Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 87 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 46 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	44	0	44
AfD	0	0	8	0	8

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Redshirt

(Initiated 49 days ago on 16 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 37 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 293 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 195 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is too stale, especially given how half of voters picked "wait." I think that if somebody wants to merge this article, they should feel free to boldly undertake it, or if they'd rather clarify things, start a fresh discussion on the talk page of one of the proposed parents. I'll leave this open in case another closer feels differently, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

 Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 161 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notes @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, @Super Goku V, @Compassionate727, and I appreciate your input @S Marshall! Sorry for not getting to this earlier; I've had some unexpected personal commitments that have taken up most of my bandwidth. Given that it looks like this would be left best as an unclosed discussion, I'll mark this request as resolved for now ( Not done). Frostly (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Frostly and Compassionate727: Personally, I think it would be useful to try to discern some sort of conclusion from it, if only to provide editors some level of guidance as to how to respond to future notifications in that form.

  I’ve marked it for not done for now, to prevent it being auto archived before this comment can be read, but if you’re confident closing it won’t be useful I won’t object to remarking it as done. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 33 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 10 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 5 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Appeal of community restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Restriction was imposed following this discussion and, per the terms of the restriction, subsequently modified here. The restriction was imposed due to several ANI filings I made about the Article Rescue Squadron and my efforts to re-open an MfD on the project's rescue list. As it stands, the main reason for my actions was that I wanted to have an open discussion about the project and its activities with significant community input. I feel that was largely satisfied with the RfC on the group and a second MfD another editor opened up regarding the list late last year. Under no scenario can I envision myself returning to such noticeboard filings as I feel that, if the project should remain a concern, it will have to be handled in a more managed process such as another RfC or arbitration. Even there I see no present cause for such action as the group has seemed to decline in activity to the point of effectively being a non-issue. So the restriction at this point is moot in my opinion and I would rather not have the black mark.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support removing topic ban NE Ent 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Since I weighed in at the original ANI thread, I'll respond here as well. I see no reason to avoid assuming the best or doubt the sincerity of TDA's request. This was over a year ago, and I am usually supportive removing "black marks" and reducing restrictions when an honest attempt is made to work within the rules we have here. I therefor support this removal, and note that the closing admin. in that determination is not currently active. I also note that TDA did approach that closing admin. as well. Also: "per NE Ent". — Ched :  ?  02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Whatever the merits of the original ban proposal it's unavoidable that it was a politically contentious issue, and it's been long enough, and the issues moot enough, that there's no need for any continued restriction. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean "...ban proposal, it's unavoidable..."? Not trying to be picky; I'm just having a mildly hard time understanding the first part of your sentence. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your punctuation is much better than mine :). The first was politically (wiki politics) charged. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Mainly because I see no reason to maintain the ban at the present time. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been plenty of folks topic banned on both sides, and things have calmed down appropriately. I see no reason to monkey with success, and a topic ban that a user does not intend to violate is no particular hindrance to their editing. Without a desire to reengage, there is no compelling reason to remove a working restriction. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per (NOT Jclemens) & NE Ent, Ched. No need to keep restrictions that a user does not intend to violate - judge next on their own, not by default. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, there IS a good reason to keep them: users who say they will not go back to the same topic area have, eh, I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises, in my experience. I'll withdraw my oppose if he'll stipulate that I get to block him and/or discretionarily reinstate the topic ban, previous INVOLVEment or not, if he goes back to what I perceive to be battlefield involvement in the topic area. I have no particular reason to think that he will be one of the 50% who make campaign promises they never intend to keep, but if some teeth were put into those campaign promises, I'd be happy to accept them at face value. What says the appellant? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  ".. I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises ..." .. and that is exactly the problem, Jclemens, and exactly why I have not a single bit of confidence in you anymore (I guess that got reflected in the last ArbCom elections), in ArbCom, and actually, in almost all of Wikipedia. Restrictions for the sake of restrictions, restrictions which are just way beyond reasonable, etc. etc., and make sure that they stay, and make sure that they get enforced. But I still hope that other editors have more faith in the editors that make this encyclopedia than in the ones that think that they need to police it (and seen the other !votes here .. I don't think that that hope is completely futile). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yep, I think Jclemens' approach is exactly the wrong one, and is diametrically opposed to the Wikipedia ethos. We should be aiming for minimum sanctions, maximum freedom, and maximum support for our content creators - not authoritarianism and high-security containment based on assuming the worst of people. (But I do have significantly more faith in the current ArbCom than I did in the previous one - I think the last election achieved an overall positive result) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, I have lost so much faith in ArbCom over the last couple of years that I can only hope that the 'new generation' will be able to restore some of my faith. As I said, I think my hope is not completely futile (I even saw positive changes in some of the old ArbCom members...). Anyways, lets examine restrictions for what they are supposed to do. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  The problem isn't restrictions for restrictions' sake, it's that users who have actually gotten to the point of community or arbcom sanctions, as opposed to a spat with a single admin or a 3RR sanction, have already demonstrated inability to behave in a collegial manner. Thus, when lifting them, we're faced with the question of "does this user really get it now, or is he deluded and/or lying?" What so many of those of you who like to second-guess Wikipedia's pale attempts at governance ignore is that often, it is one of the latter issues. I won't list unrelated cases here, but anyone who doesn't understand the problem of recidivism hasn't been paying attention. Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  So your approach is to just assume "once bad, always bad"? I think that's an appalling attitude (and it's part of what got you kicked off ArbCom) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  No, more like once restricted, show me a real reason for removing the restriction. "I promise not to go anywhere near the topic again" isn't a real reason. I've repeatedly voted to lift sanctions as an arbitrator when users demonstrated that the sanctions themselves were actually harming their ability to do encyclopedia-building work. There is no such argument advanced in this case. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I closed the RfC on ARS last summer and at that point I wasn't certain that the topic ban was required. At the time I erred on the side of caution and left it in place. I'm happy that sufficient time has passed and attitudes have changes sufficiently that this topic ban primarily serves as a blot on TDA's record and I would support it being lifted. Worm^TT(talk) 07:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The whole thing was some time ago and it's all settled now, and I see no need for any ongoing topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Ched and others. I am not even sure this ban was really needed from the beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the specific proviso that TDA will undertake no actions which could conceivably be viewed as "pointy" about the topic in future without incurring the possibility of renewed sanctions. Collect (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I get the idea of not wanting to have a topic ban over one's head. But I also don't see any advantage to TDA getting involved in ARS issues. Eh, support with the same note as Collect. I think TDA is wise enough to stay away on their own. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm all about extending an olive branch to people who have seen the light, however if you get back into deliberately disrupting ARS, then expect the resumption of sanctions and more restrictive sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Support I have no vested interest either way, but I have no problem with second chances. The twisted one formerly known as balloonman. 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I closed this as rescinded but TDA objected to a condition on the close and argues that I'm involved as I opined on the original restriction. I don't remember doing so but appearances are important so I'm voiding my close and recusing from this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Request closure

Could an uninvolved admin close the appeal? I think there is clear consensus for lifting my restriction without any conditions, and I feel such conditions would basically be new and unnecessary restrictions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

After reading, I agree. If I may editorialize for a moment (without it affecting my close), I think you're probably better off steering clear from shenanigans with respect to the ARS, just in case, but I don't see any consensus that you be formally restricted from anything. The proviso that Collect mentions is close enough to the expected standard for everyone (we don't like POINTy behavior in general, no matter who it's from or against) that I can't imagine formalizing it is necessary, and there isn't consensus to do so anyway. So, un-topic-banned without conditions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block

Please block Ulv80. He always inset interwiki in articles, templates and category who already are in wikidata. When people removed he edits he just put it back again. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ulv80 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP is asking for Ulv80 to be blocked, not unblocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I clearly should have gone to bed sooner than I did. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Posted a message on their talk page. I don't think a block is called for here yet. If anyone speaks Polish, though, a message at pl:user talk:Ulv80 probably wouldn't hurt. Jafeluv (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure needed

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheListUpdater/Northland Center has been open since April 17 with no votes. Can this be closed as an uncontested WP:STALEDRAFT? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done closed delete.--Salix (talk): 10:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User restoring edits of banned user and 4 years old sock-puppeteer

Hello! I want to ask the administrators about the assist given by different users to the 2-times banned user User:Stubes99, This editor had tens of socks but many times some users (in the last case User:Norden1990 [2] [3] [4]) restore the information inserted by him (sometimes we talk about mass illegal editing - entire paragraphs added by this banned user - [5]). What is the opinion of the admins about this situation? How is User:Stubes99 penalized if his edits are validated by his supporters and remain on the site? Stubes99 defies our community and can create a new account whenever he wants (because he owns several IP ranges) to continue his work. He is socking for 4 years - the original account is Celebration1981 [6] and the earliest known sock account is User:Celebration81 - and no one and nothing was able to stop his editing in illegality. His status is only formally of a banned user, because in practice he can activate like any well-behaved contributor. The never ending cycle is the following: he creates a account, makes edits, he is blocked, his edits are reverted for being illegal, and then his edits are reinstated by his friends. Users like User:Norden1990 who support his edits simly encourage him to go on in his socking. I am requesting a solution for solving this.

It seems that User:Norden1990 started acting like a meatpuppet of User:Stubes99. Some days ago they started e-mail communication [7][8][9] and now he began restoring his edits and now they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail.

User:Stubes99 also posted a message in Hungarian language on User talk:Hobartimus, which can be translated as "Hello! Why do not you set your profile to wikis by e-mail, which could communicate with you? Thanks for your response!" [10]. Hobartimus is old friend of Stubes99 [11].

Another question: Why does not Celebration1981 a.k.a. Stubes99 appear here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Long-term_abuse_-_Active after 4 years of continuous socking?--Omen1229 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Newnou, who reverted the sockpuppet's edits, was also banned, so I just brought back the article to stable version. It was strange for me that a sockpuppet remove long details from an article before banning. "It seems that", "they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail" - there are not appear to be evidence. I cooperated with Balkony (I did not know that (s)he is a sockpuppet, maybe I only suspected) in tha case of Central Europe where I helped to him to add statement from Western European historiographical works. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What stable version? The stable (the last valid version) is the version before-Stubes99 and before-Newnou. User Newnou only removed the ilegal edits made by the other banned user: Stubes99 added text, Newnou deleted added text going back to the previous version, and you restored the ilegal edits. Take this example: Stubes99 added text [12], Newnou reverted to Fakirbakir's version [13] and you reinstated Stubes99 edit [14].

The problem is that you validated the content added by a banned user, encouraging his activity. Tomorrow he will create a new account and resume his editing, knowing that you are behind him to restore his edits in case someonw will revert him.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you stop this hysteria? Newnou was also a sockpuppet, so he had no right to delete someone else's edit. Anyway, Balkony additions were sourced and referenced, using Western historiographical publications, so I checked these modifications. Indeed, in the case of Vona, I made a mistake accidentally, but it is very interesting that edit was not reverted by you, unlike the others, proving that the contents of the edits that bother you and not the user itself. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't block Balkony as a sock until 28 hours ago, if that makes a difference. I might have just missed it, but I didn't see where you have discussed the issue with the other editor before bringing it here, so I naturally have to ask if this can be handled on a talk page, particularly since we have one set of socks reverting another set of socks, so it is possible for an editor to revert to the "wrong" version, all in the best of faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not contact Norden1990 directly, because this user has done a lot false personal attacks against me and a constructive discussion([15][16][17] etc.) is really very difficult with this user: he called me recently "chauvinist user" [18] or named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist... [19]

It seems that Norden1990 continues restoring information added by the banned user [20].

Unfortunately Stubes99 sockpuppet factory is working at full capacity. He created 4 new accounts in the last days: User:Drickler, User:Sovietsco, User:Rightfullruler, User:Antisockpuppeterer to restore his deleted contributions and it seems nothing can stop him. Isn't posible to find an antidote against this man? On Austria-Hungary article he has new supporters (who in fact probably don't know Stube99), who reinstated his lawless additions [21] (full paragraphs, and tens of thousands of letters).--Omen1229 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also important that we find a solution against Iaaasi, whose activity is harmful for the Wikipedia. Dear Omen, a constructive discussion is not difficult with me, see lot of cases in my talkpage. I reserve the indicatives about you, I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note - Norden1990, comparing any other editor with a sock is not constructive. If you have anything to complain about Omen1229 please use the wikipedia channels(boards or similar) to clear that up, otherwise your comment can be interpreted as an act of bad faith. Also you are not a new user not to know that you should NOT preserve SOCK edits. It is important to stop all socks, but in this case User:Stubes99 since he created this problem. Adrian (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

About this problem (sock edits) as according to wikipedia rules (WP:SOCK and [[22]]) should be reverted. Because if we let this edits remain, in fact we are allowing a banned user to contribute and participate as a legitimate user. As for this particular case I am a little torn, because this is one of the few User:Stubes99 constructive, non-partisan edits. But this may be the case of "good hand - bad hand" (WP:GHBH). If we were to respect the wikipedia rules the data should be removed immediately, but in this case I don`t know what to do. The best way is to let some experienced administrator decide what to do. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to hear some administrator clarifying this situation because this is starting to became and edit war on many articles. Some users are adding some SOCK data, some removing. If someone could explain clearly what to do in this situations. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Satan unsearchable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the midst of a research on fallen angels and other biblical matters, I found that if I click on any link on satan, or I search the word "satan" in the wikipedia search, the wikipedia page become blocked in an eternal loop. I don't know were to signal this problem, I hope this is the right section.

I thinked it was some form of censorship, or maybe someone blocked it on purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.231.42.154 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mhhh should be a demon in my pc, now it seems ok after I searched again O__o

delete this post please ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.231.42.154 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Church: The Show hoax

To me, this new "article" by User:Dash.tastix looks like a hoax, possibly with intent of defamation, especially when regarding the picture of a fully identifiable minor labelled as "elder brown". --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's not a hoax, it's just a Youtube thing that does not assert any importance - I've speedy-deleted it as CSD:A7 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding the scope of the Ombudsman Commission

The Ombudsman Commission is currently holding a request for comment. Currently, the Commission only hears complaints regarding the privacy policy. We propose to change the scope of the Commission to also include hearing complaints about the global Checkuser and m:Oversight policy policies.

For more information please visit the RFC, which can be found at m:Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission. Please direct all questions and comments there.

For the Ombudsman Commission,

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice request for WP:SPA who is whitewashing Jack Kemp

There is an WP:SPA who is whitewashing Jack Kemp's article by removing negative opinions of experts like Newsweek journalists. I don't want to get into a reversion war. What should I do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone else already reverted back. I just left a message on their talk page. You didn't notify them that you brought up an issue with them here, something you should do now, as it is required even if you don't mention them by name. Normally, just leaving them a message like I just did is enough to get them talking, or to demonstrate they won't talk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporary notification system

I am going to enable a default gadget that will pop up when you receive a notification. I do this because there is a valid concern new editors may not notice the standard red blip on top of the screen. While there is consensus that some form of notification alert is needed, the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notifications/New message indicator is going downhill fast.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Notifications/Popup documentation. — Edokter (talk) — 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is someone also going to bring back typewriters, the quill and ink, messenger pigeons, and horse and buggies? That's the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. With a community as afraid of change as this, it's really a wonder they can use a computer. I'll be awaiting a reply with a coconut shell tied to a string... Wikipedia is going to be left far behind if they keep up this stubborn, "I won't allow any changes" attitude. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It's a wonder we're not still using the classic skin. — Edokter (talk) — 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in what's really going on here, see Resistance (philosophy). Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're still walking on two legs, no? Have you tried breathing through your ass? It's different so it must be progress. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point by a few light years. We did not always walk on two legs. The opposition to creativity on this site will be its downfall. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no creativity in that move. Just the urge to change for change's sake. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the most creative acts in proto-human history. Necessity is the mother of invention. You appear to be using a different definition of creativity than I am. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing the orange bar on wikipedia is proto-human history? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever are you talking about? It was very clear what I was talking about. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And it was very clear what I said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you were speaking dolphinese to a chimpanzee underwater riding a whale. Totally clear. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this new gadget has very little to do with the orange bar... Ignatzmice•talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's even uglier than the bar, if that were possible :) But it does the job. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to keep it as simple as possible by using the exixting mw.notify framework, which does not allow extensive styling. — Edokter (talk) — 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No complaints. Sometimes ugly is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And, sometimes ugly is beautiful. Or as it is usually known, "exotic". :) Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that it comes with easy to follow instructions to turn off, and hopefully will address the OBOD concerns. NE Ent 09:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Backlog

WP:RPP has nearly 20 protection requests not tended to yet. Get to work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cotting on Talk:Syrian civil war

There has been a tendency for editors on Talk:Syrian civil war to engage in conversations about the conflict itself without suggesting any edit. I've taken it upon myself to {{cot}} sufficiently derailed discussions, discussions about editor bias, etc. Ironically, there's a discussion about me cotting the discussions (eg here). Would an experienced editor care to weight in and see if any of my cots were inappropriate? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have outlined the problem on the page in question. TippyGoomba is arbitrarily removing sections that discuss the validity of sources and content[23][24][25] (other examples have been de-"hatted"), which is a very valid use of the talkpages, and other regular editors of the page have complained too. TippyGoomba also has a tendency to hide blocks of comments in the middle of discussions, including valid comments within this block, thereby completely destroying any cohesiveness and readability. Talkpages are not only for suggesting direct edits of the article, but also for discussion about what to include in it. No one elected TippyGoomba for policeman/judge, yet that is all he does on that talk page, and does not contribute to the content discussions other than just asking "what changes do you suggest" after every other comment. The talk page worked just fine before his recent entry out of nowhere, and it is a given that debate will get heated on controversial pages. TippyGoomba's own talk page notifications are testament to this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The first two cots were right on target, the talk page was being used as a forum, so cotting it as "not a forum" was right,

the third one, was cotted as not a reliable source, that wasn't too cool, however, TippyGoomba didn't comment on it at all, still, a bit much, I think.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, the most pointless "hattings" have been reverted, so I can't show all of them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with FM. Discussion on the talkpage can get tangential and even ugly, but on a contentious topic that's to be expected. Now and then, I have hatted a few particularly egregious subthreads, but the frequency with which TG snaps things shut is honestly pretty damn annoying and even counterproductive. It hasn't proven effective in curbing "hattable" material, only in making the talkpage a mess. Discussions are best brought on-topic by introduction of source material, not by hiding slightly off-topic exchanges. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• TippyGoomba, you wanted the opinion of an uninvolved admin, well, here it is: please stop hatting threads. You have demonstrated that you do not yet fully understand when hatting is warranted and when it's pointless or, worse, counterproductive. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Something doesn't look right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems likely but you never know, Firefox on lin can hold like 2k+ tabs and one could preload all of them and then go thru and submit en-masse. I suggest contacting the user rather than discussing it here, unless there's a problem with their creations that necessitate an immediate block. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged them when I put it here. The main reason I brought it here (rather than ANI) was to get schooled a bit, as this was unusual and not something I usually run across in my daily activities, but the nature and odd linkage in some of their creations were such that I felt it needed more eyes immediately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to add that Dennis's original link is somewhat deceptive, in that it shows the user's oldest contributions. If you look at the user's newest contributions, you will see that User:BS1923 has created over 500 new articles in the space of less than 3 hours. --DAJF (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, that is one article per 14 or 15 seconds, which means it is likely an unauthorized bot. I meant to link the recent, but still, this has been ongoing for a while today. Someone familiar with bots and policy might take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the new articles are referenced. Their title's are all wrong... For example, instead of Yamaha Motors S.C., it should be Júbilo Iwata. Plus, they all have some minor problems. Bgwhite (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought, but I'm not familiar enough to know for sure. All of them are like that, and link off to each other that way. Not sure if this is a nuke situation or not, but it is a problem. I'm pinged someone familiar with bots to take a look, but I don't know if they are around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good faith edits? Probably. Massively wrong bot? Yea ... massive delete ... yea. (But with a really nice talk page message). NE Ent 01:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a mass delete seems to be the best solution. Articles like 1975 Eidai Industries S.C. season, with very little information, no source, and a rather obvious expression error (which also appears in e.g. 1973 Eidai Industries S.C. season) make it clear that no real checks were done. No idea what the "other pages" empty section on these pages is meant to be (a "see also"?). Fram (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hold off on mass deletions for now. The information looks legitimate but it seems some minor errors have crept in and I'd agree that national year seasons are not appropriate. The tables should be moved into e.g 1970 in Japanese football and sourced. Urging the creator to source/correct them would be better than the belligerent all guns blazing approach which might cause the creator to leave wikipedia. If he refuses to do so, then delete.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone an opinion on whether he may be a sock of User:Japan Football (an indef blocked sockpuppet)? That was also a rapid-fire contributor with very similar interests. They e.g. both created Makoto Rindo. Perhaps someone more familiar with that user can comment? It's just a hunch, the evidence isn't really overwhelming so far. Fram (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost definitely a sock of Japan Football, who I encountered in the past. I fully support mass deletions and will deal with (i.e. delete) these articles/templates/categories in a few hours when I have time, unless somebody wants to do so in the meantime. Editor should also be indeffed as a sock. GiantSnowman 09:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Japan Football was previously blocked as a sock of User:依頼人 (have to look at deleted contribs to see the resemblance), who would be the master. I've filed at SPI as I wanted another clerk to review and consider renaming the case to the newer account for ease of future use. It looks like a match to me as well. Once blocked, even after considering Dr. Blofelds' concerns, I would likely request a mass nuke. It would take longer to fix all these than it took to make them, and there are hundreds and hundreds of these. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, if he is a confirmed sock, and his contributions are more problematic than their worth then naturally I'd support a mass nuke. But I think it is worth checking over his material just to be on the safe side as editors adding content on Asian countries especially further back in time are sadly lacking on wikipedia. I'm sure we'd all approve if articles like 1970 in Japanese football were being worked on and written into a proper article instead of rapid fire data articles with errors. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The old account is too stale to get a CU to look, so we can't get a "technical" confirmed. Salvio (who we all agree is very experienced in this) had declared him an obvious WP:DUCK and blocked/tagged, however, so I do recommend someone nuke. I don't have the nuke tools installed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano has deleted the pages. Dennis, for next time, the nuke tool is installed by default for all admins, and I'm not aware of any way to turn it off. You can access it at Special:Nuke. It's mass rollback that requires some javascript magic. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I knew there were some fancy scripts around, but I'm not inclined to use either and will leave it for someone else more adventurous. Very useful, but dangerous tools. I suppose we can close this up now that all is settled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prison-industrial complex

Seems to have suddenly attracted a bunch of "new editors" each of whom seems to be pretty much the same - though seemingly unwilling to stick to the stated topic of that article. I doubt they will actually hang around, but semi-ing it would likely help. Collect (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Problem is that all those edits seem to be in good faith and with sources. Shouldn't really protect an article just because it gets busy with what seems to be good faith edits. That falls under content dispute even if they are straying somewhat, thus it isn't 3RR immune unless there is something in those edits I'm missing (BLP/Vandalism). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on the comments made by one of the editors at my talk page, this appears to be a class project from UC Berkely. Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination or Wikipedia:School and university projects can help out? Singularity42 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for User:Drmies or User:LadyofShalott, or some other kind soul. A bit out of my league. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Cleveland, Ohio missing trio‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2013 Cleveland, Ohio missing trio‎ needs a rollback to a stable state and temporary semi-protection. Multiple IPs are making changes while there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about whether to make the changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Based on WP:NOTNEWS, the "stable state" would be "before the article even existed" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is more than NEWS, so NOTNEWS does not apply. GiantSnowman 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• [Citation needed]. This belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. I have nominated it for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. That one sure kicked over a hornet's nest! The good news is that AfDs last long enough for it to become evident whether there is lasting notability before a decision is made. Assuming, of course, that nobody jumps the gun and forces an early close... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Which, of course, someone just did. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• And another editor (not me) put it up for DR: Wikipedia:Deletion review#2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. This is why we should not have rapid-fire edited late-breaking news articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• No. This is why we shouldn't wildly misconstrue NOTNEWS as some sort of prohibition on current-events articles. I can think of few other types of article that see so heavy a deletionist bias against them. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• We have Wikinews specifically to cover news stories. Once enduring notability is established, then they can be moved into en.wiki. In rare cases (eg the Boston Marathon bombings) it can be very apparent it will be important, but something like this is not something that necessarily has value in permanence in an encyclopedia. It might, but we should be slow to add until that's determined. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confused as to why this discussion is here, on the page for discussing the admin noticeboard itself? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• My error. It should be moved. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And off we go on yet another OR-churning BLP-violating exhibition of journalism-by-hysteria. Or rather, off they go. I'm staying out of this one, as I've seen quite enough of this garbage, and would rather wait around until the WMF gets sued for allowing this sort of nonsense to happen. Which seems a sure-fire certainty at some point unless there is a significant change in policy. Presenting uninformed speculation and drive-by-pseudojournalism as encyclopaedic content would be fraud if we were selling it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy on this one. I am unwatching the whole mess. One of these days we need to decide to be an encyclopedia and not a poorly moderated current-events blog. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have to have this debate every single time there's some crime story that gets national coverage in the US? Why is there this presumption that "omfg this is huge news its obvious this will have lasting repercussions its not crystalball its the biggest thing since HEY Look at what Justing Beiber just said what were we talking about?" The presumption should always be that any given crime is not notable, and that only hindsight and ongoing coverage can possibly deem it notable. Exceptions should have to prove themselves, not vice versa. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could avoid it if we started enforcing the requirement that coverage be completely independent to count toward notability: independent chronologically as well as other ways. Wait until they get coverage in books or academic journals, or until newspapers report them as other than news. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The story has had. at this point, a fair bit more than just national coverage. Regardless of the unseemly rush to create this article, I think that anything which leads the coverage of broadcast, print and online news media throughout the world can be assumed by default to be notable, verifiable, and supported by reliable sources, even bearing in mind WP:NOTNEWS. It can always be deleted later, if there's really a problem. -- The Anome (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have Portal:Current_events on the front page, so it's not surprising folks think that Wikipedia is a newspaper of sorts. NE Ent 10:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood romances and the subsequent babies make front page news, even in reputable journals and internationally. That criterion must never be used to justly inclusion here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. It makes short notes in entertainment sections of reputable news sources. Insisting that because a news source may note a Hollywood romance deep within its entertainment doesn't make the reporting of legitimate news as a top headline invalid. I struggle to find the relevance between the two. --Jayron32 14:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of controversial name as userid

A new user, Osama is Obama, See <[[26]]> in the choice of a userid name, perpetuates the controversial urban mythology of President Obama being secretly Osama bin Laden, a staple of the right wing echo chamber. Should this name be allowed to be used on Wikipedia? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• That seems to run into WP:Username "Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks." as a personal attack against Obama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking "Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction", but either way, it's seriously unsuitable. I've indef-blocked and left a username block message; they are welcome to choose a new username and carry on editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Woah, an indef? I think a friendly note and a pointer to WP:CHU would have solved the problem just as well. OiO's contribs look constructive to me, and I imagine an "Osama is Obama" joke might go down better in Germany (where OiO says they are from) than it would in the US. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the German Wiki so that's rather irrelevant; it is offensive here is what matters. Someone creating a username of "GasOvens" on en.wiki might not get any guff for it, but try heading to de.wiki with that one. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A username equating a political figure to a well-known terrorist is intentionally inflammatory, no matter what figure it is or what country they are editing out of. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not create the name to cause offence or attack anyone. I chose the name because it rhymed well and was funny. Is it possible to change the name if it is offensive? I would really like to edit Wikipedia with my account and my edits. Will my edits to be removed from Wikipedia? 194.46.175.165 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Log into the account and post {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your talk page, adding in your proposed new username. If acceptable, you'll be unblocked to go change it at WP:CHU. You keep your edits and history. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

@Moe and Tarc - I agree that the username isn't appropriate. The point is that it looks to have been created in good faith, so it would be nicer to let the user change it at WP:CHU rather than block straight away. Giving a hard block with no warning to a good-faith editor seems like a case of biting the newcomers to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted OiO's unblock request, because their requested new username seems uncontroversial. If they don't make a request at WP:CHU within a few days, you have my permission to reblock. (But make it a soft block, please. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

the controversial urban mythology of President Obama being secretly Osama bin Laden, a staple of the right wing echo chamber - really? That's a new one on me. Rd232 ^talk 15:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)