Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227

Merge proposal of Amqa into Amka needs an uninvolved administrator to close a week-long ongoing discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editor could have closed that. It was fairly clear.--v/r - TP 14:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I followed up on a report by User:Crusio at AIV (see the diff). I think he has a point: it does appear as if User:LheaJLove's account has been hijacked. I've blocked for spamming, but am interested in someone else having a look. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with you. The sudden dive into erotica when the user's primary focus has been African American heritage/history seems out of character. The user would seem to know better than to spam in this way in my honest opinion.--v/r - TP 14:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because I don't know what to do: I'm sure there is a template with a message for the "real" editor telling them what to do. Then again, if I remember correctly the user hasn't edited since 2009 or so. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If the user hasn't created a identity hash, there isn't much they can do. Emailing them is useless, the email could be changed in preferences. You can't trust any email that comes to you as it could come from the person who compromised the account. User:LheaJLove will just have to create a new account if they chose to return to editing.--v/r - TP 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at her online presence it seems fairly clear the account has not been hijacked. It all links up. It may be ambitious, but it's not a compromised spambot. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not been hijacked? Until July 2009 she edits articles on African-American poetry and Africana philosophy, then disappears, and returns today creating an article for a yet-to-be-published erotic magazine and adds a bunch of text and links related to that article. I don't know what you mean with ambitious and spambot--how does that relate? Drmies (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I missed something this account has made an abrupt and drastic change editing habits. zzuuzz if you have found something we're missing please provide links. Mlpearc powwow 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to provide a detailed rationale on this page at this time. I had a good look earlier though, and I may have time later if you're still interested. The key aspects of this account (then and now) are literature, and a huge interest in writing websites. I'll point you to the first post on this page. The other evidence and links between it all is overwhelming if you look for it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

<--Well, I'm glad she found a calling in life then. In that case, though, there isn't much justification for a continued block, and unless I hear something different by tonight I'll unblock her, with a stern, old-man's warning to not add spamlinks to articles again. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, zzuuzz thanx for the enlightenment, Drmies the advise might be old fashioned but, sound. Mlpearc powwow 00:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could all admins involved in speedy deletion please see the discussion at WT:CSD#Description pages for Commons images - F2 before deleting images - there are a number of images currently tagged for F2 which may require re-evaluation.—An  optimist on the run! 12:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone recognize these accounts (the ones starting with NNU)? There were several created in the past few hours and I'm not sure what their purpose is. I've left a message on a user's talk page, but have not heard back yet. TNXMan 15:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on the other recent accounts such as NNU-11-liyanyan and NNU-10-Alice, I'm thinking that this might involve a class project. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably originating out of Nanjing Normal University. –xeno^talk 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Gracias. TNXMan 16:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are involved in a school project, many have been created through Account Creations and are legitimate accounts. Mlpearc powwow 18:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams. Experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the permissions, and current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other.

Successful candidates are likely to be regularly available and already familiar with local and global processes, policies, and guidelines especially those concerning CheckUser and Oversight. CheckUser candidates are expected to be technically proficient, and previous experience with OTRS is beneficial for Oversight candidates. Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission. All candidates must at least 18 years of age; have attained legal majority in their jurisdiction of residence; and be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving permissions.

Current demand for users with regional knowledge

Because of the increasing activity from the South Asian, Southeast Asian, or Middle Eastern regions, CheckUser applications are particularly sought from people who not only meet our general requirements but also are familiar with the ISPs and typical editing patterns of any of these regions.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 18 September 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Can an uninvolved admin deal with this? A quick look at talk:Hades and my talk page should show beyond reasonable doubt that this guy is a troll, and I've probably humoured him for too long. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the Reverend indefinitely for trolling. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Endorse block. I thought you were very patient with him, Nev. --John (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this editor is probably sincere -- but clearly not prepared to edit articles usefully. Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The following sentences cannot be found in the references assigned to them in the article

1. "a decade of his ruling in Iran is marked with extensive violation of human rights"

Sources:

^ A list of executed prisoners in 1988 (in Farsi) at http://www.holycrime.com/Images/Listof1367Massacre.pdf

^ memories of a slaughter at http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=160

^ Iran Human Rights Documentation http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/reports/3149-a-faith-denied-the-persecution-of-the-baha-is-of-iran.html A Faith Denied ...

(The sources are rather primary ones and I cannot find the claim in them directly; even though Farsi is my first language):

2. "Khomeini is widely blamed amongst Iranian elites for his hypocritical approach in raising to power during Iran 1978 revolution"

The italicized text does not exist in what is claimed to be its source (and I am not going to get into whether this source is reliable or not.)

3. "Khomeini is also a popular anti-American, anti-Western figure in recent political history"

The sentence in the claimed source, i.e. p. 138 of Nassr's book only says he escalated that feeling; that is all:

"He managed to escalate anti-Americanism"

You can check the sentence in Nassr's book, The Shia Reviaval. There, he is by no means described as an anti-American nor anti-western unlike what is claimed in the article.

I am wondering if I can go ahead and delete those sections according to this. Kazemita1 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are asking in the wrong place. This should be discussed on the talk page of the article, and only taken elsewhere if it is impossible to reach consensus there -- and even then this would not be the right place; see WP:DR for information on how to handle such problems. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Much ado about nothing. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that this user talk page indicates that the user is banned with a template indicating such having been placed by User:Portillo, but checking the block log I find no corresponding block, only a block from January 2011 by User:Materialscientist for vandalism that has long since expired. Is this user actually banned or is this template mistaken? I'm inclined to say the latter, but I thought I'd ask just to double check that I'm not missing something somewhere. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Portillo is still very active. Have you tried asking him directly? --Jayron32 03:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I notified him of this thread, but I decided to bring it up here in the event that if I am indeed missing something there is also a block missing. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that you notified him. Still, it would be nice if you attempted to settle issues with users individually and privately before dragging them to AN to answer for their actions. Maybe he has a good explanation, or maybe he screwed up, but we don't really need a grand inquiry if he can answer himself on his own talk page... --Jayron32 03:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Portillo, but what seemed to happen is: I've blocked 114.76.75.93 in January 2011 for 12 hours, as a quick measure to stop vandalism after 7 edits from that IP, and forgot to place a block template. Portillo tried to fix that and placed a wrong template ({{banned}}), which I have just removed. There was no edits from this IP since then, and not much to worry about. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, user AliAshraf.D is accusing me of being an Iranian government official. Please, take a look at his rhetoric in that discussion page:

AliAshraf.D: "I am familiar with Iran government's official literature as well as many of the editors here."

Kazemita1 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it, in that sentence at least. --Golbez (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just a misinterpretation. Read it as (Iran government's) (official literature) -- the official literature of that government, not literature by an official of that government. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian and close it? A fair warning—there is a lot of reading involved, but hopefully I was able to summarize the discussion in the Motion to close section (apart from a few minor points, the proposal has support, and the last comments of any substance were made in the beginning of July). Thanks in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that a part of the discussion has now been archived by the bot but should still be considered during closure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:31 (UTC)

Ezhiki (talk · contribs), would you restore that part of the discussion that was archived by the bot? Then remove that discussion from the archives. Please also combine the related sections (including the archived section and the motion to close section) and provide a direct link to it. This will allow admins to clearly see which discussion should be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion; thanks. I've unarchived the relevant portions of the discussion and placed them under one header. The link to the portion that needs to be reviewed and closed is Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking into this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi- if appropriate, could an uninvolved admin please close this Merger discussion? --Sreifa (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can some admin who can understand Serbo-Croatian reasonably well please read sh:Ah, Ahilej, to determine if its content is good enough for us to not speedy delete Ah, Ahilej? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Google gives the following translation:Because it's only a machine translation, I'll not do anything about it, but if I were an sh:wp admin operating under the same policies as en:wp, I'd delete it under A7. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough is has an editing restriction stating "Regardless of the editing method [...] is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented." (for full text, check the linked page). Rich Farmbrough is now mass creating articles imported from Wikisource, from the Dictionary of National Biography. So far, over 100 of those have been created over the last days. These pages are script-generated, with extremely minimal manual work done on them, and are often of very low quality. Problems include

1. The importing of pages that have not even been proofread on Wikisource, leading to incorrect years of birth or death (e.g. William Beattie (physician) has died on Wikipedia in 1876, but according to the source in 1875; George Beattie (poet) lived until 1828 here, but until 1823 in the source)
2. Seemingly randomly placed wikilinks, on e.g. John Dunstall, the only "manual" edit by Rich Farmbrough[1] was the addition of wikilinks to either disambiguation pages like Charles I or John Carter or to incorrect pages like Samuel Clarke or Custom House. The vast majority of links on this page points to an incorrect page. Similarly, John Barrow (fl.1756) links to the surnames of explorers, with pages like wafer bluelinked, while e.g. Van Noort is a redlink that could easily have been turned into Olivier van Noort.
3. Lack of categories: most pages are only categorized according to the year of birth and dead, not to nationality, profession, or other claim of notability, making them nearly impossible to find through the cat system
4. Blatantly incorrect categories; a number of these pages are categorized not by year of birth and death, but as living people, even though all of these people are very dead; e.g. George Steward Beatson, John Bearblock, Richard Butcher (antiquary), John Dunstall, Gabriel Dugrès, William Augustus Barron, and the fifth-century Dubthach Maccu Lugir

• Why he is suggesting to merge an article he just created to a non-existant one is beyond me[2]

Perfection is not required, but blindly copying pages from Wikisource that have not even been proofread, inserting useless wikilinks, and listing a significant number of pages as cat:living people for long-death people (from a source that doesn't list a single living person anymore...) is poor form, and coming from a person who already has an editing restriction against the mass creation of pages (beacuse of problems with the poor quality of them), this is a lot worse. The pages are listed as Category:DNB drafts, but, well, drafts shouldn't be placed in the mainspace but in userspace. Fram (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If he wants to keep it up, then I'd say block him until we're sure the disruption isn't going to continue or repeat.--Crossmr (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have quickly reviewed edit histories - I cannot see an attempt to discuss this with the editor, only a notice of this discussion. Had a warning been given and ignored then I would have been reporting that I had blocked pending resolution. I feel that these actions are contrary to the spirit (and likely the wording) of the restriction and feel a further sanction may be required, but only after we receive some response from RF. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't first discussed this one, no. Previous discussions with Rich Farmbrough for other violations of his editing restrictions didn't lead to anything productive, e.g. the discussion ended here about the violations made by his alternate account User:Megaphone Duck, or these ones here,[3], and others. I don't have the feeling that he takes into account anything said be me, so if someone else wants to discuss this with him first, they are free to do so. But it is far from the first time that he has violated these restrictions (see also his block log), although the violations are less common than they used to be last year. But also note e.g. his series of AWB edits from late August[4][5][6][7][8]... which are a violation of his other editing restriction, and go directly against a request made by me (and others like Magioladitis) to leave the capitalization of parameters in Persondata alone (see e.g. [9] for an older discussion of this). Basically, I have lost the hope that me discussing this directly with Rich Farmbrough will solve anything. Fram (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI if a non-administrator had continually abused their AWB privileges as Rich Farmbrough has done, I would be withdrawing their access to the tool. Given that Rich is an administrator, this is not possible so instead he may need to be formally restricted from using AWB and other semi-/automated scripts and tools. –xeno^talk 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be time for the committee to look at Mr. Farmbrough's access to all tools other than manual simple editing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For greater certainty, my contributions to this thread are made in my individual capacity. –xeno^talk 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Further restrictions? Oh yes, the never ending cycle on Wikipedia.. someone can't follow the restrictions laid out for them? Well.. instead of enforcing the ones we have, let's just make some new ones. They can't follow those, well how about we tweak them a little more? The user is under editing restrictions. There is no requirement that anyone discuss every single situation with every user they wish to report before bringing them here. The situation has already been discussed with him, it's why he's under editing restrictions. How about instead of trying to shoot the messenger we address the actual problem? As for your response, you got it below. He doesn't even acknowledge that he's violated his restrictions nor that they exist--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Firstly it is not the rule that DNB pages are created before the source has been proofread, rather the exception. Therefore it is only when the DNB process fails that an unproofread page will be used.
2. Secondly there is nothing wrong with dab links, a separate process cleans them up.
3. Thirdly there is always request for categorisation, the professional categorisers do a far better job far faster than I could.
4. Fourthly it is an assumption that these people are dead and not caught in a time rift, or ascended, or simply very very lucky. However I agree marking them as living is unwise and that is easily fixed. (Now fixed.)

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

An unsatisfactory reply. I am disappointed at his urge to create a mass of very poor quality articles. It's much better for the project to create fewer articles with each one being fair quality. Whatever can be done to slow his ability to use automated tools would be a step in the right direction. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't impute such an urge from Fram's comments. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

As is mentioned above, you are prohibited from mass creating pages unless there's a prior community approval for the task. Could you point it out where the required community approval for this specific mass creation task is documented? Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, six people have commented, some wanting an explanation from Rich Farmbrough, others more directly agreeing with my analysis, none to contradict it. Rich Farmbrough has replied as well. His reply doesn't address the basic question of the editing restrictions at all, and gives unsatisfactory answers otherwise:

• 1: "it is only when the DNB process fails that an unproofread page will be used." So when Rich Farmbrough uses a page from Wikisource that isn't proofread already, and imports it without checking it, it is the fault of Wikisource?
• 2: "there is nothing wrong with dab links, a separate process cleans them up." That process exists of editors, no automatic cleanup of dablinks exists. He is deliberately creating extra work for other editors because he doesn't want to spend the necessary time to get his links right. Furthermore, not all incorrect links he introduced were dab links, many just pointed to the incorrect page (I gave e.g. the "wafer" and "Custom House" example above, there are plenty others to be found as well).
• 3: "the professional categorisers do a far better job far faster than I could." Really? The "additional categories" backlink goes back to April, and e.g. the article Peter Elmsley (bookseller), which he created in May, still needs further categorisation. I don't believe that he couldn't have done that job faster than that.
• 4: Haha, but seriously: "easily fixed. (Now fixed.)" Really? I listed above William Augustus Barron, which has now been categorised among the living people for 2 months, and wasn't fixed. If he hasn't even fixed one I so conveniently mentioned above as having that problem, I doubt that he has fixed them all, and control indicates that he has indeed still 5 articles among his DNB drafts which are listed as "living people"...
• 5: Looking at his other "corrections" after this thread started, there is [10]: incorrect edit summary, and the article now has both the cat "year of death missing" and "967 deaths"; the one before that [11] has the same incorrect edit summary, and still has that nonsense merge tag he put on it; and the one before that [12] also has the incorrect edit summary, an incorrect year "11793" in the persondata, and no correction of the inconsistent dates which I indicated above. Need I go on?

All this indicates to me that Rich Farmbrough is not acknowledging that this was a violation of his editing restrictions (which everyone seems to agree on), that he doesn't see a problem in introducing unchecked and incorrectly transcribed material, and that he feels it is normal to deliberately include incorrect info (links) or to deliberately leave out user-friendly things (cats), because eventually, perhaps, someone else will cleanup after him. And finally, that when he does correct errors that have been pointed out to him, he does so in a very sloppy manner, introducing new errors and carelessly believing that something is "fixed" when it isn't.

Does anyone has any suggestion as to how this can be remedied? Fram (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is a complete restriction on semi-automated and automated editing. –xeno^talk 12:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) for 1 week per the wording of the mass article creation restriction and upon review of his block log, following his response which did not acknowledge the restriction or otherwise note where approval had been received. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just so that you know that blocking him will also block all his bots as well. Several of which are used throughout WP. --Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think most people are ok with that as this has come up time and again. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I just think that the constant crying wolf from FRAM and XENO at this point is getting a little old and they are going to find any reason to bring up that will get Rich blocked. If I was him I would probably ignore whatever they had to say to me as well. Many of the arguments brought up in the past by these 2 have been very weak (although some have been valid as in some of the examples above). --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I think its gotten to the point where he should be asked to leave period. I have never really encountered him personally that I can remember but his constant flouting of his restrictions and doing things he knows he shouldn't be are a waste of the communities time. He is more of a detriment to the community than a help at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, perhaps you would like to volunteer to clean up some of Rich's recent mass article creations? Or closely follow his reckless editing and fix any errors he introduces? –xeno^talk 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot still seems to be running (and continuing to violate Rich's editing restrictions [13]). –xeno^talk 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I knew that was coming! For what its worth I think we should completely ban the practive of using Wikisource as a source anyway. The use of it violates RS anyway since it is by definition a Wikisite and it is updated by editors like us and its trustworthiness is dubious but thats just me. I don't think that is necessarily Rich's fault. --Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Xeno how is dating a maintenance tag a bad thing? --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Rich is prohibited from "making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval)." –xeno^talk 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, as far as I know is the dating of tags such an approved task, and his bot does that now with relatively few problems. I do believe that the two bots (Helpful Pixie bot and Femtobot) need to be stopped though, because a bot owner is responsible for any cleanup and so on that is needed if the bot malfunctions, but being blocked he would be unable to do that. Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this has changed, but I was under the impression that Rich is restricted from unnecessarily changing the case of templates (see the footnote on the cosmetic changes restriction). –xeno^talk 14:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the changing of capitalization was what led to the most recent set of restrictions on him if I do believe. Because he was going around changing the capitalization. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Kumioko: Erm, Rich is under a community-based editing restriction, which he has repeatedly violated. If he doesn't want somebody bringing him to a noticeboard every few weeks, he should start editing in accordance with the restrictions. I can't help but wonder if a less prolific, lower-profile non-admin wouldn't have been indef'd by now.

  As for the bots, if the autoblock causes trouble, we can disable it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To HJ - I think you bring up a good point but I also wonder if someone who weren't as dedicated to the project wouldn't have said the hell with it by this point. I agree that he does some dubious edits (if nothing else just by sheer volume alone hes going to have some) but I think a lot of the huff has been blown out of proportion. I think in general he does more good than harm which is also evident in the fact he is allowed to keep editing.

To Xeno - First let me clarify that aside from Rich's edits I personally think that the limitation set forth (mostly imposed by you) that making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page is a bad thing. There are plenty of things out there that don't change the rendering of the page that don't need to be in the article such as Innapproraite comments, dead parameters in templates, empty parameters in templates taking up space and making the page harder and more confusing to edit, etc. This leaves us with piles and piles of garbage in the articles in talk pages we can't get rid of without inventing another edit of some kind that changes the rendering of the page like adding a category, portal, tweaking some grammer by adding a comma, etc. Second, For your info that edit you bring up does make a visible change to the page because it adds the date. Look closer at the comment box and you'll see it. :-) Also, For years adding the date to a maintenance tag was a reguler edit by the bot and it was a highly desired edit. Now all of a sudden because of a shortsighted rule we "can't date maintenance tags" or is it more because of who is doing it...Im not quite clear on that one.

I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse but I wanted to voice my opinion that, regardless of the edits made, some editors are going to persist in following Rich around until one of his edits does something they don't like and well be right back here. We all do edits that irritate others, delete images, remove garbage from articles, edit too fast, etc. We don't need to block someone every time they do an edit. --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not the dating of the maintenance tag that is the issue, its the spacing he changed down by the logo parameter I believe. Those are the sorts of changes his bot is not supposed to make. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring to the dating of the maintenance tag, but the unnecessary changing of template capitalization. While a minor issue, it is further evidence that Rich is not respecting his duly-imposed editing restrictions. –xeno^talk 14:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Fram - I regretfuly agree partially with Fram for the reasons given. Regardless of wether I agree with the block and eventhough the bot may be working but if the bot owner is blocked its innappropriate IMO for the bot to be running unless there is another operator that can and is willing to fix anything that doesn't work right. Unfortunately this also stops all the good edits these bots do like bulding the watchlists for the WikiProjects and all the edits that the bot formerly known as Smackbot (Helpful Pixie bot) does. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Djsasso - I disagree with that assessment. I agree that the bot should not be removing spaces like that or other truly minor edits alone but if the bot is already there doing another edit that is significant (renders a change to the page or whatever) then it should do that while its there. Otherwise these minor little things would stay there forever. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For other bot runners and editors yes. However, Rich himself has specifically been restricted from doing changes like that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So what your telling me is that we are leveeing requirements on one editor that we are not enforcing on others as well. I have a problem with that especially since those edits are built into AWB Band he would have to program around them in order to not do them. Its obvious that I am the single dissenting voice and I am a non admin (nor do I wish to be one at this point) so I see no reason to continue to waste my time complaining about something that knowone wants to hear. But...This is goign to continue until Rich is permanantly blocked IMO so you may as well get it over with and move on. Plus someone needs to keep these bots running so you might want to start converting all the bot tasks into other bots. All this starting and stopping is really hosing up the pedi and I have better things to do than deal with this drama repeatedly. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary template case changes are not built into AWB. –xeno^talk 14:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats a really really weak argument and you know it. Just a few minutes ago you said it was cause it didn't make a change to the rendering of the page and now its cause it changed the capitalization to match what the template looks like when you go Template:Unreferenced? I think you are just trying to justify it. I still think that someone needs to stop the bots also. If the owner is blocked the bots shouldn't be running. Even if there are a whole ton of good things that those bots are doing. I also don't think we should choose when to enforce the rules. If we are going to enforce them on one bot then we should do it to the others as well. Like the one that adds the interlanguage links that don't change the rendering of the page, or the one that removes the commented out deleted images from articles. We should stop these 2 as well since they are violating the rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, your contributions to these threads concerning inappropriate tool-assisted editing frequently include irrelevant tangents such as this. Are those processes approved by the Bot Approvals Group? Are the operators of those processes under editing restrictions? If the answers are "Yes" and "No", then I don't see how your suggestion is at all relevant. There is no consensus that templates must have first-letter capitalization and they function fine either way. Rich has been formally restricted from changing the capitalization of templates, yet he continues to do so. That is what is relevant here. –xeno^talk 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my arguments or someone questioning your judgement doesn't make them irrelevent. But that was a nice try and deflecting the problem back at me. But my point above was that you didn't even know in the beginning why it was a problem until you came back later with the first letter case change argument. Additionally, if the rule is that we cannot make changes that don't render changes to the page, and that is a rule, then who is the Bot approval group to overrule it? Do they have the right to overrule concensus on any rule? I think not. They choose to follow the rule when it suits them best, or to enforce it the same way. If we are going to make a rule then we ALL need to follow it. I have told you repeatedly I think its a stupid rule but consensus created it and I can live with that. But what I find irritating is when a small handful of editors seems to have the power or the administrative capabilites to ignore it whenever they want, or when it affects them. Thats what I have a problem with. --Kumioko (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The changing of the case is why I linked it in the first place. The Bot Approvals Group can approve a process that makes edits that don't change the rendered page if the task is desirable and has demonstrable consensus. –xeno^talk 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well of course anything can be done if it meets demonstrable consensus. But since most bot requests are done on the bot request page and not somewhere where demonstrable consensus could be gathered I am left to wonder who has the power to determine demonstrable consensus. It doesn't really matter though because you were correct that we are a bit off topic. But it does prove my point earlier that we choose when and to what editors we enforce the rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that is how things work. If one editor is doing something to the extreme and causing a lot of mistakes and trouble and the community (on this page or ANI) comes to a consensus that what they are doing is wrong and they place restrictions on the user of course we are doing it to one user and not another. Its no different from blocking an editor. In this particular case these restrictions were put on him so that he wouldn't have to be blocked and so that he could still be productive on the wiki. In other words the restrictions were a second chance (or 237th in this case) to try and avoid blocking him. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

@Kumioko, the only reason that the template "looks like" {{Unreferenced...}} in its documentation is because Rich Farmbrough wanted it to look like that. He has a habit of making cosmetic changes to template naming and appearance, and then immediately entrenching those style choices with hundreds or thousands of AWB and bot edits. That practise must stop. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think thats about half true. The practice of dating the maintenance tags has been going for several years and I believe he did that when Xeno forced AWB to add a bullet that stopped allowing what he perceives as pointless edits because they don't render anything to the page. Aside from that dating the template is a good thing even if it doesn't change the look. It lets us know how long the artile has been tagged. It also adds it to the appropriate category. So there is really no valid argument against dating maintenance tags unless the goal is just to get Rich blocked. He has done other things that were bad or contrversial but that IMO isn't one of them. --Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Again the issue isn't the dating of the tags, its the capitalization of the tag. He was specifically asked by the community to stop doing it. He did it so often that the community then placed restrictions on him stopping it. The dating of the tag has nothing to do with the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry my example wasn't clear about that. I am certainly talking about style decisions in wiki markup for template usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it is done along with other - more important - edits, then there should be nothing wrong with it. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have declined Rich's unblock request pending resolution of this issue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good timing, because 133 minutes later there's now another {{unblock}} request[14] —Sladen (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) (nb. it's hidden in the diff-noise).

I left a message on the bots talk page to stop it. As I mentioned above and on that bots talk page I do not think a bot shoulde running if the sole owner/operator is blocked. They are responsible for fixing any problems created by the bot and he clearly woudld be unable to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I also stopped Femtobot. --Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked both bots. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That was pointless, unless they wouldn't stop. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) NVM, I see they were ignoring the stop notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Block issued. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Toothis (talk · contribs) has been trolling talk pages, mostly for the purpose of starting flame wars over subjects who were critics of the Vietnam War, occasionally veering into other controversial topics. There are no meaningful suggestions as to how to improve the articles, and no citations are offered; only attacks on the subject's politics. Some of these trolls are disguised as "research questions", innocently looking for facts about the subjects. Suggestions to use the Reference desk and Help desk to find the answers have been pointedly ignored. A more charitable interpretation is that Toothis is using talk pages as a soapbox to criticize public figures. Whether it's soapboxing or trolling, Toothis has been repeatedly warned and advised to follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Few, if any, of his talk page comments seem to be helpful in building a better encyclopedia, although his one main page edit seemed reasonable. I am way too inactive as an admin to be comfortable blocking anyone at the moment, but I don't see what wisdom would be lost to the world if he were blocked for a week or two and given a firm and final warning. fish&karate 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I see only 1 (!) article space edit since 2010, among dozens of (at best) forum-like posts. 28bytes (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I will chime in here and say I have reverted a number of his/her edits to talk pages, given warnings and pointed him/her to WP:TALK WP:SOAP and WP:POINT, apparently to no avail. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this IP is him, too. He's trolling for controversy. Support block.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also him:

• 70.44.147.202
• 70.44.144.184
• 70.44.153.18
• 70.44.154.103

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - Toothis doesn't seems to be honestly interested in the answers to their questions but more in the drama they my cause. He/She has had multiple suggestions for better venues for their questions which have apparently been ignored. Mlpearc powwow 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I blocked Toothis indefinitely. Looking through their contributions, I see only a couple that I would consider particularly constructive, otherwise this account's sole purpose seems to be to sling mud at BLPs on their talk pages. That behavior isn't acceptable. I would have blocked for a shorter time period if I felt that Wikipedia was benefiting from the editor's contributions. -- Atama頭 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Good block. 28bytes (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The admins have jumped to attention even for rather unreasonable requests. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just take a look at WP:AIV, there are too many vandals waiting for their block... Alex ^{discussion ★} 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the one bot reported and one user reported, this is an outrage I say dock all admins paychecks. Mlpearc powwow 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to get snappy, at the time of the above friendly request there were 13 reports open, not the two now remaining. Fram (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And if I remember rightly the helperbot was a bit slow cleaning up after blocking admins this afternoon. Agathoclea (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(As I just said in another thread on ANI) Pray tell the admins don't go on strike anytime soon. –MuZemike 14:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What would admins go on strike over, wage increases? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My comment was also in friendly jest :P. Mlpearc powwow 15:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User blocked. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Very Abusive, offensive contributions in Hungarian (It is better not to translate it) here:Talk:History_of_Slovakia#History of slovakia
Moreover, disruptive behavior at History of Slovakia by User: 89.134.83.226 Fakirbakir (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This should be listed at ANI if it's a wide dispute, or WP:AIV if you want immediate enforcement for a particular set of actions. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, user is blocked by now.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – DRV closed by Lifebaka. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#List of Native American women and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 3#User:Amyabaker/Noddle? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lifebaka. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Redirected. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, this should probably be cleaned up, and the redirect may need blanked (redirected to Talk:Conversation), and protected or semi-protected (with perhaps a hat note at the target). I'd do the clean up myself but I am too busy ATM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A good portion of those came from the basic example of {{split section}} setting the 2nd parameter to "Talk:Discuss" by default. I updated the code of the template slightly, as I can't think of any reason why a discussion for splitting out a new section would take place anywhere other than the talk page of the article the template is on, and removed the vast majority of those inbound links. I'll go clean up the others presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassingly, it took me quite a few live tries to fix the template right. But, it does seem that all of the mainspace links were from it, so it's all cleaned up now. Or should be, at least. I've redirected it to Talk:Conversation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock request/block review of indef-blocked editor before the thread is archived? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Bwilkins, for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In a while, I will be changing the lead image of the article per a growing RfC consensus (17:9 in favor of removal, and poor reasoning given for retaining the current image). However, the talk page has been rather heated, and I anticipate the possibility of an edit war developing over the change. Hopefully nothing will happen, but extra administrative eyes on the page would certainly be welcome to ensure a peaceful transition. I've given the current image proponents advanced notice of the action at pregnancy#motion to change lead image, and will add a link to this request there as well, so that everyone has time to pause and reflect before the actual change is done. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC, which was flawed from the beginning, hasn't had much time to run. It also doesn't cover the issue, nudity, which further discussion has made clear is on most people's minds. I would welcome some uninvolved administrators at the page, but please read the discussion and note the disruption and incivility there. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Admins should also note Ludwigs' rather heavy-handed declaration that he's going to change the image, essentially whether anyone else likes it or not, including an... interesting statement asking if an editwar can be avoided. → ROUX ₪ 00:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: why is there a need to close the RfC? Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. It is... curious that Ludwigs is acting with such haste (3 days for an RfC to be open? I thought 30ish was a general community standard) and attempting to ram through what he sees (erroneously, I believe) as consensus. → ROUX ₪ 06:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Involved users may have different interpretations of the consensus. Having someone uninvolved assess the consensus and close the discussion will minimize the controversy. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually been open 10 days, and last time I checked there was a 2:1 margin in favor of replacing the image. the fact that the people opposing it are very hot-tempered does not make up for the poor arguments they make or the distinct minority they currently represent. I simply assumed (and still assume) that since the RfC seems to be headed for changing the image, there is no problem in replacing the image now. If the RfC turns around, we can always put it back in (it's not going anywhere).

But, there's no accounting for zealots...--Ludwigs2 01:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the RfC is, as you claim, heading in that direction, two questions arise: 1) how do you account for the discrepancy between your assertion that there is consensus, and your subsequent assertion that implies no consensus has been reached? 2) Since heading in and already at are rather different things, what is the rush (and justification) in changing the image? And you call other people zealots. Fascinating. → ROUX ₪ 01:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's easy, and obvious to most anyone who's edited wikipedia for a while. There are certain arguments on wikipedia which run too deep emotionally for reason to be effective. What's happened here is that a small number of editors (4 or so, as I count them) have gotten heavily invested in this as an issue of censorship, when in fact it's nothing of the sort; the tensions are so high that they are unwilling to accept any argument as valid which might weaken their emotional position. It has stopped being a matter of rational discussion and become a matter of preserving their identity, and people who find their identity threatened generally fight to the death. It's human nature. As I said below, if you were acting rationally you would not have reverted me, but allowed that the RfC is leaning towards the change and allowed it to stand until the RfC reaches its final outcome. The fact that you didn't points to the emotional investment you have in the image. --Ludwigs2 02:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting rather sick and fucking tired of your fucking insults. Enough. As is obvious to most anyone who's edited Wikipedia for a while, the status quo stands until there is consensus to change it. You have still, unsurprisingly, failed to address your haste. → ROUX ₪ 02:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please adhere to Wikipedia:Civility, even when (indeed ESPECIALLY when) you are frustrated. Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please surprise me by doing an un-Wikipedian thing and directing such self-satisfied smugness where it belongs. → ROUX ₪ 02:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmph. You consider ten days of heavy discussion hasty? whatever... I don't need to convince you of anything, Roux, and there's absolutely no hope that I could say anything that would convince you, regardless. I hope others can see how emotionally invested you are in the issue; so long as they see that they can understand the difficulties in communication that are plaguing this discussion. and with respect to 'self-satisfied smugness'… Meh. --Ludwigs2 02:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, exactly the sort of well-reasoned response I expect from someone who appears to demand that others engage what he has to say, while blithely dismissing what anyone else has to say. Motes and beams, Ludwigs. Your assertion that I am 'emotionally invested' is, by the way, so far off the mark it's not even within shouting distance. → ROUX ₪ 02:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

lol - where have I not listened to what you have to say? In fact, I've been listening to you more carefully than you've been listening to yourself, because you are still unaware of how little sense you are actually making. Even your last claim (that you are not emotionally invested) is belied by the numerous incivilities you've laid on me in this thread and the article talk page, and your rabidly aggressive defense of an unsupportable minority position. listen to yourself before you respond, it will do you good. --Ludwigs2 02:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll do so. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight after you take your own advice. Hmm, given that, I rather suspect I won't ever take your advice. → ROUX ₪ 02:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the only appropriate response at this point is to declaim that your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries, and then waggle my fingers at you in a senseless but disconcerting way. consider it done. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone uninvolved close the RfC and determine where WP:CONSENSUS lies. Also see WP:NOT#VOTE. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin close and summarize Talk:Pregnancy#Lead image RfC to lessen the chances of controversy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but why is an admin needed? Viriditas (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, you're crazy. I'd probably prefer an admin to close it as it's relatively easier to determine involvement, and the general precedent of admins closing RfC/u and XfD. → ROUX ₪ 06:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By passing RfAs, admins have been tasked with assessing the consensuses at XfDs, DRV, and RfCs. Because this is the administrators' noticeboard, when I post requests here, I ask the admins to address them. If an uninvolved non-admin wants to close an RfC, there should be no problem. I myself do not close discussions because I have done so before and have been reverted by the involved users. Since I'd rather not have that happen again, I post here requesting admins to close discussions. I agree with Roux's comment above about it's being easier to determine involvement with an admin closure. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of informal article RfC's are not closed by any admin, nor does an article RfC usually require a close as it is delisted automatically after a period of time by a bot or if the user who initiated it manually decides to delist it. The problem here is that an RfC is not the best place for discussing a dispute that requires admin closure. That sounds like a job for a noticeboard like the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Traditionally, aticle RfC's are used to request input where there are few editors involved. Increasingly, they appear to be used for DR, which doesn't work. If anyone wants to point me to a major dispute that has ever been solved by an RfC, I would be happy to take a look at it. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Following a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#RFC closure request, Talk:Political activities of the Koch family/Archive 2#RFC: "the nation's most prominent funders" was closed by an uninvolved admin. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the AN request clearly said that the RfC had "ended a few days ago", and a request for closure was made more than a week after discussion had ended. There is no indication that the pregnancy discussion has ended or requires closing at this time. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a premature request as Roux noted above. I've stricken out my request that this discussion be closed. If the involved editors desire a closure, a request can be posted after 30 days have elapsed. Cunard (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ludwigs has now reverted again. I have no interest in getting into an editwar, but it is quite clear that there is in fact no consensus on the talkpage, despite what he is claiming in his edit summary. Moreover, the RfC has been open for only four days or so. An admin is needed at this point to restore the page to its previous state, and inform Ludwigs that the RfC is not over, and nor is there consensus (in either direction) on this issue. → ROUX ₪ 01:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  I re-added an image that has a 2:1 lead in the current RfC. yes, both the talk page and the RfC are ongoing, but whether you judge by the nubers or by the quality of reasoning the proponents of the original image are on the losing side. They are simply trying to keep the debate alive on sheer aggression. Unless I get a clear consensus here that I should stop, I don't see why it's wrong for me to try to insert the image that is clearly the majority preference in the RfC at the moment. If Roux were being reasonable and civil he would stop edit-warring to maintain the minority image, leave the preferred image in pro tem, and trey to turn the RfC around on the talk page. But nothing Roux has done since he showed up on the page has been reasonable; he entered the discussion spitting and snapping over nonsense, and continues to do so. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Your grasp of facts is poor. Please note how many reverts I have made: one. That is not editwarring, that is standard WP:BRD. You have failed to address your unseemly haste here. I would treat the rest of your commentary with the contempt it deserves, if I didn't have better things to do with my energy, like watching paint dry. → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, you've made two, and please note that I have made only 1. Further, my grounds for making that move are far stronger than your grounds for opposing it (based in the current standing of the RfC and the current condition of the discussion). --Ludwigs2 02:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You frankly both are sounding very childish at this point. "Did not! Did too! Did not..." Take a step back, let the RfC run, and go edit something else in the meantime. LadyofShalott 02:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not I who is attempting to ram through changes based on a consensus which has been admitted to not even exist yet. You're usually smarter than this; it's a shame the Wikipedia attitude of 'blame everyone and don't bother looking at the actual details' seems to have infected you. I'm disappointed. → ROUX ₪ 02:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) The arguing over how many reverts each of you did is what I was comparing to the "did too/did not" scenario, and does sound childish to me. (b) You'll notice I said "let the RfC run". LadyofShalott 03:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An user named as "Gerçek Tarih" is vandalising threads about Nurbanu Sultan and threads related to her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ger%C3%A7ek+tarih&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1

Please help me to revert these vandalisms. --Martianmister (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First, if this were vandalism, it would go to AIV...but these are edits made nearly 8 months ago. If they're wrong, fix the articles...however, I note that on Nurbanu Sultan, for example, there have been 39 edits since that editor last touched these articles. That's a lot of people (most of whom are actual people, not bots) who either fixed the problems or didn't consider them problems. If this is a content dispute, you need to discuss it on the article's talk page. In any event, I don't think there's anything for editors to do here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm heading off to bed, or I'd pitch in to help myself, but WP:UAA is reaching a critical level. There's about 25-30 unresolved reports there. An admin with some time on their hands may want to clear some out. --Jayron32 05:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done a couple of handfuls (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Johann Hari has publicly admitted disrupting Wikipedia - [15]. It seems clear to me that he edited from the account David r from Meth Productions as well as from*It is sockpuppets.Simone (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't find it interesting, except as an example of a classy way to express contrition. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I'm not disputing Edgar181's actions: I've mentioned him purely as a recent example, and I've also used myself as another example.

Following up on the section immediately above this, I was checking multiple usernames and observed that Asdfasdfagfhjkl had been blocked by Edgar181 with the edit summary of {{Vaublock}}. I notice (1) that the template's contents don't display in the block log, and (2) that although it's not an option in the dropdown menu at Special:Block, there are several other template options. See the most recent example in the case of ThisIsaTest, which I just blocked with a different template. Since these templates don't display their contents in the block log (i.e. we only see the template name, not the text that they transclude), why do we encourage their use by including them in the dropdown? Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the template (expanded) is the message blocked users see if they attempt to edit.—An  optimist on the run! 11:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Want me to block you with one so that we can see? LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as the optimist said. When a blocked user or IP attempts to edit, the message they receive includes the expanded template. Try editing through an anonymous proxy such as anonymouse.org for an example of how it looks to the user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend, I am so glad that you asked this. I often wondered this, about templates like {{spamusernameblock}} that frankly just look ugly in the block log (and I always feel the need to explain the block rationale in the free text area anyway). But if those templates give a special warning when the editor tries to edit through the block that makes perfect sense. Now I don't feel quite so dumb using those in the dropdown. (I was afraid for awhile that they were broken.) -- Atama頭 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Optimist and Redundency: you were right. To see what would happen, I blocked my backup account with the following message:When I logged in as the backup and tried to edit a page, the message that I received consisted of the transcluded content of {{Vaublock}} and the text ": Testing to see the type of message that will appear when I use a templated block message" without the quotation marks. Everything was just as Optimist and DoRD said it would be. And you're quite welcome, Atama :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)