Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive122

For the sake of clarification (already been said in the notice above)... User:Isarig have been informed and explained that they won't create any new or reuse any of Wikipedia account. User:Isarig informed me and Avi that this is what they want. The ArbCom members know about this and any violation (creation of a new account or recreating old ones) would be sanctioned. Please note that Isarig's mentorship and the 6 month articles' restriction ends on February 29th but that is irrelevant here. In any case, The ArbCom has made it clear... "Right to vanish" means "delete all references to your contribs and never come back". I hope this helps. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Stale

Logical Defense (talk · contribs) is willfully and blatantly violating the fair use policy by repeatedly refusing to provide the required fair use rationale for a non-free image, and openly deleting the tags that ask for a fair use rationale. [7], [8], [9], [10]. This goes on and on. The image is also replaceable as the subject is alive and well, but he keeps deleting the replaceable fair use tag as well. Reading through the edit summaries on that page, as well as the ones on his talk page, shows a great deal of incivility with comments like "total ignorance" and "*yawn* be gone", not to mention multiple personal attacks on WebHamster (talk · contribs) in the same talk page edit summaries. This person refuses to follow policy and is incivil besides. The image in question has a "replaceable fair use disputed" box on it where he attacks people who tag the image as replaceable as "Wikipedians with Christian bias". User makes the same irrelevant claims on his talk page [11] -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... it appears this user hasn't edited the image namespace since November. I think this complaint is a little stale. Also, in the future, when requesting admin attention regarding an incident, please consider using

WP:FUR). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk]

03:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I marked it as stale per andrew's comment. Wizardman 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't edited it because people have given up tagging the image. The image is not conforming to guidelines. Furthermore, what good would come of me posting a polite message on his talk page? He's been incivil to everyone. I'll tell you what: I'll go retag the image with the necessary templates and when he removes them (which he will) I'll be back. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If the tags are removed again, send it to

images for deletion. — Edokter • Talk

• 13:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody of Consequence", you've done a brilliant job at blurring and spinning several facts regarding this situation, including A) you are formerly The Parsnip!, the user who originally tagged the image in the first place, which is really why you're making a claim here (to others, keep reading to understand that)

B) that I never used personal attacks against "Webhamster", and any investigation into said "edit summaries" would show I merely said he was "bored" at a given instance (come to think of it, so are you, having carried this unimportant issue on into the new year, several months later), and

C) the "Wikipedians with a Christian bias" statement was taken completely out of the context -- it was reserved for you, and it is not a personal attack, rather the true origin of your pursuit here; as The Parsnip!, you admitted to having Christian intentions in your edits. If you ask me, that's fine if you're one religion or another! But to let that impede on your edits is not acceptable on this website. You try to cover that up given your complaint here, but the record is there. If your issue was really the tag, and not the image and its affiliation with anti-religious muscians and activists, then surely you would provide debate to the tag being used, and not rush to delete the image with any discussion whatsoever. Instead of reporting you, however, I let it go; perhaps to set an example?

"He hasn't edited it because people have given up tagging the image." -- another clever phrasing, "people". You mean... you? The only one who bothered? In any case, all this is irrelevent.

You're right, I have removed the tags again, but with formal action this time. I have provided the proper tags, and the rationale is now formerly stated without any controversial remarks. Now more than ever, there fails to be a good reason to delete the image, other than (again) bias, the only possible explanation at this point. Logical Defense (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have removed the RFU tag, which specifically states "DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG". You've also only added a fair use rationale for one article, when the image is used in two. My religion or lack thereof is not material, you are violating policy and that is that. Your threats about reporting me are laughable, I invite you to report away. I've done nothing wrong, people can see my history and see who I am, and I have nothing to hide. I'm now taking this to IFD, as recommended, since you refuse to follow the rules. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you have nothing to hide now, after what I've said.

And don't turn this into a persecution; I already said your "religion" should have nothing to do with this.

I also did not threaten to report you at all. Another spin on your behalf. If you would like to read again what I just wrote above, feel free.

Rules have been followed. The rationale tag I added is valid. An investigation is welcome. Logical Defense (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, without going into the really long version ... person X has an article on wikipedia yet an editor knows plenty more on person X and builds an off-wiki look-alike giving every detail way beyond what would pass

Kind of like WP:BADSITES? BLP doesn't apply to off-wiki sites, but it does apply to whether something is appropriate for inclusion, i.e. it must be a reliable secondary source. If its an attack page, then it isn't a reliable source and it can comfortably be removed from article content. Not sure on what basis we would exclude it from a talk page, though.

BLP is just as much in effect on talk pages as on articles -- granted that the applications and concerns differ slightly, but the core elements are much the same. Users are of course welcome to fork content, but that does not translate to any obligation on our part to link to or endorse that content. Presumably the content isn't on Wikipedia for a reason, so why would linking to it suddenly become acceptable? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the site pass

WP:RS, thus we should not include it here Alex Bakharev (talk

) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LINKLOVE. east.718 at 10:38, January 16, 2008

Reference what page it was taken from in the edit summary. Please don't "move" pages by copy pasting them to a new name. (dunno if you have done that or not) Viridae^Talk 05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me be more specific, I did a lot of work to the

^talk

05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All edits to Wikipedia are under the

GFDL license. This license explicitly allows redistribution under the same license, with attribution. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

05:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

NO attribution in copy pasting a section to another page though, perhaps make a null edit noting where the section came from. Viridae^Talk 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean a null edit? and if it is all released under GFDL, why can't you just copy and paste moves?

^talk

06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• (inserting for relevance). :) A null edit is an edit that doesn't amount to much; it's purpose is the edit summary. You can't just copy & paste material because GFDL requires crediting contributors. A note must be made attributing authorship of the material. This is usually done with an edit summary wikilinking the title of the old article "Material merged from Old article". A note should then be made at the talk page of the old article that material was merged so that if the old article ever qualifies for deletion, it will instead be retained as a redirect with the template {{R from merge}} to note that it is required for authorship history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just do a history merge. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Won't work, as the history is still needed at the original page. Kusma (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles are constantly spun off as master articles get too big. In this case the new article creator has given a source in the 4th edit. Are you sure this isn't a mild case of

ownerships? --Stephen

08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(ud)I think the This article was created out of content from the History section of the Davenport, Iowa article and the List of mayors of Davenport, Iowa article put on the history page (by the creator) is more than enough attribution. I added the same notice to the talk page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ownership?! not hardly. Currently this article is exactly the same as the other one, with very minor things added. Unless more is added, it could prob be nom for deletion

^talk

18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pirrodhima.jpg was uploaded by User:Taulant23 on September 20, 2007 with license tag {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} (requiring attribution to himself) [12]. But this image is el:Image:Pirros1.jpg uploaded by el:User:Lemur12 on June 15, 2007 with an equivalent to {{attribution}} tag. As it seems User:Taulant23 passed the image as his creation when it is not. If Taulant23 was a newbie we could assume good faith but he states that he is a veteran user, so we can assume that he knew exactly what he was doing. A good look on user's upload log indicates that he does not care at all about correct copyright tags and attribution to creators (Image:EnverImageC.jpg, Image:Kingzog1.jpg are probably not his creations, although tagged as such). I think an investigation and a warning to this user is needed. — Geraki ^T_L 13:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, having a closer look, it does look like a professional photo. Are we sure that el:User:Lemur12 is the copyright holder? Note that it is a non free picture of a living person and should probably be replaced by a free one. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The uploader on Greek wiki seems to be a competent and prolific photographer, and he states on the image description page that the photo was taken on the occasion of the Olympic Flame being carried through the place where he lives, so I guess yes, that sounds like a plausible case to me. Sad, really, that image abuse has become so rampant we end up suspecting even our best image uploaders of fraud. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

...Whereas Taulant's performance with image uploads is evidently problematic. All his images are tagged as self-made. Image:Tony Dovolani.jpg is another evidently fake one, it's a screenshot bearing a TV station's copyright logo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah :( But the current licensing (on el:wiki and therefore here) unfortunately looks unfree. As a side note, I left a message on Taulant23's talk page. I'm guessing 90% of his uploads are copyvio. I have an account on el:wp, I'll contact the original photographer. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Geraki was right above; the tag on elwiki is pretty much equivalent to {{Attribution}}. BTW, Lemur12 also has accounts here and on commons, I guess he knows what he's doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

crap I misread and read "commercial use is prohibited" instead of "permitted". Nevermind (he did not activate his email address here)-- lucasbfr ^talk 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

el:User:Lemur12 is a great contributor of articles and photos on the Greek Wikipedia, and this photo was taken in his home town :). Geraki ^T_L 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

is backlogged. Rudget. 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! :) Rudget. 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Reverted, semi-protected by Anetode.

• Can someone take a look at Phenylketonuria? Someone messed it all up and I can't figure out who did what. Thks Pcbene (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:St Barnabas' Church, Bromborough.jpg is scheduled to be used for DYK in around 4 hours. The image title has a character that cannot be uploaded to the English Wikipedia. Would a Commons admin protect it on Commons? Royalbroil 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded it now. Don't know what the problem was. Woody (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Royalbroil 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Desysopping is not warranted, nor is administrative action.

Dispute resolution is the way to go, and step one (or two?) is to disengage. MastCell ^Talk

18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

During an AFD discussion, the sockpuppet of this admin, User:Arbeit Sockenpuppe, accused another user of racism because that user criticized his language mistake. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Emerson. Any user who has this kind of attitude, is not fit to be a Wikipedia administrator. If we do not demote this admin, other people could start using the same argument, accusing everyone else who doesn't agree with them of sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, and so on. The result will be the decline in Wikipedia quality. We cannot afford to have this user as admin. --Koreanjason (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the situation, I believe the exchange in question was:

“

Are you really that insecure that you have to call anyone who corrects your language usage a racist? --Koreanjason (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Yes. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

”

With

†

10:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC is over there. Is this a one-shot incident, or a common thing? – Luna Santin (talk

) 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious it was tongue-in-cheek, especially as Y's previous comment had a smiley. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Using a smiley and being tongue-in-cheek does not excuse for a bad attitude. If another user vandalizes an article and then add a smiley in it, that doesn't make it okay. Here's the complete exchange:

“

NN murder victim, quotidian crime. We are unable to write a biography of Ms. Emerson, because there aren't multiple non-trivial WP:N refer. Delete. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk ) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 'uninteresting', not 'disinteresting'. The latter isn't even a word. Other than that, I agree with your stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be best (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Comment. 'Disinteresting' is indeed a word, derived from 'disinterest'. Technically it shouldn't be used as synonymous with 'uninteresting' but in practice it increasingly is. tomasz. 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I could see your normative point. Thankfully, my liberal linguistics professors taught me that there is no one right way to speak (really?) and that it's counterproductive-bordering-on-racist to be normative about language. I didn't agree with them then, but I will now :) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC) It's not racist to use the right word. 'Disinterest' means 'objective, unbiased'. 'Uninteresting' means 'boring, of no interest, no importance' etc. People mix up 'who's' and 'whose' all the time too, but that doesn't make it right. However, this is an uninteresting digression, and as a disinterested commentator, I will desist.Be best (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Trust me, in certain universities, they are keenly on alert for any manifestation of racism. You see, the notion of a 'standard' dialect is an inherently racist concept, as the 'standard' one is normally just set to the one spoken by the straight white men with money and in power. Didn't you know? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk ) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Are you really that insecure that you have to call anyone who corrects your language usage a racist? --Koreanjason (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Yes. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

”

--Koreanjason (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really believe that his last comment was serious? пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's beside the point. Whether or not he was serious, the only person who knows that for sure is himself. We are not here to second guess someone's intention. What we have is the written word and the Wikipedia rules, and we should proceed from there. --Koreanjason (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules tell us to

assume good faith. We don't desysop people for making offtopic remarks about whether or not correcting people's language is racism. And we usually try to talk to people instead of about them in non-urgent cases. Try User talk:Y. Kusma (talk

) 12:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did talk to him and he gave me the above answer that someone called "tongue-in-cheek". I don't see any chance of serious discussion with him there. --Koreanjason (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, a debate over word usage, and the race-card was played? Can you explain how the debate over the use of disinterest versus uninterst is one that is racist? I am not seeing it here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. His calling User:Be best and User:W guice racist is uncalled for. That's a very serious accusation, and not a laughing matter or tongue-in-cheek. Nobody wants to be called a racist without any good reason. --Koreanjason (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the sock puppet's twisting of the basis of the validity of dialects amusing, but I certainly found the exchange about his purported insecurity and his cryptic admission so. I laughed out loud. deeceevoice (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The problem is not the last two lines. It's about the lines preceding those where he throws baseless accusations. --Koreanjason (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually what he says is that the normative approach in language is viewed by linguists as a practice bordering racism, which is a fact. In other words he was pissed that someone had to correct him for his use of "disinterested", having nothing else to say about his real comment, and replied in almost the same way. He was directly accused of low language skills, and in a very uncivil way too, but he only indirectly argued that corrections in language are counterproductive. I laughed too, way to go User:Y! NikoSilver 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no issue here. Generally, you shouldn't throw around terms like "racist", but the third-party reference and tongue-in-cheek manner in which it was used here does not really concern me. I've certainly seen editors react much worse when their choice of wording is needlessly criticized. — Satori Son 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, how would you like it if I call you anti-Korean because you disagree with me? Not so tongue-in-cheek anymore, are we? I'm not calling you anti-Korean, but it just illustrates the point of how Wikipedia users, and especially admins are taking this issue lightly. --Koreanjason (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what you meant to say was "Wikipedia users, especially all of the ones other than me, are taking this issue lightly." I don't see any admins commenting differently from everyone else (besides you, of course). I'm sorry you felt slighted, but that is obviously not what was intended, so let's please move on. — Satori Son 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you call me anti-Korean doesn't make it true. In fact, if you tried to call me anti-Korean, and for proof pointed to the fact that I used "disinteresting" instead of "uninteresting", I'd have to reply with "Wha...?" and assume that you're either joking or have gone out of your mind. And then I'd drop it and move on, because I know I'm not anti-Korean. --Kbdank71 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me. Just because User:Y call User:Be best and User:W guice racist doesn't make it true. In fact, if he called them racist, and for proof pointed to the fact that they corrected his language, I'd have to reply with "Wha...?" and assume that he's either joking or has gone out of his mind. And then it should not be dropped and we have to deal with this, because all Wikipedia users who attack other users should be banned or desysoped. --Koreanjason (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wha...? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't supporting you, if anything I was gently suggesting that you drop this and move on. I don't think Y should be banned or desysoped. --Kbdank71 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't supporting me, but I chose to use your words for my argument anyway. And yes, you suggested I drop this and move on. Why? Because your personal opinion says that this isn't important? Because you think

attack other users personally? Because most people here actually defends him and think he's funny? (See below. I have to repeat these questions because nobody seems to give me any straight answers around here). --Koreanjason (talk

) 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly it. I do think it's funny, I don't think it's an attack, and honestly, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. And from the responses here, I'm not the only one. --Kbdank71 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, you're not the only one. But right or wrong is not determined by majority. Right or wrong, in this matter, is about the

Wikipedia rule that we all have agreed on. And no, I'm not blowing this out of proportion. If you call someone a racist, you have to expect yourself to be criticized harshly. Michael Richards used the N-word. Don Imus called the Rutgers University basketball team "nappy-headed hos". Is that funny? Is that not an attack? Did people blow that out of proportion? Maybe they are not actually racists. Maybe they were just trying too hard to be funny, and it backfired at them. But people's attack on them is not out of proportion. Because we don't want people to use the N-word as if it's nothing. It's hurtful to African Americans. User:Y called User:Be best and User:W guice racist. Maybe he didn't really think that. Maybe he was just trying too hard to be funny, and it backfired at him. Do you want people to call other people racist and be casual about it? --Koreanjason (talk

) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And mocking an other user's language skills is not very civil (see

WP:SKILL) in the first place. -- lucasbfr ^talk

15:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mocking at all. Who mocked User:Y's language skill and where did you get that from? Which sentence/word are you referring to? --Koreanjason (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No administrator action is warranted here. He commented on the behavior, not the editor. If you want to continue this charade, take it to

WP:RFC. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk

16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, which sentence/word is seen as mocking? Can someone tell me that? If you can't, then User:Be best dan User:W guice did not mock User:Y, and he attacked them personally. This is not a charade. This is about an admin who broke an important rule, which is that no user or admin may attack other users personally. --Koreanjason (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GUYS! You are kidding right!? This is completely facetious from start to finish! How dense does one have to be to take this seriously!? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a little over 1.0 g/cm³ --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried reading said exchange, starting with the biggest frown I could muster, but I kept on laughing at the last "yes". Darnit.

Koreanjason, are you absolutely sure this person wasn't just pulling your leg? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record, I accepted the substantive point of the correction of my usage, and I hereby do so again: I was wrong - distinteresting was not proper usage. And I was never pissed about being corrected. (This is so much fun!) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in correcting your language usage. This is about

WP:ATTACK --Koreanjason (talk

) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbeit Sockenpuppe needs to be blocked indef

Admin:Y is one of the worst admins in WP. She's not the worst but close. Having a sock is no excuse for an admin but should be allowed for non-admin. Some bad admin are so mean to regular editors that socks are necessary for survival. Don't agree with an admin on AN or ANI and you will be blocked forever. OTOH, even bad admin are untouchable. Therefore, there is no reason for an admin to have a sock. Y is rude, crude, and makes no contribution to Wikipedia (except trouble). I've seen it happen and if I see an article edited by Y, I stay away from it like it were AIDS. The wimpy solution is to ban the Y sock and let Y go (which is not what admin would do with regular user that have a sock). All of what I say is true yet there is a 91.35% chance that I will be blocked, 38.29% chance that it will happen in the next 5 minutes. Block the Arbeit Sockenpuppe NOW. 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Henry Give me lib or (talk • contribs)

I am open for recall, so long as the matter concerns abuse of my administrative powers. You can start a recall discussion, or you can go away. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please. ('cause, y'know, that's kind of a blunt statement to make without proof.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He won't be providing diffs because he's a troll that created an account just to come here and drop baseless accusations, and has been blocked as such. Carry on smartly, please, there is no issue to discuss here. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please close this discussion, so we can move on with life? Bearian (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're an admin. Certainly you have the powers to close this discussion. But for what reason? Because your personal opinion says that this isn't important? Because you think

attack other users personally? Because most people here actually defends him and think he's funny? --Koreanjason (talk

) 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because he's not actually abused any of his adminsitrative powers. He hasn't blocked anyone, hasn't protected any articles, and hasn't deleted any pages in a way that is against the rules. He hasn't even represented himself as an admin as a way to gain th eupper hand in a debate or threaten to get his way. Even if (and I don't mean they are, take it as a hypothetical) his comments are rather

WP:WQA if you like, since at best he's being a bit rude, but there is nothing here that shows he has misused his admin powers. This isn't the appropriate venue to discuss his comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If a normal user is

rude, they risk being banned. But if it's an admin, he's going scot-free? Without even a warning? Without even having to apologize to User:Be best and User:W guice? --Koreanjason (talk

) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no basis for desysopping, nor sanctioning, anyone. User:Y has gotten feedback, as has User:Koreanjason. I'm going to suggest the radical step of just disengaging and finding something else we can all fight about. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molten Group Has been going on for about a week now, and I was wondering if it would be possible to get an admin to either close the debate with a decision or advise on relisting the article in order to garner more thorough discussion on the matter. Thanks.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have closed it.

Thanks. Appreciate the quick response.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, folks. I have proposed that we have ombudsmen on wikipedia, similar to universities and governments. I just started the page, located

I posted an absolutely massive response on the Talk page that I feel warrants a mention in this string. Why do I feel this way? Because my great humility is my greatest strength. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 06:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a proposal here; this process seems to me to be a bit of a backwater, and I would welcome feedback as to whether I'm out of line. Bottom line is that a lot of the requests seem stale, and it could do with a cull such that keen and experienced enough proto-admins are being lost in the noise. I declare an interest here, as you will see from the main page, but I'm trying not to canvass, and will take my chances should the opportunity arise. Question: Is there a category for admins willing to undertake coaching? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• As a result of a comment on the Talk:AC:RFC page, can I ask that admins who aren't currently interested in coaching remove themselves from
  here? That would save enthusiastic editors from approaching admins who are no longer available or willing to do this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk
  ) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin take a look at this talk page: Talk:Accelerate (R.E.M. album)#Protection and perhaps give an additional perspective on the situation from an "adminsitrator's" point of view? I am not looking for anyone to comment on the content discussion, per se, but there seems to be some civility issues going on that need looking into. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at the following discussion and consider closing it? It's at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 05:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I closed it as a no consensus. You can read my comments if you'd like, but for a more coherent version see Doc's comments further down the page. I stole liberally from them anyway. There's also an RFC started [13] on the general issue of userbox content. Maybe a consensus will emerge there, stranger things have happened. (well, not many but there's always hope).

talk

) 06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone check this unblock request out: User talk:Zhinz. I can't find any blocks on him, and I don't have checkuser to see if there are any IP blocks dinging him unneccessarily. Can a checkuser perhaps look into this? Or atleast an admin that knows what they are doing? Gracias. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As there are no blocks on the user or the IP address, and no autoblocks from the past 48 hours from that admin, there seems to be nothing we can do here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, just checked it all blocks and autblocks and nothings ever affected him - I'd advise the user to try and edit now. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on, it's part of the range block of 75.47.0.0/16. I'll sort the range block out to make it anon only. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

and sorted, it was blocking sock accounts, but if there's constructive users using it, let's just block the IP's. I've switched it to anon only. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please attend to what is written on this user's page. It's profoundly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorted; deleted by User:East718. (User's blocked, too.) Tony Fox (arf!) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, this image was deleted, and yet it still loads up. ??? JuJube (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is on the WikiMedia Commons [14] The revision there would need to be deleted. —

†

10:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pfft, there can never be enough

†

11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

This AFC requires the attention of a administrator, if someone feels up to the task i would greatly appreciate it as i would love to remove this page from backlogs. Tiptoety ^talk 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Maelwys has taken care of it? — Satori Son 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks.Tiptoety ^talk 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I discovered Wikipedia, I really love it and believe it's one of the most (if not THE most) important resources on the Web.

I'm not the sort of person who usually gets involved in this sort of thing but prefer to remain a passive bystander and silently give thanks to the many people who make these wonderful resources happen.

However, today I was reading some articles about different episodes of Open All Hours, a British comedy series starring Ronnie Barker, which is one of my favourite shows.

As I native speaker, I noticed that the grammar, vocab & sentence structure of the articles was not so good, and I later discovered that these articles had been written by user fernandogoaz who I think is from Spain. Although I applaud him for making such a valiant effort in setting up these pages in the first place as he obviously also loves this show, it seems to me that there are no procedures in place for making sure that articles written by non-natives are edited and improved quickly after being created. Personally, I wouldn't dream of entering Spanish Wikipedia and writing an article in my faltering Spanish about something.

I am an EFL/ESL teacher in a foreign country, and it is important to me that the articles on the English Wiki are of good quality language wise. For example, after a lesson where my students and I watch a comedy DVD and then discuss it for half an hour, I ask them to pretend they are Wikipedia editors and write a Wiki article about what they've just seen. We then go into the computer room and they compare what they wrote with the real article, and if there's time, we discuss those similarities and differences as a group.

I intended to use Open All Hours sometime soon, and that's why I was looking up the articles, and why I was dismayed to see the poor quality of them - but in no way do I criticise user fernandogoaz for this. It just seems a bit strange that the articles have been up for about six months but nothing substantially has been done to improve them.

In my line of work I often get asked to do proof reading and I'm finding that an increasing part of my workload is editing, correcting and improving, so I like to think I have a bit of a gift for it.

So, against my better judgement, I registered and signed in for the first time this afternoon and spent a few hours editing 4 or 5 articles. When I came back to them a little bit later, I found that they had all been deleted for "notability" reasons by user TTN.

This is my real gripe and reason for writing to the administrators. What gives user TTN the right to delete articles?? How does he/she know that these articles are of no use to other people in the world? Surely the whole point of Wiki is to increase and build on the amount of articles.

I really must protest about user TTN's actions which seem to have been done with no discussion with anyone else. Also, when I investigated further, it seems that this person has been doing other similar things all over Wiki.

How can I restore the undeleted pages?

Thank you.

Roses2at (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue, advised at talk page --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussed elsewhere at AN/I in fact. All the articles in question failed

WP:FICT. Redirection was clearly in order. I have reverted Roses2at's undos. Eusebeus (talk

) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My question to you Eusebeus is why do you decide now that these articles fail WP:FICT? Those particular pages have been up for six months with many other edits in the meantime but they still do not meet basic quality of English standards (surely much more important than whether they are notable or not?). Do you feel no remorse for wasting other people's time??????? Roses2at (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• It certainly would have helped to have some references so uninvolved editors could reach an informed overview. There is too much groping around in the dark going on here, and although it may be OK when you're a teenager, there does come a time when reliable information, or any information at all, helps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Roses2at, as you are familiar with the topic and (very funny) show, individual episodes may be recreated if 3rd party sources note them as significant. Given the standard and high esteem much of Ronnie Barker's work is held, this may not actually be too hard. I urge you if you do have 3rd party refs (books etc. which highlight individual episodes, then these can be recreated from the article history then. I myself have been trying to add reference material from what I have at home - the shame is there is a huge amount out there which unfortunately cannot be accessed readily by sitting in front of a keyboard (and its 35C and stinking humid here which is a powerful disincentive for me to try) - thus to maintain a collaborative and constructive approach, finding material is great. If you need a hand at the time for deleted material, there are a number of admins who have offered to retrieve deleted material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You just beat me to this. Most of TTN's redirects involve episode articles which haven't a chance of ever being notable enough for their own articles, and are thus correct; but these (while they weren't at the moment) might just have. There *must* be enough Barker related material to source some of these, in print if not online. BLACKKITE 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can let me know by private e-mail if and when this issue is resolved becasue I can't be bothered to fight for the notability issue myself. My personal opinion is that single episodes of a series warrant their own page (especially in this case concerning Ronnie Barker's work) and I don't see the necessity to "source" them.

If it's finally decided to allow them, I will be more than happy to volunteer to proof-read, edit and bring them up to an acceptable standard of English. Frankly, it p**s*s me off that other people like User:TTN and User:Eusebeus are allowed to delete or redirect other people's hard work.

Roses2at (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Roses2at, maybe you know this already, but if you want you can still find copies of the work you did, in the page histories. For example, to find your version of
  A Matress on Wheels". Click on that link, and you will see a redirect page (a page with just an arrow pointing to Open All Hours). When looking at the redirect page, click "history" at the top of the page. You will see a list of versions of the page. Choose a version you're interested in, for example the last version by yourself. Click on the date of the version and you will see the text of that version of the page. Another way to find the versions of these pages that you fixed is by using your user contribution list, which you get to by clicking on "my contributions" at the top of the page. --Coppertwig (talk
  ) 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you Coppertwig, for your concern about my disppointing experience. But the point is I want my students (and of course many others) to find these pages quickly and easily without faffing around. Because even the title of that particular article has been spelt incorrectly (I didn't figure out how to change that) and it's important that non-native speakers looking at these pages are not misled about spelling, grammar, vocab and sentence structure. I'll wait a little while before getting involved again. Roses2at (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Whilst you are waiting, please read our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies, as well as User:Uncle G/On sources and content, to learn why sourcing is a necessity here at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

I thought these had been already through an

• Incorrect. For starters, the articles were not deleted. They were, as said above, redirected. Please familiarize yourself with
  Article merger and article redirection do not involve deletion, or AFD, at any stage of the process. Uncle G (talk
  ) 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Correct. Though it should be noted that the smerging of a long article (shortening and merging the article) can result in lots of text being edited away and made difficult to work on (not many people are aware that the previous text is still accessible in the page history of the redirect, for example). The ironic thing is that it would easily be possible to generate a list (maybe using some script) of the page revision before all of TTN's redirects, and to list links to those old articles, either on an external website or on a WikiProject page or talk page. Linking to old versions from within an article itself would subvert the entire Wikipedia process, but it is technically possible, so something should be done to forbid putting links to old versions of other articles in current articles. For Open All Hours, try this list of episode articles I generated from looking at "what links here", and filtering for redirects and then grabbing the oldid numbers of the versions before the redirects:
    • Open All Hours Pilot
    • Full of Mysterious Promise
    • A Mattress on Wheels
    • A Nice Cosy Little Disease
    • Beware of the Dog
    • Well Catered Funeral
    • Apples And Self Service
    • Laundry Blues
    • The Reluctant Traveller
    • Fig Biscuits And Inspirational Toilet Rolls
    • The New Suit
    • Arkwright's Mobile Store
    • Shedding At The Wedding
    • St Albert's Day
    • A Mattress on Wheels

• I would suggest that in cases where lots of text is being smerged, that TTN (and others) leave such links in a central place, as a courtesy to editors who may wish to work on the removed material and provide sources. There are already talk page templates that call oldid numbers for featured articles - the same sort of thing could be done here. Would this be a workable compromise? The redirects would stick, but editors are pointed to older material to work from if they find sources. A similar principle applies at Category:Redirects with possibilities. Indeed, I would suggest that some template is used (if it doesn't already exist) to group the redirects into categories of: (a) Redirects from episode articles; and (b) Episodes of ABC. See Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects for more on how that works. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A change to a redirect is an editing issue, and subject to WP:BRD. Any editor is free to revert it, and then look for discussion on the talk page. Once consensus has been reached about it, whatever the status is should not be changed without discussion. Once it has gone through one BRD round, it of course should be discussed, not reverted further. But it is fair and reasonable to revert, one time only, any redirect that was not achieved by consensus, or as a compromise solution at AFD or elsewhere. I do not know how much prior discussion may have gone into these articles. Obviously, it is always best to improve the redirected article as suggested here, rather than argue over what may be an inadequate article. DGG (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators may be interested to read

Admins may also wish to consider if the above mesage mees the standard at

Wikipedia:CANVASS#Types_of_canvassing. DuncanHill (talk

) 09:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does meet the standard. Please don't

troll. -- ChrisO (talk

) 09:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically is the message neutral? ie. Does it simply inform of the debate (good thing) or does it present one side of the argument as well (bad thing)? DuncanHill (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's canvassing because this isn't mass posted, and it's not targeting users with a particular point of view. Nevertheless, I think the concerns are unfounded. The restrictions is limited to those administrators who seek to enforce the case's sanctions. Given the editing climate of those articles, the Committee seems wise to implement this measure. Jehochman ^Talk 09:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ordinary users are not part of arbcom's decision-making process, so it is even less like a vote than the kinds of pages that we normally attack people for "canvassing" for. —Random832 12:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like

Campaigning, which is one of the explicitly mentioned types of canvassing. Leaving a neytralmessage here would be a friendly notice. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to restore order, but

decorum. I will not block him myself, and I will not engage in an edit war with him. Jehochman ^Talk

10:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by User:East718, with a duration of 17000 minutes, or just shy of 12 days (!). On a procedural note, should someone indicate in the debate that HanzoHattori was blocked for disruption of that debate? If, as one editor noted, the concern was that his conduct would keep others from participating, a note that the editor will not be further involved might mitigate that concern. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a disconnect, as far as this album is concerned. On one hand, there is

By the way, bid me "welcome" because it is my first message in the noticeboard (another Wikipedian editing more in the project namespace than in the mainspace, yay!). Waltham, The Duke of 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Old" AfDs aren't really binding, and there's no reason to prohibit recreation of an article deleted as unsourced when sources are uncovered. I don't see any reason to be bureaucratic about restoring it - at best, just run it by the closing admin. WilyD 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am being bureaucratic because this is what I do when I do not know the un-bureaucratic procedure. Thanks to you, I do now, and so I am off to the closing administrator (which actually makes a lot of sense). Cheers! Waltham, The Duke of 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tried that. Failed. Closing admin hasn't edited since last April. Curse him and his whole family. (All right, only joking, I should never curse his family, just him.) What is the next step of the process, please? Waltham, The Duke of 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Deletion review? I'd maybe do it myself, but I promised to lay off the deletion related matters for awhile. I've already tied up the servers for too long, I don't need to go and tie them up any longer doing things I don't understand yet. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest I'd lend towards a speedy deletion under

WP:DR), the new article does not bring anything that wasn't addressed in the AfD. -- lucasbfr ^talk

16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You can also try

request for page moves. — Edokter • Talk

• 16:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3) Deletion review is definitely an option. Since this is a new title, and may actually be different (though similar) content compared to what was deleted, you may wish to re-nominate this article for deletion. Obviously, the fact that it was deleted earlier would form part of your rationale. I agree that it may qualify for a speedy deletion, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Times three? Oh, dear.

In any case, the history of the deleted article exists, and the two versions are somewhat different from each other, in the sense that the intro (the only paragraph of text) has changed considerably. In addition, there is a source in the new version, and it looks quite legitimate (I am rather clueless when it comes to sources, but "Billboard" appears to be a large and well-known site). I think I will try to have the page moved first, and if my petition is rejected, I shall have to initiate a discussion in deletion review.

I certainly did not imagine I should be discussing a Beyoncé album when I got up this morning... Waltham, The Duke of 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Billboard mirrors AMG (see the bottom of the page). AMG accepts reader submissions, which may bring the reliability and notability of that in question. AMG will in some instances include bootlegs, for instance, but generally Wikipedia does not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)