Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217

Let me just mention that without Sandstein handling things, this rather important area appears to be somewhat understaffed at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised one bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Typing error by OP, no action required. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this: http://survey.prizesgiveaway.com/w/index.php?f=wikkipedia (Popped up when I manually typed wikipedia.org into my browser) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you mistyped, wikipedia.org should take you straight to the main site. Your computer may be infected with a virus or malware that's redirecting your browser to other URLs. Run MalwareBytes (malwarebytes.org - Make SURE that's the site you download from) and Antivirus (http://free.avg.com/gb-en/homepage or http://www.free-av.com/ are safe). Exxolon (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems the most likely explanation; I've had to deal with browser hijackers before, they can be really quite annoying. Another common one is for the hijacker to replace search engine hits (google, yahoo, ask, and whatever else), with its own advertisements. By the way, I would recommend trying to download any antivirus or malware applications from a different computer if possible, as it may well attempt to intercept URLs of known antiviruses. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

More likely it's just typosquatting. I just typed wikkipedia.org into a browser window and it took me to the prize givaway site. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't notice the "f=wikkipedia" in the url indicating the referrer ;) Yes, it must have been a typo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Definitely a typographic error, marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The user User talk:M12390 has been repeatedly warned on his pages on issues concerning MQM, Altaf Hussein, and Imran Farooq. It seems he has an agenda he's POV-pushing. On the page I fould him on for a recently deceased person (Imran Farooq), 2 editors (one of which was me) have inserted content that is sourced (after a discussion with another fellow who considered it uncited, but we duly found sources) and he removes it saying it is "irrelevant." In addition to his bias he has gone and first WP:NPAed the other editor User talk:Saqib Qayyum#Why are you hell bent in highlighting the "Muhajir" background of Imran Farooq? and then at my own page User talk:Lihaas#A Lahori CANNOT be neutral about Karachi (which came AFTER i warned him about personal attacks).

I believe this is the right place to post the message, the help desk didnt answer my query on September 19.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

I think ANI might have been more appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Any unbiased researcher would soon learn that Lahoris in particular and many opinion-makers of cities on the GT Road (Peshawar -> Islamabad -> Lahore) for some reason cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Check this out. According to the Daily Mirror "Within minutes of the death of Dr Farooq - a leading member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement which means United National Movement - websites in Islamabad were awash with claims he had been assassinated or killed by his own bodyguard."

Where did these people find out about the details of the murder when the Scotland Yard has been scrambling to get clues?

Also, UK-based Punjabi supporters of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (based in Lahore) are writing all kinds of conspiracy theories against the MQM similar to this. This website is based in Rawalpindi, another city on the GT Road. M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is just users from opposite points of views, I have edited there and there has been ethnic labeling without clear supporting citations, user Lihass wants to categorize Farooq as an immigrant, Farooq was born in Pakistan and where I come from we don't do that, as in a person born in England is English, if his father was born in Pakistan and moved to England then his father was an immigrant...anyways, User:M12390 has got a bit heated about that, as I see it a word in his ear to keep cool and stay civil are all that is needed for the time being. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Off2riorob for your kind comments. I would definitely try to keep my cool. :) M12390 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, We had a civil discussion about the content and the cites showing where he was on the talk page.

As for M12390 his attacks both here and on both talk pages are WP:NPA by any stretch of the imagination. He has also had warning from many others in the past over all such articles. How many more warnings? The first time i did so he responded affirmatively, then went again and i wrote him (without a template), and he went right back to attacking and labeling.(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC));

Lihaas is a biased contributor. He has no business "warning" me. First, I accepted him as an unbiased contributor so I showed good faith. However, he rapidly became aggressive, started accusing me of whatever, and started threatening me. I absolutely have no problem with the neutral point of view. However, there are certain things that just cannot be neutralized. In those things we need to at least initially give the subject matter (especially if it is a human being with a vulnerable family ) some benefit of the doubt until a strong neutral point of view emerges with time. It is only human. Lihaas is biased to start off with, and the other person he mentions in his complain above is as bisaed as Lihaas is. Many Lahoris just cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Why is it? I don't know. I don't see many Karachiites going around commenting on Lahore-based anything. But some Lahoris make their business to poke around and malign Karachi-based people and entities. Something is up!!! M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note: I am requesting to create a supervised automated bot to assist in the process of clearing the {{subst:ncd}} (i.e., commons) backlog. I am requesting approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot 2, and I wanted to get consensus here for it. Please feel free to comment here or there. Of course, I am going to be extremely careful with this bot, and any unforeseen issues will be printed out and I will have to fix them manually. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck to you! If it works, that would be fabulous. (bot clueless here, but, really, fabulous. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I hope this is a place to bring attention to a non-working wikipedia article link.

I was searching for "Senkaku Islands" from google, and clicking on the wikipedia result gave me a "404 Not Found" error. Typing "senkaku islands" in Wikipedia's search box will throw up the same error. Similarly, clicking on "senkaku islands" on the disambigiuos Senkaku article page shows up the same 404 error. Same with this redirect page. In fact, the only way I can reach the article is to search for the less common Diaoyutai.

A check with the move logs show that the page has recently been subject with quite a number of moves, due to it being a result territorial disputes between China and Japan. (That was the reason why I was searching for the article originally, as I was looking for more background on the incident). The last discussion regarding the move resulted in a "no-move" agreement among the editors, but the prior moves may have somehow "broken" the way Wikipedia is linking to the article.

If I'm reporting this to the wrong board, hopefully someone can re-direct me to the right place to report this error. As this is a hot news topic at the moment, the article will be highly sought after and the bad link should be fixed as soon as possible. Thanks in advance!Zhanzhao (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, it works for me... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too; either you have a virus sending all links to external spam sites or something broke somewhere temporarily. The better venue for questions of this nature is WP:VPT, by the way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm thats odd, will hop over to WP:VPT to post the report, but can you guys test this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands? Thats the exact wikipedia URL for the Senkaku Islands article that I have problems getting into, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 06:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No issues whatsoever with that link on my end. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

this may not be the correct place to bring this, please forgive me if so. i am having a discussion with a user at this deletion talk page. it appears this IP, the main editor and possibly author of the article, may be borrowing other users accounts (notice two seperate posts signed by two different usernames, posted in the same edit by the IP editor). cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

upon further inspection, the author of the aritcle is obviously the same person as this IP. IP is now impersonating other users in the discussion in an attempt to influence me. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the other users involved in the discussion on the AfD, the intent of the IP user does not seem malicious. However, the IP/User (apparently having technical difficulty figuring out logins, signing posts, etc) could definitely use a clue. Actually, probably more than one.... In addition to technical issues, their style of arguing makes them very difficult to work with. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure this is the right place to post this, but I've been having trouble putting a link into the article The Sibley Guide to Birds. I'm using the cite journal template in a reference, but the link is broken up when I save the page because the url has brackets in it. I can't use a link shortener because those are all blacklisted. The url is http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113[0255:OL]2.0.CO;2

Can anyone help? —out^offocus 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It should work if you change the brackets to %5B and %5D, respectively. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1676/0043-5643(2001)113%5B0255:OL%5D2.0.CO;2 ... Testing link --B (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —out^offocus 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the "right" place, btw. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• 66.217.112.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also uses 66.217.112.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and perhaps other IPs) has been told repeatedly information from blogs, Twitter, IMDB and anything else that can be edited by anyone are not valid sources. This user keeps trying to introduce "fan speculation" into Law and Order: Criminal Intent and other Law and Order articles about show cancellations, new shows, etc. User has been warned repeatedly, but ignores warnings or is uncivil in return. Was warned 9/13, and stopped editing for until today, when he posted another "fan speculation" section, and cited a ref for another section that was unsupported in the Law & Order (franchise) article. Trista (user-Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can admins see what an editor's attempted edits are when they are blocked by the edit filter? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can generally accomplish this by using the "examine" or "details" option from the Special:AbuseLog and relevant revision.   Thorncrag 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Not very legible, is it?  :) But at least it's there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a general complain, not aimed at one editor, so I post it here. Many editors, especially many admins, close AfD discussions early (hours or even days early) without a good reason (real "Snow" or "Speedy" closures). I am not claiming that the outcome would have been any different if we had let the discussions run a bit longer, but the current standard of letting AfD's open for at least seven days was achieved after some fairly lengthy discussions. I noticed the problem with it when someone added a day too early to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and Mathbot automatically indicated that only 16 of the 78 discussions were still open, half a day before the full seven days would expire.[2]

Looking at the actual log for 8 September only, I see that the first one was closed some 16 hours early, the second, the third and the fourth nearly two days early (as were the sixth and the seventh and many others by the same closer), and also by other people this one and this one and this or this. Oh, and this or this. And this one, after 4 1/2 days. The vast majority of the 62 discussions already closed, where closed hours to days too soon.

I'll notify the three editorsd with the most early closures of this thread, but could everyone who closes AfD discussions please respect the minimum time of seven full days? Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that any disputed AfD should run the full 7 days, but I'm not seeing how a closure "16 hours early" causes a problem. If some editor intends a thorough dissection or a heroic re-write, it seems inadvisable to wait until the last few hours. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I check things listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, so yeah, had not realized there was a problem with things being listed too early at that page. Someone should go ahead and fix that page for future reference. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, that doesn't seem to be the problem, since you lowed many pages from the log for the 8th, which isn't listed there yet. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, some of those may have been relisted already, and thus were at AFD for longer than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I only close from User:Excirial/Dashboard. I didn't realize that the listings included those earlier than they should be closed, although the nature of the list should have told me. (In fact on the top of the /old page it says "This page contains Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the deletion process") I'll watch the times as well as dates now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Boldly changed the text at the top of the page to reflect what it really is [3] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have revised this change to reflect the actual policy: that fthe page lists discussions within 24 hrs of closing, but only those that have been open 168 hours may be closed. It would be even better if we could rewrite it so it actually did list the ones that can be closed, the way WP:PROD indicates the expired prods. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, why are you all balming this incorrectly on the Afd/old page? This lists only pages where every single one has passed the seven day (168 hour) limit. It doesn't list discussions 23 hours early, it lists a day only when the most recent discussion is at least 168 hours old. I have reverted the incorrect changes to the text of the AfD/Old page. Please check such things before making such statements. Fram (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I regret to have to admit that some of the examples above are my closings. I should not have closed them when I did. The reason I did so is the pernicious effect of instruction creep, and the effect of seeing what everyone else does--in practice I seem to have been looking at areas on the page where most of the articles are already closed, and following their examples by closing others nearby. I've previous been trying to fight this, and protested rather vigorously to the individuals, but in view of the insistence of one or two of the regular closer who have refused to change their ways, I seem to have unconsciously decided to join them--some of this may have been the understandable but not really good motive of trying to get my share rather than be foreclosed in this area by those who refused to follow the rules designed to allow cooperation.

But I see nothing on the above list that needs to be reopened to prevent error, either mine or the others, but anyone is I think free to do so.

I suggest we enforce this strictly, unless a SNOW close is appropriate in special cases and can be justified. The justification of a SNOW is like IAR--no good faith editor who wants to object. There might be one other special case: a BLP where the continued discussion is harmful.

I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours.

I think we should clarify the relistings to indicate that a relisting must be for another 7 days. There are too many examples where one is closed after a single additional person has spoken. If we need to send out a message we need more time, it is simplest and fairest being for the same amount of time. If we already need to wait more than 7 days, no harm is done by another 7. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be ashamed of following the crowd and closing some AfDs early. At all. But what you describes certainly confirms what I have said before: If there is a rule not to close an AfDs early, but it is not followed, then it creates bias of a kind that I would prefer not to see: Admins who decide it's not all that important for themselves to follow the rules strictly have more influence on AfDs than those admins who insist on painstakingly sticking to the rules. Hans Adler 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I agree with the sentiment, but not your take on relistings. Relistings do not need to be for seven days, and in many cases should not be. If one additional !vote validates the outcome, then a close is appropriate. If discussion is ongoing and progress is being made, then yes, discussion should continue. A hard and fast rule on relistings is unneeded, in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. If someone really cared that much about an article, they should have commented in the first week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, the {{Proposed deletion}} template includes a hard-coded timestamp; when the proper amount of time has elapsed, the template itself changes the visible text to highlight that "This article may be deleted without further notice". We've used similar functions for templates associated with the Arbcom elections (changing pages to open voting at the correct moment, for example). Could the AFD template be amended to show how long the page has been in existence? If the AFD is created with the nomination, then a template could add a "Don't close me early" flag until the current time is precisely 7 days after the first timestamp. Even better, the {{afd2}} template is substituted, to format the debate. We add a timestamp to that, so that the nomination is timestamped. Then, the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, normally invisible, could display a notation under the title if the elapsed time is less than 7 days - or a different "This debate has been open 7 days, and may be closed shortly" notation once the elapsed time has gone past 7 days. Either way, we could retain the highly useful WP:AFD/OLD listings while avoiding early closures. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns voiced by many and have also noticed this problem. If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. As a partial solution, I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy to add the following to deletion policy: "Administrators may without discussion undo any closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed." Comments are welcome on the policy talk page. Additionally I support any templated timestamp solution as per Ultraexactzz's proposal.  Sandstein  20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I was waiting a week, but I wasn't. That needs to be cleared up, but the above proposal makes sense. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good solution, but it would be even better if admins had a place where they can find all AfDs that need closing, and only such AfDs. Then the problem would disappear automatically and we would prevent tensions from building up between admins. Hans Adler 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to make a template on an open AFD add the AFD to a category exactly seven days after the AFD has been started. Ucucha 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of using a category rather than a list. It seems appropriate for the purpose. Hans Adler 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the AFD2 template adds a timestamp, then REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD could add the category if CURRENTTIME=TIMESTAMP+7 days. We've already got the REMOVE template in place (it adds debates to CAT:AFD), so no need to add another invisible template that would need to be removed on closure. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, this report has had the effect that the editors most responsible for these early closings have stooped this (thanks!), only to be replaced by others. These were closed after this discussion started, so... 14 hours early, 16 hours early, 13 hours early, 12 hours early (and many more by the same editor, who I'll notify), 5 hours early, 14 hours early, 14 hours early, 8 hours early, 8 hours early, and some more by this editor as well. Basically, this AN discussion has replaced the three editors most active in closing discussions early, with three other editors doing the same... Fram (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful and wait the full 7 days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(addition) Let's admit here: closing AfDs is fun. It's either like whack-a-mole when you have 10 delete !votes in a row, or more like sitting in the judge's seat with a controversial AfD; both are pretty amusing. A typical AfD cycle for a day's log goes: 25% are speedy closed, SNOW closed, withdrawn, or closed after 8-12 days (for relists) well before the 6 days. Next to go are the whack-a-moles, which comprise another 25%, in the first two hours. Slowly throughout the day some trickier AfDs get closed (again 25%). (This is where, admittedly, I do most of my work, after the moles have already been whacked by someone else.) 15% get relisted. Finally, the 10% is the nasty part that actually makes it into the -8 log: it's either annoying long or it has around five disparate !votes (the gray area where it's too many to relist and too few to call a consensus). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wade through the coding this afternoon, and (hopefully) have a template add-on that will timestamp the debate when it is opened, list it as "Scheduled to close at (TIMESTAMP+7 days)", then - once that time passes - list it as "This debate is eligible for closure". Once the debate is either A) no longer included in CAT:AFD or B) included in Category:Relisted Deletion Debates, it will remove the timestamp. Consensus, above, is certainly strong enough for a trial. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely a guilty party on this one, closing some that were at 6 days and X hours, rather than 7 days. As a general rule, I guess, we all need to know where we stand on UTC-- in my case, I'm 5 hours behind, so at 7:00 this evening my time, it's Saturday on Wikipedia. If I was in California, 4:01 pm local would be 0001 hours UTC. I pledge to be more careful about this. Mandsford 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the guilty list and considering that there are now several threads about this it's surprising that this wasn't bought up at my recent RFA. In my case it was because I was closing from the 7 day log. That's the log I do relists from and while there it only made sense to also close any clear unambiguous keeps. Later as I gained more experience I became more mindful of the time it was posted and not just what log it's on. However, I still think that administrators should be able to use their best judgment in such cases. If a debate is close and/or still receiving comments then it should be left to tick out the full 168 but does it make sense to leave "borderline snow" AFDs where everything that is going to be said has been said and nobody has posted anything in 3 days open just for the sake of process? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and coded a timestamp function for the {{afd2}} template - the code can be found at User:Ultraexactzz/Afdtimestamptest, and a sandbox example at User:Ultraexactzz/afd test. The afd2 template is the template that actually formats the deletion debate. The code will take the timestamp (+7 days) at the time the debate is formatted - this becomes the time of the nomination, and the +7 days sets the time after which the debate may be closed. It then compares the current time to that timestamp. If the current time is prior to that of the timestamp, a small notice gives the scheduled closure time (in the form "This debate is scheduled to end at 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC).") If the current time is after that timestamp, the notice becomes a standard-font bold "This debate has been open for 7 days, and may now be closed by an administrator.". I have not added categories, though this could be included as appropriate (and if there's consensus to create a Category for debates ready to be closed). I also am unsure how to remove the notice if Category:Relisted AfD debates is present; it might be that removing this parserfunction becomes a step in relisting, for now. The notice at WT:AFD points discussion to this page; should we make a request there as well, or just note that I'm calling the question? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Minus the by an administrator part :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea, but as for the implementation, I think {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} is a better place for it so that the "can be closed" note will be automatically removed after the debate is closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, generally. Maybe we do both; we use the AFD2 template to enter a parameter (the current timestamp +7 days) into the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template, and then have REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE call that parameter when deciding whether to show "Debate scheduled to close at" or "This debate may now be closed". This has the virtue of not requiring the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template to be substituted, since debates are shifted in category all the time - we get a lot of bad inputs or custom categories, which put the debates into "Not yet sorted", and then someone changes the template to reflect the correct category. For example. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The relisting script will have to update the template and either change the timestamp or a relist parameter or both. There is no parserfunction, AFAIK, that tells if a page is in a category. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that relisted debates are as much of a problem. To the best of my understanding, a relist means that at the time of relisting, there was no clear concensus; if there is a clear concensus 3 days later, I see no reason not to close it - it had its full 168 hours, and the result is clear. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to give an example, below, and pose a question:

1. Something was nominated to AFD.
2. It has no objections to deletion.
3. No one has done anything to demonstrate notability.
4. The AFD has unanimous comments from individuals, all who have commented, with, Delete.
5. Duration of the AFD since time of nomination is 6 days, 23 hours.

In such a case, is the discussion above, stating that admins are forbidden from ever closing such AFDs early, even under obvious WP:SNOW provisions, in unanimous cases? -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that an administrator should be able to use his best judgment in such cases. Both of us work off the 7 day "relistable" log and it does make some sense to go ahead and close the slam-dunk keeps and deletes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But here's the problem: 6 days 23 hours ... 6 days 22 hours .... 6 days 12 hours .... 6 days 1 hours.... 6 days 5 minutes.... This is one of the times when a clean cutoff rule is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the case of: 10 unanimous comments in favor of Delete, no objections to delete, no one commenting keep, no sources in the article, the article is a completely unreferenced BLP page, and it has been 6 days and 1 hours? -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins are forbidden from closing even such AFDs early by current policy ("at least seven days"). Slippery slope problems aside, that's because somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours. The only possible exceptions to the seven-day-rule are, AFAIK, WP:CSD or WP:IAR (that is, situations where following the seven-day rule would be positively harmful to Wikipedia or members of the public). This would include unsourced, potentially libelous BLPs, but not much else.  Sandstein  12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps my view on this is clouded by the fact that until recently, I could only close "keep" and only for slam-dunk (or nearly so) cases. Deletion is more permanent and harder to undo and it's more likely that someone may show up at the last minute with a source then then it is for an 11th hour damning rebuttal on a borderline snow keep. However, there are some clear cut cases in the delete department such as this one. (borderline G3) That probably could have been closed at day 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that closing AfD's a bit early is harmful. As Sandstein said, "somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours" - yet what if an editor provides sources after 7 days and 1 hour, once the article is deleted? Then the difference is the same. A well-reasoned keep !vote should have the same bearing on an article's inclusion no matter if the discussion is active or has been closed for 3 months. As long as closing administrators recognize this, deletion becomes much less permanent. I certainly don't think AfD's should be closed before 6 days (in order to allow discussion during every day of the week), but a flexible closing period after that time seems fine. A 168 (24×7) hour listing period is fairly arbitrary anyways - how long do they list AfD's on venus.wikipedia?:) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have what you describe: a hard line minimum duration and a flexible closing period afterwards. The only difference ist that the hard line is currently set at seven days, as agreed per community discussion, and not at six days as you propose. The point of this thread is to get people to comply with the hard line minimum (which is of course arbitrary, but it has to be set somewhere).  Sandstein  06:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So I think the point of confusion (for me at least) is that, without careful examination of the current hardline duration, one might assume that AfD's can be closed on the seventh day, when in theory, they should be closed no earlier than the eighth. It's similar to how the 17th century spans from 1601-1700. Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing, for example, should be pointing to the discussions of one day earlier. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I've made that change. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Having an article that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria stay on Wikipedia for 23 additional hours is not much of a problem either. The advantage of having a non-arbitrary dead line is that it reduces uncertainty, confusion, and unnecessary discussions. (Some of the arguments in this discussion seem to assume that editors are checking their watchlists 24/7, yet many editors are active only once in a week or even less often.)  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As well as curtailing the time open for debate (we chose seven days specifically because access to Wikipedia is often on a weekly cycle, especially when weekends are taken into account), the rush to deletion also means that certain admins end up closing all the debates. That's partly why I gave up closing AfDs: other admins were 'cheating' by closing them early, and ignored my requests not to. Seven days should be a bright line (excepting CSD and blatant IAR issues), and those who breach it should be sanctioned. Fences&Windows 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, would you also consider WP:SNOW a blatant IAR case? For example, 4-5 days, 9 keeps with a strong basis in policy, maybe one other delete either not based on policy or with a good counter argument? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

IAR should only be invoked when following the rule would be harmful to Wikipedia. In the case you describe, no harm would be done by waiting until the full seven days have elapsed to close the AfD, and so it should not be closed early.  Sandstein  14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR doesn't actually say it needs to "prevent harm", it simply says ignore rules which prevent you improving or maintaining wikipedia. And keeping an AfD open when there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it passing is a waste of the community's time; why not close it? The existence of WP:SNOW and the fact that many, many AfDs are closed as WP:SNOW seems to indicate that there is at least partial consensus that it is an appropriate interpretation of WP:IAR, and I don't think this is the correct venue to build consensus on whether or not WP:SNOW is an acceptable reason for closing AfDs early. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We can disagree with respect to SNOW/IAR cases, but there are many AfDs being closed early that do not fall into either category. These are the main problem here, I think.  Sandstein  15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree there; admins do have a certain degree of flexibility with WP:SNOW due to WP:IAR (there's always discussion with the admin / DRV if others disagree with an AfD, and further discussion is likely to be needed if WP:SNOW closes are to be challenged in general), but the discretion of the closing admin isn't infinite; withdrawn nominations with no support and WP:IAR should really be the only reasons to close early; as discussed above, the 7 day period is set at that for good reasons. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is room for some template magic, here, and that might help give the full 7 days, but this edit should fix most of the problem. Debates will now be listed at "In Closing" only after a full 7 days have elapsed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I thought I was the only one who used WP:CAFD; guess not!:) It may take a little while to get all of the AfD closers on the same page (pun not intended), but we can be lenient as far as sanctioning until then. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why even SNOW cases would need to be closed before the seven day mark. Even if there are a bunch of editors !voting keep and no editors !voting delete, I see no harm in leaving an AfD discussion for its full seven days. I understand that you can IAR even if you're not preventing harm (as Giftiger wunsch pointed out a few posts up), but what's the real point in this case? I suppose to avoid drawn-out discussion, but if an AfD is snowing, I feel like a lot of users wouldn't feel the need to even !vote... I personally am in favor of having a cut-and-dry policy for this, such as waiting 7 days in all cases. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Varlaam is not an admin, and had already been appropriately blocked for the interaction

Per RfC input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010), I am proposing on behalf of the multiple editors in good standing commenting at the RfC that the following topic ban be enacted:

"Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) is prohibited from using any community input process for proposing the removal or curtailment of display of any public-domain Rorschach Test images, broadly construed, until September 25th, 2011." Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I believe that there is community consensus for an indefinite topic ban for Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) on the subject of Rorschach Test images. Danglingdiagnosis is henceforth prohibited from adding, removing, or altering in any way the display of images depicting the Rorschach Test and from initiating or participating in any community input process to achieve this end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• ps, Jclemens, you should have notified Danglingdiagnosis. I have done so. It might also be a good idea, in the interest of fairness, to notify everyone who commented at the RfC.→ ROUX ₪ 06:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, good catch. I do tend to rely on others' use of watchlists on topics and pages in which they have an expressed interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• As far as why the duration I proposed wasn't longer, it is true that consensus can change, and I'm really hesitant to propose an indefinite prohibition on any user bringing up a topic in good faith. In formulating the restrictions proposed here, I tried to balance the disruptiveness of repeated, essentially unchanged requests for removal vs. the WP:CCC principle. If the community, as judged by the uninvolved administrator who ends up closing this proposal, believes that a longer topic ban is appropriate, I would not oppose it. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • When/if it changes, either someone else will bring it up or the user can appeal the ban; if consensus changed then they should have no problem getting the ban lifted. T. Canens (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The most important two words there, Jclemens, are 'good faith.' Danglingdiagnosis neither brought the proposal in good faith, nor argued in good faith. Instead, he repeatedly evaded answering direct questions, preferring to use rhetorical tricks (such as somehow defining 'censorship' as 'releasing information') to try his case. He proved in this instance, and in the previous one that he is immune to actual logic or comprehension of policy, and is the poster child for WP:IDHT. → ROUX ₪ 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell DD absolutely acted in good faith here, working toward improvement of the article. He didn't seem completely bound to the notion of removing images as others above have claimed, and when the RfC was submitted for him, he was still in process of dialog with other editors, asking for opinions on what an RfC to improve the article might contain. Those aren't the actions of the closed-minded ideologue he's presented as. Roux above brings up IDHT, but in the end they were DD's arguments that weren't being heard, as evidenced by the total lack of interest in discussing them. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (sorry, ROUX, I editconflicted with you when trying to edit my statement)
  • Exactly as he did last time, he was attempting an end-run around the consensus on the talkpage of the article. Last time he pretended it was under the umbrella of 'involuntary health consequences,' citing also concerns about photosensitive epilepsy--which he then proceeded to blithely ignore in order to focus on his pet peeve. Doing so very deliberately and specifically was an attempt to bypass the extant consensus at the talkpage of the article in question. That is not acting in good faith. This time he tried to gain exactly the same result, via a different set of rhetorical tricks. He was seriously attempting to argue that releasing information is censorship, while preventing such release is not. That is not acting in good faith. You say he was engaging in dialogue to find out what such an RfC should contain? Sure he was. And quite deliberately ignoring everyone saying "There is no need to bring this, consensus has not changed here." DD's--and yours, I might add--intense focus on not listening to anything that disagrees with you is also not acting in good faith. → ROUX ₪ 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Again: DD did not submit this RfC. People were saying there was no need to bring this... so fine: he didn't. He was working to see if there was a compromise that could be reached, trying to find something that COULD be brought to find a new and better consensus. Maybe he would have brought the RfC anyway, but so far he was just working on it as a possible thing to "bring" if consensus supported it. Note that even after it was an active RfC he was having dialog with Xeno (IIRC) to improve the questions. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And again--you seem to be missing the salient point here--the consensus has been crystal clear for years now: the images stay. Period. End of story. He was told this the last time he tried to do this, and was told then that he was trying to sidestep consensus. The exact same thing happened here. And that is why he is going to be topicbanned, whatever the length of time may be, from doing it again. He has shown that he is unable to accept that what he wants will simply not happen here, for a very wide variety of reasons, no matter what rhetorical tricks and ignoring dissent he tries. → ROUX ₪ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
        • And again, that's not the salient point since DD did not suggest removal and seemed open to consensus building that did not involve removal. So arguing that the consensus was against removal is completely irrelevant... yet repeated ad nauseam. You've topic banned a guy for saying things he did not say.Crcarlin (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Roux is completely correct. Consensus has been clear for ages; this latest RfC was nothing short of disruptive and trying to promote his own views, which are obviously against consensus. I see no evidence that he is trying to find a compromise given that there have been multiple discussion over this same topic before, and none of them have been in his favor. He keeps trying, and refuses to accept the final decisions made. This sort of stubbornness is detrimental to the project and is only annoying. An indefinite topic ban is the only thing that will stop this ridiculous behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have taken a look at the discussion and closed it accordingly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you acted too fast here. Danglingdiagnosis should have been given a chance to respond. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since last year, the archives for Talk:Rage Against the Machine have been moved to Talk:Rage Against the Machine 1. Being that's the talkpage of a nonexistent page, it has been deleted 6 times. Could an admin go through the deleted revisions and merge them with the correct archive page (Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 4) so we have a proper full archive? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I removed the text that Cluebot placed the other day onto the talk page. I think I corrected an issue that was having the bot place the text on the erroneous page so we shall see in a day or so what is up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I already fixed the problem, so ClueBot shouldn't add more. However, we need to dig stuff up from the deleted history. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Except, I'm not sure which threads are supposed to be where on the page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone needs to go through and add back in the stuff still. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – done Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please move Bomb Iran (parody song) to Bomb Iran please? I'd do it myself but Bomb Iran is protected; the (parody song) suffix isn't needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like an admin to review the edit history of Canton Viaduct over the last week. Every time I make an edit, User:Doncram reverts it. Given that there is prior history of bad faith interaction between us at other articles, I would like to prevent further escalation if possible. A short term, unofficial mediation would be helpful. I will notify Doncram that I have made this request. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Geesh, this would be unnecessary. But, well, if Blueboar is asking for it, that is evidence that something is necessary. Basically this regards my request to him at User talk:Blueboar#Canton Viaduct that he not come on too strong for a newish, focused editor. I was actually encouraged that Blueboar could hear what i had to say and did back off somewhat (relative to his pattern of prolific article and Talk page edits at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, one of the main places i have had interactions). This is being discussed, and there is a wp:BRD type process going on. It would be helpful perhaps to get some other editors comments at Blueboar's talk page, but i don't see this as ANI relevant. However if ANI action were to be taken, i would hope for it to be strong guidance to Blueboar to chill. I will post notice of this new ANI discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues, where other discussion of Blueboar's behavior has occurred, and has seemed to garner some help from other WikiProject Freemasonry editors in related edits. I don't have time for further discussion now but i will return later. There is no urgent problem with anything at the Canton Viaduct article, and there is no urgent other problem which can't be discussed slowly over some time instead. --doncram (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't accept that there is a history of bad faith interactions on my part with Blueboar, or at least that there is no unjustified bad faith if that is different. Since Blueboar focussed on some disambiguation pages such as Masonic Temple and others that i had developed, i have been forced to deal with him on topic after topic, and I have disagreed strenuously many times. I believe in all or almost all cases where a decision was then reached, my position was supported by consensus of editors, i.e. each of Blueboar's many related AFDs has been rejected. At some point Blueboar began claiming there is obviously bad faith because of all the disagreement, but that is misleading reasoning. I have at times expressed some well-justified exasperation. And, here we go again. --doncram (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, considering in your last revert, you removed a reference supporting Blueboar's contention while restoring unsourced text, I can see how BB might be getting a bit frustrated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time. Doncram, it seems as if you are happily willing to revert any and all edits I make to any article we both want to work on... (while strongly objecting if I revert one of your edits). It is frustrating. Instead of edit warring this time... I am asking for an admin to step in. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm in as an involved editor, not as an admin.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

There is a huge backlog of files that need to speedy-deleted building up and requires administrators' attention. These files are listed in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no urgency in processing these files since it makes no real difference whether the files are deleted or not. It does give us a chance to review the files in question, so it shouldn't be rushed. There are a significant number which will want deleting from here and from Commons.

The only Commons-related backlog which may matter - and which we don't have any really solid processes to handle - are the name clashes: the cases where an image here has the same name as a different image on Commons. Some of these are in Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons, but only a very few since this category is populated by manual tagging.

Supposedly there is a toolserver query that will generate a listing of all images - here - but I certainly couldn't get that to work and in any case rerunning the query every time you want to look is a bad idea. We should probably have a periodic report generated onto a page here in enwp. Likely someone with half a clue could do that easily enough. Fabulous virtual prizes await! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This backlog has been around for forever. It's not urgent, but admins should try to clear out one subcategory when they have spare time. It takes about 10 minutes or less for me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on cutting down the undated category; I don't know if I'm making any progress, but it can't hurt. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... "It takes 10 minutes" and "I don't know if I'm making any progress" leave me confused. I wish I could help... Alas. Fleet Command (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it takes ten minutes to clear out a subcategory. It also takes ten minutes for a new subcategory to be populated :/ /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about a category here backlogged by months when a related Commons category is nearly 2.5 years behind, although I have been working on it. Rodhullandemu 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That I can help. I'll review three files per day until this category is depleted. You admins can help eliminate the aforementioned backlog without undertaking much pressure: Every day, each of you admins delete one file from one of those two categories. How's that? Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Files don't need deleting surely, just reviewing to check the bot did the move OK. Theoretically,anyone who wants to use the image in an article could just check that the info is all ok, there's nothing hinky, and remove the tag.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "files don't need deleting", it means that you've got the context wrong. Files in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons need speedy-deleting. If an administrator delete one of them each day, soon these categories will be depleted. In the mean time, I'll review three files in commons:Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review. Fleet Command (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you meant the admins to delete files out of the category that both you and Rodhull had been referring to, rather than the categories you started the thread about. I like your approach though - everyone does one or two regularly, rather than one poor sod thinking 'I've got to sit down for three weeks and do this...' I'll try to do a review whenever I log on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. The above database report contains a number of BLPs that could either be sourced or deleted through the BLP Prod process. It could use some attention; does anyone want to take a look and possibly consider watchlisting it? NW (Talk) 00:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by the extremely small number of items currently on the list. Either we are patrolling and correcting or deleting very efficiently indeed, or we have successfully taught potential user to source BLP articles. From my own patrolling of CSD, I think the second is not the case. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the bot just does not manage to catch everything. Still, it's usually a couple of articles every day. NW (Talk) 01:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, most new article creations that belong in Category:Living people aren't created with it and don't immediately get it added, although they nearly always do get it eventually. If the report used the category as a base, this alone could result in missing articles. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

If anyone tries to access same URL but in different cases, they are redirected to different pages. Its not the ideal behavior.

On web, human do type web address manually (sometimes) but don't remember the case. In such scenario, they should rather be redirected to right page instead of making the distinction between the cases (upper/lower) used to type URL.

For verifying the same, try opening the URL given below and you will be redirected to entirely different pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComponentOne [Correct URL] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Componentone [Incorrect URL]

Hopefully, it will help you improve the site.

Ankur.nigam (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is case sensitive, because different articles on different subjects may be under different letter cases. Wikipedia has LOTS of articles, and we want our titles to be as precise as possible. In the future, if you have questions of a technical nature like this, the better place to ask would be at either Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Jayron32 05:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. But, given that Componentone was a very old deletion, I made a new redirect to solve this specific problem. Courcelles 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) wants to add trivial, and he hopes defamatory, content to the Katie Couric BLP article. His attempts were reverted by several editors. In talk page discussion here, the vast majority of editors rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the NPOV Noticeboard here, where all but one editor also rejected the proposed content as trivial, undue weight and against NPOV policy. So Hearfourmewesique tried the WikiQuette Noticeboard here, where he was again informed that his proposed content was trivial, undue weight and tabloid-ish. Now he is dismissing the consensus input from numerous editors, calling them a "mob" (see this edit summary), and he has chosen to edit war instead. His comments in his edit summaries, (...I am not going to repeat the explanation. Find it.) and (Discussion is over, no one contested my last statement for over a MONTH.) indicate a reluctance to resolve the dispute through discussion. A bit of help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• User:Hearfourmewesique notified of ANI discussion involving him.

OK, let's put this in proportion:

• Trivial – this word is being flung around like monkey feces, with no actual solid proof to it.
• Defamatory – it's a video depicting Couric making fun of the Palin family, as reported by multiple reliable sources, not a picture of her breasts exposed in a third world tabloid.
• Vast majority – this article is a fan club; there is not a single entry that counters the constant appraisals of her character and work that this article entirely comprises of.
• Mob – it's wikilinked to WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, again with the fan club issue.
• Undue – we are talking about one sentence of somewhat negative reporting within an article that's entirely biased in Ms. Couric's favor and tenaciously guarded by the "mob" I was referring to earlier. This is a technique that seems to have been well developed on Wikipedia: get enough supporters and anything can be achieved under the pretense of consensus. Luckily, User:Drrll (the one in "all but one" that Xenophrenic mentioned) has enough common sense to understand my point, as opposed to any other editor that has been "swarmed" by the myriads of comments that were intended to flood mine and Drrll's.
• My comments – those are my two final comments after sweating bullets over extensive explanations of the validity of my point, being repeated over and over again until I got to that point (of simply instructing Xenophrenic to start listening to me, instead of exhausting me with these techniques). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is strong support on the talkpage that the content has no actual value in her life story, user Hearfourmewesique is not listening and has been replacing the addition anyway, this has resulted in the article being locked. There is a consensus against the user and he should listen to those voices and when the article is unlocked in a couple of days if he again readds it against consensus, that would imo be disruptive editing. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A look through Hear4's contrib list indicates that when he veers into political articles he's trying to paint certain people a particular way, and his "fan club" comments above are par for the course when it comes to editors who want to violate the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

...and here we are with the politics: you find whatever you can to try and make me look bad at any cost. Your "look" can be summarized in Couric and Michael Moore, to the latter's article a concise and neutral paragraph being added, with multiple reliable sources, on an issue that wasn't covered before I added that paragraph. Unless you can prove that I want to violate BLP intentionally, I will interpret this as a personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So just what was the point of adding a lengthy blurb about how Michael Moore supposedly supports the idea of a mosque on Ground Zero? Do you think his article also reads like a "fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly??? Wow man, I though you'd be wiser than that, being a veteran here and all... read the sources, he's proudly "shouting it" on his website! Having said that and the issue being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, it should be in his bio. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So, does the Moore article read like a fan club article? I don't think so. And like pundits such as O'Reilly and Hannity, he thrives on controversy. Meanwhile, your continued attempts to make a mountain out of the Couric-Palin molehill skew the matter. That video didn't come out until long after the election, and there is no end of people who made fun of Palin in public, at the time, so the fact that she did so, in private, is nothing unusual and is undue weight in the article. As far as a "personal attack"... well, I merely read what you wrote earlier, and as a "veteran", I saw that it fits the pattern of many, many editors I've seen here who complain when they aren't allowed to put their negative trivial stuff into an article - for example, as with the siege of the Palin article during the fall of 2008, which I helped to defend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your position that you can add anything you want that you can find a citation for it the problem you are having. We are writing the life stories of living people and we should use editorial judgment as regards what has value in their life that is worth adding, if you find yourself in a minority that the content you desire to add is worthwhile and noteworthy that is the time to start listening, not the time to suggest all the people that disagree with your position are members of the article subjects fan club. Off2riorob (talk)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Far more important in the grand scheme of things is that despite all the initial hype, Couric and CBS News have yet to make a dent in their ratings deficit - a fact which actually is stated in the article. I wonder if a "fan club" article would be likely to mention that fact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The "lengthy blurb" is a short four-sentenced paragraph (just finishing the Moore thought). As for Couric... this might seem trivial, but none of you are considering that it's an indication of her being biased against Palin, a fact which influenced the interviews, prompting Palin's supporters to see it as being from the most negative perspective ever. Declining ratings are nothing compared to that. Nowhere is Coric's personal agenda mentioned anywhere in the article. She's not a neutral reporter and this is a clear influence on her work, which is seen by millions of people on a daily basis. Is any of that mentioned in the article, even when supported by multiple sources? No. So... yes, it's a fan club that happens to mention poor Ms. Couric and the declining ratings she can't raise... sniff sniff and sad puppies.

P.S. Just for the record, I happen to agree with her on the Palin issue; I believe Palin is one of the most incompetent political candidates the US has seen in years. On the other hand, I'm not a TV reporter and I'm not influencing masses of people based on my wording. Again: all I want is for the article to be a bit more balanced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to right great wrongs. If you don't understand that, or cannot understand how your editing has taken on that quality, you should not be editing the article at this time. Please consider this a final warning from an uninvolved administrator to cease and desist. NW (Talk) 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. WP:GREATWRONGS is a specific instruction to "only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources". I have supplied seven, and Drrll supplied one more, making it eight. Final warning? It's the first time we interact, pal, chill out.

To BaseballBugs, per WP:OSE, the fact many others were making fun of Palin at the time doesn't make it OK and/or trivial for Couric to have done that as well. Besides, she didn't do it in private, she was reading the script at her stand, with the camera being aimed at her; she just thought the camera was turned off. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear what Palin had to say about Couric also, but that wouldn't mean it belongs in the Palin article. Also, a fact being verifiable is not a ticket to inclusion in an article, it's merely a minimum standard that must be met before it can be considered for inclusion, especially on a BLP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Hearfourmewesique actually believes he has some damning "gotcha" content here, as evidenced by his mistaken assertion that Couric "thought the camera was turned off". In fact, Couric asks and is told that they are filming during the first 24 seconds of that video footage, and she even does the customary 3.. 2.. 1.. sound-check countdown before launching into her read-through, which she promptly interrupts with the exclamation, "Where the hell do they get these names?" There is actually nothing defamatory about that video footage, and Couric wasn't "caught" doing anything other than learning for the first time about people with names like Trig and Track that live at the far fringe of our nation, eat mooseburgers, hunt caribou, and leave 90% of Americans scratching their collective heads and asking: WTF?

When, in an effort of compromise, I left the trivial content in the article, and expanded it a bit to describe just what Couric was making fun of, Hearfour reverted those edits, too. Apparently, too much information for the reader ruins the "we caught Katie doing something baaad" aura he was trying to push, and shows it as trivial. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mountain-out-of-molehill stuff. A lot of Americans wondered the same thing. Maybe she could have asked a softer version of that question during the interview. Like the time Jay Leno asked Frank Zappa why he named his son "Dweezil". Frank's answer was, "Because I wanted to," and that was the end of that discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'd like to reply to a point made by Hear.. It appears he is claiming that the incident shows Couric's bias and provides context for the infamous Palin interviews that came after. The sources do not support this -- they merely remark on the trivial details already mentioned. Anything more is from (unreliable) Palin supporters with a grudge. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're claiming that Palin supporters are unreliable – because they're Palin supporters? Why would they even bother getting upset unless something in Couric's portrayal of Palin wasn't all kosher? Have all Palin supporters unanimously decided to scapegoat Couric on an empty basis? Your logic has more holes in it than a bagel factory at 5 AM. Most of these sources point at the fact that the interviews followed shortly after the video was shot, and were seen by some as an extensive smear campaign. Yet I'm the one accused of a smear attempt because I'm stating what's covered by several press outlets... huh? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)