Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive119

For about the past ten days, people have been complaining about apparent inaction of the RfC bot at the RfC talk page, and no one has been responding to complaints/queries. Can someone knowledgable about the bot review these comments and respond? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

as the author of the RfC bot Ill get my copy running.

β^_command

21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind that backlog was caused by improper template usage.

[2] Cross post, Mercury 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

... just in case anyone is, like, really bored :) - Alison ^❤ 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ive been slacking, Ill get BCBot working on

β^_command —Preceding comment

was added at 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The above Arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed at the link above. RodentofDeath is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and Susanbryce is reminded of the prohibition on using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy.

For the Arbitration Committee,

The English Wikipedia now has 1000 featured pictures. The 1000th FP is of a

Resolved

 – John Reaves sorted it :) - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I need an admin. Please see my talk page / Discusion Thanks Gth629jHelp (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This person is requesting Right to Vanish on their already blocked other account. From their talk page, it looks like it's being taken care of - Alison ^❤ 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the user wants the talk page of this account deleted as well.--

talk

) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Move reversed; discussion at Talk:Sting.Gimmetrow 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin sort out the mess of double redirects and dubious page moves (some of the redirects now have a proper history so I can't do it myself) at the following pages:

• Sting
• Sting (disambiguation)
• Sting (wrestler)
• Sting (musician)
• Gordon Sumner
• Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner

There seems to be some disagreement over what

I think the main issue is that Sting was moved to Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner. If that were to be reversed, all the above will work again properly. I've made the move request at

WP:RM. (John User:Jwy talk

) 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. One redirect had already been "corrected". Please discuss what should be done somewhere, but there are a lot of redirects pointing at

Sting (artist). Gimmetrow

06:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think things are fine as they are now. Any discussions should take place at Talk:Sting, correct? Someone should contact the editor that made the move and explain how such things work. I'm not sure I'm feeling that articulate about that at the moment. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave a note for the user. Gimmetrow 06:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the new lime-green {{resolved}} hideous? — Coren ^(talk) 05:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – that we change the color of this template!

 :) —Kurykh 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're kinda not the only one, I went by AN today and found this to be (insert ??? here.) —BoL 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I think Coren would like this better. —BoL 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the old was was ugly. I've

went ahead and removed the explicit solid background, keeping the new (admitedly nicer) icon and spacing. — Coren ^(talk)

05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An, now that looks better. But I think you should have created a sub-template with that. I think I kinda liked the lime green better, but, eh, —BoL 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I tweak it a bit further? I can make it green without making it obstusive (It's now transparent). Also sizing could do with a little tweaking. — Edokter • Talk • 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter to me as long as we use it often and wisely.

1 != 2

16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't own it — all I wanted was to remove the horrid lime-green background. I'm partial to transparent (because it will then take the light tinge of non-article namespace), but not attached to it. — Coren ^(talk) 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There, tweaked the (font) sizes and softened the colors a bit. Can you see it's green...ish? — Edokter • Talk • 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll love my userpage then! </sarcasm> James086^{Talk | Email} 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

It has been borught to my attention (through

1. Move Alina Smith to a temporary name
2. Move Alina to Alina Smith
3. Move the temporary page to Alina, to preserve the history. The resulting redirect can then be speedied under G6.
4. Change Alina into a redirect/disambig page.

Is that okay? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. This is what I was intending:

1. Delete Alina Smith; since it's a copy
2. Move Alina to Alina Smith; since Alina Smith is the proper name and Alina has the history.
3. Redirect Alina to Alina Smith.

--Dan Leveille^TALK 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This would meen loosing the history of Alina Smith - unless it is just a copy of Alina, I don't think this is appropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed everything up, hopefully. east.718 at 11:53, December 30, 2007

Like I said before it IS a copy, so my way would be completely fine. There was no history that needed to be kept. But anyway, East718 already did it the way you were intending --Dan Leveille^TALK 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been ongoing debate and an independent administrator need to review the arguments regarding the articles. As wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy the number of support and oppose "votes" are irrelevant. Also the discussions have not concluded and changes to the articles have been made before the articles the discussions have concluded. Please review

You again! That's twice in a couple of days I've seen you cause disruption on wikipedia by stubbornly going against concensus. When you have no support among the people who actually edit these pages what do you hope to gain by asking an admin to overide the concensus? Sorry if I sound irritated but really you have to learn to work with people. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, as per the warning on your talkpage, I am fed up with your permanent edit-warring, sockpuppetry and forum shopping.

iridescent

15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Offensive and disruptive userbox

Resolved

I left him a note on his talk page. In the meantime, he seems not to have been here for almost 8 hours - lets wait and see what happens. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but I'm not particulary sure what action to take here, its obvious that Nazis represent a lot of negative things to most of the world (racism and genocide to mention just two) but the userbox only says that he "sympsthizes" with them, not directly stating that he supports the genocide of millions of Jewish people, now the problem is that we allow all other kinds of politically based userboxes, some that may seem irrelevant to the encyclopedia itself including those that state "I support X candidate for president" and we probably not want people to think that there is discrimination against a certain believe in Wikipedia, I would remove it but after seeing if other admins agree with me. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) It seems that trying to ask for approval of fellow admins can result in one being accused of being a "Nazi apologist" in here so I must as well remove that before this BS gets spreaded further, guess all my arguments against racism motivated edits in the past don't matter after all when the time to call somebody a "Nazi" comes, people with strong POVs of a subject should try to avoid making baseless accussations that may upset users before doing them, its quite obvious after all my anti-racism, anti-Nazi support edits during the course of my stay that I don't and never will support them, but as I can't remove the comment to avoid further misunderstanding I just tought that that I would let it clear. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call you a "Nazi apologist", CaribbeanHQ. I said you dithered in the face of Naziism on this site. Please read my remarks more carefully. I also said not standing up to this sort of crap not only discredits this project, but helps those who espouse this POV get stronger. you seem to be offended that I commented on your not enforcing policy and guidelines here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it, per WP:USER. I see no need for debate on something so offensive and polemical. Policy clearly prevents the editor from having it on their page. Jeffpw (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A glance at the contribs of This is serious mother (talk · contribs) suggest they're not here to be that productive anyway... and that this is not their first time around. Worth keeping a discreet eye on them. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok scratch waiting for him to respond, this user is obviously a blantant vandal, just check his contributions [5]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Block and forget.

Thanks everyone for the quick response. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, he hasn't been blocked yet. Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was just checking it too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And now he is :P —

229

22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There are currently three "shops" on MFD at the moment.

• User:Vintei/shop
• User:Runewiki777/shop
• User:IXella007/Shop

Vintei has 230 mainspace edits out of 1350 edits. Runewiki777 has 1489 mainspace edits out of 3188 edits. IXella007 has 29 mainspace edits out of 345 edits. This is a dangerous pattern here. These users are spending way too much time with their shops and whatnot instead of working on the encyclopedia. In the past, these pages (autograph books, signature shops, secret pages, etc.) have been discussed on a case-by-case basis. We seriously need to come up with some sort of policy dealing with these unencyclopedic pages and unencyclopedic contributors soon. A user with 29 mainspace edits with the rest to his/her userspace that make up several hundred edits total should not continue to waste resources such as these MFDs and their non-contributions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Two of them have been already been deleted and I doubt the third one will survive for long, if a user is using Wikipedia as a host space I see no reason why these sub-pages can't be just directly deleted instead of consuming time on MFD. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely and totally agree (which is why I nominated several of these for deletion). See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/ChampionMart which was basically the same situation. In addition to the users who create the shops, there are also those who frequent the shops and who work at them. These are basically walled gardens of non-encyclopedia contributors. Something does need to be done. Metros (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I recommend having the users adopted, I used to be something like that, but lookee here, 360 mainspace out of 985 (wait, is that good?), and mainspace is the one that's at top for me. If adoption doesn't work, I'd say block. —BoL 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not good. 10.5% of your edits are to userspace, whereas only 0.2% of mine are - and that's only towards a place where I collect sources for article writing. east.718 at 04:24, December 28, 2007

East718, which edit counter are you using? While your premise is correct, I'm not sure your math is.—Kurykh 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

44 edits to my userspace aside from JavaScript out of 16336 total edits (but then again, kate returns more, which it should never do, and river just breaks). east.718 at 04:55, December 28, 2007

Well, counting my edits every time I nominate an article for speedy deletion, the user:mainspace will go down. —BoL 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

...and it will still constitute 36.7% of your edits. —Kurykh 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If pages such as these aren't helping expand, edit, or maintain the encyclopedia, then I would agree that they need to be deleted. However, I don't think that a sweeping policy is warranted, since many "shops" of these types would already fail existing policies, and would be (justifiably) deleted. I'll also add that there are contributions made outside the mainspace that still contribute to the maintenance of the encyclopedia, and that raw numbers of contributions aren't necessarily a clear indication of a user's willingness to improve the project. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the gist of these. Code shops are very much
  an embodiment of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
  - however, by the same token I'm planning to create a page in my userspace about creating infoboxes - would that be allowed under policy??

Infoboxes fall into both project improvement and maintenance, and are a skill to learn. --Solumeiras ^talk 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

True. We can really use an example on that new codesnippets wiki, that should put the shops to rest forever. If someone comes to Wiki to build a shop, immediately delete it, but only after you transwiki the source code to the new wiki. —BoL 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Solumeiras: You can do it in project space for Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. –Pomte 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Recently I learned about New Page Patrolling and I tried my hand at it a tiny bit. I also looked at what others were doing and, frankly, found it disturbing and, IMO, not beneficial to the project. Here are a few examples:

• Crazy paving - Just a little stub that found itself littered with tags - see.
• Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) - Marked for speedy (here
  ) but a glance at the ref provided indicated notability born out by a quick Google search.
• National Coalition for Child Protection Reform - Speedied (User talk:Factfinder42) but is it non-notable?? Four mentions in the NY Times (here) and an impressive board (here). That was just a quick search but I would not speedy delete it.

This was just a few that I encountered very quickly. I am not here "going after" the editors that did this as they were all different and that indicates a more general problem. The problem seems to be a very

• What admin action are you seeking here? Being an admin doesn't actually give you any extra status to deal with this kind of thing. You should address your concerns with the editors concerned. Cheers
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • One could argue that feedback on the use of the delete button in the context of new articles might be of interest to all – or a substantial subset of – administrators. Reminding admins to look into new articles just a bit before giving them the axe might not, in some cases, be a bad idea. I presume that Alfadog is concerned about a general pattern (of which he gave only a few examples) rather than about the specific cases he mentioned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I should note that the revision of
      Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais) tagged was technically speedy deletable in that form as either A1 or A7. If it was tagged a minute after it was created it might be inappropriate, but the creator had over half an hour to come up with more info than name and place of birth (the version previously deleted, created 18:54 was identical). National Coalition for Child Protection Reform read as if it was written by the group. Notability may have not been a good reason for deletion, but a speedy deletion does not prohibit recreation in a better version. Mr.Z-man
      21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I've had to deny way too many speedys. A1 and A7 are possibly the most abused of the criteria. I admit I tried using A1 once to get rid of an article, but I've changed face since then. If you understand clearly what the thing is, it's not an A1. And A7 only applies to people, bands, groups, and web content, but I see people regularly use it for TV shows, songs, and other things. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict - reponse to original post)The best way to ensure that as many articles are treated fairly (according your viewpoint) as possible is to continue to newpage patrol - everyone works that task in the way they think best serves the encyclopedia. The more people doing it means that more time is available to check things over. Hmmmm... I think I will spend the bulk of my evening doing just that! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That way lies madness. Trust me, I've been there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's okay - my attention was quickly diverted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that some newpage patrollers can slap a speedy deletion tag on an article without giving it enough review. There are indeed some hopeless cases out there, such as people writing articles about their garage bands or their classmates. There are other times when people apply a speedy delete tag within minutes of an article's creation, even though the subject matter appears at first glance to be notable and the article is still under construction. I prefer to be a little more conservative when using the speedy deletion criteria, and to apply a dose of

So, again, and there is consensus for this, if you come across someone mistagging articles using automated tools, pay a visit to their monobook.js, blank it and protect it for a few days. It's not punitive, it's just protecting the 'pedia from this type of editing. Chop chop. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've been here before, and recently. The tools are being used by people whose intentions are good, but haven't the experience to distinguish between a nascent, but notable topic, and a no-hoper. When I use NPW, I will Google for notability if it's plausible, but not asserted. OTOH, if it's a loser from the start, I'll tag it. Conversely, I've untagged allegedly NN articles which clearly assert

WP:N, and have tagged "wikify", etc., articles which have turned out to be copvios, and again used Goggle to do that. NPW is not meant to be used without thought. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 00:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally the majority of taggings are correct. Normally I check that page once or twice a day, deleted a dozen or so articles, and decline one or two. (a higher proportion of declines than truly representative, because I try to work on the more difficult ones that are not immediately removed). Over the last few days, it's becoming declining one out of three. Equally careless in the other direction, there have been an increasing number of obvious copyvios which have not been spotted. I admit i never thought of doing as Redvers suggests, but it sounds like a good idea. Did inadequately prepared editors get the bots as a christmas present? DGG (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've recently refused a number of expired prods for much the reasons as above. (Examples: Fire It Up ! (EP) is a mediocre article, but it's a real release by a notable artist; Icho Larenas wasn't much, but the 1st Google hit brought up usable information; Ben Olson is the starting QB for a major college football program w/ plenty of sources, and another admin tagged is for deletion without doing the simple sourcing that immediately makes the subject plainly relevant.) At least with prods, it's not gone in a flash...but the solution for middling quality articles is to improve them, not delete them.

I, like DGG, find most CSDs to be fully burninatable, but there's always an example or two of a completely salvageable article that needed 4 minutes of love and attention rather than a TWINKLE slap upside the head. I may have to start blanking monobook.js pages of repeat offenders! — Scientizzle 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I just refused the prod deletion of Picnik based on the availability of dozens of Google News hits and the relative ease of removing the promotional material from the article... — Scientizzle 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the respondents here have grasped my point. This is a New Page Patrol issue, not a normal problem with CSD tags. The problem is that NPP has no prequisites for participation, no prerequisites for "common sense", if I may be blunt. Actually, it is less common sense than a degree of maturity and a sense of where an article might go combined with a willingness to do a bit of work rather than just "tag and run". Tag and run is only a big problem, IMO, in the case of the speedy tags because then some, not all, admins may, most likely in the effort to clean up backlogs, go ahead and do the delete without themselves exercising the maturity and effort required. That is understandable but I simply point out that if NPP can be done by editors without the required maturity and sense that is only tolerable because they cannot actually delete anything and the actual deletion is done by someone that has, supposedly, demonstrated that maturity and sense. --Alfadog (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is worse than that. Many new articles slip through CSD because they, for example, assert notability, and the lucky ones get a "wikify" tag or a stub template slapped on them; but without the original editor having either the time or inclination to expand, we are left with a huge backlog in Engine Room B; and for an editor who has no expertise in a particular subject, tackling that backlog has to be cherry-picking merely to ensure some sort of reliability. That leaves a pool of articles that are hard work to sort out, and for volunteers with limited spare time, even here, and other agenda(s) to pursue, it seems to be asking a lot. More up-front advice from NPW might limit this, especially if it were seen as being more of a responsibility to the, er, encyclopedia. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the tags do come from NPP, though. I've never actually checked when they were started, but based on the fact that quite a few have {{

CAT:UNCAT, but that is rare. hbdragon88 (talk

) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes me shudder. There must be some sort of

That is a good idea. When I saw all those tags I looked for a policy or guideline that would say something like "One or, at most, two general tags per page". I thought I saw that once but was not able to find anything. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me tell that majority of new page patrolars become too hasty to tag for deletion (it is a fact that there runs a competition between several new page patrolars that who will take the credit for highest number of speedy deletions). This is obviously not good. And I have seen that A7 is heavily misused. I have seen many new page patrillers use A7 for singles, places, fictional characters - which will obviously create a problem. And regarding this, I agree it was overtagging and I will not do this in future. I will be very careful regarding these facts in future. I propose to create WikiProject:NewPagePatrol, which will specify guidelines and will monitor new page patrolling. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Project is a great idea, OC, and you are commended for your commitment to self-correction. I hope that you will forgive me for not informing you, and the other editors that I used as examples, of this discussion but I really did not want to make this about the individual editors on NPP but rather about the general issue and the admins' responsibility, if any, and ideas for correcting it. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that there is a problem with NPP.

There's another problem with the guidance given for starting articles. The marking of

Not that discussion of this obviously belongs on this page.... -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"(it is a fact that there runs a competition between several new page patrolars that who will take the credit for highest number of speedy deletions)."

This is exactly what I was afraid was going on. I knew I smelled this but I did not give my suspicion enough credence to mention it. This is the bad scene I mention and must be stopped. --Alfadog (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to name names? If this is actually happening, a very big stop must be put to it. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 13:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly propose to create WikiProject:NewPagePatrol. It is very much needed. This project should be created as soon as possible.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and create it then. Anyone can start a project. Just click the redlink and start typing. Don't worry, others will join in and help. --Alfadog (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created it.

Wikipedia:WikiProject New pages patrol I need assistance from other editors.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk

) 15:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A WikiProject won't magically eradicate bad judgment among patrollers. Why not channel that energy into fixing up new articles? Not just tagging or deleting, mind you, but verifying, copyediting, formatting. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. If that was the case, there would be no Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. This project will draw all new page patroller under a single umbrella. Moreover it is true that nonsense pages, non-notable pages are randomly created in wikipedia. This project will conduct research on what frequency they are created, what type of pages are created most etc. etc. Please join it.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion actually mirrors my thoughts recently. I've seen a lot of overly aggressive new page patrollers recently, seemingly tagging anything that they don't personally know about for speedy deletion.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – as below - Alison ^❤ 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is returned. See here. Please protect both of her pages and add the block-image to her userpage. Thanks. Fightmo1 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure if this is the right place to raise this issue. I am concerned about the behaviour of

Did you notify the user about this thread? If not, do it, do it nauwgh! —BoL 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I started to create a page for All India Christian council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Indian_Christian_Council) but made a typo with India typed as Indian. Then I saved another page for All India and tried to move the earlier one to the new one but it does not allow me. I request administrators to change the Name of All India(n) to All India. ThanksRecordfreenow (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw this listed on the recent changes page, and took care of it. The main page is

All Indian Christian Council redirects to it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

06:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Superatlantis is placing copyright notices on his/her contribs, possibly uploading copyvios, has had quite enough media deleted, is here only to soapbox, is publishing unreferenced and downright unfactual info, is editing quite brazenly with a sockpuppet (look at user page history) etc. There are plenty of warnings to give, and I can give them, when I have time to sift through the can of worms, but if anyone else wants to begin, be my guest. Placed here for quite an extreme example of what is getting under the radar here. Really, this case is so extreme its amusing! aliasd·U·T 06:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

With three edits on his talk page, all bots regarding images, it's likely he just doesn't know. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine so, but where do you start? :) Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! You are doing everything wrong! aliasd·U·T 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I really feel that this guy could become a bad antagonist if this isn't handled well. aliasd·U·T 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Superatlantis is a start. I'm also leaving him a warning on his talk page. Sandstein (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick read of his edits at

WP:COI problems. AliveFreeHappy (talk

) 10:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Anome got rid of it. Hut 8.5 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello, I'm not 100% sure about this but is User:DoctorWorm7/Sandbox not against policy and illegal in the USA ? It seems to be a list of links to a whole series of comics in violation of copyright. Also what about User:Josh.oosterman, User talk:Onelab (almost certainly warez) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackaranga (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly against Wikipedia policy, no matter what: it has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone has already deleted the Sandbox, and I have deleted the two user pages. These are clear cases of user space abuse, and wikipedia has a rule not to link to off site copyvios. I'm going to say this is resolved.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I got the sandbox, and left a note on DoctorWorm7's talk page explaining why. Resolute 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This user was blocked because he/she continued to blank

You have asked them to detail what their concerns with the article are on their talkpage, which is an excellent approach. When they supply an answer then post the diff here so people can see if the complaint has validity. I would note, however, that there were already messages on the ip's talkpage requesting that they not blank the page and to detail the problem - so perhaps a block was required to get the editors attention. Once there is a response then the question of unblocking (and guiding the editor to the correct manner of editing an article) can be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This does not look like constructive editing. JuJube (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, wouldn't it be nice if for once edits with summaries like "correcting false information" actually corrected false information? ^_^; JuJube (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am actually posting this because I suspect that Doc aga (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of blocked user Mike rodrin (talk · contribs), who does vanity edits. I also know that this case will be stale because Doc aga hasn't edited for a while. But can this still be reported? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP? Hut 8.5

15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've already been there and read this:

The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale. If the problem is not ongoing, just watch the user and report when you see a new instance of abuse.

— 

WP:SSP

That's why I said that this case will be stale. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not worth reporting then. SSP is frequently backlogged anyway. Hut 8.5 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthon01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined us in October 2007 and has spent virtually every day since advancing alternative and fringe medical ideas, attacking those who promote the mainstream, and in particular attacking the Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Ilena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), banned from the project for much the same, has a mentor and partner, Anthony Zaffuto, who is a notorious kook and is also part of her humanitics foundation. I've been watching Anthon01's edits pretty much convinced that he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of several banned users with an agenda against Quackwatch, I only today looked back at his history and found:

1. 20:37, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎
2. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Wheatgrass‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
3. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Talk:Wheatgrass to Talk:Wheatgrass Juice)
4. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wheatgrass‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
5. 20:34, October 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass (disambiguation)‎ (moved Wheatgrass to Wheatgrass Juice)
6. 03:27, October 3, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wheatgrass‎ (Undid revision 161619050 by Healthfood07 (talk))
7. 11:59, October 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Wheatgrass

So: edit number one was promoting the wheatgrass health meme, edit number two was to use the Undo button, edit number three was a page move, edit number four used the Minor checkbox, edit number 7 created a disambiguation page. This does not loko like a genuinely new user.

I would be grateful if people with more experience of Ilena and her cohort could review the contributions of this user and come to a conclusion as to whether this is covered by the existing arbcom findings against Ilena in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal and if so what, if anything, should be done. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG. I don't see how my first few edits proves I am not a new user. Among other things, I am a computer programmer, so computer related things come easier to me. All you have to do is review my WP:CCC claim to realize I am just learning the 'ropes.' I probably have a handful of edits prior to signing up. I read the policy guidelines. Edit boldly is everywhere you go, when you first start. If you look carefully, over time, you will see that when I first started editing that page, it was being used as a promo piece for wheatgrass manufacturers. I removed those items. I began eliminating the 'wheatgrass sellers website references' and adding peer-review supported text with citations. The page has a ways to go, but I was distracted by the QW debate and saw it as a way to learn the wikipedia ropes. I also debunked a very common claim among wheatgrass users, that is "1 oz. wheatgrass juice is equivalent in nutrition to 2.2 lb. vegetables." Admittedly, it looks like it may be SYNTH. But I didn't know that when I started. That is not POV pushing is it? I just followed the data where it lead me and published it. Now before you all go and tear that page apart, please make comments on the talk page. JzG: A notice on my talk page would have been nice and CIVIL. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think you characterization "attacking those who promote the mainstream" is grossly unfair. Who have I attacked? You might consider retracting the comment. Anthon01 (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you present more evidence to support the claims. If you can make a convincing case that this is the meatpuppet of a banned editor, then her ban applies to this account as well. Other than the Quackwatch focus this appears to be editing other areas of alternative medicine, so the matter isn't open-and-shut. Unless there's a different banned account that you can link to this as a sockmaster. Durova^Charge! 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the comments to talk:Quackwatch and talk:Complementary and alternative medicine look suspect to me, but I have a big problem with fringe pushers so I think what I'm hoping for is a few more eyes. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about your problem with the fringe pushers. I have not spent much time at many of the pages where they congregate, so I don't know how bad it really is. I did notice the removal of Benviste affair in homeopathy and agree it should be reintroduced (RS), in spite of the fact that I suspect that there is some merit to homeopathy. In the reverse, I see the same think happening at QW in 'pro QW editors' refusing to allow RS material that criticizes QW, are and then trying to spin the same into a positive review (OR). I think some so-called "fringe POVs" are valid on wikipedia if they are well sourced. Some of the best data is hidden in peer review journals, something one would never know unless they have spent time in the 'stacks.' Abstracts alone don't cut it as there is much significant data not published in the abstract. I think some editors think that all fringe is fringe and is therefore unacceptable, but I don't. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

After comparing and contrasting the contributions of

Thanks for the notice and for giving me the opportunity to comment. Spend sometime at QW and see how constructive you can be. There are two sides to the debate there. Editing on that page is contentious with some editors of the pro QW side refusing edits critical of QW, that are WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's comments like this from Anthon01 that give me the greatest worry. Rather than working with other editors, he views everything as us vs them, not noticing that some editors are more concerned with creating good articles and a productive editing environment. --

talk

) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you take my statement to mean I am unwilling to work with editors. You characterization that "he views everything as us vs them" is totally unjustified. There are two sides to the debate, is a statement of fact. The issue is how to compromise or reach consensus when this occurs. I think that you are not AGF on my part. Anthon01 (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

While there were many red flags at the beginnings of Anthon01's editing that made such meatpuppet suspicions quite logical, his further editing leads me to dismiss those suspicions. I do tend to agree with the characterizations regarding editing problems, sympathies, and conflicts.

He is apparently editing from Connecticut, which likely rules him out as Ilena or her husband, who are located in Costa Rica, or when in California send from San Diego and the LA area, but he's still worth watching.

He has a question here: "Do you know which medical orgs criticise Quackwatch?" [9] (Sent from Windsor, CT)

It is in response to this lie: "It has been rediculed by many including some medical organizations." told by a user (Dogen3) at the top. The question can be answered simply: only by one, the extremely fringe, fanatical, and small

talk

03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, you know better. The J Law, Medicine & Ethics, Consultant Pharmacists, Village Voice and the ACA are not fringe orgs. Among these, the ACA is the only org that is likely to have been criticized by QW. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically your are correct, in that my statement was pretty short and lacked any nuancing. I was referring to serious criticisms and attacks. Sure, Quackwatch could be improved in a number of ways. I have even written an email to Barrett some time ago and made a few suggestions, which he promptly dissed and ignored. Generally any type of "criticisms" from mainstream sources (and a few do exist) are of a minor nature, and not concerning the main thrust or accuracy of Quackwatch as a source for exposing quackery, healthfraud, and health related scams.

The sources you mention do include people who are supportive of alternative medicine, and the ACA is the largest chiropractic organization. Chiropractic is the flagship of the whole alternative medicine field and has been attacked many times by Barrett and the whole of mainstream medicine and science. So whether one wants to consider it "fringe" is just a matter of semantics, IOW whether we are referring to number of believers or to non-scientific underpinnings. On the latter point it is definitely the epitomy of fringe since its fundamental belief (

talk

18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources I mention include 1 org that supports alt med. I specified that in my response. Regrading the vertebral subluxation. The belief doesn't matter. If the philosophy is wrong but the results can be demostrated then thats what counts. No one knew how aspirin worked until 1983. Would you call the use of aspirin prior to that quackery? Anthon01 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some other reasons why I don't think he is a meatpuppet or sock of Ilena are the fact that she can't resist making very direct and personal attacks, she totally ignores Wikipedia's policies, and constantly spamlinks her website. Her interests are also in some other areas.

Anthon01 has made some attempts to learn policies and can abide by them at times, even cooperating (for a few edits) with editors who have opposing POV, but not consistently. It is when he is editing in tandem with User:Levine2112 that his editing becomes more questionable. They are an unfortunate cocktail, because Levine2112's support seems to encourage him to edit in a confrontational and non-NPOV manner. (If they were always apart from each other I think he could become a good editor.) That's when his editing begins to look more like Ilena's, with direct attacks on myself using references to the Barrett v. Rosenthal ArbCom, which involved her and was her demise. Users who use that ArbCom against me consistently fail to recognize that my opposition to Ilena's misuse of Wikipedia was vindicated and Ilena lost big time. Unfortunately the wording of the "findings" has never been changed, even though they were formulated before any evidence ("findings") was even introduced. They were false charges made at the beginning and very little if any evidence confirmed the charges against me, yet the charges were left there unchanged, and that wording is still used against me by fringe editors. The maker of those charges is self-admittedly mentally unbalanced and has not been editing much since then. He made a serious mistake in supporting Ilena, even aiding and abetting her in her disruption, and also deleting my evidence against her, etc.. A sad story. If he ever returns he could become the subject of an ArbCom for his abominable behavior that led to his unsuccessful ArbCom against me. It backfired.

Anthon01's first edit on his user page was quite an eye opener to me and others who notified me! This obviously made many suspicious that he was an incarnation of Ilena, or a meatpuppet. --

talk

03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the learning process. ArbCom was new to me and your anti-alt-med and pro QW POV is evident. The ruling discussed QW as a partisan site. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Other problems related to Anthon01's editing are another subject. I suspect that he is an experienced editor who has learned some things while editing under another guise, and may well be a nemesis of mine (another user) who is using this user name and trying to control himself, which I don't mind....;-) He is naturally on my watchlist, along with a number of other POV warriors. I also keep an eye on disruptive editors, just as the rest of you do. As far as I am concerned we all have POV and therefore his POV is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is his editing in an NPOV manner and willingness to collaborate. If that's okay, then personal POV is irrelevant. If we see improvement, then he should be given a chance, otherwise he may end up sharing the fate of his POV-allies, some of whom have been banned, and others who are on the verge of being banned. --

talk

03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I take the "experience editor" comment as a compliment. Fact is, I am not, although I have written health related articles elsewhere. I think that with the anti-fringe pushers, alt-med will not get a fair shake unless someone using the rules of wikipedia show them that alt-med deserves it. That's my POV. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While some of these problems are irritating, I don't believe that Anthon01 is a malicious person, only a fallible human being like the rest of us. We all have blind spots and naturally see things from our perspective. Therefore we should be careful in our judgments of others since we often suffer the same failings and are in need of helpful criticism from others. --

talk

03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee: I appreciate your attempts to be fair, and respect that. Regarding Levine2112, we share the same POV on the inclusion of some criticism of Quackwatch. Generally I believe QW has done a good job of uncovering health scams, but is not always balance in its coverage. I think the article should reflect that. If there was an attempt to include excessive amounts of criticism into QW I would be arguing from the other side. Anthon01 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch doesn't try to be "balanced" since it doesn't attempt to give equal coverage on subjects that don't deserve it. It is very open about this very proper and respectable policy. It isn't an encyclopedia, but a website with an openly declared POV. That fact irritates those it criticizes, but that is not a legitimate criticism of Quackwatch. It is what it is, and it has a right to be that, just like most other sites on the internet that also write from one POV. It should be accepted on its own merits. The Quackwatch and Barrett articles have been notorious dumping grounds for large amounts of criticism, including the worst and most illegitimate types. The worst have promptly been dumped since they violated so many of our policies here, and the struggle since then has been to find criticisms that can be included without violating policies. I do not agree with some of my would be allies in some of their arguments regarding what to include or exclude, but have chosen to stay out of many of those arguments and have let them battle on their own. Some criticisms should be included, and I have always supported that effort. If some people didn't improperly believe that I have a COI, I would no doubt have made my views known. I don't like too much conflict and sometimes it is more interesting to just be a spectator....;-)

The articles have indeed included "excessive amounts of criticism of QW" before you came here, but a balance needs to be reached. Unfortunately the editors who hate (yes, they really do) Barrett and Quackwatch are still active there and will no doubt continue to attempt to use the articles and talk pages as soapboxes for getting illegitimate attacks included at Wikipedia, IOW they want to use Wikipedia as an attack site. Therefore eternal vigilance is called for until fringe editors are better controlled and regulated by improved policies. But this is all getting into other subject matter than the current matter here. See below. We need closure. --

talk

18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO, I think wiki would be better served if you contribute to those articles even when your would-be allies are advocating suggestions that you disagree with. In those instances, I don't see how a COI charge could be leveled against you. I also believe your contribution, even if brief, could sometimes reduced or eliminate unnecessarily prolonged arguments. Anthon01 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I move that this matter be closed. Anthon01 needs to be let off the hook on this one, and I'm sure he has learned from this experience. --
  talk
  18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I'm certain he'll learn from this incident.

Talk!

) 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Before you close please consider some comments I will make shortly. Anthon01 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know sincerely, what I am to learn from this incident. I suspect you would like me to learn something more than I might have already learned. I sincerely am interested in becoming a better editor. For this reason I am interested in your comments. So far

• I've learned that information about my whereabouts could be revealed on this noticeboard putting myself and my family in jeopardy, and for what? Consider I have placed this first.

• I find that I have been falsely accused of being a "sock or meatpuppet" and that an admin has accused me of "attacking those who promote the mainstream" and "attacking the Quackwatch article." I've ask for clarification or a retraction and have so far received neither.

• I've learned elsewhere from that same admin that SA's "I don't trust
  agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer." are given a pass because "Pretty simple: SA is pushing the dominant POV, he's more of an NPOV-pusher." [10]
  This same admin has admitted his intolerance for what he view to be fringe editors. My response to him on that page has likewise, not been answered. I've just recently discovered SA's statement was presented as primary evidence against SA in a proceeding that has lead to his being blocked for 72 hours for incivility.

This noticeboard posting deals with "sock or meatpuppetry:" the other issues I comment on here because they are raised here.

• I've learned the Fyslee, in spite of thinking I "may well be a nemesis of" his, which I am not, is capable of remarkable fairness. I also see that Fyslee has accused me of being a POV warrior, which I would , in some cases, agree with, since, in IMO, minority views on the pages I have been editing need better representation via RS, for the sake of wikipedia and the subjects of those articles. For instance, the AK articel is a total misrepresentation of AK. It is probable that many of the criticism of AK are justified, but the article itself doesn't even identify AK properly. For posterity sake, I would like the criticism tof AK be directed directly at AK and not an AK 'copy cat.' As for editing from a non-NPOV, well we are all blinded by our POV's, including Fyslee (I know you have admitted it). Non-NPOV edits are not intentional as I am "learning on the job," so to speak, how to edit with NPOV, and am sometimes blinded, like many other editors, by my own POV. Disruptive editing? It has been alluded to by Fyslee, but I am not sure he is accusing me of such. Anthon01 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• As for the Levine2112/Anthon01 "cocktail," our position on the inclusion of QW criticism are similar. It is on the QW page that the "cocktail" has been evident, and I don't see that changing. NPOV is achieved through contrasting statements from RS.

Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is

goji berry juice will prevent 75% of breast cancers, and we can say they believe it, but we should note that according to the scientific community (and indeed the Federal regulatory bodies) this claims is pure hokum. There is little risk to the project or the public from overstating the scientific POV, there si much greater potential risk from overstating views which go directly against scientific thinking. This is why edit warriors pushing fringe science and pseudoscience are more of a problem than edit warriors pushing the mainstream scientific view. Both are harmful, but one is much less harmful to the end product, the encyclopaedia. You must also be very wary of the "false middle" fallacy. Neutrality definitely is not the average between two opposing points of view. In most cases I've come across, neutrality is not the midpoint, it's far closer to one extreme than the other (because one of the extremes is not, actually, an extreme at all; science is not prone to extremism, only to degrees of conviction based on volumes of evidence and the amount of scrutiny applied to that evidence). The default in science is "prove it"; lack of evidence is usually represented by the mainstream as just that: lack of evidence. Guy (Help!

) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the anecdotal evidence should be published and any evidence for or against should clearly be included. However, I disagree with your equating dominance with neutrality. My understanding is the dominant doesn't mean neutral. Neutral means reflecting all significant POV from RS giving weight according to their prominence in the literature. Pushing the dominant POV without giving proper weight to minority views will also damage the project. Science evolves and although we may agree in most cases which view is dominant, the minority view is also important to the evolution of Scientific evolution. My interest is to see that minority views reflected in RS are included and given proper weight within the article. I also believe that anti alt-med edits can go too far and damage the project as well, as is illustrated here. Anthon01 (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non administrator rollback

We are now in a position where the developers have made it possible for administrators to grant and remove the rollback permission for non administrators. Over the last month, we have been discussing the ways in which it can be given, and we're now at the point to try and get a consensus for it's implementation. Please could I ask as many people as possible to review the proposal and come to a conclusion to support or oppose the proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. What a can of worms is about to be opened. Corvus cornix_talk 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at Twinkle. It's a rollback script, that means I (kinda) gave myself (kinda) rollback rights. I'd say invitation-only by ArbCom, because there are vandals who will misuse the rollback right. And as for the rollback, it is a faster alternate, but there are some problems when using it. —BoL 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom invitation? They're already bogged down as is. bibliomaniac15 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but you gotta prevent abuse, especially when you got a sock threat. Believe me, users who never used TW or is not an admin are not ready for how powerful a rollback is. —BoL 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should I believe you? You haven't used rollback. I don't see what's wrong with people just getting Twinkle. Administrators are entrusted with such tools because the community has come to an agreement that they can be trusted with them. Why should we go handing out rollback access to those who don't have community trust demonstrated in the form of a successful RfA? From my point of view, it is more likely to be abused. And please, no one bring up the "well, admins can abuse the tools too, not just normal users" – administrators who abuse the rollback tool significantly are more likely to be persuaded to stop, blocked, or desysopped through an Arbitration case (on the subject of ArbCom, they shouldn't have to deal with rollback requests, they have enough to do), although they shouldn't, because as I said, they have been decided by the community to be trustworthy enough to receive such tools. Anyway, this place isn't the best to discuss it, the talk page for the proposal is better.

Spebi

04:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm a sysop in that new wiki. But, yeah, I've never used rollback. But, yeah, I'd agree with conseneus like AWB when you need approval. They should have a clean block log (unlike me), 1000 mainspace edits (unlike me), and 6 months in Wikipedia (check!). —BoL 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Restrictions that tight almost defeat the purpose, I passed RFA with only 5 months of experience. The primary use of this is vandal reversions. It doesn't take 6 months to get used to that. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Won't be vandals generally if the rollback has to be granted by admins. Also, ArbCom? Oy. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, 'tho - as BoL says, Twinkle's got it and there are other alternatives (edit revision, save).

talk

The "can of worms" I refer to is the drama that is about to ensue concerning who "deserves" the right, who doesn't, who will award it, who will remove it. Corvus cornix_talk 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

But, yeah, it does have to be granted by admins. If not, this can wreak havoc on us. —BoL 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I really don't understand what everyone is so afraid of here. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought rollback was functionally equivalent to manually selecting "history, edit (last rev I want to keep), save" just in one click. How is that going to be a problem? "Rollback vandals" can be themselves rolled back. We have page move vandals, which cause more damage than rollback would, but page moving is not restricted to admins. What gives? <eleland/talkedits> 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For perspective, There are 6,093,451 registered user accounts, of which 1,450 have administrative tools. Obviously this doesn't mean there's six million vandals, but lets put this in some context. --Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as we have a minimum standard to prevent the mass creation of accounts for the purpose of misusing this tool, then I say let's do it. Minimum standards are part of the proposal. NoSeptember 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We list this on

WP:RFA on a conseneus-based system. As I said, the requirements above must be met for someone to get rollback. —BoL

01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Antony Santos Gallery

Hi. Sorry, this may be the wrong place to ask, but is

WP:NOT#REPOSITORY ? CultureDrone (talk

) 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It fails

WP:NFCC. Half the images are fair use, and mislabeled public domain to boot. In fact, Romanence (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 40 non-free images as public domain. — Edokter • Talk

• 14:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion taht neither of these photos are copyright ownership of the uploader. Those which are not album covers look like photos of photos from magazine pages to me; see my nomination of Galleru for deletion. `'Míkka>t 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The non-album covers actually have camera meta-data, so they could have been taken by the uploader. — Edokter • Talk • 03:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Does that tell us whether those photos are of non-copyright material? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of the eight photos in the article, three of them have metadata indicating they were taken with a Nikon D70, one indicates it was edited with Photoshop (but has no camera metadata), and four have no metadata. Without convincing evidence otherwise, I'd say these were taken from various websites, rather than being the uploader's work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Subset of this board

The 3RR board is the most uselessly bureaucratic noticeboard I've seen here yet. Because the reporting requirements are such a pain in the ass, the board is a waste of time unless you like fooling with templates and doing a half hour of cut and paste to get someone to even take a look - which doesn't happen often, because it looks like 80% are dinged as 'Malformed' and ignored anyway.

talk

16:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the bureocratic procedure there is tedious, and its all for reporting a offense that can usually be resolved by just informing a admin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I avoid the 3RR board because of its ridiculous reporting rules. Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, then it should be fixed or blasted, burned, drenched and ejected into space.
  talk
  03:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Once when I finally got the courage to try and report to the 3RR board, I went back and saw that the offenders had already been blocked! Either strip it of its tedious requirements, or just redirect it back to the incidents board. bibliomaniac15 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor complained to me about the difficulty of submitting a report. Another editor who patrolled the page saw the complaint and offered to help. If there was a list of such helpful 3RR patrollers available on the page then the page may yet prove to be more negotiable as well as useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cobi created a test version of ClueBot that would compile 3RR reports automatically whenever it saw some reverting going on. These reports were not submitted to admins, but simply collected into a file that anyone could view. If you thought you saw 3RR violated, you could go and visit ClueBot's file and pick out the readymade report with all the diffs, and submit it yourself if you felt it was valid. In the bot approval discussions, this idea did not get enough support, though I personally would have liked to see it happen. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps re-initiating that discussion at talk:3RR and getting some consensus behind it before re-submitting it to the BAG might be an idea? Or...Perhaps instead of the bot patrolling could it be configured to sit on the page awaiting an editor to submit a block of diffs from which it could generate a report to be used on the 3RR page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There were two big problems with the bot.

1. Several users thought that it would give already-trigger-happy administrators even more reasons to block. Because they thought that too many people were getting blocked for 3RR when there wasn't really any disruption (i.e., vandalism reversion, etc).
2. The bot used a ton of resources. And there is no real way to get around this. It has to record every revision in the last 24 hours to be useful. Then, for every time it *thinks* it sees a reversion (the same user editing an article for the fourth time), it has to download the content for all four of those changes and compare them. It also caught 'many more legitimate reversions than blockable offenses.

I can run this bot if there really is a desire for it, and administrators can see the reporting page and the BRFA. The first was deleted because of the number of false positives (see reason #1), and the second was deleted because I planned on using that page for another, completely different bot. If anyone wants to see that information, just ask an administrator to post the deleted content on a user subpage for you. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Its clearly spelled out in 3RR that vandalism reversion doesn't count towards 3RR. If people are being blocked for this, the admins responsible need to have their powers removed for not properly applying them.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

mw:Extension:Title Blacklist has gone live on Wikimedia wikis. It allows titles containing certain words or character combinations to be banned using regular expressions. The local version is available here; instructions are on the talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I helped test out this extension on a (it was either yours or Mr.Z-man's, I forget which) test wiki last month, and I am concerned that this provides no indication to administrators that a new page they are creating appears on the blacklist; since, like editing a protected page, this constitutes an administrative action, I think there should be some provision for a warning of this. I have confirmed that this issue still applies as installed here. —Random832 07:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious evasion of a six month ban

76.86.110.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) turned up today to make this as the IP's first edit, then edited an AFD that closed months ago[11] and vandalized another editor's user space by cutting and pasting a ban notice I had made in September when I was an administrator (including my signature).[12]

Some people would find this topic distasteful: it concerns the (now deleted) biography of a gay male porn star who had claimed to have an affair with a very famous actor. There might be legitimate BLP concerns in relation to that actor, but I have been unsuccessful at outreach to communicate with this editor. So I'm requesting:

1. A block on this IP per
   WP:BAN
   .
2. An attempt to communicate with this person so that any legitimate concerns may be handled appropriately.
3. A sockpuppet investigation on Fuzzyred, which may be an unblocked sock/meat from the same farm.[13]

Durova^Charge! 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IP appears to be static; hard to tell if it's the same person, but strongly appears to be related. Have currently blocked until the expiry of Robin Redford's block (March 2007). Courtesy blanked the AfD page. Since the article is no longer present on Wikipedia, I'm not sure what the continued dispute is over, but I'll drop off a note on the IP's talk in a moment. No action on Fuzzyred, yet, will look at that in a bit or leave it to someone else's eyes. Welcome review of this response. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair solution. Please look into the Fuzzyred account. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Middletown Connecticut

Resolved

Hi there. I recently added material to the history section of Middletown, Connecticut: good material, very NPOV, references with solid sources (including the town website itself). I added the material in response to a neutrality tag that I posted on the history section of the article which had been deleted several times by a user with a state of Connecticut IP (a Middletown IP?). Again, the same user (this time using a Wesleyan Unisersity IP), has deleted material from the article. Can't seem to bring the user to the discussion board; very combative & unwilling to discuss. Not sure how to proceed. It seems that someone in the Middletown government is intent on re-writing the history of the town according to a specific agenda--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored your edit and left the IP user a warning. Jehochman ^Talk 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And I warned the IP again, but he is still at it. Protect or block? — Edokter • Talk • 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Block, it's only one editor. We don't protect when it's just one. In the last edit there is a remark that William Cronin is not a reliable source for urban development in Connecticut. This is a joke because William Cronin has written numerous books on urban development and has served as a professor at Yale University. We appear to be dealing with bad faith here. Jehochman ^Talk 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up. The user has been hopping IP addresses and badgering Pgagnon999 [14] and Edokter [15]. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, the diff you furnished on Pgagnon's Talk page isn't prolematic. You should have linked to this earlier comment from the same IP address, which Pgagnon had deleted (for understandable reasons) & this person restored. If this is the same person who left this bizarre accusation, we have a case of

tendentious editting. -- llywrch (talk

) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC closed, and a new proposal

I have closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, as agreed on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Since I don't know how this process is supposed to work, I may have done it wrong. If my closing comments belong at the bottom of the page and not the top, then anyone is free to move them.

Based on a suggestion at the RFC by TomStar81 and Warlordjohncarter, I have started a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Proposal to add a discussion period before voting begins. Please comment on that proposal's talk page.

I hope everyone will understand that my decision to close the RFC is not "the last word". My goal was to summarize the suggestions that were made, and to observe that none of these suggestions has garnered consensus. Further discussion is welcome, as always, in the usual forums. With best wishes for a happy new year, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposed, unneeded, more bureaucratic, and as predicted, lengthens the process. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree,
  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Let's not lengthen the process. --Solumeiras ^talk
  14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious backlog at Wikipedia:Requested_moves

We have a serious backlog at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog, with the oldest outstanding move request being over one month old. I'll endeavour to process one or two myself, if everybody else who is around now could process a couple too we can get this cleared. --kingboyk (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I missing something here, but I've done a bunch myself, but what do I do with the listing, whether I find no consensus for the move, or consensus for it? Maxim_(talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just remove it from the WP:RM page I think. That's what I've been doing and nobody has complained so far. Oh and don't forget to remove the template from the talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just gave myself a big backlog. I've done about half of it, either mentally rejection or the actual move... --Maxim_(talk) 13:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(after 2 conflicts) I was just about to ask the same question :). Is there a standard way to close a page move discussion that either fails to reach consensus or indicates a consensus against the moves? Or just remove the entry from the backlog list? It seems sensible to leave some sort of note on the talk page indicating the move was declined so people won't continue debating it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, close and archive the debate noting that you haven't found consensus or that consensus is against the move, then remove the listing from RM. See

Talk:Farid ad-Din Attar is one I've just closed - you'd close it the same if you declined the move, except you wouldn't have to then go clean up any double redirects of course :) --kingboyk (talk

) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI length

ANI is long by necessity. It may be very slow to load in people with dial up service. Is there a solution for those WPedians? Perhaps a ANI1 and ANI2? True, it's a content fork but is it a WP:IAR to try to improve the delivery of the page to users? (Content forks are normally not permitted, IAR is not an excuse to do anything one pleases but is a tool to improve WP when the rules seem to overlook a special circumstance of the situation)

talk

) 20:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on the idea, but I thought I would point out that it wouldn't be a content fork. Your idea would be splitting discussion to smaller boards, not rewriting a policy/guideline on a second page. -- Ned Scott 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we tried to send discussions to other pages before, and after much community hassle, they were sent right back here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Timestamp Mercury 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the idea of some bot that once an ANI discussion gets beyond say 5,000 characters, its automatically moved and linked to a subpage.

talk

15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It'd be easier if threads that were marked with archive templates got actually archived after an hour or two - is that already being done?

talk

15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, either would work.

talk

15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That I don't know, but if you look at the first section here, on User... that should def be a subpage with that title, as its a long, running, detailed conversation. Once it gets to taht length, there are enough people involved that it won't get hidden. Maybe some issue-reporting system, with transclusions and summaries and all, like AfD, could be set up?

talk

15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Help determining consensus

Help! I'm a bit rusty when it comes to closing close debates. How would you close Talk:Odo#Requested_move?

My thoughts:

• The editors who support the move basically argue that most readers would expect to find something other than an article on a recent fictional character. This is generally good, because we optimise for readers. It wouldn't be good if it's merely due to bias against Star Trek but I find no evidence of that.
• Those who oppose make the very fair point that this article is the only one named just "Odo" (or "Odo (some disambiguating word or phrase)") so by convention it should be the primary topic with a dab header if needed.
• On the other hand, there is a large list of historical figures named "Odo of..." which we may reasonably consider to be "Odo"s.
• Even if we discount the "Odo of ..." historical figures (and it's not at all clear that we should), there are actually several other uses of "Odo" listed on the dab page, including 3 other fictional characters and a genus of spider.
• The Star Trek character has several hundred incoming links, but some of these are due to a template.
• Numerically, the "support"s have it (just) but I don't give much weight to that fact at all.

I'm not inclined to relist, as I feel all pertinent points have likely been made by now. The question is how to close it - I started to write a "no consensus, leave it where it is" outcome but I'm really wondering whether the best outcome for readers would be to move Odo (disambiguation) to Odo as requested. Thoughts? How would you close this? --kingboyk (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely move the dab to Odo. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the article is at the proper title because there are no other characters or article named Odo. However, there are many names that do contain "Odo", that would justify making Odo a disambiguation page. I would close it as Move to Odo (Star Trek). — Edokter • Talk • 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike and Edokter - there are enough Odos to warrant making Odo a disambiguation page. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Given the comments here, and the numerical support for a move, I'll close it that way. --kingboyk (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article on the DS9 character should be at Odo (Star Trek); not being from the original series doesn't mean this shouldn't be used - see Data (Star Trek). —Random832 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Now you tell me! :) I wish I hadn't tried to help out now, sigh. Still, not too late to stop and change. --kingboyk (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of titles to

List of Doctor Who serials

without reliable source

StuartDD _{contributions}

20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate when people discuss through edit summaries instead of a user or article talk page. Create a discussion in the article talk page and tell him in his user talk page to go there to discuss. If he continues, tell me and I will block him for 3RR. Of course, by the time I end writing this, some other admin may have already blocked him, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite blocked yet, but the article has been protected until January 7. —

229

22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's really no need for a full-protection or an ANI post, and you should really know that, StuartDD - the list gets unsourced additions all the time. By the way, the user's username is similar to Porcupine (talk · contribs)'s old name of "Rambutan", which might need looking into. Will ^(talk) 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will report people who vilate wikipedia rules if they ignore warnings. Yes the list gets unsourced titles a lot, but that's no reason to accept it. I acually agree with the protection - it means we won't have to deal with this sort of thing for a while. This is the second time in recent days that I've had to warn someone about this, and I'm getting a bit fed up.

StuartDD _{contributions}

22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note also that I did not request protection - it was done by an admin after RambutanKing reported me to 3RR for reverting his violating edits.

StuartDD _{contributions}

22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Since RambutanKing has been blocked idefinitely, and was the only editor adding the unsourced information, I think that protection is unnecessary. I'd like to unprotect it, but not without consult. — Edokter • Talk • 03:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect looks good, per your arguments. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he is blocked because of his username, not because of the edits he was making. I'm a bit confused as to why he was blocked because of his username.. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Will explained it above. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was too similar to

User talk:RambutanKing. Also, I'm not clear if this is a coincidence, an imposter, or a sockpuppet. Are the same type of articles being edited? Carcharoth (talk

) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, ok. I thought maybe rambutan had become some kind of slang term for some body part, or something... -- Ned Scott 04:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify the above. Assume for the sake of argument that User:RambutanKing is a new user (and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that should be the default assumption). Now look at the block notice:

  "This account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information)."

  That is a laundry list of no less than ten different reasons for the block. Instead of telling the user which one is the reason, the user is left to try and work it out for themselves. Does anyone think this is severely wrong, and that those leaving such warnings should be taking the time to say "in this case, it is a confusing user name" or "in this case, it is too similar to that of an existing user"? Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you on both points. The similar-name-argument seems kinda weak, but regardless of that, something needs to be done about that block template. I myself stopped for a moment thinking about it, did some Google searches, and was still confused. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know, but if starting a thread on the Wikipedia admin's noticeboard on New Year's Eve regarding Doctor Who episodes isn't trolling, I'm not sure what is. :-P j/k happy new year! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter what RambutanKing was blocked for, the block did remove the reason for protecting. I'll unprotect it. — Edokter • Talk • 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's been renamed anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Close a merge

Can an uninvolved admin consider closing the merge proposal at

Clark Kent. It's been under discussion since October. Hiding T

15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, closed as no-consensus for the merge. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hiding T 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There's another outstanding one at

Talk:Kal-L about whether or not to merge in the Earth 2 Superman. Timrollpickering (talk

) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ED problem

We're having a bit of a problem at

Chick Bowen

16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Namescases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like someone we might have a problem with - look at the edit summaries and content edits, such as adding Castro's death [16] and then demanding an apology when it was proven to be an unverifiable rumour. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• ED is knowledge? I thought it was just for troublemaking, rabble-rousing, and griping. If ED is knowledge, then I'm going to go down to my local library and check out some books about 4chan memes and 9/11 conspiracies. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ED is to knowledge as Taco Bell is to Mexican food. JuJube (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could google searches with "btnI" be added to the blacklist? I can't think of a valid reason to link to "I'm feeling lucky" searches except _possibly_ on

googlebombing. —Random832

20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this about erectile dysfunction or Encyclopedia Dramatica? Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dicks either way, really. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked. He's a troll and admitted as much; looking through his edits, which include gems like this and this and

here as well. Antandrus (talk)

03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Attack Pages and Speedy deletions

General note, Please be sure you are not auto filling you delete reason with page contents during a speedy G10. Best, Mercury 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, did you mean G10 given the header? Pedro :  Chat  16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

cuse me. :) Mercury 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it stands in the logs but Google etc. ignore it. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of our editors are getting... upset. :) That is the only reason I brought it up. Best regards, Mercury 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(e.c. x 2) Under any CSD, the deletion log shouldn't contain Bad Things. Mercury mentioned A1 because of a recent incident involving A1, though you are correct that attack pages are usually G10'd. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I almost always take out the pre-filled box. If I was handier with JavaScript, I'd make it never pre-fill. Anyone have the code to make that happen? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just replace the current auto-fill text with someting like "The nominator does not know what this Speedy deletion clause means." :) -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you use the new automatic deletion criteria list that appears in sysop.js (which all admins should now have) the content of the page is automatically removed when you select a deletion criteria so we shouldn't really be having these sorts of problems anymore. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like you're right. I swear that changes every time I look at it (which is rarely in recent weeks). Or maybe going back and forth between IE 6 and IE 7 is making me crazy. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That was a nice little change. Resolute 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any way to get an entry in the drop-down that lists "Temporary"? Often pages have to be deleted and then restored sans personal info. Not all of them require oversight. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could either tag it as G6-Housekeeping, or just manually enter "temporary deletion for x". Resolute 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am entering it manually now :-), thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Not sure where to post this, so please respond or move as appropriate.

Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day#January_3_-_Thu

I strongly object to running the photograph of any political candidate as POTD the day before an election. Disclaimer notwithstanding, this is poor form. I've just found out about this or I would have raised the issue sooner. Durova^Charge! 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That does seem... iffy. Especially with the pretty patriotic flag background (although I expect it is very difficult to find a picture of an American presidency candidate without a flag around). — Coren ^(talk) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Running a picture of Edwards right before an election .... no. Delicate matter, but no matter how many disclaimers we put on it, it just makes us look like we're biased. Would we put up a picture of Huckabee? I strongly suggest we do not do this. Antandrus (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the picture should be replaced. henrik•talk 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As a Brit, this election means very little to me, but even given the disclaimer, it's a lapse of judgement, in my view. We are supposed to be scrupulously neutral here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with last year's POTD for January 3. If anyone has a better replacement, feel free to use it. John Reaves 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Better. I suppose it could have been a picture of the caucus race from

Alice in Wonderland. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 01:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes,

Tally-ho!

01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for this swift and tactful solution. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruska Roma

Hi - just a quick one.. I've flagged this as CSD-G7 about 15 minutes ago as the author blanked a nonsensical article, but if I check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, it's not listed... is there just a big backlog, or is there a bug somewhere ? (or is it me ?!).. guess which one my money is on !! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's deleted now. I've seen category lags before, once... -- Kendrick7^talk 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly people

House10902 (talk · contribs) has not been one of the best behaved editors around as a look through this will show but Amerique (talk · contribs) has been patiently working with House. However, House thought that this would be fun. Of course we get IP payback followed by this. I blocked the account but not the IP and I did notice that somebody had got caught in an autoblock. I also gave House another warning and told Redspork02 to let his "friends" know that revenge is not a good idea. Not asking for anything more than a couple of extra eyes on the situation. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)

05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of curious as to the "parentage" of the obvious sock CambridgeBayWeather blocked, so I requested a checkuser here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Redspork Friend001. I don't know if I formated this correctly or if this follows process, however. Amerique^dialectics 05:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's formatted just fine :) Case has now been completed, BTW - Alison ^❤ 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

House1090 seems to be back as User:Bark2. Can someone block before he does more damage? Amerique^dialectics 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about Bark2 but Casa10902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is and is now blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of them are

House10902 (talk · contribs) - trust me on that - Alison ^❤

01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Listed House at

Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#H Thanks for verifying again, Alison. Amerique^dialectics

03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Alison. Bark2 now blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard

Moved to

WT:AN3RR. Mercury

18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Return of Ome Henk vandal

It looks like the fellow who thinks he is owed money for the content of the above named article is back, having just posted his fake CorenSearchBot notice and speedy deletion notice on the above article again. Just thought you all would like to know. Previous discussion of his activities in this regard can be found on the article's talk page, which led to IP blocks before. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Maxim has just speedily deleted the page as per the fraudulent tenplates placed on it. Please inform how to proceed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who added the fraudulent tags? I believe an undelete would be in order here, even if it's to a user page while the content is verified as not copyvio. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd like to remind administrators and patrollers that while I appreciate the trust you guys place in my bot, always double check the claims: even when the notices aren't fraudulent CSBot does make mistakes.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've undeleted and semi protected the page to prevent this reoccurring, and I'll leave a note for Maxim. — Coren ^(talk) 16:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a warning template to place on the user's (217.233.230.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) page? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The usual uw-vandal templates apply here I think. Tidbit: All the IPs are German dial-in IPs (T-Dialin.net). — Edokter • Talk • 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations

I'm back! And I've come back to a massive backlog at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I've gotten rid of about a day's worth, and I'd like to enlist the help of a few more administrators in cleaning it out so I can maintain it once again. Please!  :)

Thanks, — madman bum and angel 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VandalCruncher

I'm not sure if this user's userpage or username is appropriate because they insult the vandals and therefore encourage vandalism. I've seen pages like

talk

) 05:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

miscellany for deletion or simply talking with the user to see if he/she will change his user page to be more in line with your expectations. --slakr^\ talk

 / 07:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I worked on the userpage and made it a little more vandal-friendly, or at least less vandal-unfriendly. VC 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Serb propaganda

Hello.

I have contacted administrator delldot (talk · contribs) yesterday regarding this issue and compiled the following statement for his talk page. He offered to help but told me to also seek another opinion and I thought that a request for comment might not be the right way to go. I am now just pasting that statement over here because the facts of the case haven't changed.

Serb propaganda

is as article that was started about a month ago and has been fairly controversial within the Wiki community of ex-Yugoslavs. Its stated goal was to

"describe efforts made by Serbian leadership to create fear and hatred and particularly incite the Serb population against the other ethnicities (Bosniaks, Croats, Albanians and other non-Serbs) and to describe Serb media efforts in justifying, revising or denying mass war crimes committed by Serb forces during the Yugoslav wars on Bosniaks and other non-Serbs".

From the beginning it was seen as POV, starting with the title itself, and it was

Yugoslav wars

. But I do have an issue with what's been happening since the decision to keep the article and I'm not sure quite how to handle it.

It is my feeling that a few of the major contributors are using the decision to keep the article as a carte blanche and the article has turned into a

coatrack

and heavy POV pushing from the Bosnian editors' side. There are 2 main examples of how this is being done:

1. Insertion of bold and accusatory POV pushing statements not sourced in any way such as:

• Once the armed conflict had broken out, on some occasions the media openly incited people to kill non-Serbs.
• After so many years of domination and with no competition, Serbian Television has been outstandingly successful in its mission to create a pliant population.
• After his visit some of Serb media portrayed him [Bill Clinton] as the Al Qaida supporter.
• Following such activities Serb propaganda tried to deny the genocide and to present victims as the terrorists or foreign Islamic fighters.
• During the Yugoslav wars, Serbian TV propaganda described NATO forces which intervened against Serb forces attacking non-Serb civilians as the Nazi troops invading Serb lands. President Bill Clinton was portrayed as Adolf Hitler.

2. Copy and pasting of large portions of text from other articles related to the events. These texts describe the wrongdoings of Serbian armed forces in the conflict but do not explain anything about what role the Serb propaganda played in the events. Examples of copied text without context specific to the article:

• The entire
  The first Markale Incident section was copied from Markale massacres, First massacre
• The entire
  The second Markale Incident section was copied from Markale massacres, Second massacre
• The introductory part of the
  Srebrenica genocide
  section, before the discussion on Serb casualties

Some of the major contributors of this article, namely The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs), Bosniak (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) have become very aggressive towards editors with different views and editors that have altered their contributions, going so far to use the article's talk page to make following statements:

• People should really use ICTY documents to stop serbian apologists and their nazi propaganda.
• You might read more about what Serbian Fascist and Christian Terrorists are doing in the Balkans
• But constant apologies from supporters of Serbian fascism, as well as ridicolous nominations of this wonderful article to be deleted are coming from extremists themselves. It is very disturbing to watch people portraying themselves to be objective, and yet stading in defence of Serbian fascists.
• Islamophobia is trully a mental disorder, not an opinion
• We all remember those events - editor's answer when asked for a reference

I am of an educated opinion that someone writing statements like these is wanting to present an opinion more so than they are trying to write an objective article. Bosniak (talk · contribs) has a long history of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring that have garnered him 7 blocks so far and I am seeing a continuation of the same trend here.

Getting to the point, I would like your opinion on what to do here in order to fix the article. The one thing that I will not do is to start editing, deleting and reverting information I see as non-encyclopedic and POV because I do not want to get into an edit or revert war. There is already somewhat of a revert war happening with the POV tags and such being inserted and removed. I am not sure about nominating it for deletion because the article is fully salvageable and could turn out to be a pretty informative one if cleaned up properly. Protecting or semi-protecting it will do more harm than good, in my opinion. Please let me know, if you have the will and the time, what I could do to stop the very rapid degradation of this article into an edit war or a heavy POV piece of text.

Thank you for even reading this.

talk

) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You could start removing unsourced material from the article. You may have to revert a little, but if you start to hit

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR if the other user keeps reverting. Hope that helps! -- Ddxc (talk

) 04:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Film

I left a request for a significant protected edit at

WP:RPP, but it looks like a bot decided to sweep it under the rug after only a few hours. Since I'm not feeling like Sisyphus today, I thought maybe requesting the protected edit here might be a better use of my time. Details on the template talk page. Many thanks in advance! Girolamo Savonarola (talk

) 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

There seems to be more drama at this article, with cross-allegations of

WP:3RR

. I got a message on my talk page at [17]. Could a neutral sysop look at this please? Cross posted from

WP:ANI, due to no response. Bearian (talk

) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image categories and NO GALLERY

I'm trying to work thorough Category:Disputed non-free images as of 1 January 2008, but there are only links there. The names are not always very informative. Given the large number of images there, I'm asking whether it would be possible to get the "NO GALLERY" thing turned off to help people find images they want to work on? An example is here (it is much easier to see which images are screenshots, which are album covers, which are historical images, and so on). That method only works for the first 200 images, as if you click "next 200", the old "NO GALLERY" default returns. An alternative would be for me to create a user subpage, copy the image names over there from the category (current 1345 images), create a gallery there, revert the gallery creation, and work from the old page version. Would this be acceptable? I'm sure there is an image category somewhere that allows the NO GALLERY thing to be turned off, but I can't remember which one it is. Carcharoth (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag (magic word) at the bottom. Seems fine now.... -- Kendrick7^talk 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that we aren't meant to do that. I'm trying to find a way to allow people to scan the images and help out where they can, while not serving up huge masses of non-free content in category space. I've reverted. Oh, and it is the replaceable ones where NO GALLLERY is removed. See Category:Replaceable fair use to be decided after 4 January 2008, for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You could use your method (of making a gallery from the names) and not save, just work from the preview. —Random832 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, because the thumbs themselves violate fair use (well, unless you are Google images -- wait, didn't they win that case?). I think as a transient solution in order to review a temporary repository, this is a good time to

WP:IAR, but follow your bliss. -- Kendrick7^talk

21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Preview is a good method. I've done that. See User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Blood_libel_against_Jews#Tendentious_edits_on_this_page

Editing others comments, existing discussion

A certain editor is editing and blanking large parts of the above discussion as evident by the diffs and history. Some of the edits are his own in that he changed his mind about something so edited his original text. However, he also blanked a large portion of discussion (including some of my own contributions) for fear they would end up in a google search. An admin's attention would be appreciated. Bstone (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jackkofspades seeks admin mentor

Jackkofspades was indef blocked by me on 30 Dec 2007 for socking. He contacted me via email about unblocking him and working towards better editing. In this case, I feel Jackkofspades is sincere about this and I have outlined a proposal on his talk page that basically says if he familiarizes himself with more wiki policies and accepts an admin as a mentor, I will not object to his being unblocked. I will forward the said email to the admin who accepts him as a mentor when Jackkofspades agrees to that mentor. It is up to Jackkofspades as to which admin mentor he accepts. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please create account for me

Can you please create the account "EvanS" (without the quotes) for me, as it is my former username. I wish to register it as a doppelganger account to prevent impersonation. Thank you. Diligent Terrier (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Saul Steinberg

don't know how to do it correctly myself. could someone please edit or clean up (or whatever the correct term is) this illiterate and unreferenced article. thank you. Marciamaria (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't see a serious problem. Is that the right link? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They might be talking about

Saul Steinberg (business), which does have some puffery. I agree that Saul Steinberg, the cartoonist, is a perfectly fine article. Natalie (talk

) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember you can always use the village pump for things that don't need administrator help. Jackaranga (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently Ended RFCU

talk • contribs

) 01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Socks blocked and tagged, but I don't think the master will be editing soon. east.718 at 09:33, January 5, 2008

Waterboarding

View images

Could some experienced users please watchlist overwhelmingly state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Jehochman Talk 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I'll add it to my watchlist.-- talk ) 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC) This made #6 of a top ten list of Bush Administration legal fictions; see Lithwick, Dahlia (2007-12-28). "Legal Fictions: The Bush administration's dumbest legal arguments of the year". Slate. I've poked my head in at Waterboarding periodically and was surprised the article was in the right state each time. -- Kendrick7talk 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I agree, more eyes there would be helpful - there seems to be a very concerted effort to question the status of waterboarding as torture. I first came to the article after seeing the RfC, and have made a few comments over there, but I'm not a long term editor of it and I don't know all the dynamics. I'm a bit concerned by one SPA, Neutral Good (talk · contribs), in particular. This user has seem to be most active of the SPAs: He has already make several unhelpful comments (for example like [18],[19]) , which doesn't help to work towards establishing a consensus and assuming bad faith against other users ([20], [21]). I would not be surprised if he turned out to be a sock, given his apparent knowledge of the site, but of whom I have no idea. A checkuser was run against Haizum, but came back unrelated. This user has also created this very strange RFA which he canvassed support for at [22], and [23]. And he has accomplished all this within his first 100 edits. Frankly, I'm not sure his presence is helping the encyclopedia. henrik•talk 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Not an administrator, but more eyes (and fingers) would indeed be good, especially eyes that think a good article about waterboarding could be written without the POV phrase "waterboarding is torture" as or in the opening sentence of the lead. There is indeed a POV being pushed there, and that's what it is. A popular POV, supported by many, but still a POV. htom (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I have warned User:Neutral Good to stop the disruption and encouragement of vote stacking. I have also started a request for checkuser regarding all the SPAs. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. Jehochman Talk 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I have now blocked User:Neutral Good 24 hours for continued harassment after these comments [24] and [25] after being warned in quite clear terms here. Review is of course appreciated. henrik•talk 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) In regards to his comments about my liberally giving everyone who "dares to disagree" with me "body cavity searches at checkuser", I asked for checks on two apparent socks. this one, turned out to be the blocked sockpuppetry here. My guess was right but about a day or two early. There a few people I disagree with on that talk page for waterboarding, but I haven't tried to body cavity search anyone else, and have been discussing things out rationally. Neutral Good sounded (to me, anyway) like Haizum, who had gotten to the point of harassing me before. On the other, the 209 IP in question I saw had been heavily used by some notorious banned user that pushed extreme Right-wing POV and ended up blocked, for socking from that very IP address, among other things. Lawrence Cohen 23:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Administrators please remain on the scene. We will need somebody to close the speedily closed now because the result seems very obvious. Once that happens, we should unprotect the article and start blocking those who tendentiously POV push against the consensus result. Jehochman Talk 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples of counterproductive edits

Discussion has been going nowhere, and has been rife with disruptive argumentation. Here are some recent examples (not an exhaustive list, but illustrative):

• Ad hominem arguments

• User:Randy2063: "guffaws from the readers"
• User:Randy2063: "ideologues...extraordinarily polite"
• User:Neutral Good: "lunatic left-wing fringe"

• Assumptions of bad faith

• User:Neutral Good: "You're lying"
• User:Hypnosadist: "blocking coverage for the CIA"
• User:68.31.89.157: "loathe the Bush administration"

• False implication of consensus

• User:Neutral Good: "13-9 in favor"
• User:Neutral Good: "we have a consensus"

• Nitpicking

• User:Badagnani: "spelled 'Splitting.'"

• Non sequiturs

• User:Neutral Good: "Little Timmy wasn't tortured"
• User:OtterSmith: "original fiction"
• User:OtterSmith: "putting panties on someone's head"
• User:Randy2063: "you'd better review...what torture really is"

• Personal attacks

• User:Neutral Good: "America bashers"
• User:Neutral Good: "America haters"
• User:68.31.210.220: "it's an understatement"
• User:Hypnosadist: "supporting warcrimes"
• talk • contribs
  ) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Poisoning the well

• User:Hypnosadist: "making your first edit"
• User:Neutral Good: "your misrepresentations"

• Straw men

• User:Hypnosadist: "back from planting IEDs"
• User:Neutral Good: "filet mignon"
• User:Neutral Good: "proof...absolutely sure"

I am not claiming that all of these are instances of abuse, but all of these (and more) have been generally disruptive to any productive progress on the article. (Naturally, I have a blind spot to my own errors, so do not assume that the absence of my own edits from this list means my behaviour has been flawless.) All of this is just to say that this article and its discussion are badly in need of help. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the references in the above to user:htom to the more useable User:OtterSmith, and happily invite people to read the entire diffs. I'm tempted to add to the list, but that might be considered torturous. htom (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

IP range ban evasion?

A Sprint Wireless user who seems to be able to switch IPs at will is haranging me at my talk page (bottom section) and also Jehochman on the talk page of waterboarding, implying that Wikipedia will face nonsensical repercussions with the government. This is also an IP that is checkuser confirmed (see the Goose Creek RFCU above) from the IP range of the user that was blocked for using multiple sock puppets on Waterboarding. This IP range is leaving comments and POV pushing all over the talk pages, and it seems... implausible that one article would suddenly attract multiple users of the same ISP that all conveniently have the same POV and general language. Would a range block be appropriate? For example, in Talk:Waterboarding#General_Warning this section alone, he immediately replies with two unique IP address from the same ISP. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lawrence, the IP user looks like he's evading a block. Since I've commented at Talk:Waterboarding I shouldn't take any admin action here. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

In the past only ArbCom has been able to place an article on probation. With

article probation

would be a big help. Given that the community has the power to indefinitely ban a user, it seems like we should also have the power to establish lesser remedies, such as topic bans or article probation, when no administrator objects. Two questions:

1. Does the community have the power to establish
   article probation
   ?
2. Would anybody object to placing Waterboarding on article probation?

Absent a consensus to do something here, I suspect that this matter will go to arbitration eventually. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Having looked up what article probation can entail, I absolutely support enforced probation on the article, and all related pages indefinitely. This is just going to escalate further and further into the 2008 elections and beyond. Can this be also used to encompass some sort of heightened watch for sockpuppetry there? There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the Free Republic article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious identical ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. It's a tremendous coincidence that all these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language all arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus fight" began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell bridge for you too, that's only moderately used. Lawrence Cohen 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. It's quite a mess over there. ➪HiDrNick! 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As an admin who has been keeping an eye on the article, I feel something like this is needed to facilitate constructive discussion. But less involved people may want to express an opinion on question 1 above: "Does the community have the power to establish article probation?" henrik•talk 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not Yet. Not an admin so maybe I don't count here, but I just do not see the problem as big a deal as needing some sort of exceptional remedy toward users. There is ALOT going on there, but much if it is regular users, not socks. If a regular user is doing badly, I think that there are standard remedies for that. And if it involves new types of authorities, I certainly do not agree that admins should take new powers to themselves without a general community consensus for that. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your opinion is welcome, and if your reasoning is convincing you may sway the discussion, though it does not serve as a veto. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not Yet Having survived two RFCUs in a week with consecutive findings of
  Blackwater Worldwide somehow found their way to Waterboarding. And I'll add that Inertia Tensor is a relatively new SPA who seems to agree with them about everything. Make of that what you will. Neutral Good (talk
  ) 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Good is a
  WP:NPOV by making disingenuous assertions of consensus.[29] The account has also nominated a proven sock puppeteer for adminship.[30] (deleted contributions, only admins can view) I suggest that Neutral Good is neither. Jehochman ^Talk
  21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Good has already collected warnings from multiple editors for a variety of offenses, and has been blocked once in his short existence. You can look in his talk page history, as he has archived/erased all warnings. The user has also engaged in low-level harassment of me. Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lawrence and Inertia Tensor are also in the habit of deleting not only warnings, but tough questions from multiple users from their Talk pages, as their archives will confirm. Neutral Good (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• You were explicitly warned by an administrator here in this conversation to stop harassing users. I beg you to stop harassment of Wikipedia editors. Lawrence Cohen 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm responding to Jehochman's question on whether the community can impose article probation. We already have criteria for when page protection is justified, and page protection does not require an Arbcom ruling. Can anyone put into words what additional requirements should be imposed for community-authorized article probation? Should we want to see diffs for a specific kind of misbehavior? How many misbehaving editors should it take? I don't see a new process of this kind being respected by Arbcom unless they see that some appropriate evidence is being collected before the community decides to impose article probation. If article probation goes into effect, admins should be willing to impose blocks to back it up. Guess who is the ultimate reviewer for due process on blocks. Does anyone want to ignore their usual expectations? Under what conditions would Arbcom itself impose article probation? EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• One criteria would be: when there are multiple
  Wikipedia:Article probation. In the alternative, we can take this matter to arbitration. I do not think that one or two blocks will solve the problem. Jehochman ^Talk
  22:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Not an administrator and involved, but I'm inclined to think that both sides will claim that there were "multiple tendentious editors seeking to violate NPOV"; "they" think that they're defending NPOV, while "we" think we're trying to establish NPOV. "When normal administrative measures fail to control problematic editing" could be a symptom of
  WP:OWNhtom (talk
  ) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the community has the right to impose article probation on any article it so wishes, and that this article merits it. The probation can't hurt and it will probably help sort out an almighty mess. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think the rules pointed out by Moreschi below would be helpful in this case, and seeing that there is precedent for the kind of administrator imposed editing restrictions we are thinking about here I think we should go ahead and adopt them to this case. Arbcom already trusts admins to establish ground rules on wide ranges of articles in conflicted areas, and I think this is in that spirit. henrik•talk 23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree Article protection is a sufficient short-term remedy for articles. When the situation spins so far out of control that protection is insufficient, I would be grateful to have Arbcom look at the case and decide what the best solution is; the alternative seems too much like allowing any administrator who happens by to declare martial law. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ryan. This easily could spread like kudzu across the whole wiki with disastrous results. We should stick with our current article protection procedures. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

If article probation is agreed, then I suggest we unprotect Waterboarding within a few days. It is better for the encyclopedia if people can edit this high importance article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The swift option would be to unprotect right now, apply article probation right now and a variant of these measures, also right now. Hopefully we can get consensus on this quickly, but for such a high-profile article to be fully protected with that ugly box on the top is not good for Wikipedia's image. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tough call. Discussion and {{
  editprotected}} are probably better for the reader, at this point. Guy (Help!
  ) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think it was protected too fast, but since it has gone on, I now say, let the protection extend to its current expiration. I also think that unblocking without steps toward consensus will eventually lead to Arbcom. I do not believe that restricting the page will help that. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Checkuser errors and administrative coverups

From here, comments by User:Neutral Good:

"That's what I'm saying. The IP address is being taken as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shibumi2 is an evil puppet master. And every time anyone tries to raise this question about these dynamic, shared Sprint IP addresses, the question gets deleted. Fast. What's going on? Neutral Good (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)"

The relevant checkuser is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. He's referring to Jehochman and Checkuser clerks archiving color commentary on the RFCU. See here. Lawrence Cohen 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As the checkuser who ran the aforementioned case, I have no issues with anyone who wishes to relist the case for another checkuser to provide an independent second-opinion. However, I'd like to state that there are no other users on the address shared by Shibumi2, Harry Lives!, and PennState21 and, contrary to what User:Neutral Good asserts, it's not a shared IP that "hundreds or thousands of people browsed through"; there have only ever been the above three users on it. Furthermore, there are many other points of contact which I don't want to go into, for reasons of privacy. For that reason, I welcome any other checkuser to re-examine the case - Alison ^❤ 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

All complaints about alleged checkuser abuse should go to the Ombudsman Commission. The community cannot evaluate and/or act on such complaints due to a lack of information and a lack of juristiction on the issue, and such public allegations only create unnecessary drama. Daniel 11:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Battleground

consensus. No, it is diverging. What are we going to do about this? Jehochman ^Talk

17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask either the

editor assistance (or both) to go take a look? --Kim Bruning (talk

) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He did, but the last I checked there was no action on that request. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins will still want to keep an eye on this, given the elections. This page is no less out of control. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot again

Hi, I blocked the bot since I felt it's been running too fast again. It's tagged thousands of images with invalid fair use rationale today, and no real person could keep up with that pace in actually looking at the cases and writing the rationales. If the actual goal is just to delete all of the images without examining them, please let me know or unblock it yourself. - Bobet 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not my fault that the bot is going as fast as it is. I was asked to skip older images, Images uploaded prior to jan 1, 2007. that restriction ended jan 1, 2008. we have about 90 days to be compliant with the foundation resolution's. I was asked to wait in tagging images so people could write rationales for them. people did not.

β^_command

15:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, 500 edits in six minutes is too many, even for a bot. Have you asked Betacommand to slow it down? He most probably would have done upon request. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked the bot, as there is no speed restriction any more on bots. It can be reblocked if you can prove it ignores maxlag though. _→AzaToth 15:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough in a technical sense, but the concern that the bot is going faster than humans can clean up after it is a fair one is it not? One guy whose talk page I have listed has received over 50 of these notifications... Perhaps beta could be asked to slow down a touch? That is, again, presuming the motive is to get these cleaned up rather than deleted. --kingboyk (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"no real person could keep up with that pace in actually looking at the cases and writing the rationales" -- which is why BCB puts messages on the image page, the talk page of the uploader, and the talk page of the article(s) it is used in. Given that March is coming up pretty fast to meet the requirement for post-Jan 1, 2007 images (although I do believe BCB is looking at all im:ages now).

My suggestion is that we need to put all BCB-tagged images that fail 10c into a category subcat'd by day (as to be usable in AWB), and then quickly get some wiki task force together to look through articles on their 5th or 6th day, and if it's simply a 10c article name addition, they should be fixed (probably all of 10 seconds of work per image). If its something more than just the name (such as complete lack of rationale) then let them fail. Waiting to the 5/6th day allows the people notified by BCB to correct it themselves.

But no, at this point, unless the bot is failing (which it isn't), it needs to keep running. --MASEM 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the Foundation doesn't wish to concern itself with something important, such as the quality of articles or a noticeable decline in morale. If we fail to meet this deadline what happens? The wiki gets shut down? I think not. --kingboyk (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free media on wikipedia is potentially an area that the Foundation can be sued on for copyright infringement; this is not true of article quality or issues with editors morales. The date is arbitrary beyond being a year past their decision on this issue. --MASEM 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have bent over backwards trying to get as many images as I can saved. But I made an agreement in august, that agreement limited what I could tag, (only images uploaded after jan 1, 2007) the agreement was as of jan 1, 2008 the bot would then start tagging older images. as for a backlog they happen and they work them selfs out over time. (either saved or deleted).

β^_command

15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, with an edit rate like this, it makes it very difficult for a human editor to check over the bots edits to look for, and spot mistakes - there's simply too many to go through. We could quite easily lose legitimate pictures because the bots has wrongly tagged images. Not questioning your image work, I think it's great - but I really do suggest you de-throttle it a little. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember, and could be wrong, but I think there are like 100,000 non-compliant images. Given BcB must edit the image page, the user talk page, and the article talk page, that 300,000 edits. 90 days = 129,600 minutes. Surely we could throttle it back to even 10 edits a minute (thats a BAG thing though) and finish in 3 weeks by my math.

talk

16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What resolution is this? What happens in 90 days? Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See

WP:NFCC and The Foundation policy, as of March 23 of this year, any image that is uploaded without a license or a fair-use rationale ("exemption doctrine policy") will be immediately deleted. --MASEM

16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way to create a special BcB tag that changes the days its listed from 7 to say 45? As long as the image tag indicates a deletionready date before March, we should be in the clear. Really this is a unique situation (we won't face a deadline again) so I think the period could be adjusted for these tags.

talk

16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. How many images are we actually talking? Why not just have a bot make a big list, or a category listing all of them, that people can see and then attack to create fair use rationales in case they are needed? Lawrence Cohen 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about 60000 to 65000 images. So maybe let's avoid the one big list? :-p Maxim_(talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like 68000-70000 images. Maxim_(talk) 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a big Twinkie. But still, if it were listed as a project for everyone to get behind, I bet with all the editors here it could get knocked down 1000~ a day, easy. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry Lawrence but I have tried several time to do exactly that, people just dont follow through.

β^_command

17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one category I know of that lists some of them

talk

16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The template BCB adds, {{

Di-disputed fair use rationale

}} categorizes images as well, grouped by date. Again, however, this doesn't easily tell what images are quickly fixable due to missing the article name (75% or more of BCB's tags?) and what complete lack rationale.

Proposal : We add in a new parameter to {{

Di-disputed fair use rationale}}, "10c=", with yes/no as the parameter. This (if yes) then adds the image to another category "Fair use rationales failing 10c on (date)". BetaCommand makes sure this parameter is included on tagged images (I will assume a trivial addition to his code). This way, we now have a list of images that maybe a handful of people each day can clear out any 10c images that fail due to lack of article name that require no significant amount of thought, and save that 75% or more of images that are tagged this way. --MASEM

16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering every time some admin takes it upon themselves to block BCbot it gets reversed, perhaps future blocks can be proceeded by a consensus to do so.

1 != 2

16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If on BcB's user page, there was a "News" section that was updated when there was a major code change or the implmentation of something (like this editing speed change), that would probably help.

talk

16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

there was no speed change, I still use maxlag=5. the only thing that changed was that I am now tagging older images. Also list have been tried and fail.

β^_command

16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't even know what maxlag is or how to check it, the discussion context seemed to be speed.

talk

16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bots are no longer throttled by edits per minute, they're controlled by a new feature called maxlag. Basically, when Wikipedia is slow, the bot will edit at a snail's pace, and when it is fast the bot will fly. east.718 at 16:59, January 2, 2008

• "My suggestion is that we need to put all BCB-tagged images that fail 10c into a category subcat'd by day (as to be usable in AWB), and then quickly get some wiki task force together to look through articles on their 5th or 6th day, and if it's simply a 10c article name addition, they should be fixed (probably all of 10 seconds of work per image)." - I agree, and I've been saying this for ages. Can we actually try and get something like this done? I will make a personal pledge to rescue 5 good non-free images each day (ie. ones that I think we need to keep - ones we don't need, I'll ignore). If 100 people do that over 90 days, that's 45,000 images of the 65,000. That's even presuming we need to keep that many. But please, read
  WP:NFC and only rescue the good non-free pics. Carcharoth (talk
  ) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume the best list is here? -- Kendrick7^talk 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically yes, but Category:Disputed_non-free_images is where I was thinking to start from. Mind you, this is all disputed images, not just those that fail 10c, which is why I suggest one more sub-category to help there. --MASEM 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

CAT:CSD is a good place to start. You can pix 'n mix between images without sources, images without rationales, images with disputed rationales, and so on. Just ignore the bits saying there are no backlogs. The main categories are normally clear, but the subcategories will generally be full. I just moved 10 images from "disputed" (as they were high res) to "reduce" (which was the right place for them) by replacing the tag with {{non-free reduce}}. Those were music album covers, though, which I don't particularly like, so I'll go looking for historical ones now. Those are mostly in "no sources" which gets tricky. Carcharoth (talk

) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, people have been adding rationales to images, but it is a tedious task that takes a lot of time. Please pause the bot's tagging with {{

di-disputed fair use rationale}} until the images that have been have tagged over the past couple of days have been fixed/deleted. Category:Disputed non-free images currently contains ~1,440 images for yesterday and more than 4,800 today. That amount will take ages to fix. If the images that lack a rationale are deleted, they will have to be reuploaded/undeleted. In the long run, which is going to take up more of editors' time -- adding a rationale; or deleting, reuploading, and putting back into mainspace? Once this batch has been dealt with, then you can get the bot to do another round of tagging. Otherwise huge amounts of images that can be fixed might be deleted. Bláthnaid

18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had my issues with how BC handles these things in the past, but in this case, I think continuing to tag the images is appropriate. Rather than forcing BC to stop now to simply delay the increasing backlog, perhaps we might consider extending the grace period before deletion? As it is, I can see a ton of warnings for older hockey logos on my watchlist, and there are a few of us at

WP:HOCKEY attempting to bring these images into compliance with the new rules. Time to fix is important, but there really is no sense in stopping the tagging. Resolute

19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If we don't get this taken care of because people keep interrupting the bot, then on March 23 lots of images that can be fixed might also be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Especially given the volume of new tags, I'd agree that increasing the grace period is appropriate. 45 days is probably too much, but 7 is too few - maybe 21 days as a happy medium? If the images can be tagged by date, we can tackle the oldest first and move forward. If there's a team being put together, count me in - but, until just now, I had no idea that there was a deadline coming up. We can surely get a task force together to deal with this, can't we? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Extending the grace period is a good idea. Could somebody with a bot make a list of disputed images by category (album covers, book covers etc) so that interested Wikiprojects could help with adding rationales? Bláthnaid 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• When the deadline comes, people will stop asking for BetacommandBot to be slowed down or blocked, and instead start demanding the Foundation's resolution be suspended. The reality is that this hard policy is being applied and people don't like it. BetacommandBot is but a symptom, and doing a bang up job of implementing the much-hated resolution. The 'disease' is the resolution, not the bot. The deadline is looming. Slowing down progress on these images, whether through deletion or fixing them, means we fail to meet the deadline. When the deadline is not met, images will be deleted wholesale without notification. Take your pick; either you lose now or you lose later. There's really not much hope, unless you overturn the Foundation's resolution. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to go on record as saying that I am very annoyed at the amount of hate Betacommand receives over this issue. Copyrights are a serious issue, far more weighty than some nebulous ideal of "improving the encyclopedia". Now, is the bot going a little overboard? Sure, probably. That's automated tasking for you. Deadlines are arbitrary by nature, though, and I feel the project is risked more by letting images without fair-use rationale slide, on the off-chance that some copyright lawyer feels like earning his stripes on a randomly missed picture of Solid Snake killing stuff or an Ashanti photo or some other random thing that "interferes with the copyright holder's ability to profit". If you feel an image contributes to an article and it gets deleted, I say track down where it came from, figure out for yourself if it meets FUC criteria, and re-upload it properly tagged (I've done this before). Please don't whine about the bot. It is serving an important task for Wikipedia. Okay, that's all. JuJube (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Threatening to delete images over 10c isn't a useful task for Wikipedia. Articles that the bot disputes over 10c tend to have a fair use rationale that makes perfect sense to humans. Tag the ones with no rationale at all, but meanwhile meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. The Foundation has asked that we enforce fair use guidelines; they haven't asked us to make every instance of fair use verifiable by one particular robot. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But they have passed a resolution insisting that each image have a rationale. Quoting the resolution, "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Once past March 23, 2008, images that lack a proper ESD/rationale must be immediately deleted per the Foundations' requirement - there is no grace period for such images. This isn't going to be done by a human - this will be a bot task. Thus, while it is completely fair to say that a human would be able to recognize the lack of a symbol to refer to an article name, a bot will not, and thus it is necessary to comply with what this bot will be looking for in the future. --MASEM 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see the Foundation resolution that says that we must delete all images whose applicable rationale is not understood by BetacommandBot, on March 28. I rather doubt it exists. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • touché -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd like to see ANY resolution that states anything about a bot before we conclude that the absence of a comment about a bot means this bot is doing illegitimate work. There are hundreds of thousands of images that have to be brought into compliance. Believe it or not, the bot's work has actually saved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of images from deletion by bringing their non-compliance to somebody's attention, and doing a bang up job of it I might add. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Negative, quite the opposite, it's too fast, too many images are being lost when what they need is minor modification. El_C 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Then fix the images. Betacommand is been exceptionally responsive and patient in this process, lasting months and months and months. People have been complaining ad nauseum about all the images being marked, and the call for it to be slowed down or suspended have never ended. The task is huge. The complaints about the speed of the bot are, as I noted above, actually rooted in the resolution, not the bot. The hatred displayed for the bot is entirely misdirected. If you don't want the images deleted, take it up with the Foundation to have them craft a much more lenient resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
              • What does that make me, then, an angel? He has been exceptionally impatient and unresponsive, often simply resorting to insults, exhibiting very poor communications skills and an easily triggered foul temper. El_C 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Except, as I've noted below, the resolution doesn't say that existing images are going to be immediately be deleted. It says the opposite, actually. -Amarkov moo! 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format …

Resolution:Licensing policy, Wikimedia Foundation, 2007-03-23

Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • And if you read down more As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.. We've already mentioned that for Wikipedia, discussion for *every* non-free image is nearly impossible beyond wide-spread notification that this will occure, and thus images without a machine-readable EDP will be deleted as instructed. --MASEM 21:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Uncle G, I don't understand what point you are making here? Maybe if we do a full quote and emphasise the missing bit, things will be clearer?

Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

Resolution:Licensing policy, Wikimedia Foundation, 2007-03-23

• I take this to be referring to the image license tags that have "non-free" in their names. There was a large effort about a year or so ago to rename all existing non-free image license tags and make sure the templates started with the words "non-free". There was probably a mass TfD debate somewhere, or maybe the debate was somewhere else. Regardless, have a look here and in
  non-free content criteria (which serves as en-Wikipedia's Exemption Doctrine Policy). The safe assumption, for now, is that all the content marked "non-free" should be stripped out by reusers. Certifying that all non-free images meet all 10 criteria will take a lot longer than 3 months, or even one year. Progress has been made on making several of these criteria machine-readable and human certifiable in machine-readable format, but more work is needed. Carcharoth (talk
  ) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What the resolution actually says

5. For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken: As of March 23, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.

So the policy does not say "after March 23, use a bot to delete all images without a valid rationale". In fact, it explicitly says that existing images are supposed to go through a discussion process. It's debatable what the clause about new media means, but it's clear that BetacommandBot need not understand all fair use rationales. -Amarkov moo! 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Non-sequitor since the bot can't delete images. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I noticed that. Reworded. -Amarkov moo! 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but could it be possible to create a bot that links images that fail 10-c to their respective article? If possible, it could save a lot of time.

talk

) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you cut and pasted that resolution, either the date is wrong or you've got the wrong one. Some people don't seem to understand why 10c is important - if it is, then tagging images without it for deletion is fine. If it isn't, then remove it from the policy. Rspeer - the policy doesn't say images have to be acceptable by BCB, but that is irrelevant - because BCB isn't tagging images that are compliant with the policy, and non-compliant images should be deleted.
  talk
  20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had a random thought. Since editors who uploaded may have left wikipedia, and therefore never see the notice, how standardized are the wiki-project boxes on article talkpages? Are they standardized enough for a bot to follow them through and post a 4th notice on the project's talkpage?

talk

20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen with hockey logos alone today, such a proposal would render any sports or media based project talk page unusable. Posting a notice on the talk page of the affected article should be fine, as members of the associated projects will have those watchlisted. Resolute 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I see where the confusion is. In the same resolution, there is also this:

6. For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the following action shall be taken:

• As of March 23, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted.
• The Foundation resolves to assist all project communities who wish to develop an EDP with their process of developing it.
• By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted.

That's fine, except we do currently have an EDP in place, so it doesn't apply. Unless there's another resolution that I'm not aware of, the Foundation has mandated absolutely nothing for us. -Amarkov moo! 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is this EDP and where is it? Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the definition here, the EDP is a fair-use policy. Ours is cited as an example, so it's clear that it must be sufficient. -Amarkov moo! 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, its an exception policy to allow non-free content that Wikimedia projects must have in order to host non-free content. Fair use is (mostly in this context) an American concept that is not widely shared, and so other projects have other types of exceptions.

talk

21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Amarkov, determining whether or not media has a valid fair use rationale is trivial, and doesn't require discussion. What a potentially deleting admin does at that point is variable. But, having literally tens of thousands (perhaps even more than a hundred thousand) "discussions" about each image subject to deletion under the resolution is impossible. The reality is that all images, regardless of when they were uploaded, are likely to be subject to deletion after March 23 with the only oversight being an admin checking the rationale (or lack thereof) of an image. So yes there is a mandate, and yes it will be applied. The culture here will change after March 23. You think it's bad now? Just wait. March 24 will be major fireworks day, and you won't be calling for Betacommand's head anymore, but the Foundation's. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • March 23, 2007 was nine months ago. The section that mentions 2008 does not apply to this Wikipedia. Therefore, there is no mandate to do anything on March 23, 2008. It's not really unclear. -Amarkov moo! 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's long been held that the resolution was not descriptive enough in its content, in that the Foundation means that all projects, regardless of whether they had an EDP as of March 23, 2007, needed to come into compliance by March 23, 2008. I know this isn't reflected in the resolution, but it is the commonly held belief. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • But that's wrong. The requirement is in a list of actions which are to be taken for projects which did not have an EDP. There is no way to construe it such that it also applies to projects which had an EDP. It may have been what the Foundation meant to say, but unless they actually say it, we are not obligated to obey. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
        • If the Board has later clarified the meaning of this resolution, they don't have to update the resolution itself in order to have it be binding. This isn't a government where Board actions have to be duly registered and considered and noticed and commented upon etc. before taking effect.
          talk
          21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
          • No, but the Board itself does have to clarify the meaning. Do you have a link to them doing so? -Amarkov moo! 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Amarkov, if you want to believe the resolution has no application to en.wikipedia, that's you're business. Attempting to interpret the resolution into non-existence in so far as this language wikipedia is concerned will not be an effective means of addressing the concerns raised. The images will be deleted if they do not fit policy. Else, we might as well vacate all our policies. Either we have an EDP or we don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Amarkov is correct. The WMF Board's licensing policy is severely deficient in the precision of its wording. I raised this on a talk page somewhere over there, and several times here, but the message never quite got through. I think I even raised in on the talk page of a Board Member. What the policy should have is a 7th general point giving an overall deadline for projects both with and without an EDP. But what it has is a 6c subclause (the third bullet point for number 6) for projects without an EDP. Anyway, the problem we have is the following: "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." - the way the EDP is worded on en-Wikipedia, we cannot tell which of our images are compliant or not. In fact, the compliance varies according to the use of the image. ie. take an image and overuse it in lots of articles and suddenly the image becomes non-compliant and eligible for deletion (in reality, the solution is to take the image out of the articles it shouldn't be in). In practice, the machine-readable parts of the EDP are the license tag [10a] (we are fairly good on that now, as all the non-free tags have "non-free" in their titles, and image without license tags are routinely deleted), the source (we need to develop more widespread and rigorous use of a source template [10b], like {{information}}, which is now being used on Commons and here), and we are gradually moving towards having a majority (though not all) of non-free images using some form of "rationale" template [10c]. Criteria 7 (use in an article - ie. no orphaned non-free images), and 9 (inappropriate locations such as the wrong namespace) can largely be assessed by bots. A criteria that needs a combination of humans and bots assessing whether humnans are correctly filling in a template is criteria 4 (previous publication) - we need to develop a template field that allows people to specify where a non-free image was previously published, and get a bot to demand compliance there. Critera 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 (replaceable, commercial opportunities, minimal use, encyclopedic nature, image policy and significance) all need human input to decide whether an image is compliant. There. That gives an idea of how far we have come and how far we still have to go. My view is that we aren't even at a stage where we can reliably say whether any images are 100% compliant, but we are making progress. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with deleting images which violate NFCC (although I think some of NFCC itself should be changed). My problem is with BetacommandBot, which is not always accurate in determining if images violate policy. People are defending it by saying "we have to have all bad images deleted by March 23, the Foundation says!", and this is not actually the case. -Amarkov moo! 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to believe that if you like. But, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the application of the Resolution is actually doing you a favor. If we ignored it, and revert to base policy, then ALL images are subject RIGHT NOW. Would you rather have that? Also note that the bot tags images for deletion for 7 days, not 48 as policy dictates. Would you rather have it be 48 hours? The bot's doing you a favor. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Why in the world would I be thankful that the bot isn't quite as bad as it could be, when I don't want it to exist at all? -Amarkov moo! 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you meant to say you don't think the policy should exist at all :) What the bot is doing is extremely lenient. To be any more lenient would be to ignore the policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I do not mind the policy. I do, however, mind a bot enforcing the policy. I mind this for the same reason I would mind a bot enforcing the trolling policy, or neutrality policy, or anything else a bot cannot adequately evaluate. Stop equating criticism of BetacommandBot with criticism of the policy. -Amarkov moo! 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure I understand your complaint then. Is the issue the rate and only the rate at which the bot is tagging? If so, you do understand that there's been literally hundreds of thousands of images to be tagged? How do you suggest humans do that? Please remember we are a volunteer service. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that a bot can not determine accurately if a valid fair use rationale is provided. -Amarkov moo! 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • For what it is checking for, it does a wonderful job of doing so. Can you cite specific cases where it failed to properly identify (and thus improperly tagged) an image that had an adequate fair use rationale? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going back through the archives here, and just some points:

• The EDP/Fair use rationale has to be understood by a bot, or more specifically Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
• Note that the resolution cites WP's fair use policy
  WP:NFCC (which looked like this as of March 23, 2007) as an acceptable form for an EDP. While there has been a lot of other changes, the policy section is primarily the same as what we currently have. This effectively "blesses" WP's non-free policy to align with what the Foundation requires being an appropriate example of one. --MASEM
  21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• So perhaps there's a vague mandate to delete images or make their rationale machine-readable. That's two options, and the second sounds much more constructive. How about running a bot that finds the rationales that are slightly off from being simply machine-readable (for example, they point to a disambiguation page), and fixes them, instead of running the deletion-bot (yes, I know, it's really an ask-admins-to-delete-bot) first? How about prioritizing deletion of images with no rationale, instead of deleting all the ones that are damn close except someone forgot a parenthesis? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's one inherent problem in that a number of people are of the opinion that the rationales can all be written by a bot, and they can't. Too many people think that a rationale is a rationale if, basically, it says the use is fair use because, well, it is! This has been argued forever and ever and over and over again. There are some subclasses of rationales that might work with bots, but the vast majority do not. That a rationale states which article it is used in is far from enough. A bot can do that trivially, but a bot can't discern why a usage is valid under fair use law. Only a human can do that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is there are probably a lot of images that have superficially sufficient rationales, but should really be reviewed and tagged/deleted anyway? And these images are missed by the bot and require individual attention? Is that issue being addressed as well in advance of the deadline?

talk

22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not directly. It's a related issue. There's a zillion images with superficially sufficient rationales. That problem is just about impossible to resolve. But, tagging images *clearly* missing on other components does have the benefit of (a) the people notified perhaps crafting a better rationale and (b) the potential deleter realizing it's insufficient and doing something about it. The flimsy rationales is a nightmare situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Superficially sufficient rationales sound like the opposite of what I'm talking about. A rationale would be superficially sufficient if a bot wouldn't see anything wrong with it but a human could tell it was misapplied. I'm talking about the cases where the rationale is completely clear to a human, but it's not formatted in the way that BetaCommandBot wants, so BCB declares the rationale insufficient and rewards Wikipedia's contributors with red tape. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Red tape that must be followed. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why speed?

Many if not most of the images I'm getting notices about simply need a switch from fair use, which at the time of upload years ago did not demand a detailed rational, to PD-Israel, which at the time didn't exist. I'm active enough, so I'm catching em, but I would estimate many people will not and thus we will lose (are losing) valuable encyclopedic content. Which is why I again ask, what is the rational (and I mean non-procedural, external logic) in waiting till a certain date and flooding it instead of trickling it gradually? El_C 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what folks have said is that this is trickling it gradually. If there are 70,000 images left non-compliant, then even a gradual trickle is a number of images per day (maybe not 500 edits in 6 minutes, but the bot doesn't run all the time does it?). The concerns about previously compliant images being deleted has been raised before, but I think our increasing compliance with copyright law doesn't allow for grandfathering images we thought were sufficiently noted before.

talk

20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, people are saying this is the slowest trickle we can get if we want it finished by March 23. But since we're perfectly willing to remove any fair use violations we see, why must it be done in three months? -Amarkov moo! 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Waiting until a specific date and then flooding, and calling that flood a trickle, I'm not sure how to respond to that, actually. There a difference between compliance and paranoia. Who gets the authority to interpret Foundation rules? El_C 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 now contains more than 10,400 images. This is a flood. It took me 34 minutes to add rationales to 19 book covers (and these were easy ones to fix). In contrast, BetacommandBot tagged 20 images in two minutes (21.30 and 21.31 UTC). I can't see all these images being fixed within a week. Bláthnaid 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why the concern? If the images are truly important to the project, and they are deleted, they will either be requested for undeletion by concerned parties or uploaded by same, with rationales and licensing that complies with our license. The idea that the project is permanently damaged by having a potentially legitimate image deleted is false. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Things don't work that way and "truly" important images remain deleted for years & years, even ones about visual artistic works that had a typo in the rational. I'm speaking from experience of (finally) approaching 33,333 articles on my watchlist. El_C 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uh,
  talk
  21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, there isn't much choice. The alternatives are to let tens of thousands of images exist on the project in violation of policy, or delete them. From reading much of the above, there's a number of people who would be just as happy to ignore policy, and let the images remain. We have to draw the line somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This account is actually shared (shared with one kitty). El_C 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• We want a slower, time-dependent line. El_C 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The bot was throttled a long time ago per discussion. The result was abysmal. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh? El_C 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have I missed something? Can images be undeleted now? AFAIK, when an image is deleted, it's gone, and only someone with the file stored locally can put it back. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um... yes, images can indeed be undeleted now. Was this not publicised, or something? -Amarkov moo! 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and for a long time. If the image was after before a certain date, it can be restored (bottom-most link in the undelete page). El_C 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Hammersoft's question above) I think it is important to respect editor's image uploads as we would their mainspace contributions. I prefer fixing images and helping editors to do the same, rather than deleting. Like I said above, in the long run it will take longer to reupload and fix. It is extremely unfair to delete fixable legacy images uploaded by retired editors because they were uploaded before the rules were strictly enforced. I see images uploaded by administrators and other very experienced editors have been tagged by the bot, which suggests that the importance of

WP:NFCC, so an undeletion request wastes everyone's time. Bláthnaid

22:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• With respect, the issue of fairness is not of concern. Certainly we do not want to go out of our way to offend people, but the interests of the project outweigh the needs of any one user or group of users. The images must come into compliance. We can not have images rotting because it would be unfair to delete them because the uploaders have retired. That's unworkable. I could just as well create an account, upload a bunch of images and then 'retire' the account, in which case gosh it would be a travesty to delete those images because the uploader retired :) You can see how this can easily be gamed. Believe me, huge efforts have been made to educate users. The reality is that most are not interested in getting the images into compliance. Of those that are, only a handful are doing so by way of self motivation. Most that are fixing them are doing so under threat of deletion. There's a huge number of users who think this policy is absolutely terrible, and would rather it go away. Getting it implemented is a <insert thousands of expletives> nightmare. But, it has to be done. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am not saying that these images should not be fixed, and I have personally added rationales to more than 1,000 images. Other editors are doing the same, but it probably is going unnoticed (and we cannot work as fast as a bot). I am saying that deleting should be the last resort, after a concerted effort to fix as many as possible. I have not seen huge efforts to educate editors apart from deletion templates on user talk pages, and I find it hard to believe that administrators whose uploads do not comply do not have the best interests of the project at heart. Images uploaded by temporary not-serious editors frequently fail other parts of the
  WP:NFCC and should be deleted anyway (eg I see a lot of manga images that rightly get deleted). I absolutely agree that the policy is important, but I think this mass-tagging is not going to help impress this fact on editors. Bláthnaid
  22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• What do you suggest then? Doing it without a bot resulted in hundreds of thousands of non-compliant images. Doing it with a bot throttled resulted in services being overwhelmed and dismal response. We've tried it other ways. Do you have another way to handle this that we're not aware of? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, since (as reported by someone else) 75% of the reports are about this 10c issue, where few people agree with the way you're implementing the machine-readability requirement, you could wait for a consensus about what is sufficient for requirement 10c while doing the rest of the tagging. Then you get to slow down by a factor of 4, which is at least something. I also don't see what the disastrous consequences would be of slowing down more. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Slowing down effectively suspends the policy since the rate of uploads will exceed tagging. Either this is policy or it isn't. Being slow or not is irrelevant. There are literally thousands of editors who are being notified. The bot's really creating very little work, per user, on average. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that many editors have problems with a bot tagging new uploads, it is the speed and quantity of tagging legacy images that is the problem. Do we know how many retired editors' images have been tagged? If it is a lot, then there will be a lot of work per active editor. Lots of editors have come up with good ideas about fixing these images in the past few hours. A bot to fix image backlinks is an excellent idea. Automated tools could be created and used to help add the rationales with editor supervision (copy and pasting takes up huge amounts of time). User:Polbot started adding rationales to logos just before Christmas, and while there were problems with the implementation (no editor supervision), I think it was a good beginning. Creating lists of images without rationales divided by image type would be a good way of quantifying the amount of non-compliant images without tagging for deletion. That might make editors more urgent about fixing the problem. The relevant Wikiprojects are interested in fixing these images, for example Wikiproject Novels set up a sub-page where disputed image tags could be placed, but despite two requests Betacommand did not put image notifications there. Bláthnaid 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think Polbot is a terrible beginning personally. Lists of non-compliancy have been tried before, with dismal results. People don't get energized about this stuff until there's a threat of deletion. Then the feathers fly into the air, there's trillions of electrons of debate, and....the images get fixed (or deleted). Seems to work fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• But wouldn't be OK if every rationale the bot added was approved by an editor? When were the lists tried? I've used automated lists of disputed images and found them extremely helpful. I don't think threat of deletion helps to educate editors, it just annoys them because they see it as a unnecessary, bureaucratic policy. (I don't think this, BTW :p) Sorry I won't be able to continue this discussion, it's past midnight where I am. Bláthnaid 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Who actually pulls the trigger?

At this apparent date, who actually pulls the trigger and deletes 60,000~ images that may not have fair use rationales? Is this the Foundation? Or are they fair game at that point? Amarkov above says that this doesn't apply to us. I'm just wanting to understand if this means come March something, we will just automatically lose all this potentially valid content because no one has had time to get to it yet? Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, right now it's the 'bot. Since it's unreasonable to expect that every image in the system is being watched, a very large percentage of the images are deleted as a result of tagging. Indeed, it seems likely to me that most of the images that are candidates for deletion aren't watched, either because they were created by people who are no longer active, or because the need to watch one's uploads wasn't impressed upon them. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot isn't deleting anything. Responsibility for deletion rests on the person who deletes the image. Mr.Z-man 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's technically true, but in practice it appears that those doing the deleting are not (for instance) checking to see how the images are used. Those admins are apparently just doing the 'bot's bidding, so effectively it is deleting any image that isn't being watched. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• And every time the bot tags an image, it makes multiple notifications regarding the tagging. See [31]. The images do not have to be "watched". They are reported to the respective parties, so much so in fact that some parties complain about the notifications. No pleasing everyone. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The thing is that the places that the notifications are made DO need to be watched, and often they are not. I personally don't watch the images I upload (though given the current fuss I never upload anything that's not either a personal creation or a US government image), and in any case I imagine the only people watching images much are their uploaders, who are getting a message on their talk pages. Except that I'd bet that a lot of people who uploaded something two years ago aren't active now. The upshot is that it wouldn't surprise me that maybe a majority of the notifications for old images never reach anyone. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, the WikiProject notification system never got going, despite several showing interest. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• If any admin is deleting images willy nilly without checking whether deletion is warranted, they should be contacted informally and the matter should be discussed with them. Careless use of admin tools is a serious matter. Jehochman ^Talk 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• What tends to happen when someone raises this sort of thing informally is "well, it would have been deleted under another NFCC anyway". But this is misleading because the deletion log is normally for a big batch, and so refers to 10c even if the reason is really another reason. Extremely sloppy, but this is what happens when automated tools like TWINKLE are used. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm confused about is what happens to all the non-free images that have manually written rationales. You know. The ones that are perfectly valid, but that a bot can't detect. Not all images use rationale templates you know. Do all those get deleted by bot when this date arrives? I suspect that all that will happen is that tagging will carry on as before, with bots being used to help convert older style rationales to machine-readable format (ie. using templates or a standard format), and humans being needed to filter the resulting large batches of images. It is important to realise that this will not mean all images will be magically compliant with

WP:NFCC. The most important criteria (3 and 8) are not machine-readable. Humans are needed to assess all images, even those passed by a bot. That will take literally decades to do properly. Carcharoth (talk

) 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, BCBot does not look for a rationale template. I have seen people who improperly fill out the new rationales get tagged and Ive seen older images with rock solid rationales. All BCBot checks for is one very basic part of the rationale, the name of the page where the rationale is for.

β^_command

23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. That's how it works now. How will it work after 28 March? How will all the non-compliant images be detected? The only way I can this happening is for all images lacking a non free rationale template to be tagged and then either deleted (which will kick up the biggest storm you've ever seen), or checked by humans. Of the quoted figure of around 100,000 non-compliant images, what is the other side of the coin? How many are compliant (ie. have links to articles they are used in?). Say that figure is 20,000 or something, How many of that 20,000 have rationales? Betacommandbot can't detect that, I don't think. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the article link clause of 10c is a valid way to make it possible to detect non-compliant images using a bot. What hasn't yet been done is to separate out those images that meet the following criteria: (1) they use a non free rationale template of some sort; and (2) lack an article link. This is an easily fixable subset of the 10c taggings. By all means delete (or tag for deletion) the images that don't have a non free rationale template - let admins check those to see if a manual rationale has been provided. But don't mix those up with images where people have taken the time and effort to add a non free rationale template and missed out something - it is the wiki-way to fix those sort of images, not delete them. And separating them out makes everyone's work more efficient. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an admin bot. It tags things, but then a human admin has to decide whether to save as is, fix the rationale, or delete. Jehochman ^Talk 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are bots doing deletions. You are right, though, in theory, all images are supposed to be checked by humans. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Carcharoth; I concur, especially with the "decades to do properly". In reality, it's something that never can be achieved. We will always have non-compliant fair use media, and always have people complaining about it being deleted, and always have people that fail to understand our policies despite massive writings to educate people. I've thought before it might be a good idea to reduce image uploads only to those with experience on Wikipedia. It'd make it possible to manage the environment. Right now, it's wholly unmanageable, and attempts to make it so result in sections like this entire section. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the key point: it can never be achieved. It's very similar to other unachievable goals like removing all false information about living people, making all articles well-referenced, or cleaning up all articles with cleanup tags. These goals can't be 100% achieved, but they can be worked toward at a reasonable pace, proportional to how much of a problem they actually are. Sometimes, that pace is disappointing to people who care about the issue (cleanup is a good example of this).

So, given that, there's no reason to run this bot at such a furious pace. Meeting a self-imposed goal of 100% machine-readable fair-use rationales by March 28, for example, isn't a good reason, especially if it results in images being tagged for deletion many times faster than humans can deal with it. The Wiki spirit is to fix what you can, when you can. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your given is not a given. Have a look at the upload logs. Roughly 1500 unfree images are uploaded per day. Most do not comply with our policies. Just to keep up with the influx requires heavy activity by the bot, much less trying to get the project compliant. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. I would support a throttling of the incoming images, if only to allow volunteeer effort to be diverted to fixing older images. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• But how do we do that? Only allow X number of images to be uploaded per day/hour? 1500 non-free images per day on what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia is a problem. Perhaps we should do what, if I recall correctly, was done on another project: further restrict future fair use, perhaps limit it to logos and important historical photos. Any other fair use image would be grandfathered in, but we would no longer accept screenshots and cover scans. Mr.Z-man 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• My head just exploded thinking about the backlash from that (given what we've got to deal with now on fictional works and image aspects). Maybe limit to at most two non-free images uploads per day per user? (But then , how do you diff between uploading an image and then re-editing to add in a non-free license because you accidently forgot it, and doing the upload and license on the same step?) --MASEM 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Its been repeated over and over in this thread, but it bears repeating in bold: BCBot is not an adminbot. The bot does not do the deletions, it just tags 10c non-compliant images. Very simple. Why quibble over the identification of an image? If you have a problem with images being deleted, direct your attention to the part of the process where something actually gets deleted and maybe progress will be made.
  talk
  01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I did. I once tried to raise issues with an admin who had deleted both: (a) images that had been fixed (but the tag hadn't been removed); and (b) images that could have been easily fixed with the addition of a single link (the 10c, rationale present but link missing cases), and that admin got upset and insisted they were following policy. To the letter, sure, but not the spirit. I'm sure I could find examples in recent deletions as well. The theory that admins carefully check all images is nice, but in practice it doesn't work. Thus excessive tagging by Betacommandbot does overload admins doing the deletions. No question about that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the script's been upgraded a bit so now there should be practically no errors. What you don't realise that this is a board resolution, all this mess is like a campaign pushing for a seven-year old checkuser. --Maxim_(talk) 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know this concerns a board resolution. Your point is? (Hint: the interaction between board and community is a tricky one, and needs careful management on both sides). My only point with regards to your deletions (and I wasn't going to name names until you turned up here) was to make absolutely sure that you were personally examining each image properly before you deleted them. The examples I found suggested to me that you weren't doing this. Will your script still make errors such as this? Image tagged for invalid rationale at 22:14, 5 December 2007 by Betacommandbot (actually a lack of a rationale, but the bot can't tell the difference), rationale added at 13:16, 7 December 2007 but deletion tag not removed, image deleted at 15:34, 15 December 2007 by Maxim as part of a large batch deletion using TWINKLE? You and others have said you manually check all the images before such batch deletions. I presume for this image you checked it more than a week before you deleted it, or just missed the obvious rationale that had been added? I raised this elsewhere and notified you, and you didn't respond. Is this the sort of thing that your upgraded script will now not make mistakes over? Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A thought

Based on someone asking whether WikiProject talk pages could receive BCB notices (and someone else pointing out that this would result in said talk pages getting flooded), would anyone be able to write a script that takes two inputs - the location of a WikiProject's banner and a subpage of the WikiProject page - and runs through all articles with the banner attached, checking the images used (or commented out) for BCB notices, and then outputs a single page, at the location given, listing all images that need better FURs? The system would be opt-in, and probably operator-supervised, but if all the major WikiProjects requested such a list and then worked through it to fix the images it would clear a lot of the backlog (without spamming even more talk pages with big notification templates). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This was proposed before, back in August. As far as I know, several people set up subpages of WikiProjects (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images/Disputed images). I notified Betacommand, but nothing seemed to happen. I (and others) tend to notice most talk page notices anyway, so I don't care that much, but it's strange to see the wheel trying to be re-invented. Maybe Betacommand can tell us what happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

that is a bug ive been trying to work out, Im not sure why the bot is not leaving notes there.

β^_command

04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How long will it take to fix this bug? 2 weeks? 2 months? Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Example of flood

Here [Added irony: Most of these images are communist-related, so invoking (capitalist) copyrights seem highly unlikely] El_C 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you'd prefer...what, people not be notified when their images are not compliant? No matter how this is handled, people complain. If the images are not tagged, we get overloaded with non-compliant images. If the images are tagged, but there's no notifications, people complain there's no notifications. If people are notified, people complain about the notifications. It doesn't end. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer... a trickle over a flood. El_C 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• A trickle has no hope of keeping up with the pace of Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why not condense them into a single template? Like: "The following images have no rationale: [[:Image1.png]]<br/>[[:Image2.png]]<br/>..." -- Ddxc (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Let the Foundation fix it

From discussion above I gather that:

• A:The Board needs to clarify the meaning of the relevant resolution.
• B:The WMF Board's licensing policy is severely deficient and needs to be fixed.

If A and B are correct, then it only serves to perpetuate a bad situation if the worker bees try to enact an incoherent resolution in order to maintain a broken policy. I could be way off on this, but is it an option to simply stop this process(block the Bot) until the Foundation does what they need to do? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• This misses the point. This project is a free content encyclopedia. It's the core mission. The resolution was written as descendant of that mission. If you have doubts about the resolution, refer to the mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on proposals

1. 'The Foundation needs to clarify if 03/23/08 is the date everything non-compliant goes away or just the date everything non-compliant has to start going away' - This might be nice to have settled to avoid further divergences, but frankly it's a red herring. It doesn't matter. Either way 'the end is nigh'. We have a few months to sort things out and should do so.
2. 'Notify more people' - Figuring out a way to get notices to related Wikiprojects, people who added the image to a page, et cetera might help to save some images where the uploader is not active and not many people are watching the page(s) the image appears on. However, I suspect this is probably going to be a relatively small portion of the images.
3. 'Slow down the bot to prevent floods' - Even if we do the math and work out that the bot can tag 250 (or whatever) old images per day to get through everything with a month to spare... when that 250 hits a patch of 60 images all uploaded by the same person with close proximity in name or uploaded date or whatever the bot uses to sequence its work then that person is going to get a 'flood'. Thus, I'd only suggest going that route if the bot's sequence of updates could be randomized.
4. 'Increase the time between the bot tagging and the image being reviewed / deleted' - Probably the best solution IMO. Get the full list out there ASAP, but give people increased time to resolve them in recognition of the fact that so many are being reported at once.

--CBD 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None of these proposals quite catches the spirit of the problem. The problem isn't the Foundation policy. The problem is that BetaCommandBot is tagging at a huge rate and, in my spot checks, it is almost always completely wrong. That is to say, in my experience it is tagging images that do have a fair use rationale, but that rationale doesn't meet whatever retarded standard BetaCommandBot (not the Foundation) requires. So it's not just making edits at a prodigious rate, but it's wasting everyone's time at a prodigious rate.

My $0.02 Nandesuka (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, if the Foundation says we must have the article name in the Summary, then we must. I particularly like Dunkerson's 2nd and 4th proposals. A central page, that would be overhwelmed instantly, that BCB would notify for each image (or a series of

talk

13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• RE: Speed. As I noted above, we're getting ~1500 fair use images per day, and most of those have errors of one kind or another. Call it 80%. That's 1200 per day. That's new images, much less the existing massive backlog. Even to keep up, the bot needs to tag about 50 images an hour. Since it's not running 24/7/365, tagging a few hundred per hour is hardly irrational or high speed just to keep up with the steady influx. Again, this doesn't address the existing massive backlog. It must proceed at "high" speed. Also, the amount of work generated per user on average is rather light...just a few images here and there for most affected users. There are exceptions of course, but in general it's only a few users. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not a problem with new images. It's definitely a problem with old images because of the likelihood that the uploader may not be around to be notified anymore. In terms of the railroads project we're all racing around looking for classes of articles being essentially vandalized. There are hundreds of American railroad articles, and then there are (it turns out) name trains and we're not sure what else. There's a good chance that a lot of stuff will be deleted simply because nobody knows to check. And there's certainly concern that the rules will change again and we'll be subjected to another run of this. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like CBD's 2nd and 4th proposals. Regarding new uploads,

WP:NFCC. Bláthnaid

14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Are you claiming that a 20% error rate is a good thing for a bot to have, when it's going around posting notices on people's talk pages (which are incidentally totally baffling to inexperienced editors) and recommending for images to be deleted? With that many errors, you have to at least allow time for people to follow along and fix the mess. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea

Why not just have the beta bot update a single page in addition to the user pages in question? It can be a date sorted page that automatically updates like AFD. Instant backlog for people to work through and clear, day by day. Since we apparently only have to do this once, for the next 3-4 months, it would be a short term project. We can then hightlight that page. Set up a script to just count off the daily totals on the front page like how AFD's backlog does. If we stick this in the watchlist for everyone since it seems like a pretty Big Deal we can probably knock down 1000 or more per day. Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea, it would give it a high enough profile that people might care and fix an image or two.

talk

16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

With the caveat that not every image needs to be fixed. Some are clearly not needed and need to be deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. The point would be to get eyes on the problem and each image, and maybe have the watchlist link to that day's queue first, and the main page as well. Lawrence Cohen 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I too like this idea. This would make it much easier in keeping track of images and would help us notice more images that have been incorrectly tagged.

:.

21:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox "article" pages

I like to develop articles in my user area.

It also means that I can propose replacing the current "real" article on that article's discussion page and, before consensus is reached, folks have something concrete to look at and compare and contrast.

The image bots keep removing the relevant images in this case. eg: [33]

There is, in Florida and US Federal statute and case law fair use exemption for "research". Would it be a good idea for the bot developers to make me an appropriate flag that I could place on my article development pages in user space? Alice^✉ 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Use a colon ":" to link to the images until you are ready to move the article into mainspace. eg. Image:Example. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you can't try to lay out the article with images in it. This does sound to me like BCB stepping on fair use by being so inflexible. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth, for your helpful suggestion. One of the better bots does that already (rather than deleting the image syntax entirely) but, as Rspeer points out, it is then difficult for other users to assess the relevance of images or how appropriate their captions are. The plain fact is that my use of these images is entirely justified by the private research fair use provisions and case law and there should be an opt-out switch. Alice^✉ 09:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Project

Should we start a project? I say a project that clearly states what users are supposed to do, and then invite our readers trough their watchlist to "Save 5 images a day by writing rationales" might be a good idea. Commons usually sees surprisingly much activity when people are asked trough the sitenotice to "categorize 5 images today" or "Add an {{Information}} template". Why should that not be able to work here? Show people a category, give them a fair use rationale template and 5 examples, and I think we will be amazed at what we can still accomplish in the coming 90 days. Saving images has been discussed for ages and projects have been attempted before, but now that there is a real need to stop acute deletion, perhaps people will be more sensitive. We can at least TRY ?!? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. You may encounter resistance to using the sitenotice though. But I am going to start my personal 5/day pledge tomorrow, concentrating (as I've said elsewhere) on historical images. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Five Images a Day? as a good starting place? WP:5AD would also work as a shortcut. I've already done my five for today, and may get another set in later today. The math makes this task daunting, but with enough people pitching in, it might work out in the end. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this. I feel we need more "here are a lists of tasks, each that will take no more than 10 minutes of your time to complete" type page for other cleanup duties that require minimal knowledge, just willing fingers, but images need to take priority due to the deadline; the success of this will tell us if other such projects are worth adding. --MASEM 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just treat the watchlist notice with something like

WP:TODAY, for Wikipedia:Task of the Day, similar to featured article, but for regular editors? It can be decided on by the community ahead of time, and just be the discussed picture clean up until that's done. Maybe even just rotate out different tasks each day. Sunday can be this backlog, Monday can be that backlog, Tuesday can be this backlog, and so on? Lawrence Cohen

16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Task of the Day

Based on the above talk I've started this proposed policy/project/change at

WP:TODAY. Please check it out and weigh in. The specifics as discussed above about a run for the Images problem we have is at Wikipedia:Task of the Day#Early 2008 trial run. Lawrence Cohen

16:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)