text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238

Extra Inter language links
Please look at Inter language links part of Harrier Jump Jet article. Is it true?Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes as many other wikis have several articles on the Harrier and it's different versions all linking to this one article here. NtheP (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Crazy server lag
Up to 1,559 seconds. Who broke it? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:Village pump (technical). Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Leontopodium alpinum

Unprotection: This page does NOT need protection. zzuuzz was asked to remove protection and refused to help. Unlike many of the editors involved, I do not have problem with IP editors or assume they are the bad guys. I want them to be able to contact me. This protection was instigated by a small number of overzealous editors continuously reverting an IP and agitating it in the process. The original edit was not even a personal attack as they put, although it was a bit harsh. Editors causing this problem need to read WP:DENY. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on the comment recently on my talk page, as with all my actions any admin is welcome to adjust the protection as they see fit. If you've seen the proxy-hopping trolls, both(?) ANI threads, and the edit frequencies then you're not missing much. My reasons for protection remain unchanged, so I won't be doing it myself. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Leon should do what I do and what the rules recommend: create a separate, non-protected pseudo talk page where IP's can "contact him", as he puts it. The "contacting" in this case is nothing more than a personal attack on another editor, and is not appropriate for Leon's talk page. And Leon's insistence keeping the attack there raises suspicions about his own alleged "good faith". The WP:DENY stuff is wrong-headed. You don't "deny" trolls by leaving their garbage untouched - you deny them by preventing them from posting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that the suspicions arise more from you wikistalking my edits and canvassing your pal Dave1185. You caused this whole problem by reverting edits multiple times that are really not personal attacks, and that's true no matter how many time you claim otherwise. Please refrain from adding your opinion unnecessarily, as you are not an admin. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked Dave to comment here. If he doesn't care, I don't care. If he does care, then your page should remain protected, so as to "deny" the trolls as you say. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a nice idea from you, but unfortunately for you or Dave1185 to "care" or not or what you think about what should happen to my talk page are not necessary or relevant. Please do refrain from your own agitation. Thanks for stopping by. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are under the mistaken impression that you "own" your talk page. You don't. If you allow incivility against others to remain on your page, you are approving of that incivility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are under the mistaken impression that your opinion is necessary or appropriate to add to this discussion. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit everyone's opinion is appropriate and even necessary any/everywhere. Can someone sort out these facts for me. Based on this edit history ;
 * La has minimal edits to article space - four although I may have miscounted.
 * La went around bestowing barnstars to those who complained about Dave1185's alleged incivility. So, per AGF they disapprove of such "personal attacks" occurring on WikiP. YET
 * They are perfectly happy for "personal attacks" against Dave1185 to be added to - and remain - on their talk page. The term "tag and bag" used for socks who have already betrayed the communities trust is far less offensive then the post about Dave1185 added by various IPs (and that alone should raise red flags of various sizes and vivid colors) to La's talk page.
 * As Bugs correctly state if La is here as someone who want to edit constructively then they can "create a separate, non-protected pseudo talk page where IP's can "contact him"" other wise can we please apply WP:NOTTHERAPY - among several others - and end this drama. MarnetteD | Talk 05:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You warp facts to fit the agenda of you and your friends. This has nothing to do for the actual comment left on my talk page, although I strongly disparage your view that it was a personal attack. If you think this is personal attack the you skin is far, far to thin for Wikipedia. It is clearly not a personal attack. Dave 1185 and his pals are simply trying to keep the Wiki clean of criticism of his actions.
 * The number of edits I have made does not matter: WP:DONTBITE. Of course I thank people that took the reasonable position in a long argument. Oh, and Dave1185 did the same thing.
 * You are grossly misstate what I am asking. I am not interested at all with this request to anything with the original edit on my page. I never mentioned it here. Good attempt, but again you do not tell the truth about this request. I am only demanding that my own talk page be unprotected.
 * You do not have a neutral opinion in this matter and should recuse yourself from the discussion. You were part of the Dave1185 clique that caused this problem by constant revert to my talk page.
 * If you wish to so nakedly have a personal agenda outside of the actual discussion please be a little more clever about disguising it. Bugs does not correctly state anything, and neither do you. You two are part of why there is a drama at all. If you had left it alone the page would never have needed protection and a mildly annoying comment (but NOT personal attack) would not have created the problem this IP wanted. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your screed proves my point. BTW we have both Attack page and NPA as policies that should be remembered in this situation. Oh and I am not part of any clique. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are completely and embarrassingly wrong on all counts. Recommend you review the literature and Wikipedia policies before making any further comments. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Marnette has had an account here for 7 years, whereas you've had an account for 7 months. So there's a good chance that his/her knowledge of the rules is better than yours. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that Leon has removed the semi-protected flag from his page. That doesn't actually affect anything. The semi remains in effect until the 13th, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that although Leon does not approve of a message being removed from their talk page they have no problem with removing them from other another editors talk as can be seen here  and  MarnetteD | Talk 15:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again you are kilometers from the correct mark here. Removing a comment from my page 1. Not what this is about 2. Not something I ever opposed. I spoke against you and your pals edit-warring and agitating an IP on my talk page, not against the comment being removed. And you are most certainly not comparing removing my own comments from a page to this, because even that would too nakedly reveal your agenda and bias in this situation. Please do sit this one out unless you have something valid to contribute. You are acting as the "garbage truck", as your buddy Dave1185 likes to say. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Uninvolved admin here. I have been reviewing this situation, and come to the following conclusions:
 * The removal of personal attacks and the protecting of the page were entirely appropriate
 * Therefore the request for removal of protections is declined
 * Leon is reminded that this is an encyclopedia and that everything else is secondary to that goal. It's July, and you have made but 3 edits to actual articles this year. And no, it's not "biting" to say so, merely a reminder of what it is we are supposed to be doing here  which all of you involved in this should take to heart
 * As a show of good faith from all concerned I would ask you all to voluntarily topic ban yourselves from interacting with "the other side" in this conflict. There is an evident pattern of a long-term problem here going back several months. Continuing to have any contact at this point is only going to antagonize the other parties.
 * This matter should now be considered closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is fine. For the record I have no idea what "long-term problem" you are referring to. I got involved with this less than three weeks ago when this thread Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive756 occurred at ANI and, thus, do not know what you might be referring to. That is why the accusation of cliques makes so little sense. Also, just for my information, will it still be closed when another IP restores the offensive message (which contains no examples of the behavior alleged BTW to say nothing of there being no attempts to "help" as a followup) after the page protection expires? MarnetteD | Talk 21:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war and revert war on the article on Montenegrins
There is an edit war and revert war on this article: Montenegrins between the users. Parties involves in the edit/revert war:
 * User:23 editor
 * User:Navyworth

I reverted one edit and advised the users to discuss their differences of opinion on Talk:Montenegrins to discuss what the topic of the article should be about, as Montenegrins may refer to people as citizens of Montenegro, or an ethnic group in Montenegro that identifies as Montenegrin. The article is currently about the ethnicity of Montenegrins and the basis of this dispute is whether Montenegrins identified as an ethnicity prior to the 1940s. I asked for users to take part in a discussion and present their evidence. In spite of my request for the users to engage in discussions to resolve the problem, neither user has taken part in such discussions and the edit/revert war has continued. The hostility of the edit/revert war began to become very strong at this point: Navyworth reverting edits here and using combative language, 23 editor repeatedly reverted edits by Navyworth with no explanations of why he/she reverted them,  ,  - as can be seen, none of these revert edits explain why the edit was made.

I recommend that both users be given a warning to cease this edit/revert warring immediately, to discuss their differences of opinion on the talk page, to request a Request for Comment if they cannot find an agreement between each other, explain the reasons of their edits, and to immediately cease using combative language.--R-41 (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Warned both (under WP:ARBMAC), and blocked Navyworth for a day, as I find his conduct even more objectionable than the other guy's. Question now is, is the IP who suddenly popped up to continue Navyworth's reverts and made personal attacks in the process the same editor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a non-involved editor, wouldn't you agree that your judgement is injudicious? The arbitration case you cited in your judgement was striked out in 2007 and even if it still holds, the ruling states that an initial warning is prerequisite before taking any such sanction. The same warning that you gave to User:23 editor should have also been given to User:Navyworth. I think that would have been fairer because both were involved in edit warring which in itself is a blockable offense. If you are going to block Navyworth, then 23 editor should have also been blocked. Objectionability is also a subjective judgment. I am interested in what Wiki policy states. For the record, I am not affiliated with any of these two (and have never conversed with them), neither I am a contributor to the article in question. My comment are purely based on the spirit of Wiki policy. If am wrong in my analysis, I stand corrected with a direct link to the relevant policy.Tamsier (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBMAC is very much still in effect and actionable, as you can see from the unbroken stream of new sanctions logged under it all the time. Yes, it requires a prior warning, so that's why I gave them just that warning now. The block of Navyworth is a standard edit-warring block and doesn't require any such precondition. I decided to treat his conduct as significantly worse than the other guy's because (a) he has been around longer, (b) he has a significant history of prior disruption, (c) he continued edit-warring beyond a warning, (d) he reverted more often, (e) his reverts were accompanied with personal attacks, (f) he was revert-warring against an apparent consensus of several other editors, and (g) the other guy at least tried to request help from others, indicating he was aware something was wrong about the situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no diffs other than having to take your word for it. With respect, that will not do. Policy is policy and should be judicially applied when passing such judgments. Ignorance of policy is no excuse no matter how new an editor. As regards to Navyworth's talk history, I do not see a massive list of severe issues (exc. this) other than FfD nominations and the one you added in July 2011 . Surely, he could not have been that disruptive since he registered in 2008. If he was, then surely administrators or other editors did not find his "disruptiveness" severe enough to warrant a warning on his talk page. As such, we have problem.Tamsier (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you expect I should have to spend time digging out diffs for you in a matter that doesn't concern you, just on your say-so? I looked at both parties' conduct and made a decently well-informed judgment to the best of my ability. If one of the parties wants to challenge it, they are free to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry you feel that I have inconvenience you. I thought the application of Wiki policy (or lack of) is an issue that concerns every contributor on Wikipedia. By your edit, I can only conclude you don't believe so. Since you have blocked one of the parties, I doubt if they will be able to challenge your decision until after the block has expired, by which time, there is no point in challenging it. I am interested in "procedural fairness". I believe the decision to be injudicious, hence my comments. This is not about you digging diffs because of my say-so. This is about you justifying the action you've just taken which I believe to be contrary to Wiki policy (see above). With respect, you still have not done so (based on policy), and may be this is one of those incidents which needs to be taken to ANI. I would like to know what other administrators think, and would accept the consensus whatever it may be.Tamsier (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 * What policy exactly is Fut.Perf. supposed to have applied badly? He warned both users per WP:ARBMAC, and he explained in detail why the conduct of one of the edit-warring users was worse than the other's. Even if he was mistaken about Navyworth's prior history, that still leaves multiple reasons why Navyworth's conduct was worse (chief among them the fact that 23 editor at least tried to get a discussion going). I'm not an admin, but I see nothing wrong with Fut.Perf.'s decision. The WP:Blocking policy explicitly mentions personal attacks and disruption as a block reasons, and Navyworth was significantly more disruptive. Also, Navyworth can request to be unblocked. He cannot request 23 user to also be blocked, but what purpose would that serve? Huon (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Huon for your contribution. Perhaps I have gone blind or loosing my faculties, so would be so kind to show me where 23 editor had "tried to get a discussion going"? I have looked in the article's talk page (where discussions are held and consensus reached) but there is nothing there by either 23 editor or Navyworth. The only involved person I see there trying to get a discussion going is R-41, the editor who reported the two. Even R-41 in their report (above) states that : "I asked for users to take part in a discussion and present their evidence. In spite of my request for the users to engage in discussions to resolve the problem, neither user has taken part in such discussions and the edit/revert war has continued." Further, 23 editor has shown no interest, even in the edit summary. Indeed, he did not even leave comments in the edit summary expressing a wish to hold a discussion in the article's talk page and reach a consensus, instead, he kept edit warring. This is the problem I am having. So when I read 23 editor has been trying to get a discussion going, I ask how and where? Because he surely didn't do it in the talk page where it should be done, and still haven't done so. For the record, I am taking no one's side. I think they are both as bad as each other regarding their edit wars. My issue is the fairness (based on policy) in which Future Perfect has passed his judgement. At present, I have not been convinced. Tamsier (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 23 editor went to Navyworth's talk page and asked for sources. Surely not the best choice of venue, but still better than nothing. Huon (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've said it : "Surely not the best choice of venue..." As regards to whether it is better than nothing, I think that is a subjective opinion. 23 editor practically posted to Navyworth's talk page accusing him of vandalism (a civility breach especially in this heated issues) and then talked about general consensus which he had played no part in reaching even after being invited by R-41 on the talk page, which he still has not contributed to other than edit warring. Surprised he talked about discussion on the talk page but did not part take in the open discussion other than edit war. This brings me back to my point above, they are as bad as each other regarding their edit wars. Now if Future Perfect found it fit to block one, he should have found it fit to block the other. If he decided to give one a mere warning, then he should have done the same for the other.Tamsier (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I was the one who posted the original complaint here about both users behaviour, what I will say is that there are different levels of administrative action that I believe were needed here. On the issue of strong combativeness and highly uncivil behaviour in violation of Wikipedia principles - Navyworth required a reprimand on the account of combativeness, this will serve as a reminder that such behaviour will not be taken lightly. so I support Fut. Perf's decision on that issue. However I somewhat agree with Tamsier that 23 Editor's behaviour has been very uncooperative. Outside of the issue of Navyworth's uncivil combativeness that deserved a reprimand, I believe both Navyworth and 23 Editor require the following clear and direct warning: that any further revert warring between them or others will result in immediate administrative action via a topic-ban on the Montenegrins article for both users.--R-41 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, considering the extensive edit-warring on the issue of whether to identify "Montenegrins" as just those who identify as ethnic Montenegrins or whether to identify "Montenegrins" as the citizens of Montenegro (that includes ethnic Montenegrin, Serb, Bosniak, etc.) needs to be resolved via an administrator-overseen Request for Comment - with the administrator serving as both a moderator between the more heated partisans who support one side or the other. The Request for Comment must also include asking users for sources that show when the earliest time that a Montenegrin ethnicity was used and evidence for when ethnic Montenegrin identity became extensively accepted.--R-41 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Cydebot
This bot is running amok and needs to be corrected - it is currently adding this:Category:American tempura painters to articles about artists who paint with tempera the category should read: Category:American tempera painters. Unless of course they all cook Japanese, someone needs to change the bot...Modernist (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being taken care of by User:The Bushranger...Modernist (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bot isn't running loose; it was told to move articles from category 1 to category 2, and it so happens that the instructions misspelled the name of category 2. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright backlog at WP:CP up to 38 days
I decided I was going to remove it from my watchlist when I announced my break from CP because I can't keep up with it and I can't stand to watch the backlog grow, but I just have to point this out. The "Advice for admins" pages tries to make it easier for admins who want to pitch in. I'd say maybe we could use some more clerks, but I wouldn't even know who to approach. If anybody wants to take a stab at it, it can use all the help it can get. The more the merrier. Many hands, light work. Name your cliche. It just needs people. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright problems
 * Copyright problems/Advice for admins
 * I addressed the open issues on 18 May, so you can skip to 20 May if you want to work on oldest. (I've never closed a day before, so checking to make sure how.) I now know. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Carnildo
For exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools, including his recent block of User:Itsmejudith, User:Carnildo's administrative tools are removed. Carnildo may regain the administrative tools in the usual manner via a successful Request for Adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss this
 * In response to my question, a link was posted — this decision was the result of an arbitration case, not an emergency decision. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Advertising
This websites ravensprogressivematrices[.]com/ created 4/2012 edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices#External_links many times for Advertising and money. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by LANA5588 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We generally allow a link to an official website, so I've reverted your deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also note that you have removed the link 5 times in the past 24 hours (and 11 times in the past 2 weeks), using your new account and the IP User:<IP_ADDRESS>. This is called edit warring and is not allowed under Wikipedia's policies, so please stop before someone decides to block you from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LANA5588 reverted again, and another editor reported to the AN3 board. I suggest that there's nothing for admins to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

massive over-wikilinking
We have a new editor,, who out of enthusiasm has added wikilinks to phantosmia to several dozen articles. I am going to use rollback to revert most of them, because any other approach is too much work. This is not an incident requiring intervention; I am simply letting it be known what I am going to do. I will give the editor a pointer to this section. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now done what I said I would. Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It should probably be noted that they were adding it to the See Also section, as opposed to wikilinking an already existing use of the term, which is what I thought "added wikilinks" meant before looking at the diffs. - SudoGhost 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I should have been clearer. Wikilinking existing uses, or even adding new text that uses the term, would not have been a problem. Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Webkinz stuffed animals
The prod on List of Webkinz stuffed animals was removed one hour after the 7-day cutoff. Does this still go to AFD or not? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still goes to AfD. The point of the 7 days is to give someone a chance to object, but its the objection that counts, not the timing of it. You can also get a WP:REFUND of most prodded articles without much struggle, so it wouldn't make sense to delete it with an outstanding objection. Monty  845  01:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree with Monty. I (as well as many other admins) undelete most PRODed articles upon simple request.  AfD is best course here, as you've done. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Ban for User:RJR3333 banning him from editing The To Catch a Predator article and the Chris Hansen article
I suggest that I be article banned from the To Catch a Predator article and the Chris Hansen article because my edits there have been to disruptive. --RJR3333 (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Please see ANI topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Why in (insert deity's name here)'s name would you open a separate section on a separate board when a related discussion is already underway? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Chronic Spammer
While patrolling WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology I reverted a spam edit by <IP_ADDRESS>. When I visited their talkpage to leave them a notice of the action, I discovered that they have been warned repeatedly about spamming. I have two questions: Kthapelo (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this the appropriate place to address this issue? And
 * 2) Do I need to do anything else?
 * WP:AIV is the place for quick reports about obvious spam accounts. DMacks (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reverted several questionable links he inserted regarding for-profit business colleges. See and . 81M (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 * You might alsowant to read WP:BLACKLIST. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimapia
Concerns about the site Wikimapia's suitability as a citation source or external link have been raised at the reliable sources, and External Links noticeboards respectively. Feedback would appreciated as before starting to remove links (as opposed to mere commenting out), I was needing consensus. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Gang rape - unlock
I wanted to create a new article about gang rape, but I found out that the redirect is locked. Can anyone unlock it? --Clidog (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you try on the talkpage? 81M (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know about the template. I've added it to the discussion. --Clidog (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you don't, not least because your common interest in climate might get people thinking that you're another sockpuppet of Giornorosso, whose edit warring was what got that article protected in the first place. If you are willing to weather such sockpuppetry investigations, then you would do well to work up an article at Articles for creation, or in your user space, first. Even better yet, expand Types of rape (properly!) to the point that it is obvious that summary style breakout is warranted. "I have written an article and here it is." is a far better approach than "I want to write an article at some vague point in the future; and I'm not that sockpuppetteer, honest.". Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not interested in writing the article, it fact, I only wanted to use the text from the page it redirects to. In any case thanks for "willingness". --Clidog (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what the sockpuppetteer did. As I said, I recommend that you avoid looking like the edit warring sockpuppetteer.  How are we supposed to reconcile "I wanted to create a new article" with "I'm not interested in writing the article", by the way? Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't give a fuck about this shit, I'm no sockpupeteer and I have no obligation not to act like one. I only wanted to create a new article and this is what I get. You can check my IP to see that I'm not "Giornorosso". --Clidog (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, barring proof, I have no comment on the sock issue. It has been suggested that you create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT of the article you wish to create.  A simple copy/paste of what's on the other article will not do, as it's horrifically incomplete and would not be a useful article.  If you're not a sock, don't allow yourself to be drawn in.  Draft a useful article.  Period.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting reaction to a perfectly legitimate question.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to politely ask you not to provoke me even more.--Clidog (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to provoke you Clidog, you have to understand that when somebody uses multiple accounts to make the same page that community has decided is not wanted, then you come along and say you want to do exactly the same thing, it causes suspicion - we have no way of knowing you're a different person without running a potentially intrusive WP:CHECKUSER. As you have already been told, if you are interested in writing an article about this subject then please do so, in a sandbox page or at WP:AFC. Otherwise just leave it alone--Jac 16888 Talk 20:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * sock blocked. WilliamH (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI backlog
It looks to me as though there is a substantial backlog at WP:SPI. Requesting that anyone willing and able to do something take a look. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect needed
I need a file named  containing the wikicode   so that the last entry of PA icon will work correctly. Useddenim (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Couldn't you create it yourself?  Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No; I kept getting a "prohibited filename" message that told me I needed an admin to create the file. But thanks for the fix. Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible creation of hoax articles
I'm not sure this is the right place to put such a complaint, but it appears that is creating hoax articles for which there are no sources (at least not according to Google). -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 07:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as my tired brain can tell, he's creating complete hoaxes. I just tagged one for speedy, but the rest can probably be safely tagged for speedy as well.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can testify that fluorine perchlorate is real. The others, however, are not. Never mind. I see now that he did not create fluorine perchlorate. In that case, they're all hoaxes. CSD'd. Evanh2008 (talk 07:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked by Materialscientist.-- Makecat  Talk  08:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have indeffed this user and deleted three article they created - those were claims of revolutionary discoveries which could not be confirmed by any web search (like superconductivity at impossibly high temperatures - better say hoaxes). The user was editing from an open proxy and was clearly familiar with the inner working of wikipedia (engaging the RFP and AIV boards from first edits). Likely a block evasion, but I don't know who. Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He seems to be User:李煌教授 because checkuser has confirmed he used a sockpuppet named zh:User:赵明毅教授 on zhwiki. -- Makecat  Talk  08:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a straightforward case for applying a checkuser scan. This is a good evidence of a web proxy that might need a proxyblock (maybe a rangeblock). Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

CSD backlog
Chaohu, which was tagged under CSD-G6 (db-move) more than 40 hours ago, has yet to be attended to. Also, the following have been tagged for at least 12 hours: I don't care that a few admins may still be in the dark after that nasty derecho back on 29 June—there should be other admins dealing with, and ideally preventing, backlogs globally, and this is unacceptable. GotR Talk 16:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) El Ángel, 37 hrs
 * 2) Thomas Massie, 20 hrs
 * 3) Soban Jat, 19 hrs
 * 4) Ying e Chi, 17 hrs
 * What's the rush? "Speedy" means "anything less than the 7 days required for PROD or AFD".  Have a little more respect for the project, policies (and admins).  There certainly is no backlog (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the policy for CSD was 24 hours, so this is really a mis-understanding, not being "damned rude". Besides, up until now, every G6 I have tagged has been decided on within 12 hours. GotR Talk 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is generally no grace period with CSDs they are actioned as soon as an admin gets around to it. I've removed the tags on the last two, they should really go through AfD. Monty  845  17:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunno what a derecho is but the db-move requests are all sorted now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See June 2012 North American derecho. Graham 87 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Give us admins a goddamn pay raise and maybe we'll move faster :) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, effective tomorrow, pay is doubled. Now, back to work. SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's not quite the same thing, but when I glance at the CSD backlog and see 36 items, I decide to work on Copyright problems, where the backlog isn't 37 hours, it is 38 days, or OTRS, where the backlog is 47 days. SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Just a side comment. In the past I have declined CSDs that sit for over 24 hours.  These are ones that I do not feel comfortable deleting myself, but also are not clearly declinable under any other obvious reasons.  My logic is that, if they have sat at CSD for over 24 hours, and no admin has felt comfortable either deleting or declining in that time, then that fact by itself is an indication that Speedy Deletion is likely not the proper deletion system, and a fuller AFD debate is likely warranted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * "Speedy" doesn't really mean "Must be done immediately". It means "Obvious candidate for deletion so we can bypass the week of haggling at AfD". If there were G10s sitting around being ignored, that would be a big concern; but if something like a G6 or an A9 or maybe a db-talk is left visible for a day, it's not going to do the encyclopædia serious harm. bobrayner (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger
Could an uninvolved admin close the merger proposal at Talk:Church of the Nativity? Looks pretty clear to me, but as this is a very contentious area I'd rather follow the rules to the letter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I've made a closure, with a brief personal recommendation on how to proceed about the trimming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over User Page
User:ThomasMoore1852 is my alternative account, the user page is being edit warred over because I prefer to redirect it into mainspace. Rather than go to rfpp immediately, would someone here please address this issue. Thank you kindly. ThomasMoore1852 a.k.a. Penyulap  ☏  01:08, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

 * Stop redirecting it to mainspace. Problem solved. Somebody looking to direct a question or comment to a specific editor should not be directed away from that editor's user/talk pages. --auburn pilot  talk  05:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Is this guy asking to be blocked for edit warring? S/he's identified that it's an edit war and certainly violates WP:UP.  Toddst1 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That policy only restricts user talk redirects, on what grounds did you delete the userpage? Also see WP:3RRNO, its not a violation of policy and therefor he is permitted to edit war on his own userpace. Monty  845  07:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, WP:UP talks only about user talk pages not to be redirect to mainspace, and within an own userspace this is not edit warring - please undelete and stop vandalising this user's userpage. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the warning on the user's talkpage should also be removed. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Missed the specific about talk page. Apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have intended to put some clarification onto the policy page in the future, but I gave up in the present because of the inevitable shouts of creep made in the past. Penyulap  ☏  13:47, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

RfC
there is sufficient confusion over the issue elsewhere to warrant a RfC here. Penyulap  ☏  19:50, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that there is an RfC on the issue, might I recommend that everyone stop reverting each other? This is getting ridiculous, and there's no reason to continue the conflict when we'll have a definitive answer to whether it's allowed or not once the RfC closes. Penyulap, the "letter of the law" may not currently say that you can't do what you've done, but the fact remains that if your editing is in dispute and you've been asked to stop, you're supposed to stop. Everyone who's reverting Penyulap, why get deeper into the dispute when the community will give you an answer soon enough? Leave it up to the RfC. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you figure it's time for me to ask at rfpp as I intended, to stop everyone, including admins, warring over my own userpage. Hey, quick show of hands, how many people think I'm doing this on purpose ? lol. Penyulap  ☏  21:42, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

 * Actually, the RFC was improperly closed, which might explain why it is continuing. Since no one has demonstrated any harm by the redirect, and no one can show where policy prohibits it, and I can show where policy went out of its way to not prohibit it, I can only assume that a great many people are mistaken about this issue.  That I have to even spend the time to defend this silly little redirect shows how overly bureaucratic and domineering we've gotten as a community recently.  As Wikipedians, this is not our finest hour.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©  13:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is disallowed per policy.  UP#SUB and  UPYES.     Specifically UPYES, which states :

Details about yourself should not normally go in the main encyclopedia namespace (reserved for encyclopedia articles only), and encyclopedia articles should never link to any userspace pages.

Linking his userpage to a main page runs counter to this,explicitly. Further, while you don't have to have anything on your user page, you are allowed to redirect it to  your talk page only, per UP#SUB: User page Your user page has a name like this: User:Example. (This link is to yours.) Its normal use is to give basic information if you wish, about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. You don't have to say anything about yourself. If you prefer to put nothing here then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors. It never allows for a redirect anywhere else. Just my .02 "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 16:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * UPYES says "Details about yourself should not normally go in the main encyclopedia namespace ..." - this is information in the user namespace. "... and encyclopedia articles should never link to any uyserspace pages" (my emphasis) - this is the reverse, hence, there is nothing that says anything.
 * UPSUB says "If you prefer to put nothing here then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors." - however, if a user prefers to have something else there (say, a redirect to mainspace) then there is nothing in that sentence that prohibits that. We may not like it, and we can talk to the editor and try to convince them, but in the end, there is no policy basis that prohibits this (and there should not be).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With links, they are one-way, and the policy doesn't really mention that. So when you read it with that in mind, that they link only one way, it will clear that up for you. Userpages just for the time being can state you're an alien from another planet, or editors can insult themselves and talk nonsense. No doubt there will be editors who will make demands one day in the future that userpages be regulated with maybe even a new BLP/U drama board for issues like "Editor X says they come from Africa, met Michael Jackson and they do brilliant editing, I dispute that, blah bla bla citation needed blah bla Jackson was already dead bla bla blah". But for now it's the locker where we can put our approved personal possessions prior to labouring at the cube farm. Penyulap  ☏  01:31, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Has everyone finished yet ?
Not that I mind the attention from so many editors, admin and non-admin alike, fighting to own my userpage, but do you think if it is not too much to ask, that the page be returned to it's former state whilst people argue or get sick of arguing or whatever ? I've already enjoyed the lovely example of how Vet editors are followed about while they do their boring routine and are halted by critics yelling "HA! I found something" like a kid with a metal detector who just found pirates gold at the beach. I can see how they'd be concerned (I'm not) about continuing to work when admins itching to block and don't need real excuses form a throng. Because who cares if they are wrong ? I consider Toddst1 as both competent and trustworthy because he/she admits to being human, and let's face facts, we are all human. Toddst1 is not part of the editor retention issue I expect, being able to admit a mistake (even if he/she turns out to be correct) is an obvious hallmark of someone who we can build a community around.

Meanwhile, Future Perfect at Sunrise seems to have appointed them self supreme ruler of my userpage, may I be so daring and bold to ask why he/she thinks I approve of this state of affairs ? Penyulap  ☏  01:31, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)

 * How about because you don't  own your userpage.

"....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-></b> 11:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Mop-wielders needed
The backlog at Copyright_problems is at 38 days, and now long enough that it is creating a technical problem, as the template include size is exceeded.

The best solution is to cut down the backlog. The backlog had been kept manageable most through the efforts of Moonriddengirl, who has temporarily "retired" from CP, if it is correct to call it a retirement—she decided to work on the longer backlog at CCI

There's ten or so items a day, for roughly 400 items in the backlog. If every admin addressed ONE item, there wouldn't be enough to go around.

Actively ensuring that we do not permit copyright violations is critical to the existence of Wikipedia. I'm not going to pretend it is fun work, but it often requires reading the whole article, and I've learned about some people and events I might not have learned about otherwise.

Please do at least one, and we'll have the backlog reduced in no time. SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Let me add my plea to this. The problem is actually worse than it appears, as there is much undetected copyvio. I seem to be removing copyvio almost every day without working at CCI. I'm trying not to add editors there, which may be a mistake as it makes the numbers look smaller than they are. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirded. I'm helping out when I can but as I'm currently travelling this isn't very often.  As well as the technical issues this also means that there are probably hundreds of articles which are either partially or entirely blanked.  Advice for dealing with these listings is at WP:CPAA. Dpmuk (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourthed! I'm only a CP clerk, not an admin, so I can only completely resolve some types of CP listings, e.g. those not needing revision deletion or whole article deletion. If you're new to working at CP, be sure to leave a quick note under the article's listing saying what you have done and that it's resolved. You don't have to use the symbols if you find that too fiddly. But don't delete the whole listing when you've resolved it. We need to keep track of how many articles we've dealt with there and how we dealt with them. Doug is absolutely right. What is at CP is only the tip of the iceberg. :/ Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Welcome to yet another symptom of the decline of Wikipedia. Not to worry though, the Foundation's right on it sticking their thumbs in the cracks via editor retention. Smart, them thar folks. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonder what effect it would have if we restricted article creation to autoconfirmed users? Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one potential solution of many. It may take many solutions. Bottom line, content over time is becoming increasingly static with less and less creation. With the decline in editorship (now in its fifth year I believe) there needs to be a strategic plan in place for long term survivability of the content. There is, to my knowledge, no such plan now other than ineffectual (to the overall purpose) attempts at editor retention. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, we've been barking up that tree for over a year now; tell them. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit summary linked the ACTRIAL page; I too was disgusted by the response from WMF. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I also partially blame the RFA process for this. I for one would help with some but I am not an admin nor likely ever to be, so even if I found a problem, all I could do would be to refer it to someone with access. If admins weren't the only ones that could do some of the other tasks that currently are restricted only to admins and some of us old timers that have been around for years and with hundreds of thousands of edits, but have for various reasons been deemed as not trustworthy enough to wield the mop, then more admins would be freed up to do some of these other things. Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I shoot a lot of these on sight while doing long stubs cleanup. Another list that is excessively large, but less critical.  One note on the list, it seems to be stale, probably due to what others have reported as database problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The list isn't really stale - the individual days are still being created and should contain listings - they're just not being transcluded onto the main page due to too many transclusions. Not idea but at least it means those listings won't be lost. Dpmuk (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it isn't blatantly obvious you can't be trusted? You haven't reached 500,000 edits yet without getting blocked. Of course, the fact that you have over 350,000 edits means you've been around too long to be trusted with the extra tools. I'm quite positive there would be an enormous amount of damage to the project if you were made an administrator, and worse since there's no effective way to remove an administrator who makes bad decisions, we're all terrified of the abyss the project would descend into if you were granted the admin bit. Besides, I'm sure the 9 admins we'll promote the last six months of this year will gladly step forward and focus on this area of concern. Your services just aren't needed! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, I respectfully, but vociferously disagree. The most important tool in a CP task is editing ability. In second place is general commonsense judgment (which is not as common as it should be) and maybe in third place is access to tools. Open and shut, this was a pure copy of some site without question does require the admin bit to delete, but most of those are picked up and handled as CSD G12. If it gets to CP, it is probably because it is a mixture of copying and original prose, or there's some question about which was copied from what, or the paraphrase is a bit close for comfort. The solution to the first and third is editing, the solution to the second is a little detective work, neither of which requires the admin bit. I guarantee that if you rewrite some prose so it now complies with our guidelines, but think a couple revisions should be revdel's and post on the CP page that all is fine except for the revdel, you'll earn my undying gratitude, and I’ll happy wield the mop for the easy cleanup.

 * A perfect example is Bloody Knife (7 July). A GA review found some close paraphrasing issues. It is well-written enough that it should be fixed by someone who can take the care to improve it, not hack out some of the problematic sections. If done correctly, it will result in a GA, and no admin need be involved. (I don't think we need to rev del everything but don't tell MRG I said that) SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * indeed, i think the policy is or at least should be that rev del is needed only when the copyright holder requests it, or perhaps in certain exceptional cases where there is no possibility of a fair use defense, though I find it difficult to imagine any. In general, since WP has an educational purpose, our use is transformational in making a free encyclopedia, &  is most unlikely to cause anyone commercial harm,  even if the work were poetry or fiction & we used the whole work, a plausible US fair use defense is possible in essentially all cases.  We choose to restrict ourselves further (which I accept is a prudent policy and a wise choice by the Foundation) and therefore should delete to match our own self-imposed requirements; the only reason to rev del even upon outside demand is to retain good will in the conventional publishing community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 July 2012
 * Actually, not all that many articles require rev del. It's normally sufficient to simply remove the offending text from the article, either by chop or rephrase or by reverting to a clean version. And that's what we do on the whole. The value of rev del has to be balanced against (1) losing attribution for the intervening editors who didn't add copyvio, and (2) the complexity of the task for the admin. It's easy if it's all been added as one chunk, and no one else has worked on it. Otherwise, it's often best to leave the old versions unless we get a complaint. There are a few cases where the copyvio is so pervasive and foundational and often from multiple sources, that the only solution is a complete re-write on a temp page and deletion of the previous version. Even as a non-admin, I'm able to clean many many articles at CP either by excision or rewriting on a temp page, and only ask for an admin when an article needs to be replaced with the rewrite. Voceditenore (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the suggestion that requiring auto-confirmation to create articles would help this situation, I don't think it would make a real difference. The majority of the problems I see are copyvio added to the article after it's been created. For example, 3 years after Pasadena High School (Pasadena, Texas) was created, this little beauty was added. Two years after Yale Law School was created, this chunk of copypaste was added. Also, a fair amount of the copyvio I have dealt with has come from long-term and sometimes prolific editors—just take a look at Contributor copyright investigations. Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have little experience with CCI work, but I tend to agree that most necessary work can be very effectively done without admin tools. I also have a vague impression that reducing our collective level of copyright perfectionism could help in dealing with the backlog. I don't think that going the extra mile by revision-deleting offending content adds much of value: As long as the problem content remains hidden in the history, it no longer exists for most practical purposes. Also, while close paraphrasing is a big deal to some, I find it hard to get excited about it: as long as there is a citation attached to the text that makes it clear where it draws inspiration from, I prefer close but accurate paraphrasing to an original but inaccurate representation of the source's meaning.  Sandstein   13:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

AE backlog
If any admin fancies getting roundly criticized and deafened by indignant protests and wrathful recriminations, please head towards the AE arena where your services would be appreciated. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'<font color="#990000">Ankh '.<font color="#000099">Morpork  16:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Draw another goblet from the cask of 43... I guess I'll do what I can, but we definitely need at least a couple other admins; I've commented in one discussion already, and I don't want to close that myself because it's not a particularly straightforward problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We really aren't being paid enough for this... T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I stopped participating in AE after, when I made an AE block and another administrator undid it without discussion, I found that the Arbitration Committee was not interested in effectively and rapidly enforcing its rule which forbids such reversals - it took the Committee a ridiculous two months of full arbitration proceedings (WP:AESH) to come to a non-result consisting of ineffectual advisements, cautions and reminders. Based on this hugely time-wasting experience, combined with the tendency of regular AE work to attract the undying hatred of editors from all sides of all nasty ethno-religious conflicts that play out on Wikipedia (as noted by AnkhMorpork), I've come to the conclusion that AE is not a time-effective way of contributing to improving Wikipedia (although, of course, the experience of others may vary).  Sandstein  12:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Communications of Barack Obama
Could someone please move Communications of Barack Obama back to Barack Obama on Twitter until a proper page move request is initiated. The current content of the article does not support the recent page move.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Face it, Tony. The article will be restructured, rewritten, and re-evaluated in no time. Seriously, I like this title because we will take out all the crap about Twitter. Even though there is no consensus to delete, this doesn't prevent making changes to the article itself. --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, what you are doing is saying even though the consensus was that this topic is appropriate, you want to change it to have your own way without a discussion. This is not a minor revision and should await consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is saying you don't like the fact that this survived the AFD, so I a am going to totally change the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm too tired to discuss anything about you. Not tired to discuss what matters for general readers primarily. Leaving this article as an article about Twitter by Obama would make both editors create such stuff to other celebrities and readers jump into conclusions generally about Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTICE The AFD nominator has reverted this administrator change without consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What actions are appropriate against an AFD nominator who won't give up the fight. He needs to await consensus through the proper channels.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored the page to the version as of the close of AfD and protected the page for three days. -- RA  (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Downloading large numbers of pictures
I'm working on a project that will require me to download large amounts of pictures from Wikipedia. I've been trying to find some advice about the best way to do this without breaking any Wikipedia rules or guidelines, but have had no response to my question on the help desk. I have heard that using Wikix is the best way to do this, but some people have reported being blocked from Wikipedia by using the utility. There is one such example here. Can anyone here advise me on whether using Wikix is allowed? And if it is allowed, are there any restrictions on download speed or time of day? Thanks,Nozzleberry (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me ask what sort of numbers your talking about...a couple hundred or a couple thousand? IS there a certain category or filter your using to determine which ones you want? That might help to get a better idea of how best it can be done. Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your response. I think it will probably be around 10 thousand or so pictures but it may be less. It will be pictures from a large spectrum of different articles, not just a whole category or anything. I do want to download only pictures that have a copyright tag allowing re-use though. RegardsNozzleberry (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * From Wikipedia or from Commons? For example, if you look at the article Cancer all of the images except File:Breast cancer gross appearance.jpg are actually at Wikimedia Commons (and even that file may be moved before long).  Most re-usable images are stored there instead of at the English Wikipedia.  We mostly kee non-free images here.  If you want to download images from anything except those few stored directly at the English Wikipedia, then you'll need to ask for advice where the images are actually stored.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I see, it sounds like I may be able to limit my downloads to only files from Commons then. Is there a need to notify anybody or ask for permission if I wanted to complete regular downloads of up to 10,000 images (say once a month) from Commons?Nozzleberry (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a requirement for that, as part of the CC-BY-SA license is that permission is not required. Just be sure that you follow the individual license requirements for each image. (There may be a bandwidth issue, but you'd have to ask someone more technically minded). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)#

Many thanks to all for the advice :) I'll probably just give it a go and see how I get on, but will use a low download speed so as to not hog the bandwidth. Regards, Nozzleberry (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the question here about the use of bandwidth that downloading 10,000 images would cause? I think that's a question for the foundation's tech guys maybe?  Commons would know better.--v/r - TP 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bandwidth is the main issue I was wondering about. Is there a place to post a question to the 'tech guys'? Or do you think I should just post it on the commons discussion page? Thanks Nozzleberry (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask your question here and specifically mention that you are concerned about bandwidth misuse.--v/r - TP 17:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do that now...Thank you very much indeed for your time! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozzleberry (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny article
(first paragraph) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_A_Rock

Tee Hee... — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed and warning left for the editor in question, thanks. BencherliteTalk 14:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem articles - possible fraud?
I noticed a page with suspicious content today, and tried to get some help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China and Help_desk, but so far no useful suggestion. I apologize if this is not the right place to raise this issue, but since wiki may be used here to commit fraud, I thought the administrators might be interested in the matter.

I will repeat here what I said in the other pages. Many of the items (possibly all of them) shown in the Ancient Old Jade page appear to be fakes, some of them obviously so. For example the figure of a servant girl holding a lamp is a copy of a bronze figure discovered in a tomb - second picture, while the warrior figure is copied from figures of the Terracotta Army (these figures are never found to be made of jade in ancient China). Since many of the others also have similar appearance, those are also likely to be fakes. It seems that the pieces used for illustration in these pages are sold at auction, for example the piece at this |auction site (which I traced from the editor/uploader's own website here ), the same piece is used to illustrate the article here (the last one in the section). There is a very strong suspicion that wiki is being used to commit fraud here - the pages are created and the images are posted in these pages to give spurious authenticity to the items which are then sold to the unwary. Other suspicious pages I found are Jade carved WuengJonq and Mutton fat white jade (although this is a legitimate term for a certain kind of jade), all involving the users Orionandhsu, Orionwebmuseum, and OrionHsu (all likely the same person, one of these accounts is blocked indefinitely). I don't know what the rules are for these and what should be done to the article or the users, I have placed a warning on Ancient Old Jade although I don't know if this is the right way of doing it. Hzh (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there really is a right way to do it, so this was as good as any. I too am finding those images extremely suspicious, and I'd fully support their mass removal at least for the time being.  Better to discover some of them are real and reinsert them than have misleading images in articles.  I don't want to screw with the formatting, so I'll let someone who's better with such things handle it.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Ancient Old Jade. Thank you. Only bronze or earth works of art would be used to copy jade carved works of art, because jade is much more expensive than bronze and earth. In ancient China, jades are the privileged items of Royal and Noble families. So they would not have been used to copy other works of art and became Fakes. Besides from the carvings of the jade, we can easily judge the finished years and dynasties of jade carved works of art. How can you find an Ancient Old Jade and an ancient imperial jade carving master to do the Fake in modern world? The carvings of Ancient Old Jade can tell the truth. Modern Fakes have no natural earth soakage colors at all. How can you create the extremely firm and solid jade soakage colors over 2000 years in modern world to cheat those trully experienced jade experts existing everywhere in the world? --Orionandhsu (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Authenticity aside, the number of images in that article is clearly excessive. We don't need five different images to show a single colour of jade, let alone five images of the same object at different orientations. One image of each colour would be perfectly sufficient. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * They are not authentic. The originals of two examples I have given were created for specific purposes - the terracotta warriors were used to guard the emperor in his after life, the servant girl holding a lamp is exactly that, a lamp.  Note the odd placement of the right hand of the figure in the bronze original, that's because it serves as a chimney for the smoke.  The form serves a function. The fact that the  jade figure  has the exact same form suggest that it is a copy because it has no function in jade.  Also note the difference in quality of the sculpture, the jade one is clearly inferior when it is supposed to be more valuable.  Note also the red outline in the jade figure, which I have never seen that in jade.  No figures of warrior in jade has even been found in China (nor in terracotta before they were found), so the jade one is likely to have been a copy, if the jade warrior is real, it would have made the news, and I have never heard anything like that. There are plenty of images of ancient jade in the web, and none of them look remotely like some of the pieces shown in the page (for example the pieces next to the girl holding lamp), that that would suggest that those aren't jade at all.  Hzh (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I have nominated Ancient Old Jade for deletion. See here. Silver  seren C 07:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can the other pages likely to have been created by the same user, Jade carved WuengJonq, be nominated for deletion as well? It is also suspicious, and serve no purpose apart from advertising for the creator of the page.  Mutton fat white jade, while a legitimate term in jade, may no warrant its own page, but I'll leave it to others to decide. Hzh (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC):::
 * I've also nominated these for deletion.  Sandstein   13:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Left a comment at the Commons AN asking for Special:Nuke. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I have filed a sockpuppet investigation request at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Orionwebmuseum. -Zanhe (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like a possible legal threat to me. DarkAudit (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

disprutive edits on Jim Parsons
Hello, Even though Jim Parsons has skipped "I'M GAY" on Time magazine cover User:Bbb23 removes LGBT cats and removes referenced content. See talk page I added 12 secondary references for coming out of Jim Parsons but there is too much WP:WL Ladsgroupبحث 18:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, there is plenty of discussion on the talk page, some of it contributed by you. It seems that you have not carefully read the comments made by other editors, which seem to lead to this consensus. At any rate, this does not require any admin attention, IMO. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a sad indictment of some Wikipedia editors. We have a NYT article that tells us biographical information not in the Wikipedia biography — such as that the subject at one point wanted to be a meteorologist and took a course in it at university, and the occupations of his parents — and  and talk about for almost a month is a meta-issue about sexuality.  Stop obsessing over homosexuality and start writing an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERM
Note to admins who patrol/sometimes patrol WP:PERM...due to some issues with non-admin commentary and closing of PERM requests, we're trying to gauge the need/possible roles of non-admin clerk-type work on WP:PERM. Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 4 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please briefly explain the issues you're referring to and provide diffs. Nobody Ent 12:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to the talk page Bwilkins pointed to and simply look upwards. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler vs copyvio
I've come across a situation and I am unsure how to proceed. In broad strokes, a current reality tv series contest has a loser at the end of the show, the reveal at the end being one of the major draws of the show (ie. why people wait until the end of the program). Someone posts that uncited result within scant hours of the show's broadcast. I get that we don't do spoilers and we aren't censored, but doesn't posting the results of such a series infringe on its copyright, or interfere with its ability to draw its intended audience? Should there be a waiting period or something? What is the imperative on posting immediately? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Facts cannot be copyrighted; a claim that just writing so-and-so won this reality show infringes on that show's copyright is about as valid as claiming that writing the Detroit Lions won the Superbowl infringes on the league's copyright. Too much detail, on the other hand, may be a violation. As for spoilers, generally it is accepted to post them as soon as possible. When The Dark Knight Rises is released we will have a fully plot summary within a day (if not hours), at which point the worry will be to avoid putting too much detail in (for copyright reasons). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack Sebastian's concerns are related to posts that he made insisting that immediately posting the results of The Glee Project somehow violated copyright because of advertising revenue. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the fact is copyvio or not (it isn't), if it's unsourced it should be removed. Watching the episode then writing the final result here unsourced is original research. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The episode itself, with cite episode, is a perfectly appropriate source (assuming the citation is actually provided). It's a primary source, sure, but fine for reporting straightforward facts. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack mentioned the fact was 'uncited'. That said, as per WP:RS, 'material based purely on primary sources should be avoided'. It's my view that an episode with no supporting secondary sources is not sufficient. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  06:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question above was not if it should be in the article, but if the inclusion is a copyvio (it's not). Primary sources in an article about the subject are fine (think of film plots, for example). They are not allowed for establishing notability, but for content it's okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For content, especially mundane content, primary sources are fine. They are the exception to the rule. If the content definitely improves the article, and neither its neutrality nor its interpretation are in question, then there's nothing wrong with citing a primary source. Saying who won a contest is definitely an improvement to the article on that contest. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Crisco: Primary sources for film plots is not fine, though. That's a question that was raised in the archive at WT:RS here. Plot summaries necessarily require analysis and interpretation, which must be done by secondary sources.
 * Someguy: I don't agree. WP:RS is policy, and 'should' is a deontic imperative that denotes obligation. We're an encyclopedia, not a newswire; there's no rush to get to-the-second information in our articles. Given a day, I have no doubt there'd be plenty of reliable third-party sources available for us to make better quality use of. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  06:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Null, you'd be arguing against consensus. The plot summary has long been established as not needed secondary sources (or even footnotes). Analysis of the plot, themes, and whatnot does need references. Check out pretty much any film or episode featured article. Primary sources are, by consensus, acceptable for mundane facts and to fill gaps. Do we really need a secondary source to show that Bruce Wayne masquerades as Batman, when the primary sources already have it? No. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of secondary sources backing that fact up. We're talking about using a primary source where no secondary sources are present. That situation should not occur in our articles. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  06:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open an RFC on that if you wish, but I doubt you'd get anywhere. The issue will not be resolved here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the WP:RS discussion mentioned is almost 5 years old and had little participation. This discussion happened a few years later and while it was primary about spoilers the primary sources were discussed and most of the people in that discussion agreed that primary sources can be used. The discussion is Village pump (proposals)/Spoilers. Since this discussion happened at a later date and had vastly more participation than the other one I think it should take precedence. There are likely more discussions that support this.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the discussion Village pump (policy)/Archive 75 from April 2010 came to the same conclusion against requiring secondary sources for plot sections. Also like the previous discussion it had a greater participation that the earlier discussion mentioned. To get the use of primary sources overturned we will need more that a sparsely covered discussion from 2007.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as the show has aired under normal broadcast situations, any normal summary of the contents is fair game on WP. --M ASEM (t) 05:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The broadcasted episodes are acceptable primary sources for plot summaries that do not require interpretation or analysis, and plot summaries tend to consist of uncopyrightable facts (of what happened on screen). The issue of spoiling viewers' entertainment, or limiting a show's commercial prospects, are not concerns of ours.  Sandstein   13:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It has been well established for years that straight-forward description of the plot of a show or book is acceptably and usually best sourced from the work itself, and that if it is reported in one's own words it is not copyvio. Analysis must be taken from a source; I do not think it is established whether the show's own summary of motivations and similar basic analysis is an acceptable source, but I think it would be--if used as a source, not for for a copypaste. That said, 90% of our plot descriptions are directly copied from the program's own descriptions,and this is not acceptable: first, it is copyvio, and second the program's summary is almost always deliberately a teaser that avoids giving the outcome, and is often written in such a way as to not say the specifics of what actually happens. That we do always give the conclusion if we know it has long been settled, and to persist in removing it is vandalism.  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems a pretty definitive answer, and I appreciate it. I brought the issue here because I thought there was something that I had only dealt with peripherally before. I realize that I was misapprehending the copyright guidelines we had in place. It seems wrong to ruin the reveal of a program/movie/whatever (in that it essentially steals their ability to generate, unimpeded, their income), but I am not sure how to see a way past SPOILER to do so. Thanks for the multiple responses clarifying the issue.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * . I remember hearing on the radio that Ken had lost is marathon winning streak on Jeopardy months before the show was aired. I wish they hadn't as they stated his total but didn't know the exact air date. Would it be out of WPolicy to put a big 'Spoiler' warning on article sections that do this? It may be too late for some, but others may appreciate it. If it is reverted then it can be discussed on the talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Used to be like that. Not anymore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the consensus to delete the spoiler template shows that this is no longer the way things are done Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8. A few months later a similar template Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_15 was deleted as well and that is pretty much where we still stand on this issue. Finally No disclaimers in articles is relevant to the no spoilers rules.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. and Newco Rangers
It looks like Celtic supporters have managed to edit the Rangers F.C. to refer to the team in the past-tense, gotten the page locked, and created a new page at Newco Rangers to reflect the demoted team. This is the same as many recent financial actions - and the entire thing is still in flux. There's huge crystal ballery going on here. It's quite clear that there should only be one article on the existing team, at this time. However any attempt to fix the situation is quickly reverted. Suggestions? Nfitz (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Rangers F.C. is thataway; I suggest you keep there rather than trying to escalate this situation. PS what evidence these guys are Celtic fans? GiantSnowman 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS - forum shopping is not cool. GiantSnowman 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * There seems to be full consensus in recent discussion at the Talk page at Rangers F.C. and still redirects back to that page are reverted. Forum shopping?  Everyone seems to want everyone to be notified by everything. I was trying to make sure I'd notified correctly. Violating WP:GOODFAITH isn't cool. Nfitz (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF doesn't really apply when your opening gambit is to make such broad assumptions about editors you might be in conflict with. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, there's no need for this to escalate into a heated argument. I've already created an AfD for the article, so things can be resolved smoothly and civilly there. <font color="sapphire" size="2px">Robby The Penguin  <font color="blue" size="1px">(talk)   <font color="blue" size="1px">(contribs)  18:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * trust me if there was clear consensus i would be happy to follow it, this is goign to request for ocmmetn which i hjave just complete i have gather evidence for both sides of the argument nd there comply evidence that the club probally is alive but there nearly equal amount of source says the club is dead and liqudited wikipedia cant ingore sources we have to present it the wya it says in the sources. i am only reverting because ther eis no consensus yet teh request for comment hopefulyl will solve this final and hopefulyl the sitution in the media for sources will eb cler this week-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the last afd was for keep penguin so i doubt it will change easily Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * oh nfitz i dnt liek be regarded as celtic fan because i dnt support you, and wher eis the discussion look at the ranger fc page there is about 100 threads ont eh subject not once is there a consensus-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * There seems clear consensus in the final, most recent thread. I never called you a Celtic fan. I called the person who created the new page a Celtic fan. He's been quite open about that. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The afd is coming to a close, and the Newco Rangers article is likely to be deleted, so I believe that the problem has been solved. I believe, however that this case should have been issued at ANI, not AN. <font color="navy" size="2px">Robby The Penguin  <font color="blue" size="1px">(talk)   <font color="blue" size="1px">(contribs)  23:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reading it as likely a no consensus close, with delete most unlikely. And I don't think this should have been at AN or AN/I.  This is clearly a content dispute, telling us that "Celtic fans" did this or that or the other thing wasn't likely to impress admins in the first place.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While my contribution to the debate has been as constructive as possible (as can be seen from my indepth posts, evidence & sources within the talk pages) I don't want to threaten my own credibility with the "the celtic fans done it!" arguement. However, Nfitz does have a point, the creator of the 'newco page' is a user called "superbhoy1888", and another contributor, adam, has a badge on his own wikipedia page "this user is a Celtic fan" and his only contributions that are non-celtic related seem to be negative contributions on Rangers pages.  He even suggested an edit on the 'newco' page to read 'Rangers although a enw club are followed by the same set of fans who hate catholics".  Like i said, i don't want to call my own creidbility into question when I've put forward alot of well sourced evidence and objective points, but I don't think it's an unfair comment to say that self-confessed Celtic supporting contributors have essentially vandalized the article with edits that are fuelled by agenda and bias POV. Ricky072 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

block me
for my disruptive edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenextlike (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is either forum shopping or trolling (I suspect that latter). He/she has left multiple messages at the Help Desk, bureaucrat noticeboard, and my talk page about matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * what's trolling?? also you all are volunteers then what's problem in helping me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenextlike (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would someone please block this troll who has repeatedly hounded me on my talk page after multiple warnings. Cresix (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * User blocked.  Tide  rolls  19:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Miranda Borman
Have any other admins received emails from someone claiming to be an actress who played a child in the Doctor Who episode, "Dragonfire (Doctor Who)"? She emails asking if she can talk to me, then doesn't reply to my good faith responses. After some Googling, I see she has previously emailed 23skidoo -- but she turned out to be a hoax. The JPS <sup style="color:purple;">talk to me  09:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to sock
If someone - not currently blocked, I think they're having a self-imposed WikiBreak following some heated debates with numerous editors last night - e-mails me saying "happy to disrupt wiki using multiple accounts if i have to", is that enough for an indef block? Never encountered the situation before & seeking guidance to get the best solution. GiantSnowman 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not. If they actually do it that is a different story. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Further e-mail - "No I'm telling you what i am going to do. Its not a threat its what i will do" - I'm trying to dissuade him from socking, come back as normal and discuss whatever issues he has. GiantSnowman 16:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is probably a good reason to block them from your email though. Tell them to be a drama queen elsewhere. Incidentally the merits of their "case" change the appropriate response, at least imo. Egg   Centri  c  19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Indefinitely blocking is not a particularly good way of stopping him from carrying out a threat which is predicated on his being blocked. Nevertheless, thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I deliberately didn't name the editor in question to avoid potential drama. GiantSnowman 11:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I've notified EW... GiantSnowman 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Undo rename of 2011 reform of succession to the British throne
Hello, please could this get undone, as the rename was not needed, and unable to be undone (matches some rule that prevents it from being renamed " It matches the following blacklist entry: .*[T₮ŢŤṬΤТЋҬtţťṭτтŧ][OÓÒÔÖÕǑŌŎǪŐŒØƏΌΟΩῸὈὉὌὊὍὋОӨӦӪọóòôöõǒōŏǫőøόδοσоʘǿọ].[Ccċĉ¢сćĉçčUÚÙÛÜŨŮǓŪǖǘǚǜŬŲŰ].{50,200}.* "?).--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  21:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done Not sure what problem you were experiencing; you might have accidentally typed in a character somewhere. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, No mistype as It was a copy paste 1st attempt, typed in 2nd attempt, copy paste/typed into wordpad copy/paste comparison, etc... I am not an all powerful "administrator" on Wikipedia, and do not have access to the same tools and unrestricted access!--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  22:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS, On sites/systems that I am a superuser/administrator/root etc... I always have a standard account to use in order to "repeat"/"replicate" the problem, in order to "verify"/"see what they are seeing" etc...--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  22:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a problem with the title blacklist. Graham 87 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone got any idea what that blacklist entry is supposed to block? "to?c" or "to?u" looks rather innocent to me. T. Canens (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And how in the world it blocked this title?--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  03:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more than "to?c". It's "to?c" that is followed by anywhere between 50 and 200 other characters, and it thus matched "to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms".  You can find out what this was (and probably still is) blocking by looking at the edit history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, and looking at the page move log of the administrator who added the entry dated just before xe added the entry.  Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is this. Meh...is a blacklist entry still needed? T. Canens (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but if you remove it, you risk having NawlinWiki yell at you the next time a pagemove vandal targets that pattern. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Reports going stale at edit-warring noticeboard
I'd like to make a request/plea for more admins to be active at WP:AN3 in reviewing and closing reports. Twice now in the last couple of months I've had the experience of reporting a clear-cut 3RR violation and having the report go stale for lack of administrative attention (29 May, 14 July). It is difficult enough to edit controversial topics like abortion or biographies of presidential candidates under the best of circumstances; when blatant edit-warring goes unaddressed despite being reported, it makes these articles essentially uneditable. I suspect I'm not alone in the experience of having reports declined as "stale" because no admin looked at them for 2 days.

I'm not looking to have the recent "stale" closure readdressed (although I will note parenthetically that after escaping a block due to administrative inattention, the user in question has unsurprisingly continued to edit-war). I just want to encourage more participation by admins. I am an admin and I will take responsibility to help address this problem by more actively reviewing reports at WP:AN3, but I also need to know that if I report a clear-cut case, it will at least be looked at by another admin before it goes "stale". MastCell Talk 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Slightly off-topic, but WP:RFPP generally suffers from that, as well. It does not help that most of the ones over at RFPP generally deals with disputes and what not. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This may be too bureaucratic, or maybe it was already rejected before, but maybe some experienced non-admins could volunteer to clerk these pages? Rgrds. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that both page-protection and blocking requires Admin tools, which naturally means that there's not much non-admins can do. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * What makes this an issue? Are there people cited in the stale reports still edit warring or have they ceased the edit war?  It makes a big difference in deciding if this is a problem.  If a report is stale, but no one is edit warring by the time that someone finds it stale, then there isn't a need for action anyways.  If the edit war continues while the report sits stale, then that is a problem.  Do we have evidence one way or the other which case we have here?  -- Jayron  32  03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that a lot of blocking admins will use the block log as a primary source to determine the duration of the block. Stale reports naturally means there are fewer blocks (Because most admins will not block then), which also means that the block doesn't fit the level of disruption. At least that's what I'm reading, anyway. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocks are solely meant to stop active problems. If a report is stale, and there is also no active dispute, then there shouldn't be any blocks handed out, even if the nature of the dispute would have warrented a block had it been acted on at the time.  If the disputants have solved their problems (or at least backed off to a neutral corner for the time being) then one shouldn't block them just because there was some report lying around somewhere.  To block people who aren't actively disrupting Wikipedia is purely a punitive block; "punishing" them for their prior actions.  I don't see such blocks as productive or warrented even if they would have been warrented had the person been "caught".  That is, if a report is stale, and no one is still edit warring, there's no reason to hand out any blocks.  If a stale report allows an edit war to continue, however, that needs to be fixed.  It is the existance or non-existance of an active edit war that warrents a block, not the existance of a report on some noticeboard.  -- Jayron  32  04:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what happened in the case I have in mind is that the editor in question continued edit-warring, but at a 2RR or 3RR level. So I haven't bothered re-reporting it, because a) it will probably be declined as not-quite-3RR, and b) it's actually a lot of work to file a well-formed 3RR report (as anyone who's wrestled with the cumbersome forms knows), and I don't want to waste my time if it's likely to end up being dismissed as "stale" anyway. In the case in question, a timely block would have prevented additional edit-warring, absolutely. At a more global level, my concern isn't bureaucratic; it's practical. These noticeboard reports are the officially endorsed way to deal with edit-warring, but that official way isn't working because of a lack of staffing. Honestly, if someone is faced with an edit-war, I can't really recommend that they spend 20 minutes filling out a confusing report template if it's likely to be dismissed for lack of administrative attention. MastCell Talk 05:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me try to answer this from a personal perspective then. My disdain for the 3RR rule, and its use to protect (rather than stop) persistant edit warriors is well established.  That noted, if I came across a report which explained, using unambiguous evidence, that a person was engaged in a slow-moving edit war, or was making a deliberate attempt to edit war while gaming the 3RR rule, I would block them regardless of whether they met the letter of 3RR.  It has always been, and as far as I know still is, the established policy that the use of reverting to force through one's actions is a blockable offense, regardless of the speed at which that happens.  Once the intent to edit war is established through evidence, a block should be coming, and I wouldn't decline a report merely because we can't find 4 reverts in a single 24 hour period, if the intent of the disruptive editor is clear.  Furthermore, I've never been one to stand on ceremony or bureaocracy.  You don't have to fill out a form correctly to get your point across.  All you need is diffs and an explanation.  -- Jayron  32  05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's the right approach, and one I share in how I appch edit-warring as an admin. But my experience is that only a minority of admins are comfortable and/or confident enough to block for "slow-motion" edit-warring that doesn't hit 3RR. It's pretty routine in my experience for reports of clear-cut edit-warring to be declined at WP:AN3 because the technical 4-reverts-in-24-hours limit hasn't been breached. It's also common for reports to be declined because they're not properly formatted. When I personally look at these things as an admin I don't need to see a perfectly formatted report and I'm comfortable handling slow-motion edit-wars. But when I, as an editor, try to get an outside admin to deal with egregious edit-warring, I haven't found this process to work. MastCell Talk 05:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I reference the talk page/block log while looking at AN3 reports. A recent report made me yell "Gaming 3RR is gaming", but then I looked into the issue and found something bigger. The issue at AN3 is the fact that the form is rather troublesome, and majority of the time a cursory glance at the history of the article should have brought the violation to light. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In my mind, AN3 is for 3RR violations and not for slower edit wars. The whole setup is formatted to show violations of the 3RR bright line (or edit warring that just barely avoids breaching 3RR, such as four reverts in 24 hours and 5 minutes), which can be done simply by linking a few diffs.  Such is not the case with slower edit warring, which needs more explanation and potentially more discussion, and for that reason I don't see it as being appropriate at AN3; it's better suited at WP:ANI.  Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, I wonder if admins have a hard time blocking established, long term users or getting involved in nasty ethnic debates. A couple of times, I've had to pull the trigger on an editor who I've seen around and generally thought of as a net positive (c.f. the AN3 report I just handled a few minutes ago), which is never fun. Conversely, I've also had to block someone who I know is going to try wikilawyering using all kinds of acronyms, which will in turn require me to go through everything point by point for clarification. And I know a lot of administrators (and regular editors, for that matter) who won't go near any major ethnic disputes, especially the ones covered under arbitration cases that are cited so frequently we've had to come up with shortcuts for them. If I had any ideas on how to get other admins to take on these sorts of thorny problems, I'd say something, but I guess the best suggestion I have is to find people with just the right combination of ASD traits to take up the fight, because that seems to be the majority of people willing to run head-on into this (I know if I didn't have said traits, I'd never go near AN3). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Crosswiki späm, wrong language
User:Indeniseli and [][User talk:Indeniseli]], deleted from some wikipedias, thanks--Musamies (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Not sure why you refer to it as spam, it seems to be a copy of a legitimate article in another language. If you feel it does not belong here, talk to the user or nominate for WP:MFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Case For Rangers F.C to Remain Within the Same Wikipedia Article
Summary: On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings. Liquidation is the process of selling of the assets of an insolvent business to recoup as much funds as possible to raise funds for the companies creditors. Charles Green led a consortium which purchased the 'history, business & assets' (as sources show) from 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' as a means to continue 'Rangers F.C' within a new company (NewCo).

So what is the debate? Well, this process has thrown up some questions. Is it the same club, or an entirely new club? Does this club retain it's history? Does a club operate within a company, or are they as 1? And should the club have a seperate Wikipedia page to be represented as a new club, or do we recognise it within the 1 Wikipedia page as teh same club but simply under new ownership?

1. What Do the Sources Say? Many journalistic sources have taken the viewpoint from both sides, the 'Talk' pages on the articles are littered with thm from each side of the arguement. The tabloid newspapers have often described the 'new company' as a "new club". Some ex-Rangers players even described it as so. However, many others have reffered to them as the same club, including Neil doncaster (SPL chairman), and even HMRC (whos decision to reject a CVA caused the liquidation). The 'new company' has often been refered to 'Rangers F.C' (the club name) within official documents from the SFA & SFL. Although it could be argued that the sources in favour of the "new club" arguement have only ever been journalistic view points and therefore documents from official governing bodies should take precedent, it is still a gray-area in regards to how the situation is being represented within the media. Therefore we need to evaluate further evidence.

2. Is 'A Club' a seperate thing from the company, or are they 1 and the same? 1 arguement being put forward by the "new club" camp, is that a club IS a company. That they are 1 and the same. It's a reasonable arguement as many official documents and sources purposefully define them as so, by stating the company name, and placing in brackets (the club). But perhaps this is simply to clarify to the readers that when they speak of 'the club' they are talking about the company. So what is 'a club' exactly? Well the FA in England produced this document on club structures: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf says "The FA does not have any rules or requirements that specify that a club must be structured in one legal form or another." The term 'Club' is actually a pretty lose term, infact 2 people getting together to form any kind of association coudl call themselves a 'club'. Most professional football teams however are formed as companies. On page17 of the same document cited above, it details the process of turning a club into a corporate entity. After creating & registering a company, you then proceed to transfer the assets which make up the club, into the new company. If we move on to page20, it then outlines the rules regarding the transfer of membership from 1 legal entity to another. In other words, there is nothing to stop owners of a football club transferring all the assets out of 1 corporate entity to another, (if approved by the regulatory bodies). So, from that we can guage that a 'football club' is made up of certain assets (normally player contracts, a stadium, intellectual property), and these assets can be moved into a company during it's initial creation, and it can also be moved out of 1 company, and into another. So even if you take the viewpoint that club/company are 1 of the same, there is no evidence to suggest they cannot ever be broken apart, (otherwise a simple corproate restructure would be impossible without creating an entirely new club).

3. Precedents. Ofcourse, this is nothing new, it would be naive to believe Rangers F.C were the first club to suffer such fate. So what precedents can we draw upon? All of the following clubs have either been "liquidated" or "dissolved" and now function under new companies (NewCo's); Leeds United AFC Luton Town Charlton Athletic Middlesborough FC AFC Bournemouth Rotherham United

There are also examples of Clubs within Wikipedia which document clubs on different pages, such as;FC Halifax & Chester FC. So what's different? Well these are 2 examples of what is often described as 'Phoenix clubs'. When the old clubs were wound-up, fans groups got together and created these new clubs. The greatest fundamental difference is they did not acquire 'the business & assets' from the old clubs in liquidation. Therefore they have no legal link what-so-ever to the old clubs. They cannot lay claim to any of the intellectual property, use the same 'club name' or use the same cub badge/crest. In theory these clusb could have been created while the old clubs still in existence. So which sets precedent for Rangers F.C? Well since the NewCo purchased "the history, business & assets " of the old company, it is NOT a 'phoenix club'.

There is 1 other issue regarding the sale of assets. Within the sale of the assets was membership to the SFA. Even though it was sold, it still must be sanctioned by the governing body, and we await that decision.

4. History & Goodwill Another arguement made by the 'new club' camp is that the history ends with the old company, and the 'new club' is starting a fresh. Well as we can see from the above precedents, this certainly isn;t the case of Leeds United AFC or Charlton Athletic, who lay claim to their respective histories even though they present companies operating them were formed in 2007 & 1984 respectively. A more robust piece of evidence however is this Interim Creditors Report produced by Rangers Administrators Duff&Phelps, which details the transaction of assets from the OldCo to NewCo.

"4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details)."

"4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club."

So within this document the administratos clearly state the new company has purchased "the history" aswell as the assets. It also goes on to state that "the club" is no under ownership & operation of "Sevco" (the new company).

If we move onto appendix 2, the document then details the transaction with exactly what was sold and to what value. It is here we can see the transaction of "goodwill".

what is 'Goodwill'? Goodwill is an intangible assets, which aims to encapture the value of a brand, inclusive of history. If i were to purchase 'Fanta' the soft drink from it's owners 'The coca-Cola Company' this would allow me to continue to trade as if nothing changed (same name, label, intellectual property) lay claim to the soft dirnks history, and ultimatly keep the same customers & same market share. Without the goodwill, i'd still have the manufacturing rights & recipe, but i'd need to come up with a new name, and be percieved by as a new product, thus likely to lose many customers & the current market share of Fanta. Even though "Goodwill" may be a concept hard to grasp, it has been common practice in business for a long time and applies here, with clear record of it's transaction.

5. Conclusion with the above evidence provided, it's difficult to see how a case for 'new club' to be substantiated. The above evidence has dealt with the 3 main arguements heard from otherside of the debate, which thus far have been;
 * Sources in the media describe it as a 'new club'. All of these sourcesare simply a journalistic point-of-view, and each one is contradicted by another source which states it's the same club.  Where is the evidence beyond the wording of a news article?
 * Club & company are as one and cannot be broken. We have disproven that with a document from the FA and with the fact, such an opinion would mean even a simple corporate restructure would be impossible without forming an entirely 'new club'.
 * They are the same as Chester or Halifax. We have ruled these clubs as precedents as they did not acquire the business & assets as a going concern from the insolvent company (oldco), but instead are 'phoenix clubs'.
 * You cannot buy history, there is no such thing as goodwill. you cannot simply state goodwill does not exist because you dont fully understand it.  I have provided evidence in the form of a formal administrative document which states the history was sold & goodwill was purchased.

The wikipedia article Rngers FC was changed to reflect the club in the past tense, as if no longer in existence, and a new article set-up to describe a new club (in the same manner as the above named Chester or Halifax). such change was done WITHOUT concensus. In order to make such a drastic & hotly disputed change without concensus, the onus is surely on those who believe we are dealing with a 'new club' to prove as a matter-of-fact, and beyond all doubt, that this is a new club. So far there has been very thin evidence, if any at all to lead us to believe undoubtebly we are dealign with an entirely new club, and this arguement seems to be based almost entirely on point-of-view. Ricky072 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This user has posted the same argument on the AfD page, which I have reverted. See WP: FORUMSHOP. <font color="navy" size="2px">Robby The Penguin  <font color="blue" size="1px">(talk)   <font color="blue" size="1px">(contribs)  23:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly a few editors continue to roadblock any attempt to get the article fixed which has been locked on a grossly inaccurate version for weeks. People have spent hours on the talk page providing endless sources showing the media and the authorities view it as the same club, numerous examples of precedents have been shown on wikipedia which treat the club as the same despite new companies. But no progress is being made because of the actions of a few editors. 1 of whom posted a sectarian video and the other posted a link to an opposing fans forum too. Its hugely problematic and something needs to be done. the article is grossly misleading and this is bigger than a mere content dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When it inevitably gets there, this may well become one of the silliest arbitration cases we'll have ever seen. I have to admit that my understanding of the Rangers FC case is shallow, but if it is basically "team went bankrupt, was sold to a new owner", then god help me, because I have to go split half of the National Hockey League team articles, as well as a couple baseball ones. Resolute 23:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, this is not a WP:AN issue. I'm closing this.  The merits of any action can be discussed in the appropriate fora.  Which isn't here.  -- Jayron  32  00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Secular Islam Summit
I considered bringing this to 3O and to various noticeboards, but I think we're past the point where it's a content problem and significantly into user-misbehavior territory. At Secular Islam Summit, after discussion on several subjects mostly relating to RS-sourced criticism of the article subject, an RFC was held, as was subsequent discussion. Over a month afterwards, with a lengthy comment from myself explaining my reasons for preferring particular edits as the last comment on the talk page, I assumed that no one had any points to make against these arguments, and implemented the results of the RFC, which included minimizing the "back and forth" aspect between the summit and the Council on American-Islamic Relations and removing quotes from footnotes.

I was immediately reverted by Kwamikagami, whose refusal to compromise was what made the RFC necessary in the first place. Kwamikagami's edit included the restoration of original research about a living person (commenting that a person we quote in the article didn't say anything about the summit, which isn't in the source), the re-organization of the article to restore the "back and forth," the removal of sourced critical material (which s/he's been trying to remove since day one, in spite of a strong consensus for it), and, interestingly, the restoration of a quote to a footnote (which s/he opposed before, making it seem as though this is more about reverting my edits than actually reaching a preferred version of the article).

I responded on the talk page, pointing out that my edit had implemented a consensus that was the result of a discussion and asking Kwami to explain the reasoning behind certain parts of hir revert. Kwami refused to answer. I asked again. Kwami again refused to answer.

Consequently, we are at a standoff where Kwami will arbitrarily revert edits to the article, restoring problematic material such as original research about living people, while making it literally impossible to build a consensus for or against them. I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in to warn the edit warrior and let the normal process of consensus progress. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Roscelese has a history of thinking that if she leaves off the argument for a while, that the resulting silence is somehow consensus. I'm happy with the result of the RfC, she's simply resuming the POVs that she didn't succeed with at the RfC, and I'm not looking forward to resuming the nitpicking edits required to tiptoe around Roscelese's BLP problems. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Kwami has hit 4RR and shows no signs of stopping. If I take it to EWN, I'm fairly sure an admin will full-protect the page for a day and blithely walk away, leaving the problem in no way solved. I ask again that someone come in and actually deal with this editor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User has hit 5RR (again) and was finally blocked. However, please do not consider this report closed, as I expect the edit warring will resume in 24 hours when the block expires. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:PC2012
There's still time to jump in as a closer if anyone's interested. Progress is hard, and is going to get harder. I asked around at Wikimania, and it was roughly 50-50: "doing it will kill us" vs. "not doing it will kill us". I asked everyone if they would be willing to settle for some middle position or accept trying to get there in half-steps; the mildest response I got was "certainly not". I asked people to participate; they don't want to (until, of course, we get to some big vote, at which point I'm sure many will be more than happy to oppose the bits they don't like). One problem: although there's general support for The Blade and me as closers, I'm finding that I'm having to give this a bit of structure, and if the people who have strong opinions keep sitting this out, I'm also going to have to interject some kind of summary of opinions in order to keep this from crashing and burning at the RfC stage, which means I'm not really a closer, yet, I'm too active. My plan is to just do what I have to do, keep talking with people publicly and privately, have the first mini-vote, and then have another quick vote to approve the closers for the next stage (and I won't be offended in the slightest if people feel I've crossed a line and don't want me to close). - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I second the request for a fresh closer. For all you may have heard about how much it really sucks at times, you'll find it surprisingly engaging and thought-provoking.  All we need is one willing admin.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually ... considering the conversation below ("there is no circumstance wherein it is appropriate to simultaneously participate in and close a discussion" and other comments), plus the stuff that I felt I had to say at WT:PC2012 today, plus some information that I think it would be helpful to add, I'm stepping down as a closer. I'll continue to be active, and I'll continue to support both sides because I think a lot of good people are doing good work on both sides. I apologize for any inconvenience, and obviously, anything that's been said in confidence will remain in confidence. So now I'm guessing Blade would like a couple more closers. It's a tough problem ... but I agree with Blade, it's a fun problem to tackle, and the current supporters and opposers are working quite well together. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

QRpedia edits
Has someone (perhaps inadvertently) oversighted edits to QRpedia In the last few days, Interwiki links in Estonian and Swahili were added, but I no longer see them in the page history. Or do we have a caching problem? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I haven't looked yet but I can tell you right now that if there was an oversight action, even one with errors, nobody is going to talk to you about it on wiki for the simple reason that we are not allowed to. The first rule of oversight is.... you gwt the idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I have looked and I see nothing in the suppression or deletion log. The only recent edit does not seem to have touched interwiki links so I am at a loss as to what has happened to them. I'm also not sure I would recognize either of those languages, it may be helpful if you could see if you can still see them in old revisions of the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Estonian one has was added months ago, and there is no Swahili interwiki link. Mogism (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to describe an oversight action, but if it had been performed, what would be wrong with simply confirming its existence? I can't imagine that being a problem except in the case of an offensive pagename, which obviously isn't the case here.  Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We just don't do that. We have a mailing list and the audit subcommitee specifically for review of oversight. If there had been a supression action here I most likely would have removed this entire thread and taken the whole conversation offline. See Streisand effect. Talking about something that is supposed to have been hidden only draws more attention to it. I've only even said this much because there isn't one here. Oversight basically means reviewing all sorts of innapropriate material, (most of it rather boring actually) removing it, and then promptly forgetting you ever saw it. This message will self destruct in ten seconds. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth closed
An arbitration case involving the article Perth has been closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

 * 1) JHunterJ is advised to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions.
 * 2) Deacon of Pndapetzim is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved, and for reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion.
 * 3) Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.
 * 4) Gnangarra is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Discuss this

Ram Kishore Shukla
A merger I proposed at Talk:Ram Kishore Shukla was closed within hours by a non-admin who had voted on the issue. This wouldn't be appropriate for a deletion discussion according to WP:NAC, does the same policy apply to mergers? Also, there is an issue about whether the page is violating copyright. It's a bit confusing and it would be great if a veteran editor could stop by and take a look. Tdslk (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the page had copyright problems under investigation and that issue is being sorted out. However, that has nothing to do with the matter brought up here. As for the NAC is concerned, I shall look forward to response. VIVEK RAI : <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#800000;"> Friend? 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit is the one in question - if no-one else picks it up then give me 15 minutes (about to leave the desk!) and I'll sort it out on my return. GiantSnowman 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - longer than expected but yeah, the close was 100% inappropriate and I will revert momentarily. GiantSnowman 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree, there is no circumstance wherein it is appropriate to simultaneously participate in and close a discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are all invited to a discussion ...
... at WT:PC2012. We're especially looking for the input of people experienced in page protection. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard navbox
Howdy. Back in April I posted a suggestion regarding the Admin noticeboard navbox. Expectedly, but unfortunately, nobody responded. I thought that this might be the next logical place to point out my suggestion. Anyone have any thoughts regarding my suggestion? If this isn't the ideal place to bring this up, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests for page protection is backlogged
Requests for page protection has a backlog that could do with sorting. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would commenting on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents help at all?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I've gone through about a third of the backlog (the most recent requests), but I'm getting tired and need to go to bed. The backlog is still very long, with some requests two days old now, and it would be good if someone could finish it off. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It seems not to be backlogged any more. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Need an edit filter
See the page history at WP:BN and WP:AN. A checkuser may also help with finding a rangeblock, but an edit filter should help with the immediate damage. The filter should be easy to set up for anyone with the knowhow (i.e., not me). -- Jayron  32  05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need if CU can stop the socking. For an edit filter I'd suggest conditions like "new_wikitext rlike '\=\= (Y|y)eah [\.{3,}] =='" and "new_wikitext rlike 'Password\:[\ ]\#[A-Za-z\d]', but let's wait for CU.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever works. Whackamole gets tiresome after a while, and I'm off to bed anyways.  -- Jayron  32  05:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, I have located the range, but there is likely to be a fair amount of collateral damage for non-account good faith IP addresses. However, we have reason to believe that the passwords that are being posted are faked, so this may not be quite the serious situation that it appears. Thoughts on a short-term rangeblock, knowing this is more a trolling than a hacking? Risker (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More than one range at play here, but the one I checked is too busy also. I'm going to throw up the filter Jasper sugguested. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed motion on annotating changed usernames in arbitration decisions
A motion on annotating changed usernames in arbitration decisions has been proposed. Editors may comment in the general discussion section.

For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust
This user is aggressively removing my comments from his talkpage.Also, he has replied in very bad faith and rudely at Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. He has posted a wrong message at my talkpage.I mean when I was engaged in edit war? He is removing without any reason or bothering to answer.Please reply respected admins and take a look at my request at Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed. Myownmilkshake (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, he said on my talkpage that I reverted.but,in fact he reverted my edits. Myownmilkshake (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that he has made a correct decision by declining your request Xentram (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's quite allowed to aggressively remove your comments at his talk page. If he deleted it, he had to have had the opportunity to read it.  Please don't reinstate something on someone else's user talk page once they have deleted it.  It is rude.  Otherwise, the best thing you, Myownmilkshake, is to just back down and go work on something else at Wikipedia.  I don't forsee this as a productive conflict.  -- Jayron  32  00:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but why not provide reason? what about warning on my talkpage that I had reverted and what about my confirmed permission? Myownmilkshake (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, it would be nice if he provided a reason for deleing your message from his talk page, but he's under no obligation to do so. Let me state this again unambiguously.  Drop this matter and find something else to do.  There is no potential good that can come from pursuing this any further.  -- Jayron  32  00:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, there is the reason. I don't discuss private matters with other users, especially if they ask about it. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  00:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Dump that into trashbin.I want an admin to review my request of confirmed. Myownmilkshake (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been reviewed and declined already by Armbrust. If you accumulate 10 edits, once your account is 4 days old, you get autoconfirmed. I suppose repeatedly ignoring advice that you drop this matter and do something else is a novel way to accumulate those 10 edits... -- Jayron  32  01:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - Sorry to but in here, but I think Myownmilkshake, you are taking things a little out of context from what I have noticed upon checking edit histories. You sent a post to Armburst's talk page which he then deleted.  A user has the right to remove content from their own talk page without giving a valid reason.  Although you will find 99% of the time the user will state their reason in the edit summary, or the user will just archive it.  When Armburst removed the comment you should have really assumed that he had read and acknowledged it.  But instead you reverted his actions, which means you were in the wrong really.  Armburst then removed it again, and quoted WP:BLANKING in his edit summary, which highlights the fact that he provided an explanation to his actions.  You then re-reverted things back again, by which time you have stepped into edit warring territory.  The fact that Arburst has removed your posts twice doesn't mean he has done an edit war, he has rightfully removed content from his own talk page, and explained in his edit summary why he has done so.  The only thing that I can suggest to do, which is rather fair really, is to post some useful hints and tips on your talk page for you.  Take time to have a read of them, and if you have any questions then just ask someone - we