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

"Indefinite" blocking

The meaning of "indefinite" blocking is a perennial cause of confusion, between "indefinite=probably-but-you-never-know-permanent" (vandal account, indef ban, etc) and "indefinite=probably-temporary" (holding block to sort something out, etc). Wouldn't we make life easier for ourselves if we distinguished these at Special:Block? We could amend the "Expiry" list (requires a bug) and in the mean time use the "Other time" textbox. We'd just need to decide on what form of clarification to use. I'd suggest that "indefinite=probably-permanent" is the more common usage, which is a pity because changing indefinite=permanent to "infinite" would be one option. But I suggest we should invent some other term for "indefinite=temporary" and (a) start using it in the "other time" box and (b) ask for it to be added to the dropdown. The simplest and most transition-friendly I can come up with is simply "indefinite-temporary" (hyphenated), but perhaps someone can improve on that. Rd232 ^talk 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• No need. No one is, in theory, "permanently" blocked from Wikipedia. There is almost always a route back to editing, it may take an extended time away, and some hoop-jumping-through on the part of the blocked person. However, I think that the number of honest-to-god-permanently-blocked-and-we-don't-ever-want-back-before-the-heat-death-of-the-universe users is actually vanishingly small. --Jayron32 02:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, that's just terminological nitpicking and not addressing the main point. The distinction I've elaborated certainly exists, even if permanent-v-temporary oversimplifies it. Perhaps indefinite-longterm and indefinite-shortterm would be clearer. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the point Jayron is trying to make is that a distinction is inherently prejudicial as to which of the two categories a user is likely to fall into, when what we actually want to do is to illicit useful contributions from both groups? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I appreciate that sometimes the ambiguity is actually useful, but that suggests not getting rid of the ambiguous "indefinite" entry (which I hadn't suggested). We should at least be able to add indefinite-shortterm or something similar for use in cases where that is clearly the intention. It's not like we're going to force anyone to use block entries they don't want to. Rd232 ^talk 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• I for one would like to have an 'until' parameter that would hold something more than a date, so that a user could be blocked 'indefinitely' - ie the circumstances in which xe might be unblocked are not apparent at the time of blocking, or 'until' - the issue regarding copyvios is resolved, they respond satisfactorily to these queries, etc. Although I can do that in the block template, so maybe its overcomplicating things. One thing that does annoy me is other editors insisting on blanking the userpage and sticking up an 'indefinitely blocked' template. We are supposed to have stopped doing that ages ago (as I do remind folks), and while its fine if 'indefinite' = exhausted the community's patience and ain't coming back for a long while, its unnecessary if I've blocked someone to stop them uploading any more copyvios. Perhaps the answer is if you had a category that was TEMPORARY, but without duration - although I see Jayron's point here also. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Some joker would put "hell freezes over" in that box. I think it is sufficient to put the "until" conditions on the user talk pages. This sort of thing probably requires more space than will fit comfortably in the block log. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah. They would :( Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • "Hell freezes over" was jokingly requested in 2006. See the talk page Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Well, isn't the "until" in both cases: When the user demonstrates that they know why they were blocked and are able to convince the blocking admin / community that they are willing and able to contribute positively and not repeat the action they were blocked for? Its just that for the 'probably-permanent' they have either committed a grievous transgression or displayed an ability to repeatedly tax the resources of the community, so the bar is that much higher. In both cases it is broadly 'until we believe they get it'.
• I think that "indefinite-short-term" will undermine the utility of the indefinite block. I say this as a editor that has previously been blocked indefinitely. un☯mi 15:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Modifying MediaWiki:Ipboptions doesn't require a bug. And this discussion fits at MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions, where you'll see at MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#sequence of options there's already been some discussion of "indefinite"-versus-"infinite". Notice the subtlety of there being a separate "display name" and string that's parsed for the actual time. Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Indefinite means until we are convinced the block is no longer neccesarry. If the system is working properly, how long that is really depends more on the blocked user than the blocking administrator. Sometimes it can be very brief if they show an understanding of why they have been blocked and how to avoid it in the future. Other times they dig in their heels and refuse to admit to something that it is manifestly evident. It's not reasonable to expect admins to know in advance which will be the case, hence the indefinite block. If a user wants lawyer about what the word indefinite means they are probably not ready to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• What about users such as Ecoleetage, blocked and banned for going after an on-wiki opponent in real life? In such cases, there's no way that the users can redeem themselves. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I can give you the names of probably a half-dozen users who have been blocked longer than most of you have been contributing to Wikipedia. The hope is that someday even these editors could come back & make constructive edits, because of those idealistic words on the Front Page -- "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (emphasis mine); the reality is that these banned users aren't going to be allowed back here soon, if ever. They're not going to change. But our ideals insist that we hold out hope, & thus issue no (technically) permanent blocks. -- llywrch (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is quite wrong. Given enough determination and know-how, banned users easily evade any technical restriction we place, and they do that every single day. –MuZemike 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Llywrch was talking about the user being given permission to begin editing, not about ban-evaders. Apples and oranges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Short-term BLP clean-up projects (Scientology)

After concerns raised here and elsewhere about Scientology-related BLPs being distorted by ideological editing, I started a short-term work-group to review related articles and to examine the extent of any problems. Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology. The idea was to get new eyes, without any history of Scientology related editing, to examine the articles - too many existing editors obviously had pro or anti Scientology agendas. The initiative was starting out well with a number of excellent participants. However, since then two things have happened.

Firstly, I've been attacked as a pro-Scientology editor off-site [1]. That's not a problem in itself, but it has brought SPAs into related debates - seeking to attack me and my initiative ion order to "preserve" articles they deem important to the cause. I think my track-record of being interested in BLP enforcement regardless of the ideology of the subject is good enough that experienced Wikipedians know where I'm really coming from.

Second User:Will Beback has strongly objected to any initiative outside of the existing Wikiproject, and has sought support from the Wikiproject Council for ending the independence of this short-term initiative. (Disclosure: Will and I have been in various disputes over what I see as his reckless attitude to BLPs.)

This isn't really the right venue for this - but it seemed wise to bring this to wider attention, and I was unsure where else. Should there be a rule against short-term BLP clean-up projects by people uninvolved in long-term wikiprojects? That seem to be the nub of it?--Scott Mac 01:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to protest Scott's baseless accusation that I have a reckless attitude towards BLPs. It's unproven and irrelevant, and appears to just be an ad hominem attack on another editor.

Scott created a quasi-project and insists that it may not be included in any existing projects, either Scientology or Biography. I'm happy to see broader participation in the discussion, but I urge Scott to avoid inflammatory language.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I simply noted our disagreement. As for the rest, I was simply trying to get people to improve articles and involve people not currently wishing to join a long-term Wikiproject. The are problems here that the Wikiproject has not been fixing. The categorisation bothers me less than the effectiveness of sorting problems - and a short-term drive outside of the wikiproject seemed to be working. Working is what matters.--Scott Mac 01:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Both of you have very valid argument on the issue at hand. Will made a WP:BOLD move and it was reverted thus has occurred the normal WP:BRD process. Will it was unnecessary to post at Project council, Scott is was inappropriate to accuse him of Canvassing. Go back to corners instead of Wasting every ones time here because neither of you are gonna back down from your positions nor do I see a chance reconciliation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to me that from my past experience of both Scott and Will, what they need is to spend a few minutes chatting (probably privately) and working out how they can best collaborate to improve the encyclopaedia. I am solidly convinced that, whatever the merits of this particular dispute, both are on the side of the angels and should be able to sort this out like the mature individuals they are. I suggest that the admin noticeboard is too toxic an environment for this to happen peacefully and would urge them to take it to a pub, or email if they are too far apart geographically. Guy (Help!) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with JzG above The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Will and I have communicated extensively via e-mail. I'm not about to disclose the contents, but suffice to say it went nowhere. I'm not going to be unnecessarily rude about him, but I'm uninterested in Guy's Wikihugs at the expense of things that actually matter. I'm interested in ensuring Wikipedia minimised the chances of harming living people. Will's attitude to BLP is detrimental to that goal - and I can't with honestly try to call it any other way. He's now watching my every move, and challenging my every call, because whatever his agenda is he sees my BLP-focussed one as a problem. If Will's got angels on his side, I just hope I can recruit some even heavier hitters. --Scott Mac 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Will Beback has a legitimate concern that the purpose of the project may be unclear to people. Personally, I view it as more of a short-lived task force which will review Scientology-related articles to ensure that our policies and guidelines have been applied, particularly as regards WP:BLP, but my hope is that similar efforts will be undertaken in other topic areas that may be in the same situation with reference to WP:BLPCAT. I note that ArbCom suggest something very like this in their WP:ARBSCI findings:

The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles, especially Scientology-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Perhaps this project should be under the aegis of ArbCom? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhmm No Arbcom recommended but to pretend we are Agents of Arbcom (though a kick ass name) would be silly as we have no such authority. Lets just let the WP:RM settle this and we can drop it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I understood that all admins are responsible for helping enforce arb com rulings. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A few questions/points

• 1) If this is short-term, how short is the term, one month, one year, 10 days? Now, even if a short-term project was envisioned (whatever that is), should it not have been proposed prior to its initiation? I think it should have been. Project guidelines exist to smooth the way and help potential participants build consensus before commencement. If it had proposed first, if the guidelines on projects had been followed, perhaps none of this would have happened since consensus about such a project would have been in evidence before commencement of it. If the editors involved in this, primarily McDonald and Resident Anthropologist, are so concerned about following Wikipeida's rules and guidelines why not use those which apply to creation of any Project? I think this "project" should be deleted and a new one proposed according to the standards set forth for "Projects."

• 2) Wikipedia suggests that editors write about what they know about. So, to call for uninformed editors to work on these articles seems very odd and kind of pointless. Scientology is a large, complex subject and a newbie editor might have to spend years just coming up to speed on the basics before making useful contributions to this set of articles.

• 3) If this project was to focus on Living Persons then why does the project page call into question every single article in the Scientology template? Many of these articles have nothing to do with living persons or biographical material at all.

• 4) If someone has concerns about biographical articles about non-notable persons, there are certainly many better candidates for deletion than the edit histories of McDonald show. I would recommend he put his time toward weeding out the worst of the worst. Stubs about even somewhat notable persons in the Scientology universe seem oddly singled out here which is why, I think, his own objectivity and neutrality has been called into question.

There are other substantive issues with this "project" and how it has been started and managed. I'll leave those out for now. I find this Project to be redundant and pointless. The primary wikipedia articles on this subject happen to be some of best articles in the public sphere on the subject and consistently rank at the top of common internet searches for information about Scientology. The extensive arbitration about editing Scientology articles resulted in a rather strong consensus about how to proceed with any further articles or editing. This Project seems to threaten that consensus and will thus make a difficult subject needlessly more difficult for anyone interested in editing within this body of articles. I would, therefore, as mentioned above, propose that this Project be deleted and a new one proposed according to the very good guidelines regarding projects. Calicocat (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am unclear what consensus you speak of, A review of Scientology content was encouraged at WP:ARBSCI#Review of articles urged. IT has taken a year and half for any one to make such a cleanup/review to start. WP:BOLD encourages such initiatives as this. Your charge of Uniformed editors being dretimental to such a clean-up is unfounded. Editors with no strong opinions either way are preferred as they are more likely to focus on Content and not their own prejudice ( whether pro or Anti CoS). Please stop assuming bad faith and casting questioning motives of me and Scott itt is this type of WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that WP:ARCSCI attempted to put an end to. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The premise of the project seems to be that associating someone with Scientology is vaguely defamatory. Would a comparable "Neutrality in Catholicism" short-term project involve deleting references to Catholicism from bios with inadequate sources, and AFDing articles about people notable solely for their association with that church. More broadly, I think that creating ad hoc, POV-based quasi-projects on contentious topics is a poor precedent. "Neutrality in Eastern Europe"? "Neutrality in Climate Change"?

As for questioning the motives of editors, I'd urge everyone involved to assume good faith. I'm sure we all are working to improve the project; the question is how to do so best.   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

None of this answers my questions. Being bold is fine at times, but does not demonstrate the best judgment for articles on this subject. How long is "short term?" Wikipedia does encourage people to edit on subjects they have knowledge of. I'm not assuming bad faith at all and I think you should refrain from making such charges. I'm not talking about "strong opinions" I'm referring to people who are informed. The project lists every article in the Scientology template, not just biographical articles. Why the focus on Scientology stubs at all? Calicocat (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, Catholicism is a whole different ball park entirely as there is little stigma in such a categorization. Associating some one with a deviant which many call a "cult" and one the most controversial and derisive one out there should be a concern to us with BLPs. We are going through these articles reviewing them and making condensing or AFDing them as necisicary. Several AFD have not gone as planned and have come as "keep" (or kept by default). Will may remind you that i agree with your suggestion of it being a task force of WP:SCN, I just dont feel as strongly about it either way. Frankly think this short term drive is doing no harm, I think people you two are hyping this into something its not. John Carter, Cirt, Coffeepusher, Jayen466 are mostly staying out of it. I am really the only person who has had much work in the topic area prior to this. I do not feel this invitation for previously uninvolved editors to look at it a topic area is bad idea. I would support such task similar projects in those areas you mentioned for previously uninvolved editors after such Arbcom cases. I answered your question above already Calicocat. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also suggested putting it under the aegis of WP:WikiProject biography, but some editors don't find that acceptable either. ResidentAnthropologist, you've been involved in a variety of cult articles, so it isn't clear that you're "uninvolved" in that topic either. How long is this "short term" projected intended to last?   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree some editors are being quite disagreeable about everything including compromises. I considered since WP:ARBSCI before my time here, I considered myself meeting the letter of the law. It occurred to me after writing my above statement that I might need to withdraw from it as I may not be as impratial nor as uninvolved as I would like to think myself as. You are correct in that Will. I have no idea how long it will take... i guess the old saying "as long as it takes." Personally I dont see it going much past January but who knows how long it could take. I dont want this to be a unwieldy faction any more than you do Will. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If it "takes as long as it takes" then that is not "short term." Also, that phrase, "it takes as long as it takes" appears as a central bit of Scientology dogma for various questions regarding how long any particular step on the Scientology bridge takes. Frankly, I think this "Project" was ill conceived and should be scraped and deleted. It got off on the wrong foot by not following the guidelines for Projects in wikidpedia. It is overly board, as it names every article in the entire Scientology template and there are far more articles on wikipedia of far less notable people. Any editor who is so concerned about BLP issues might address those. As far as the arbitration on Scientology articles go, the finding states: "This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case." Calicocat (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Calicocat, from my perspective, this is something that really shouldn't take very long, because most of the things that will be addressed by this are pretty easy to find and generally easy to fix. I doubt most of the participants really want to get involved in any in-depth work in a controversial area, but see the need to get this topic back in line with our policies and guidelines. It shouldn't take very long at all to ensure that BLP policy is met, but people are going work at their own pace and choose which articles to work on. For example, I've pointed out an obvious and easily fixed issue with List of Scientologists and List of Scientology officials, but no one has addressed it. Why not take a look for yourself? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, while I am sure that many people would not want to have their name associated with Scientology, I do not believe that it is implied by the project that it is "vaguely defamatory" to do so. This really is no different than labelling someone as a Catholic (to use your example religion) who is not a Catholic or whose Catholicism is not relevant to their notability. WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear on this and has been largely ignored for too long (and not just in this specific subject area). What is your objection to ensuring that BLPs follow our poloicies? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to having all BLPs follow WP policies. This matter isn't about improving BLPs, it's about creating an ad hoc quasi-project to pursue a particular POV regarding a contentious topic. Many religious groups and beliefs are viewed negatively in one or another place. It is contrary to the NPOV approach to adopt one view and make edits based on that view. We should have the same standards for the Church of Scientology, the Church of Christ, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and any other church or faith. The name of the quasi-project implies that there is a neutrality problem with identifying people as Scientologists, whereas that seems more like a BLP or verifiability issue. If there isn't adequate sourcing for identifying people as Mormons would viewing it as a neutrality problem be the best way of fixing that issue?   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of Scientology as I have seen is bloated and attacking in nature. A large part of it has been written by a single person? BLP and NPOV issues have already been discovered and I don't see under the circumstances an independent quasi - project as you call it wouldn't be considered totally beneficial , if some experienced users are willing to spend the time going over the articles in that field I can't see any problem with that, suggest leaving them alone and letting them get on with it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, I am not sure why you believe that there is any one view being adopted here or what view you think that is - can you expand on that comment? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The only view I see being expressed by that quasi-project is that connecting someone with Scientology, as opposed to other religions, is defamatory. Do you see any Scientology-positive commentary or editing there?   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the project is biased against Scientology, rather than being neutral in attempting to apply WP:BLP? Sorry if that seems like a silly question, but it is sometimes difficult to tell which "side" people are complaining about when they start claiming bias one way or another. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. If you make edits to a Scientology-related article, & someone accuses you of being a pro-Scientology shill, simply respond, "By Xenu, I am made these edits for this reason" -- & explain yourself. Unless Miscavige has changed "The Tech" in the last ten years, no Scientologist dare speak the name of Xenu without risk of inflicting such horrendous damage on her or himself that only hundreds of thousands of dollars of auditting will undo. Even if they have no idea who Xenu is. Or so they believe. -- llywrch (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting an article talk page

Little as I like to suggest it, I think that Talk:Schapelle Corby would benefit from semi-protection. The amount of soapboxing and attacks, both specifically and generally directed, are getting a bit excessive. What do other uninvolved people think? I would consider myself uninvolved, as I think I've only taken admin actions here, but considering I've been dragged off-wiki, I'm not sure whether that's a reasonable claim. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree — not because the talk page is free from problems, but because there have only been a few new-or-unregistered editors causing problems. If the soapboxing belongs on the page, it should stay there; if not, its removal could be accompanied by warnings and eventually blocks. In my mind, semiprotection is only appropriate if there's a significant number of different editors causing problems, since we can't easily warn or block all of them. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The editors who seem to be recruited here from http://womenforschapelle.blogspot.com are making no progress in grasping Wikipedia policy. They must be firmly in possession of the WP:TRUTH so they are not listening to any of the advice provided. See the collapsed discussion at Talk:Schapelle_Corby#Exposing the censorship on Wikipedia_._._.. We should not put up with this indefinitely. I propose that a 7-day semi might be considered, if there are any more new posts that express no willingness to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and that sounds sensible. Judging from the group's website it should be noted, however, that the admin who does this is likely to have their username and comments posted and criticised on the website as being part of some kind of conspiracy. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering I already have, I guess I'm the natural choice. :-) Anybody else want to chime in first? (Oh, and see also the recent discussion at WP:ANI#Difficulties at Schapelle Corby.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable idea at this time, but keep it short-term and put a big notice explaining why at the top of the talk page. Trebor (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is wanting an admin who will put their name to the protection action and advice, I am prepared to do so. Not only have I no prior involvement, I am uninterested on what off site opinion pages may say about me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Check her latest blog, you are already being vilified in the unpopular unpress.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall take your word for it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• That is massively dense and detail-heavy article for what is really just a typical, Southeast Asian "but it wasn't my bag!" drug bust. The (largely localized Aussie) coverage that is typical of the media's endless remix of its missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, try not to stir things up further. One might acknowledge the controversy and ask for sourced quotes, rather than trying to make the article narrative carry any PoV at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should hold fire on the protection of the article, and see what happens now that a major protagonist has been blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

86.157.75.69 (talk · contribs) was continuing the same conduct, so I've blocked them for block evasion per WP:DUCK. The personal attacks and soapboxing were blockable in their own rights anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and its subcat now have 36 items in it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Is it allowed for non-admins to close CFDs as "rename" in the event of a near-unanimous consensus, and after re-categorizing all the articles, tag the old category page for speedy deletion under G6? I am asking because of the serious backlog at CFD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see any objection, but some links would help. Rodhullandemu 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example. Rename this category, Category:Companies that have entered administration, to Category:Companies that have entered administration in the United Kingdom per the consensus here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, not a good idea; simply because letting an admin close the discussion and file on WP:CFD/W makes CydeBot do all the work, which is easier on folks, and automatically attributes the editors of the old category. I've closed a few CFD's in my day, and other than the rare double upmerge result (which there is no other way to do), doing things by hand or with AWB is a massive waste of time. (For examples sake, closing that discussion and getting the bot to do the work took me less than 20 seconds. I'll see if I can do anything about that backlog.) Courcelles 05:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird stuff going on at Seek & Destroy (Metallica song)

Seek & Destroy was deleted to make room for a move (Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) → Seek & Destroy. However their talk pages were not moved (Talk:Seek & Destroy, Talk:Seek & Destroy (Metallica song). Both talk pages have significant page history, so you can't just delete Talk:Seek & Destroy to move Talk:Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) over it, at least as far as I'm aware. Or maybe you can. Anyway, I don't really know what should be done, and I was referred to here. So here I am. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Seek & Destroy was created, and speedy deleted.
2. Seek & Destroy was created again, and speedy deleted again. (both were nonsense pages)
3. Seek & Destroy was created, AfDed, and merged and redirected Kill 'Em All.
4. Seek & Destroy was recreated as an article.
5. Seek & Destroy was redirected again.
6. Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) was created, it initial version bears some similarity to the version before redirection (identical sentences).
7. Seek & Destroy was deleted and Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) was moved over into it's place. Neither talk page was moved.

I'll think about what to do. Probably separate the 4 pages out. Please don't touch this page. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Seek & Destroy (Metallica song) as it was before the page move now resides at Seek & Destroy. Seek & Destroy as it was before the page move now resides at Seek & Destroy/old. Note it can't be deleted due to the merging. I'll go inform Sphilbrick that that move should not have been made. Prodego ^talk 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23#Canada–Tonga relations, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:United States and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. special districts

Resolved

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 23#Canada–Tonga relations, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:United States and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. special districts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done the last two, I'm involved in the first one so can't touch it. Courcelles 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on that last one. Working on a closing statement as I'll probably be barbecued if I don't write one up. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Prodego beat me to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup

Nominated for deletion. Can someone please put the TFD notice on the template as it's protected? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs {{subst:PAGENAME}} as the first parameter. The link to the deletion discussion is broken when transcluded in articles. Reach Out to the Truth 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Groan, I think it is time to shut down the circus at User talk:Vintagekits

Resolved

 – unblock declined, talk page revoked, VK referred to WP:BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He continues to blame others for his monstrous series of blocks. He has put up another unblock request that is a word for word copy of one that was declined. Giano is taking the opportunity to fan the flames and accuse people of all sorts of bad faith actions and other misconduct. Could a previously uninvolved admin step in here and put and end to this? I would also ask you to consider the possibility of revoking the talk page and asking him to direct future unblock request to WP:BASC in light of the hopelessly off-base nature of his last three unblock requests and the continued contention that he has never done anything wrong and others are to blame for his thirty plus blocks. The community made it clear just last week they didn't want him back if he couldn't own up to his own mistakes, and he has not and by all indications never will. This is not a request for another community discussion of these issues, just looking for an uninvolved admin to put a stop to this pointless nasty, divisive discussion. (I myself backed off several days ago as I could see it was hopeless) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. if you want to do something about the situation on his user page that would be swell too, but it's hardly the most pressing issue. (tagged as retired, which is a bald faced lie since he is blocked and has been persistently asking to be let back in) Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, it may help if you review what you have written above and modified it so that your comment does not fuel another fire of its own. That is, the user whom you accuse of "taking the opportunity to fan the flames and accuse people of all sorts of bad faith actions and other misconduct" does not seem to have done anything of the kind, at least in the last 4 days. In fact, that user's most recent contributions (on 3 January) seem to have helped stop an (unnecessary) back-and-forth that was occurring on Vintagekits talk. Also, or alternatively, it may help if you included diffs (for what you have written above). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. If you can't see what I'm talking about with your own eyes by simply looking at recent discussions there then we'll just have to accept that we don't see the situation the same way. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the threads/discussions on that talk page which have attracted replies within the last 3 days, then no, I don't see the situation in the same way with regards to the other user you seem to often unnecessarily mention at these noticeboards. When this blows up one day, you'll be responsible for your own fate. I wash my hands of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have me confused with someone else. I don't make a hobby put of stalking Giano and reporting him, and I haven't asked that any admin action be taken towards him specifically, just that the discussion be closed down. Thanks for your concern but I'm not worried about it blowing up and destroying me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, should this be raised again at another point, I have not confused you with someone else, otherwise I would not have limited the bulk of my comments to a single sentence you wrote - a sentence which unnecessarily invokes additional drama (to the detriment of the project). That was my concern; the tragic outcome you imagine was not what I had in mind. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have lost me completely now. You said "When this blows up one day, you'll be responsible for your own fate." If that didn't mean that you thought this would blow up on me then I don't have any way of knowing what it actually was supposed to mean. You also said "with regards to the other user you seem to often unnecessarily mention at these noticeboards" which obviously does not refer solely to one sentence in the original post but to a perceived pattern of behavior that I do not believe is accurate. As I declined to provide you with diffs I suppose it would be terribly bad form of me to ask you to do the same to prove these accusations, but I have to say this isn't making a whole lot of sense to me. I can live with that, as I said I'm not particularly worried about it, but I apparently did not pick up on whatever it was you were somewhat indirectly trying to communicate. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Along with Vk needing to acknowledge his part in getting indef-blocked. I'd recommend that the 'RETIRED' sign be deleted from his Userpage. The sign isn't accurate & may also be provocative towards those who aren't infavour of Vk's unblock aspirations. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned that above, but the admin who handled it didn't see fit to do anything with it. As it is now directly beneath {{indefblocked|historical}} I doubt anyone will be fooled by it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In a certain way, the "retired" works. Kind of like the statement, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsuccessful scam

Thanks to Wutsje (talk) who tagged it, I have just deleted a scam donation page at User talk:Donation2011, which consisted of most of the text of Jimbo's thank-you message plus a large "Help keep us alive by donating" button which led to http://rp-city.com/donation.php. I have blocked the user and disabled talk page access. Clicking on that link suggests that the scammer had only managed to clear $0.67 after Paypal fees, but perhaps we should be alert in case he posts it elsewhere. Could the edit filter be set to block that address? Also, I wonder if there is any way to discover who is at the other end of it, so as to send them a small letter bomb? JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be better suited for the WP:SBL, if it's a widespread problem. Special:LinkSearch shows no active links (or at least will, after I disabled yours above) –xeno^talk 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the helpdesk was replaced with similar text a couple of hours ago (and of course, reverted almost immediately). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind,I checked the diff and it appeared to just be a copy-and-paste of a page which included a welcome from Jimbo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I've globally blacklisted the domain. Wutsje (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Backlog

WP:RFPP is getting backed up with some requests being there for over 3 hours. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Need temporary undeletion of File:110 1058.JPG to establish a copyright trail. Kelly ^hi! 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)