clear, so there's no block history to note. Maybe a 1 second block to permanently note the connection, but that would sort of defeat the original purpose for the change - of course, so does the editing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it is directly relevant, but Bowei Huang is also, ahem, well-known at the refernce desk. See for example this thread discussing what is the best way to deal with the user (there have been many such discussions over the past 2 years : [17]). Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Brickfield (talk · contribs) is probably a sock account of the user. (Should we shift this thread to ANI?) Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:124.168.169.61 is either yet another sock or someone curiously intent on blanking A1DF67's talk page. Bielle (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've inquired at Changing User Names for additional guidance. I'd like to hear from the editor before taking any action, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy is a difficult case. While he makes lots of editing errors and causes a ton of problems - and can also annoy the heck out of people with his borderline trollish behavior - there is absolutely no evidence that any of it is in done in bad faith. To the contrary in fact - he seems to be extremely well-meaning. However, he's really unresponsive to requests to change his ways - or requests of any kind really. He deletes complaints about him from his talk page without responding to them - but that's not contrary to our guidelines either. The result is someone who can be exceedingly annoying and quite disruptive without actually falling afoul of our rules. This name-change thing is typical of this user's modus-operandii. Reluctantly - although my heart says "Get this guy out of my face - indef. block the sucker" - my head says that we must once again, WP:AGF and continue to gently nudge this fellow into more 'normal' editing patterns. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the related thread at WT:RD, I have to ask this, Steve: has anyone followed your advice & pointed out to him that his behavior is problematic -- either gently or any other way? If so, & he has responded constructively (by which I would include his wont of deleting the message but, more importantly, changing his behavior), then we should try to work with him. If any attempt to engage him has failed then, I regret to say, he deserves an indef block until he stops being exceedingly annoying & quite disruptive -- we (& the Reference Desk) have better things to do than to handle someone who won't cooperate with us. WP:IAR works that way: we can forget about proper procedure & just boot him out the door. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Before I post this on the technical pump, would it benefit the project if there was a way to block an editor from everywhere except dispute-resolution pages and his own talk page? The intent is to allow those who are blocked pending the outcome of a dispute-resolution process the ability to participate in that process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• We've done this in the past by transclusion. How often would it be used? Guy (Help!) 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help As you can see, Peppylemew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account only used to edit a handful of articles on Eels (band) and generally to revert changes. Some of these are helpful (e.g. this application of WP:EL), but most of these edits are removing germane and sourced information from articles. I have posted several times to the user's talk page and he has refused to post on any user talk or article talk pages to discuss exactly what he wants changed or why. I'm at the end of my rope and have warned the user that if this constant reversion without any rationale continues, I would seek someone's intervention, so I am doing as much now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please help (again) See these two edits: 1 and 2 after being admonished twice thrice on his talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

reported Peppylemew at WP:AN3. Koavf, next time you have to post an edit warring report at WP:AN3, or a page protection request at WP:RFPP. You will get a much quicker response. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for yet another successful year on Wikipedia. We've met new issues, but as ever, we find some way to resolve them and move forward. Our articles have continued to improve, and in spite of seemingly continuous criticism, we're slowly but surely becoming a more reliable and credible resource.

With that, I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy New Year, or otherwise just a pleasant few days. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look This new user with a somewhat controversial name—Big Brother Maroc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—just appeared setting off the repeating characters tag four times on Aminatou Haidar, itself an article with recent edit wars and POV disputes. Someone may want to investigate this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is to warn starting from level 1 to level 4, and then report to WP:AIV. Twinkle makes this process much easier ;). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The name "French Texas" was apparently made up, as it doesn't seem to appear in any sources. The article should be moved to Fort Saint Louis (Texas). There's some discussion on the talk page with no opposition. I would have done it myself but the page is move protected... --NE2 05:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the {{Texas History}} template's terminology, it would seem preferable to leave it where it is, notwithstanding that it may be strictly incorrect. --AlisonW (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend waiting until it falls off the main page, then opening a discussion on Talk:French Texas and/or WT:WikiProject Texas. A move while it is on the main page would be highly visible and wouldn't be worth the disruption. Also, WP:NODEADLINE applies here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What disturbs me is how this problem was overlooked in the FA review process. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't. See Amerique's comment and the discussion underneath it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French Texas. As the discussion indicates, there is no obvious ideal solution, and so the current less-than-ideal solution was adopted, even though other suggestions were also in the air. In order for the FA process to be halted, though, someone would actually have to have opposed over the title, which no one seemed inclined to do (probably because titles are so rarely a serious issue at FA). Chick Bowen 20:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mljet, the latest (very obvious) sock of User:Ragusino is wreaking havoc and editing all over the place (as quickly as he can before he gets blocked again, I assume). In case there's any doubt, there is no question whatsoever as to his identity, he fully fits the standard "Ragusino template" (same articles, same POV, same edit-warring, and yeah - he hates me with a passion :). The user also keeps copy-pasting some HUGE nonsense conversation he and his banned buddies had on some forum, so there's really no room for doubt. I filed a WP:SPI report [18], but it isn't getting any attention, probably because of that MASSIVE illegible forum stuff he keeps copy-pasting everywhere... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked per WP:DUCK, but perhaps you should continue with the SPI in case there are other sock maturing in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly possible. The SPI is there, awaiting attention. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)