User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Wow, how did the vandal forgot about this one (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ujm890)? Thinking about it, since he sometimes opens two accounts at the same time, it's only human. Block this one too please (altough it's been inactive for more than six months, it's him alright), if you see fit. Cheers, keep it up and enjoy that wikibreak - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

((done}} NW (Talk) 06:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world

Hi Admin,

I am writing to you in regards to the deleted page List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world, which was I found las year, and it was really interesting. However on searching for it recently, I was shcoked that it was deleted. So I read the discussion and reasoning behind this in this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world and I found that you took the discion according to discussion. However the reasoning that was given in support for deletion was that the definition of Muslim world is ambiguos and can't be defined, which I don't know if it is true or false. However I do know one thing: Consistency. which means it is wither to delete all pages talking about Muslim world, cause according to the forementioned discussion that this world doesn't exist and that such term is not present like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_medieval_Islam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age and all these pages talking about Muslim world. Or the other option is to restore the deleted page List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world as a part of the history of this Muslim world. Wikipedia can't be so biased that it only speak nice about muslim world, yet deleting the bloody history claiming that such world doesn't exist!. Thank you Kushsinghmd (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kushsingmhd. I don't have much time this month to look this situation over, so I would appreciate it if you could raise this issue at WP:DRV. They are free to overturn my decision to delete the article should they decide it is appropriate to do so. NW (Talk) 06:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback tools

Hello, NW! I want to revert vandalizm and then I think I need rollback tools. Do you think you can give me rollback tools? BjörnBergman 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, NuclearWarfare: I do not know know how relevant this is for rollback priviligies on enwiki, but this user is long time blocked on svwiki and has been blocked on enwiki and other wikis as well. Also, please see his talk page before considering any user rights (several warnings). Regards --MagnusA (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Björn, could you please ask on WP:PERM for rollback rights? Thanks. NW (Talk) 06:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification?

The Ross McBride wiki page has been deleted three times (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Ross_%26_McBride_LLP), twice after I posted about the company. I looked up many references and tried to demonstrate that the company is publicly notable. The firm's lawyers are members of leadership and business organizations, and some of them write for the newspaper of record in Hamilton. Other Canadian law firms (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gowlings) have wiki pages. I don't understand why Ross McBride continues to be deleted. Please help me out with some more descriptive clarification?

---

B Michael

B Michael, as I do not really have time to look your post over at this time, I think you would be better served by asking another administrator, such as Shirik or Soap. NW (Talk) 06:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Mark-blocked script.js?

I'm using your "mark-blocked" script, and it appears to work fine for the most part. However, I noticed a few examples this evening (while reading through summaries of old ArbCom cases) that some blocked users' names are not being marked. For example, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2009, the users "John254" and "Justallofthem" are mentioned as being banned (and I looked at their block logs and they appear to be indefinitely blocked), but they are not crossed out. Here is the relevant line of wikisource:

• • Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)

(Now, interestingly, they do show as crossed out above, here in this text I'm writing on your talk page — but they do not show as crossed out on the 2009 Arbitration Cases page.)

Any ideas?

I understand you're taking a wikibreak, so I won't panic if I don't hear back from you right away. Richwales (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you caught me at the first time I logged on during my vacation. Most likely, it is because the page you loaded is so massive that the script cannot handle it. I can't think of another reason why that would be, and I am also not sure if the issue is fixable; my script merely imports the code from the Russian Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 06:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. FWIW, many other user names on the same page are being crossed out, so it's not a matter of the script bailing out and doing nothing. If I have some extra time on my hands, maybe I'll try looking at the original code from the Russian Wikipedia and see if I can identify any problems. Richwales (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure?

All the changes you've done so far have looked unexceptionable with the exception of (User rights log); 10:26:56 . . NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:ZuluPapa5 from (none) to Rollbackers and Reviewers (WP:ROLLBACK & WP:REVIEWER) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that Reviewer was being given out on a pretty liberal basis, as the criteria mentions "If you have rollback or autoreviewer rights, you are a good candidate for reviewer rights as well – the level of trust is similar." ZuluPapa5 has over 5000 edits, that's enough for me to basically automatically give it out, barring any recent major violation of policy. Why would you not have ticked the Reviewer/Rollback box in this case? NW (Talk) 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to push this too hard. This isn't a major objection, and while I'd suggest "no" beforehand I'd agree that taking it back now could be seen as impolite. As to why: 5k contribs perhaps but very little of any substance [1] - mostly incoherence on talk pages. But them, I may not be entirely neutral in this matter. Please don't treat this as an attempt to persuade you: I'm just raising it to your attention and leaving the judgement entirely with you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the 'reviewer' flag basically allows the editor to do what they already had the ability to do prior to Pending changes going live, it is being given out very liberally. –xeno^talk 15:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What's this right change about?

(User rights log); 06:26 . . NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:ZuluPapa5 from (none) to Rollbackers and Reviewers (WP:ROLLBACK & WP:REVIEWER)

I didn't ask for this. What does it get me into? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I just applied it, It's ok with me to keep it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• FYI NW, you can use {{subst:reviewer-notice}} to let people know. –xeno^talk 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:LTA page protection

Hello, you had previously done a semi-protection (indefinite) on the LTA main page due to disruption. I think it may be necessary to extend that protection to several new pages that were created as part of a revamp that made LTA more efficient and easier to navigate. All the entries are now saved on a list with the full entry showing up on a full list. A header was also created with a filing form. That's a total of 4 pages that may need protection if your original reason still holds true. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request(s)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Could you please protect Francisco Yeste's page? Vandalism "afoot", with some POV-weasel on the run as well. Also, could you please move Danny Miguel's page? I will elaborate on the number 2, as 1 is self explanatory:

DANNY MIGUEL is a name/nickname compound, in my opinion a wrong name for an article - every time i have conversed about such moves at the appropriate football forums here, everybody has agreed. I think "Danny (Portuguese footballer)" - since there should be THOUSANDS of American and English players with that denomination in their first name - or "Daniel Alves Gomes" should be the name of the "piece". I tried to move the page, was not allowed.

Thanks a million in advance (whether you can or cannot help me), cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done on both counts. The former would likely be better placed on WP:RPP in the future as NW is out for a bit; you will likely get a faster response. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

SEK

Replied on my talk page. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article restorations

Hi Nuclear Warfare. I hope you are enjoying your break. When you get back, I wonder if you could explain to me more about the deletion and deletion review process. Several recent comments seem to indicate a preference for avoiding deletion overturns. Is there some kind of score keeping that goes on when deletion decisions are overturned? My interest was just in having appropriate content included. I don't really understand the other issues or why editors feel the need to defend the original decision. Is it a question of pride or something bureaucratic that affects future promotions? There seems to be a reluctance to just fix things by reversing decisions that are shown to be mistaken. I don't really understand this. Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why a few editors bothered to focus on the original closure either, to be honest. There is the issue of WP:CSD#G4 to consider I suppose; a page that was deleted at AFD for a certain set of reasons should not be recreated unless it can be shown that those conditions no longer apply. But as you had already pointed out new sources, I'm not sure why the original decision matters anymore. But perhaps it is better to just leave the matter; I see the article has been restored to the mainspace. NW (Talk) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Greene

I have took Alvin Greene picture from official cite of South Carolina Democratic Party. http://www.scdp.org/candidates/federal/ It is a public domain since he is official Democratic nominee in the 2010 United States Senate election. I have got email from SCDC with permission for Alvin Greene picture to be shown on Wiki, and I have submit it to WikiCommons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greene1.jpg#filelinks But nobody approving it for 2 days already. Also, I want to rename it to another name like GreenAlvin.jpg because there is an editing conflict between WikiCommons and Wikipedia file with same name "Greene1.jpg" Please help, this is my first time submitting pictures with copyright permission to Wiki, reply to my talk page. Innab (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved the image to File:GreenAlvin.jpg. Feel free to add it to the article. NW (Talk) 06:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the help. Innab (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, his name is Greene, not Green. I know we accept misspellings as valid but I think it should be spelled properly to avoid confusion. —Soap— 12:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll move it appropriately. NW (Talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

CMT

Hi NW. A little while back the Christ myth theory was stripped of it's GA status. Of course a lot of nonsense was offered in the justifications, mostly vague unsupported accusations of bias. But there were a couple of legit issues: the page had become unstable through edit warring and the denialist comparisons appeared in the lead giving the appearence of bias. Well, it's been a couple weeks now and both of those issues have been addressed--in fact, both of those issues had been addressed just before the close of the GAR but it was too late and the preponderance of (obsolete) "delist" votes carried the day. The page has been stable for a while now and the denialist comparisons have been removed from the lead; also, the lead has been expanded and thus the "pseudo-scholarship" statement is no longer the proverbial "last word". With these advances in mind I'm going to submit the article for another GAC. While I think that a random conscientious reviewer would recognize the quality of the article, I'm still a bit concerned by knee-jerk reactions which may not defer to the reliable sources. Given that you have more expousure to the reliable sources on this issue than most uninvolved admins, I'd love it if you would be the GA reviewer. I'll post the article to the list in a few minutes; if you take on the job, great; if you don't, I'll understand. Eugene (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like things moved quickly when I wasn't there. If you are unblocked, and would like me to review the article still, please tell me. NW (Talk) 14:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're online

See here. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 06:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking sections at ANI

Re: [2], it might be helpful to leave a note of what you have done and a direction to the place you want the discussion to take place, instead of just blanking it. DuncanHill (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably should have, although to be honest, in all likelihood the IP (32.x.x.x/8 AOL range) was a troll. NW (Talk) 09:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

On this, I was just updating what the anon was talking about (since their edit was slightly vague) and notifying the user, no more, no less. I don't want to be anywhere near that a mess of a discussion on AN. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

RFE

Thanks for closing that report. If you're not really on break, could you possibly look at the two others above it that are alnguishing? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have a bit more internet access than I thought I would (though it's a lot slower than I am used to, unfortunately). I commented on the MN civility RFE, but I think someone else (perhaps MastCell or LHvU) would be better at talking over the edit warring issue. NW (Talk) 08:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that the arbcomm case is open people have got bored with the RFE page :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Block against 217.171.129.72

Hey, we've received an unblock request on unblock-en-l from a user at this IP address. I'm investigating the circumstances of the block, and I see that you placed the block a full 17 days after the last edit from the IP, and this edit does not appear to be vandalism. I also see no deleted contributions that happened anywhere near the block date.

Would you mind elaborating on the circumstances that prompted this block, so that we may best advise the user of what their options are? He appears to be having trouble logging in to his account due to the block (which should not be happening, but this is not an isolated instance of this happening, either).

Thanks! --Chris (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been quite a while since I made that block, and I really can't recall why I did it. Looking at my logs for the time, it seems that the only other action that I did around the time was:

1. (del/undel) 18:13, 27 March 2010 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Codf1977 from Rollbackers to Rollbackers and IP block exemptions ‎
2. (del/undel) 18:13, 27 March 2010 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs | block) blocked 217.171.129.72 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ ({{anonblock}}) (unblock | change block)

Perhaps it was a mistaken block? I'm not really sure. I'll go ahead and lift it though. NW (Talk) 09:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knows why we do the things we do... :) Thanks though! --Chris (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

TP (TUFF Puppy) Page...again

Alright, I followed your advice on submitting the page to Article Wizard. So how long do I have to wait to for it to come back up?76.255.214.133 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)being patient as possible

To be honest, without sufficient reliable sources, which you have not been able to provide, we will not be able to accept the article on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 09:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't submit it to article wizard, I just made a suggestion for it.76.255.214.133 (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Sorry.

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

User is persisting to revert edits

An article ban on Kristoferb (talk) may be required as they refuse to accept that their images aren't suitable or a contribution to sertraline or paracetamol. When I have disagreements with other users, I either seek the opinion of a third party, compromise or accept the decision. This particular user is beyond reason, claiming that you're my "puppet", and refusing to accept the consensus of others. Editor182 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Update on situation

The situation with Kristoferb had escalated into two disputes. I decided to throw in the towel because I had given up trying to reason with this person or gain the support of other users, and the dispute was beginning to disrupt the articles, the paracetamol article was locked and I didn't want to have fluctuating changes on a featured article like sertraline. I've only just noticed that you're an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I had said in both Talk:Sertraline and Talk:Paracetamol that an "established" user had agreed with the decision. If I had noticed this on your user page earlier, I would have only left you a message, as an administrator had already attended to the situation. I'm hoping you will still enforce your decision when you return. I regularly contribute to articles on pharmaceuticals, so I'll be around if you'd like to reply. Editor182 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

I was expecting this would be over until you could return and settle the matter, but Kristoferb has now turned his attention to harassment.[3] I hope you could consider this user worthy of a ban. Editor182 (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may intervene because I saw this pop up in irc, this is not harassment, and certainly not ban worthy. It is not personal in the sense that it is an attack, but rather offering an opinion. Assume good faith and try to work through disputes, rather than seek mediation. Thanks  – Tommy [message] 13:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an isolated dispute.

The dispute was originally concerning two of this users images on separate articles which was attended to by NuclearWarfare, but the edit was reverted by the user in their own best interest. Not only are these articles awaiting rectification, but this user is now turning their attention to my contributions. If this isn't harassment, then it most certainly is a personal agenda. It's unlikely that his latest argument will suffice with the contributing users of the article, so that isn't the issue, but it's apparent that this user is now looking for trouble, the quality of the articles isn't their priority. I have spent too much time trying to reason with this person, I've never come across someone on Wikipedia that's so stubborn. Editor182 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

We can wait for a response from NW, but from my perspective he isn't being over the top stubborn. He has his views, you have yours. I've seen way worse.  – Tommy [message] 15:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The situation is stable at this point, and only active in the finasteride talk page. The sertraline and paracetamol articles aren't the center of his crusade after I gave up trying to reason with this person, and closed them without consensus. However, as previously stated, the situation would not have escalated into further edit warring and subsequent disputes if I'd known NuclearWarfare was an administrator. If NuclearWarfare returns and decides to enforce their decision on sertraline and paracetamol, Kristoferb may continue to remain stubborn beyond reason, though I agree that suggesting a ban may have been excessive at this stage. Editor182 (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Situation getting out of hand

Kristoferb has now turned their attention to temazepam. This is a relentless vindictive rampage.

It's more than likely Kristoferb turned their attention to the temazepam article as they could see their argument in finasteride was not going anywhere.

This will undoubtedly continue. A ban doesn't seem excessive at this stage, on the contrary, it seems like the only way to end this and in the best interest of the community;

• Kristoferb doesn't cease, doesn't reason, doesn't listen, disregards and belittles the opinions of others. This is evident on the finasteride talk page and the fact that the earlier reversions by NuclearWarfare were undone. Furthermore, Kristoferb is now taking matters in their own hands, removing images on muliple articles in favor of their own user uploaded image without even explaining why in the edit summary. The latest being the image on temazepam before any consensus from other users. The user sees disputing topics as a game. To quote Kristoferb on the paracetamol talk page, "you LOST the dispute", "Editor182 knows he will lose this dispute just like he lost the last one." Obviously Kristoferb confused my decision to stop the dispute, which wasn't going anywhere, as a "win". Disputes aren't "lost" or "won", but a consensus is brought forth by the community.

In my opinion Kristoferb is simply not suited for Wikipedia. Editor182 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting review

• NuclearWarfare, I only just saw your message in discussion history. No problem. I'll await your review in the meantime. Editor182 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment In the previous and related disputes, I did ask Editor182 (talk · contribs) to discuss and establish consensus, etc. See here; they removed the message here, and when I elaborated on my talk page, they removed that too [4]. I remain neutral, I just thought this might help clarify the situation thus far. Chzz  ►  19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Comment

• I explained to Chzz that I treat my Talk page like an email inbox, not an article, in order to keep the page from becoming cluttered with outdated information. I must emphasize; I only remove messages after I read them and if they do not require a follow-up discussion, and then only when discussions end do I clear my Talk. In order to prevent the fair misconception that I disregard messages, "This page is left blank when not in use." always remains on the page.

• I had attempted to discuss and establish consensus with this user on both sertraline and paracetamol, but as discussed above, the only input was from one user on sertraline who was neural. I closed these disputes, with the support of this outside user on sertraline. Kristoferb has reopened these disputes, among others, and they remain open.

• Most importantly discussion and consensus was unnecessary on both of the above articles - administration had already attended to the situation and made their decision - Kristoferb reverted both the administrators decisions. It was unbeknown to me at the time that these reversions were done by administration, but regardless, the ongoing warring and ensuing disputes were unprecedented as two users had already disagreed.

Review from NuclearWarfare is pending. Kristoferb is not a user who is able to discuss, establish or accept a consensus from users which isn't in their favor. Editor182 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another update ...

Kristoferb is now removing images of his own accord from finasteride and temazepam. In one argument, his request for an image deletion was denied, in another, nobody responded and he took matters into his own hands again. Reverting disputes without consensus, along with everything else I've mentioned above. It's become way too much for me to able to continue to function on Wikipedia with this person on my case. NuclearWarfare, please review this case, and if you can, please overlook our previous edits, as soon as you have time. If this user stays as they are, then I give up. I'll try to stay out of their way, and I suggest everyone else do the same, it doesn't matter if you're a team agreeing to a consensus, an administrator reverting an edit, if you compromise, or reason, because that's all irrelevant. This user is for themselves. I will add this to the administration page, at least until NuclearWarfare returns, because Kristoferb is disabling my ability to contribute with this personal crusade. I enjoy contributing what and where I can, but at this moment, I'd be saddened, but relieved if I was given the boot instead of our good friend Kristoferb. Editor182 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

You should be aware that you were reverted here, mentioning Talk:William_Connolley#Qualifications. Just thought you should be aware. Hipocrite (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was traveling for a couple days, so I probably would have missed the change had you not informed me. Thanks, NW (Talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't ignore this statement. We don't people to know who goes out next in the show because of spoilers. We have rigt to guess ad we aregettig protecton on it.

Help - Apologies - Doubt

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here, hope you have been getting plenty of rest,

Please, could you protect Marcos Alonso Mendoza's page? Incredibly (an obscure player) the level of vandalism is pretty "good" now, for two reasons: i said that "he played his first match with the first team...one minute against...", then added external link to back it up (the first one, BDFUTBOL.COM); the "user" who wants him to have played 15 minutes removes the link and inserts his lies.

Also, lies in the section PERSONAL have been added to the player/person's page (and i know it is lies, i know this player, he is not related to those guys the "user" keeps inserting).

This completed, i move on to the apologies: i am terribly sorry for yet another attack of uncivility, but i just lose it with vandalism, i guess if i don't leave WP i'll always be (more or less) like this, even though i try so hard not to. I know anytime in the future i am applying well to be blocked, and i'll "take it like a man" if i do.

As far as User:Pararubbas goes, i have lost all faith, even though you and Satori Son have been doing a mammoth effort to stop him in his tracks. He creates two accounts at a time (has surpassed 50 socks now i'm almost sure), has a neverending supply of anon IPs, no hope...

A doubt now, mate: how do you work with the reviewer stuff? I'm still at a loss trying to understand it...

Sorry for any incovenience, keep up the GREAT work, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Protected. As for the reviewer process, did you take a look at Wikipedia:Reviewers#Reviewing process? If you did, is there anything specific you would like me to help you with? NW (Talk) 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have read it now. On second thoughts, i'd like for you to "punish me" and remove that feature from my account man, i feel that with "rollback" (and "undo") i have more than enough. I think it's just too much for me at the moment, but if i feel otherwise, i'll let you know OK? Be sure of one thing tough, that does not mean vandals will have their way here, as long as i am at WP, count me in :) !!

On a related note (well-vandalized page - i have seen that some "users" have written he is gay and likes his coach in the past few days, just because the player will change teams!! - people not complying, etc), could you please protect David Silva's page until at least 11 July? I explain: that's when the transfer to his new team will be official, as the 2010 FIFA World Cup will end. That would be a great help, if you could provide that.

As always, thanks for everything, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I could remove reviewer from your account, of course, but I just want to make sure that you are fully aware of what it would entail. David Silva is currently flagged protected, which means that when you edit it, you edits will show up instantly for everyone, rather than for just logged in users. Because of the flagged protection, I don't think there is a need to semi-protect the article as well. Are you sure you want me to remove the reviewer feature from your account? NW (Talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes please (but in a nutshell, what are the consequences? If they are too "heavy", then i'll rethink it, although i don't think i can handle the job), thanks again.

P.S. And see? That is precisely the reaction you get from someone who didn't get the purpose of the reviewer account, Silva is flagged protected (i saw that) and i still asked for protection :( - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to, you don't have to do a single extra thing with reviewer. It will simply allow you to continue editing as you had in days before flagged revisions were active on the English Wikipedia (ie, before mid-June 2010). However, on an article that has flagged protection active, editors who haven't been autoconfirmed yet (less than 10 edits/4 days) or who don't have the reviewer flag will still be able to edit, but their edits won't show up to the public until someone with the reviewer flag OKs their edit. NW (Talk) 11:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donny Long (2nd nomination)‎

Your close on this is completely inappropriate. First, there were far to many keep votes for WP:SNOW to have applied. Additionally, there was blatant sock puppetry by the article's subject, and a nominator who violated policy by removing sourced material that had direct bearing on notability.

This should never have been closed early. Please reopen and relist the discussion so it can be debated properly.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What I fear has happened is that this person has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that there is no way that SNOW could apply here, as there are far too many KEEP arguments, and PORNBIO is a good one and policy based. Shortcutting process usually results in excessive and totally unnecessary drama, but more importantly it's a violation of due process per se. Giving in to a well orchestrated external and vicious swiftboating like campaign contaminates and taints our community process and emboldens those that would hope to control what Wikipedia says about them. The New York Times, for example, does not let celebrities and the powers-that-be see their obits before their death to avoid that kind of pressure and manipulation. Please relist and let the AfD complete normally with seven full days of debate as a necessary support of a transparent and community based process to determine inclusion or exclusion. Note that I'm not arguing to keep in this thread, rather arguing to follow process and not give in to corrupting forces. — Becksguy (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not willing to overturn my closure voluntarily in this case. WP:DRV is there if you wish. 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the outcome, but why did you cite WP:SNOW, given the handful of keep opinions? IMO it would've been more fitting to call on WP:IAR as was done for that insipid admin abuse thing to call it early, cite the subject's wish for deletion, and note the shaky notability ground that the article rested on, which was only WP:PORNBIO, where recipients of a group award are likely non-notable in their own right. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I always thought of WP:SNOW as a more specific application of IAR, but perhaps how I think of it is too different from how other people perceive it in their mind. Your rationale essentially details what I was thinking as I closed the AFD. Not sure if it is worth altering the wording of the closure now though. NW (Talk) 15:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I can see that point now, esp going by the direct "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell..." wording of the guide. Looks like endorse is ahead out of the gate at DRV, so hopefully that will stay the course. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Donny Long

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Donny Long. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Horrorshowj (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Alcaraz

Hi there. I noticed that the AfD discussion for the soccer player Johnny Alcaraz resulted in a deletion decision. As the deleting editor, would you mind letting me keep a copy of the article in my sandbox? If Alcaraz ever signs another pro contract it would be easy then to re-create the article without having to start from scratch. Many thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy on that to be honest, as the subject asked for the article's deletion. If Alcaraz does sign a pro contract in the future though, feel free to ask me or any other admin, and we would be happy to undelete the article straightaway. NW (Talk) 11:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Likely block evasion

In April 2010 you blocked User:Amir.Hossein.7055 for 1 year for persistent copyright violations. It seems that he is evading the block as User:Sduty. This user started editing in June 2010 and also has a pattern of repeated copyright voilations on Iran-related articles, as did User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Moreover User:Sduty has uploaded this image file File:Iranian City and Village Councils elections, 2006.png, where he stated: "I (Amir.Hossein.7055) created this work entirely by myself" and specified the author as User:Amir.Hossein.7055. Seems to me to be a fairly straightforward case of self-identification, so I think User:Sduty could be blocked based on that. However, if you think that a formal SPI report is necessary, I could file one as well. Nsk92 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The block evasion seems pretty clear. However, as I do not wish to get involved and block in this case, I would ask that you please file a formal SPI report, and ping MuZemike or Tim Song. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I see that Sduty has just been indef-blocked by Moonriddengirl for block evasion. An SPI report is probably moot at this point... Nsk92 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Stalkerishly. :) For some reason, this caught my eye. I took a glance, saw copyright issues, and found the evidence compelling enough to act on my own. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin question

If I were to say, want to become an admin, what kind of requirements would be needed, like edit count and days registered?  A p3rson ‽ 01:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You would be best off looking at recent successful and unsuccessful RFA bids to see what the people who passed had in common. NW (Talk) 12:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I was unaware there was a template to list an IP range. Thanks for fixing that for me. Vedant (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be a Template:CheckIPRange, but as that doesn't exist and I am far too lazy to figure out how to code for it, Template:IPRange is probably the way to go. Anyway, it wasn't a problem at all. Best, NW (Talk) 17:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I figure it would be helpful for a CU to have access to that. My guess though is that there would be a lot of data to sift through and CU for an entire range might not be all that useful (because a lot of innocent/unrelated editors would be included). Regards, Vedant (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

بحث کاربر:sahim

Hi. You made a page بحث کاربر:sahim with a warning message on it. I presume that this was meant to be a user page but it seems to be in the main article space. You might want to have a look and see if what you did is what you actually intended to do. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been a Twinkle redirect error. I deleted the page; thanks for informing me. NW (Talk) 18:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello

sahim talk

I am the owner user:Sahimrobot . I wonder. What I'm closed.sahim (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sahim. On the English Wikipedia, all bots have to be approved through an approval process. Could you please file an approval request? Thank you, NW (Talk) 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

yes! Thank you for attention.sahim (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:208.80.152.74

I'm kinda confused; what's this block about? CU doesn't show any troublesome edits from that IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since NW is off-line, I'll respond. I believe the troublesome edit is this one, which was one of a series of troublesome edits made in a concerted effort over a short period of time to the same article. Having said that, this IP geolocates to ...umm... WMF, and thus there's probably something else behind this. Concur with the notion of unblocking. Risker (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, MediaWiki fail? Or we have a vandal at WMF... T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for handling it guys. I wonder what happened in Florida last night that caused that. NW (Talk) 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found this and this regarding Sunday evening's community wikibreak (or should that be "wikibroken"?). Richwales (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To fast

[5] was a bit quick. Yes, the sock accounts were blocked, but there was ongoing discussions about other aspects of the case, and no consensus on the evidence for the sock-master. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have reopened the case. NW (Talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OTRS issue

Hi, I'm here for an OTRS issue I asked J Milburn, but he/she disappeared, so maybe I can ask you?: Wizir01 (talk · contribs) added permission OTRS templates to File:StevenFineforWikipedia.jpg, File:Louis Feldman.jpg, and File:Richard Steiner2.jpg, which were uploaded by the user, who is not an OTRS volunteer. I'm not sure that's legit. Many uploads by Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs), who is not listed as an OTRS volunteer either, about the bloggingheads website have had an OTRS ticket added by the user, concerning #2007111910004338 I just wonder because if it's all free on that website, I didn't find a note to that effect there and one would probably expect it. Could you perhaps check that out? Thank you very much! Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked them out, and the three images by Wizir look good. The entire site of Bloggingheads.tv is published under GFDL version 1.2, per that OTRS ticket. NW (Talk) 15:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Need advice

Hello NW. I am currently helping a newbie create a new article here. He asked some questions about uploading copyrighted images that I would like some additional input in. If you have a minute, could you drop by? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 17:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I just answered his three most recent questions, as I skimmed the discussion very quickly. If there is something else that you would like me to address, feel free to point it out. Best, NW (Talk) 22:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Right now I'm trying to point out to him that a photo of a copyrighted photo is not free. I have been telling him that since day 1. I'm not sure if he's getting the message. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 12:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain your actions?

You blocked an editor for abusing multiple accounts[6] even though the investigation reached no such conclusion.[7] Can you please explain your actions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to just quote the administrator B here for my response: "If TND were editing through a real ISP, I'd certainly be more open to the possibility that they were not the same person, but there's enough here for me. Two accounts use the same style of edit summaries, the same formatting, have the same POV on the same articles, and are both editing from open proxies (which itself is against the rules)? I think we can call it a duck." To me, that about covers it. NW (Talk) 22:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's not what the sock investigation concluded. Is it normal to ignore the results of sock puppet investigations? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The checkuser said it was "technically inconclusive" due to proxy abuse, but also said "Go by behavior as needed." That's a key phrase, and the block was quite sound.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why didn't the sock puppet investigation conclude that this was a sockpuppet? I'm seeing a disconnect here. The investigation did not conclude that the account was a sock puppet but the account was blocked anyway. What's the point of having a sock puppet investigation if it's just going to be ignored? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your question pertains to the larger issue of why Wikipedia has no formal, established guidelines or checklists for administrators to follow when conducting admin actions, such as deciding when to block an account for possible socking. As a result, admin actions can end up appearing to be arbitrary or random, depending on the experience level and opinion of the admin who decides to take action. Any administrator in Wikipedia could have stepped in here and decided either to follow the adice of the sock investigator or not. NW chose not to. It is not his/her fault that this is the way things are done here. Administrators are left to make decisions based on their own discretion. Wikipedia's governance definitely needs some drastic reform so that admin actions will be more uniform, standardized and consistent, but I don't know if it will ever happen. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I for one would not want to see Wikipedia run like the Marine Corps. (Nothing against the Marine Corps, btw.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you quit using an administrator account? So, don't you have concerns about the way Wikipedia is administered? Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, nor is CheckUser a be-all and end-all in determining sock puppetry. I should have clarified that CU did not establish a definitive connection. If they both were caught using open proxies and exhibit the similar behaviors, then it's certainly not unreasonable to suspect that they're the same person. –MuZemike 00:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• @AQFK & Cla68: As MuZemike notes, checkuser has serious limitations. If open proxies are being used, a definitive IP connection will be impossible to determine. In cases like these where the only information about the IP is really the absence of such information, an administrator has to use their best judgment to see whether or not the behavioral evidence matches up (see Wikipedia:Open_proxies#Checkuser). If it does (and I believe it did in this case), then appropriate action should be taken. Cla68, you mention that Wikipedia's governance should undergo reform so that administrator actions should be made more consistent. I agree that such a thing would be nice, but could you please clarify whether or not you feel I made a mistake? NW (Talk) 01:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying that you made a mistake. I'm reserving judgement on it. Your explanation of your reasoning behind your decision, however, is exactly what I'm talking about. Instead of each administrator having to build their own skillset of admin knowledge based on personal experience and observation, there should be some kind of "best practices" guideline, organized by the common issues that administrators usually have to confront, providing tips and, yes, checklists (including if/then steps), for how to respond to different kinds of situations, such as the one in question here. Such a guideline would make it easier for admins of different experience levels to make decisions on what actions to take and when, and also make it easier to explain themselves, for example, "Step 5 of the sock checklist states that once the CU investigation is complete to evaluate other factors, such as, are open proxies being used..?" Such a guideline would not remove individual discretion from the process (which I think SBHB is referring to above, and, by the way, that is a stereotype that he is perpetuating about the USMC. The USMC actually encourages individual initiative and discretion in its members), but would help guide decision-making in repeatable situations. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance covers some (though not all) of what you mention, but I think I better understand what you meant now, and agree with you that such a thing would be helpful for a large majority of cases. Thank you. NW (Talk) 01:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have also tried when I rewrote Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions (with additional help from FT2 and others) with the goal of guiding administrators, by the hand almost, through SPI cases and what to do. That page is supposed to be for all administrators to read over and be familiar with. The problem is that most do not, and instead they leave detecting sock puppetry to either SPI clerks or to administrators who are more clueful in the field of sock puppetry – something I've always been against, as I believe every admin should have at least some minimal knowledge of what sock puppetry is and entails; it's not something limited to only Wikipedia, as any administrator on any website needs to know stuff like this to stop and prevent abuse and to uphold the online community's collective integrity. –MuZemike 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• That page is the kind of thing I'm talking about, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it. Admin candidates should probably affirm at the time of nomination that they have read those guidelines. On another note, I understand that some admins don't want to have all the "secrets" of how they investigate sockpuppeting revealed publicly, for obvious reasons. Some close hold institutional knowledge is probably ok. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, Cla68, I often agree with your points, but in this case I disagree quite a bit. The range of tasks that can be carried out by administrators is so great that only the most obsessed amongst them will ever be competent in all of them. I put to you that it is a better sign of an administrator to recognise which tasks are beyond one's skill or ability and not carry them out. Frankly, if all potential administrators are expected to understand how every aspect of adminship works in advance of appointment, we won't have any administrators. Much better to have administrators who truly understand a few specific areas. It's expectations such as this that turn adminship into a ridiculously big deal. There are at least ten things that I supposedly am able to do as an administrator that I've never done, and never intend to do, because they either (a) are outside of my skillset or (b) do not interest me in the least. Yet there doesn't seem to be any consensus that I'm a bad admin. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, though. Risker (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that potential admins need to take an examination or undergo tryouts. I don't think it is onerous to ask admin candidates to read the admin guidelines and how-tos first before accepting the responsibilities. If you think the current level of professionalism among our admin corps is adequate, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I could be wrong, of course, but it appears to me that the 90/10 rule is in full force here- 90% of the tougher admin chores, such as sock investigations, are being carried out by 10% of the editors who currently carry admin privileges. If there were better instructions on how to do everything, and every admin had affirmed that they had at least reviewed the instructions before getting involved, I think admin actions would be much more consistent in nature, be done by a larger percentage of admins, more effective in the outcomes, and there would be much less arguing and drama afterwards. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Less arguing and drama afterwards" would occur if you would resist posting in this thread. It is quite evident NW made an appropriate block here, but for some reason it is turning into this elongated discussion about why, to quote you, "Wikipedia's governance definitely needs some drastic reform". Would you rather I unblock and reblock? I see no benefit to arguing the completely mundane here, and pretty much everyone who frequents SPI has endorsed this block so far. So unless you have something concrete to say here, I think it's best that this discussion be dropped. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing the big picture. I saw this as an opportunity for a teachable moment. You want to keep things focused on this one incident. That's fine, but keep in mind as long as the big picture goes unaddressed, IMO, you and the other admins will have to explain your actions more than should be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is merely that discussing it here is going to get us nowhere. If you really think it's something that "goes unaddressed" then take it up in a more appropriate venue, such as WP:VP, WP:AN, WP:RFC or something that's not basically a back alley discussion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to plant a seed, Shirik. As far as this block goes, we may never know if this account was a sock of the editor in question or not, but it seems that NW put a lot of thought into it and I appreciate his effort to explain why he made the decision that he did. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Toilet paper orientation is on T:TDYK

• Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 4

Hey NW, you asked for a heads up when I nominated this article. Well, here ya go! Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Melchoir. Looks like Atmoz OK'd the article before I could, but I pointed out a sentence from the article that I thought could make an excellent hook. NW (Talk) 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Dear NW. I believe applying the 1RR to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is a correct step, however, it seems to me that some clarification is needed, because some users interpret this restriction in a very odd way, namely, that two or more separate edits made during the same day, or removal of the text (not re-insertion of it) violate 1RR. Since you applied this restriction, it will be logical if you made some clarification on the article's talk page.
9 Sincerely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A revert is the removal or altering another editors text, please read wp:3rr A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a standard you've adhered to on the Cl Ch probation. Meanwhile, since I'm here: NW: could you be persuaded to look at and perhaps close the report on MN there? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, could you point out specific edits you would want me to address? I feel that would be a bit easier than speaking in generalities. NW (Talk) 22:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, I'll try to get to it later, though unfortunately, it seems that the matter has gone stale from administrators choosing to wait rather than take action. In fact, it's been so long that I don't think I could support a block per "preventative, not punitive". NW (Talk) 22:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(pushing in): it does seem regrattable that the board seems to have fallen into such disuse. However, even if you can't support a block) now it would be helpful to pass a "yes I would have blocked if done in timely fashion". Also, note my request for an extension of MN's sanction William M. Connolley (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuke you can see the diff`s here [8] I brought it to the edit war board as he refused to self revert even though he had done 3 today mark nutley (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NW, the diff provided by Mark Nutley is one of specific examples. IMO, 1RR works as follows: if you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time. In other words, if someone removed the text (made a change), you cannot revert it twice without discussion. In addition, if someone made one change, and then made another, totally unrelated change, this doesn't violate 1RR. I fully understand that my request for clarification is somewhat stupid, because you provided the link to 1RR in your post, however, since not everyone appears to be able to understand it correctly, some explicit clarification would be helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I'm not really sure how to explain it better than you just did. Dr. Connolley (above) used to be a sysop who frequented the 3RR board quite a bit; perhaps he can think of a better way to explain it? NW (Talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, the explicit reference to WP:BURDEN will fix the issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with PS's In addition, if someone made one change, and then made another, totally unrelated change, this doesn't violate 1RR. A revert to a given page is *any* revert. You may make at most 3 such reverts per 24h (subject to the usual caveats of this-is-not-a-right). Whether they are related or not is irrelevant. This is (or was) the usual standard for judging 3RR. Unless otherwise specified, the standard for 1RR is the same, except that you can do at most one. On this specific issue it looks like User:EdJohnston has make the right called and blocked PS William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I am afraid that I misunderstood; I did not realize that there were other edits in between Paul's two reverts; I simply thought you reverted two additions one immediately after the other. WMC is correct in that case. NW (Talk) 12:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that WP:1RR is actually clear and correct about this (it's a section of WP:Edit warring). A "one-revert rule" is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Usually, people who break a 1RR are somewhat surprised, and will agree to self-revert. So I seldom find myself issuing blocks in those cases. Unfortunately this is one case where the person involved felt that other policies trumped WP:Edit warring. This is an argument which he is welcome to raise in policy forums, but has little persuasive value at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is *now*. But it has only just been re-written :-) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:1RR&action=history William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me summarise. As a result of this incident, 1RR has become a part of WP policy. I am glad that my humble efforts lead to improvement of WP policy. Let me also point out that the EdJohnston's statement ("this is one case where the person involved felt that other policies trumped WP:Edit warring") is simply not true: 1RR was not a part of this policy by the moment of the incident. 1RR was just a restriction imposed by one administrator on the article, and, frankly, this restriction was vaguely formulated. That is why, even before EdJohnston's intervention I asked NW for clarification regarding 1RR. However, instead of waiting while NW explained what concretely did he mean under 1RR, or instead of explaining by himself, EdJohnston simply blocked me. IMO, elementary politeness requires EdJohnston to apologize for his premature intervention into a situation that would be quickly resolved in any event.

To William M. Connolley. Dear William. Frankly, I am a little bit surprised by your interpretation of 3RR. However, you seem to be a specialist in that part of a policy, so please, explain me the following. Let's consider a situation when two different good faith editors simultaneously edit the same article. The editor A works on the Background section whereas the editor B works with Conclusion. During their editings, they remove some pieces of text in following order:

The editor A deletes one sentence in Background;

The editor B deletes one sentence in Conclusion;

The editor A deletes one word in Background;

The editor B deletes one word in Conclusion;

The editor A deletes one more word in Background;

The editor B deletes one more word in Conclusion;

My question is: does it mean that both of them exhausted their revert limit? This question is not just my idle curiosity, because if that is the case, something is fundamentally wrong with 3RR policy.

The main problem with what you've written is that it is all framed in terms of the "I'm entitled to 3 reverts a day" idea. Which the 3RR page does its best to discourage, as do admins in general. But because people do think like that, and because people hate admins using their judgement when it gets themselves blocked, we need to have bright lines. So, yes: in your contrived example above, both sides have not "exhausted their revert limit" but they have both got themselves in a state when one more revert will potentially lead to a block. But more important would be the issue of whether the editors were actually edit warring or not William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree in this case case. The deletion of a word into two separate sections does not mean they are reverting each other. Unless these words were added recently, it is just simple editing. If the words they are removing were added recently, both editors would count as having made 1 revert, because no one else touched the section they were working in in the middle of their editing sequence. NW (Talk) 10:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I in turn disagree with you, the key error is "each other". Reverting-each-other would be vital to deciding if there was edit warring; but exactly who you are reverting is irrelevant to determining 3RR violations. Unless these words were added recently, it is just simple editing - ah, that brings up pthe other question: since (by definition) all text was added by someone, in a very narrow view any removal of text is a revert. Quite how old the text has to be before it doesn't matter is a judgement call. I was assuming in my analysis that all the text being edited was new enough that a removal counted as a revert. Although I agree that your interpretion is possible, and could easily be used. This is, after all, part of the reason why calls for a mechanical interpretation of 3RR are resisted William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "all framed in terms of the "I'm entitled to 3 reverts a day" idea." Wrong. I, as well as all other good faith editors am entitled to edit Wikipedia, and the policy must provide me with such an opportunity unless I am not edit warring. In the example provided above, these editors simply edit the article, they probably even do not notice each other. It is clear that, had the editor B made no edits, by no means would the behaviour of the editor A be considered a violation of 3RR. Therefore, it is natural to ask, why a good faith editor has to constantly monitor the article's history to make sure that noone made any edit in between his changes? And why he has to stop his work if this change was totally unrelated to the edits he made?

3RR (or 1RR) was invented to prevent the users (or the groups of users) to fight against each other: to constantly revert, by removal or modifications, the content their opponents introduce. However, if simultaneous editings do not contradict each other, applying of 3RR is counter-intuitive and counter-productive. Moreover, it directly violates WP spirit. BRD states: if you made a change, and noone reverted it, and the article has been edited further, that means your edits have been accepted, so you may safely continue your work. Obviously, the fact that the editors A and B work on the article simultaneously (such deletions can be just a part of normal editings) and do not revert each other mean that they implicitly support each other's edits. However, the literally interpreted 3RR gives an opportunity to any wikilawyer to report both of them and to paralyse their work.

I fully understand, that mechanistic use of 3RR facilitates the administrators' job. However, since the primary goal of WP is to create and maintain a good content, not to provide a comfort to administrators, something should be modified in this rule (or in the way it is being applied). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: One of the "reverts" was removing a see also link that was added 9 months ago. Another was removing a sentence added 2 months ago. Calling either of those "edit warring" is such a stretch that it makes the term meaningless. -Atmoz (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To NW. Although the present 1RR is much more clear now, some additional clarification is needed. Concretely, does in mean that any removal of any text from the stable version is a revert?

My second question is if further changes (replacement of some phrase with the different one, replacement of three words with two different words etc) constitutes a revert?

My third question regarding 1RR is as follows. Consider a situation when some unsourced, or poorly sourced statement is added into the article by the editor B. The editor A finds it not properly sourced and removes it. The editor B immediately reverts this change, so both of them have exhausted their revert limit. This creates a situation when the editor B achieved his goal (the questionable text is in the article), whereas the editor A has to take special efforts (create arguments, find sources, etc.) to remove this text. That comes into a direct contradiction with WP:BURDEN policy, and places good faith editors, who are trying to get rid of poorly sources and questionable content, in a situation when administrative sanctions can be applied to them at any moment. In other words, whereas this policy made the life of administrators easier, the good faith editors, who create a good quality content face unneeded problems. IMO, this situation need some additional clarification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for so wordy and ridiculous questions, but a situation develops in so counter-intuitive way that I simply have to ask them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody doesn't like you.

http://dis.4chan.org/read/vip/1103880078/104

- VIPPER 07:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty standard for, unfortunately. I had lots of fun in February and March over this issue.[9] In fact, I'm surprised that the attacks have gone down so much recently. Thanks go to Shirik, who so kindly maintains the abuse filter. NW (Talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Rasputin's penis

This merger was not unilateral. There was a merge discussion right here, which was open for three whole months. I even listed it as a merge request in the Wikipedia namespace. I'm reverting your deletion of the redirect. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought that the discussion was listed on Talk:Rasputin's penis, so I wondered why I could not see any such discussion. I shall leave it as is in that case. NW (Talk) 12:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks!! --Jtalledo (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture (US band)

I was about to punch this "keep" as it has been listed for 21 days with only the nom arguing for deletion but your second relist gave me pause because you could have closed it 7 days ago. The 2 "keep" !votes aren't that strong and the nominator does make a good case.

As a side note, lately I have been wondering if band articles should be given the same protection as BLPs as well as extra careful scrutiny at AFD. (ie relist a second time instead of a WP:NPASR close) Might be worth bringing up at WP:VPP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to punch a no consensus close out for that one (because I dislike NC closes and because I feel that with one or two more comments, consensus could be established). I really dislike this "don't relist twice rule", and have pretty much been ignoring it for everything, to be honest.

And yeah, since band articles often focus on living people to a great extent, perhaps that would be a good idea. NW (Talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're out of date

I will not be around for most of June 2010 says your edit message. I bet you don't even read it any more William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew perfectly well that it was still up, thank you very much. I, um, was, um, waiting for someone to comment on it. Yeah, that's exactly it. NW (Talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What giveth?!?

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Seriously, what's wrong with this user (see here for contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.158.252.146)? "Saw" him removing and/or altering SPANISH NAMES tags (you can see them in many spanish persons articles at the top of the page, where it reads "This is a Spanish family name. The first name is X and the second is Y"); removing completely or altering to "This is a Catalan Spanish name" or "...Basque family name".

I sent him a polite message (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:121.158.252.146), he waited a few months and...back to charge. I also noticed he writes, as so many around here, ZERO edit summaries, removing stuff just because. Do you think any "measure-taking" is possible?

Thank you very much as always, have a great weekend "and stuff" - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is possible that he missed your note somehow? I don't really think it is likely, but it is possible. Could you please leave him another note? If he acts disruptively after that one, then action can be taken. NW (Talk) 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just left you a message over at Commons

On your talk page there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I replied there. NW (Talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hi, I had just noticed all the vandalism and reversions done to my user page which, to be honest, I was quite surprised to see. Then I saw this from you. I have absolutely no problem with others making my user page better. Thank you and feel free to edit it. To be honest, most of my user page is done by another editor who wanted to work on coding more and he also didn't like the layout of my page. I let him lose on it. He did a wonderful job with the tables. I still have a lot of work to do on the prose and other things at the top but haven't gotten around to it yet. I like to let other editors know that I have limitations and serious COI issues in some areas which is why I posted the 'Preamble' section. Anyways, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I found your story very touching, and especially because of that, I was shocked that people could be so cruel. I know it's the internet, but still. :( Anyway, the edit wasn't a problem at all. Feel free to ask if you would like your page indefinitely semi-protected, which might be able to help with the vandalism. NW (Talk) 23:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll take you up on it for my user page. Some of the vandalism I know who it is and she isn't going away even though she is community banned indefinitely. Yes people can be cruel on the net but it's really only hurtful to me when it happens in real life which it did. All my supposed friends disappeared as soon as I got sick. It's ok though, it just showed me that they weren't really friends afterall. Please, if it's not out of your way, would you put protection on my user page? I'm off to bed. Thank you again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:( I wish I could say more. Oh, and page protected. NW (Talk) 01:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection. Don't feel bad, I think I understand what you are trying to say and it's much appreciated. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

daniel case

daniel case has new messages at my talk page 99.38.126.156 (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock advice

Hi. :) Might I trouble you for some sock advice? A contributor has stopped by my talk page to tell me that User:Matthew hk (currently indef-blocked and with whom I tried to negotiate terms) is socking as an IP: 210.6.121.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Duck evidence suggests to me that this is probably true, although I generally like my ducks to quack very loudly. He seems to have picked right up at this article. And he's probably this IP as well: 210.6.121.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

I'm not entirely sure the best method of handling this. The contrib histories of both IPs suggest stable contributor, but I'm not sure if blocking those IPs as socks is productive or a good idea, since I don't really know that much about how IPs are assigned in Hong Kong. I'm also note sure if the admins who work SPI more routinely would find the quacking loud enough to warrant the block or if checkuser would have any value here in either confirming the connection or locating sleepers. I'm hoping you can give me some pointers on how this might best be handled, since you are ever so much more experienced there than I. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) The situation has become slightly more complicated now as the contributor has decided to try to accept the terms offered after a week of silence. Timing seems oddly coincidental, but, well, coincidences do happen. (Oh, I've asked him point blank if this is him; I don't, though, quite know what to do with his answer, if he gives me one.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for "butting in": please note that, under that IP address, he has already been confrontational towards User:Drmies again (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:210.6.121.21). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While the IP is a shared one, it looks like the vast majority of edits are coming from that one user. If you feel that Matthew hk is socking or that IP is being disruptive, I would say just softblock it and hope that collateral damage isn't too bad (which I don't think it would be). NW (Talk) 00:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice. :) I've blocked for a short time only and left a note at the registered user's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again!

Hi again NUKE: speaking still of the content i sent you in the last message, the same, but with another "user":

User:Satesclop has also been changing the SPANISH NAMES tag to CATALAN NAMES tag, at least at Joan Capdevila, although he stopped in the last days. However, he has been removing stuff in the infobox which is 100% true (the fact that he played for his regional team, Catalonia).

I sent him a polite to-the-point message in his mother tongue, and asking some doubts i had, what did he do? Reinstate his false info, without one word. He has also been aggressive to other users (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M.Jovellanos, if your Google translator is not "up-to-par", i'll lend a hand in translating); due to his lack of response, i have also sent him another message, still polite, but with this very important note: WP is up for pretty much any contribution within the norms, but that does not include the removal of true info.

Please lend me a hand (or two) if the next developments require so, keep it up, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• And this stuff i found man, pure gold in my opinion: User:Satori Son - you know, the admin which has been greatly helping with the P-Files, has received this message on his talkpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son#Deleted_pages). He seems to be absent so i mailed him, but last time i tried this, i was under the impression he did not receive it, so i must be doing something wrong. As you also are "au courant" of the investigations, hear this:

This anon "user" writes Satori and asks why is he deleting pages he creates (Pararubbas is banned). This anon "user" is located in England. This anon "user" presents an e-mail address with a Portuguese name (Alexandre Vargas is so, i am Portuguese remember Nuke?). This "user" talks about pages that the sockmaster would create (Portuguese footballers (in this case a foreign player playing in the country) and Portuguese football teams, most of them are almost always obscure). This "user" IS - cross my heart and hope to die - PARARUBBAS! I don't want to mail him because i don't want to have anything do with him (except blocking ALL of his accounts), but someone could, methinks. Attentively, again - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Pararubbas' IP. As for Satesclop's, I would appreciate it if you could tell him from me (in Spanish, which I don't really want to try myself in case I get it wrong) that if he persists in removing information without discussion, I will be forced to reluctantly block him. NW (Talk) 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the block NUKE, although most likely he will use that IP very very rarely. I was thinking of something along the lines of someone mailing him (i totally decline, i'm afraid i lose it and say something that will hurt, in the bigger picture, WikiPedia), but we'll wait what Satori has to say when he returns. Thanks again. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Judith Curry recommendation

I believe this has been cleared-up now. I think it's fair to see that I have some experience writing articles in Wikipedia. Only in the AGW topic area do I find disputes like these. In any other topic area, the editors would be accepting the book as a reliable source (because it is) but then arguing on the when and where the book can be used in the article, which is fair. In this case, a group of editors don't want it to be used at all, and I think my evidence section in the ArbCom case explains why. What makes it obvious is when I tried to cite text that had already been there since the article was written, I believe put there by WMC himself (although I haven't taken the time to check), and they reverted it immediately. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR again

Dear NW,
The same editor has attacked another good faith editor using 1RR as a pretext[10][11]. Since I voluntarily decided neither to initiate any thread on ANI against anybody who attacked me nor to respond on any accusations against me on ANI, I ignored the ANI thread (which led to my block under a very artificial pretext). However, it does not mean that I will be equally patient when other good faith editors are under attack. I believe, you, as a person who imposed a 1RR restriction on the Mass killing under Communist regimes article should interfere and explain what concretely did you mean under that.-

Sincerely,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a bit of a slow machine right now Paul. Can you explain to me how long ago the content removed in [12]/[13] was added? Was it a gradual process or did one editor add it all recently? I'll need to know that before I can explain properly. NW (Talk) 20:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Afaik, the user PMAnderson removed a content just one time (after prolonged discussion on the talk page). He received a request to self-revert immediately after that[14]. Unfortunately, the user mark nutley understood my block (which I refused to formally contest, despite I had a ground for that, because I simply hate any ANI discussions) as a sign that he may continue his wikilawyering. I believe he must be stopped. In addition, as I explained on this talk page before, special explanations are needed to avoid a contradiction between 1RR and WP:BURDEN: if not properly sourced material is removed, it should not constitute a violation of 1RR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that he already removed the same content before. However, the problem still exists: the proponents of the SYNTH and OR in this article seem to interpret 1RR as a right to veto any attempts to remove original research or synthesis from there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is vetoing anything paul, the content was moved with no discussion on the talk page for no other reason than to be wp:pointy the discussion was not started until he was reverted and it was not started by him but by open future mark nutley (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• My question was never answered, btw. NW (Talk) 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The creation of this section was a gradual process, during which the relevance of this section to the article was constantly being debated on the talk page. Unfortunately, these debates didn't lead to appreciable section's improvement. The proposals to move this content to a more relevant article were either ignored or rejected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That would make Pmanderson's first edit an "edit" and the second edit a "revert", which would mean he would not have violated 1RR. That does not mean he can't be blocked for edit warring, but he cannot be blocked for 1RR. NW (Talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)