Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive144

Watch out for Voped.com I received an email from Voped.com today, requesting an opinion on a draft of a Wikipedia article they wrote themselves. I responded explaining COI and so forth. I also did a little searching and found this and this. Strangely this person says User:Jéské Couriano referred him to me, as a "dependable administrator". I have absolutely no experience with Jeske and I'm not an administrator. In case anyone wants to read it, I've included the email here via {{hidden}}. I'm reporting this here because frankly it's weird and interesting, and also because the website in question apparently just went live a week ago, so heads-up regarding promo material.

Voped.com Email (click show)

Attention Equazcion:

I would like to post a non-biased article about my company on our new Wikipedia page and would like to have a quick review of me article before I post it. I was referred to you by REAL NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED as a dependable administrator.

Thank you,

-David

Article:

voped.com (“vah-ped”) is a privately-funded project established in 2007 by a group of communications professionals based in the Washington, D.C. metro area. The voped.com website was officially launched on May 1, 2008.

voped is an combination of web applications and an online video sharing forum that are based on video opinions. The word ‘voped’ stems from the combination of video and opinion editorial (op-ed).

voped web applications allow for video responses to articles and other published online content. The web applications are a share button and a widget that is populated with single point content in relation to the source of an individual voped share button.

Video opinions can be submitted to voped directly on the website or through voped’s share button (referred to as the “v-button”). Both the share button and filmstrip widget are intended for use by third-party users..

The following web applications are available for news and media outlets and other online content providers to add to their website.

The “v-button”: voped’s share button appears at the end of articles and other online content so video opinions can be submitted in direct response to that particular content or news story.

The Filmstrip is a widget intended for news outlets, blogs, and content providers to embed on their website to display video opinions that were submitted from their website.

The voped.com website has four main tabs:

News Responses are video opinions submitted to voped.com using the voped share button in response to particular content or a news story.

Commentaries are video opinions submitted right through the voped.com website.

News Stand houses links to several media outlets.

My Profile is where voped users choose/alter their user options.

Equazcion •✗/C • 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Equazcion, I thought you were an admin. Sorry. Yes, I did refer him to you as your name is one I commonly see; I was the one who originally deleted the article in userspace and blocked the Voped account. I have been in contact with him via email ever since, and have pointed him out to Wikipedia policies. If I erred in asking him to send the article to you in order to vet it, my apologies. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, no harm done. It just confused me a little. I've been directing this person to our policies as well. From my last communication with him, he didn't seem to be "getting it", and seems hell-bent on posting an article on his company. Guess we'll see. Thanks for the response. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

IP Exempt enabled for administrators on user rights

WP:IPEXEMPT and bug fixed. NonvocalScream (talk

) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that details of how it should be granted, and what process is best, are still being finalized. There may be some changes during the first week. Please grant very cautiously and to a limited extent only for the first week, or until the policy beds in. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the user rights management and saw another thing, what is accountcreator for? -MBK₀₀₄ 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The accountcreator permission allows for user accounts to bypass the arbitrary account creation limit designed to prevent mass account creations. Nakon 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a throttle put on non admins accounts to stop them making more than 6 new accounts a day, but this has been stopping users who help create accounts for new users. This removes that throttle. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, now I know. That's an area I've been far away from. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How do we approve users for either of those new rights? Tiptoety ^talk 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IP block exempt goes through the unblock mailing list. I'm guess ACC can just go on any admins talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now all we need is some way to restrict accounts from preforming a certain number of page moves a day. Tiptoety ^talk 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I need it now, but I'm thinking about doing some ACC work in the future...could a friendly passing admin give me accountcreator please? :) Thanks,

H₂O

) 00:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait..it looks like me and Ryan edit conflicted on it, he is actually the one that gave it to you. :D Tiptoety ^talk 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ryan (and Tip for trying!).

H₂O

) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the ipblock-exempt user group also means that

Gracenotes^T

§ 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the idea behind this to allow trusted non-admin users to edit from otherwise blocked IPs, such as Tor?

t/e

01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tiptoety ^talk 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, though, we should strongly discourage ipb-exempt users from using Tor specifically - its widely distributed nature has the disadvantage of making disproving checkuser investigations less easy, as well as making it possible for a rogue node op (of which there are plenty) to hijack your account if you don't go through the HTTPS gateway. Better to go through one of the many more reputable HTTP-based proxies if at all possible.

✽

01:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of official statement from ArbCom on

TOR and GWA, just so we know exactly where we stand - Alison ^❤

01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent news for checkusers, too. Note that ArbCom have already granted the first two exemptions to User:Exxolon (the first ever) and User:Deltasquared. This option really makes my day!! - Alison ^❤ 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats kind of cool. How does this benefit Checkusers, Alison? Also, we should put up a list of "recommended" proxies for these users, as well as some kind of something (WP: page) explaining "why" this is good for everyone/checkusers and what purpose it serves.

t/e

01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because when applying hard rangeblocks, there's nothing more annoying than knowing that one or two editors will be caught as "collateral damage". Admins are normally blind to that, but range checking on checkuser shows it up. The two examples above are as a result of the "thousands of socks" vandal and were caught in the hardblock - Alison ^❤ 01:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment for now.

IPEXEMPT means a user can bypass any IP block at all - only a block specifically on their username will affect them. There are two main situations it'll be most useful - constructive users who edit via a vandalism range or shared IP we would like to hard-block, and users who would like to edit anonymously via Tor or another hard-blocked open proxy.

The main risk area with IPEXEMPT is it is wiki pixie dust to avoid checkuser. So it's likely to be a highly desired flag by wiki-abusers for its

WP:SOCK

deniability potential. Fortunately most uses will not be for anonymous access, but for hard IP block bypassing.

Users who want IPEXEMPT to bypass a hard IP block on their usual IP, aren't a problem. They don't especially want to edit via proxies, it just happens IPEXEMPT would let them if they did. To keep it simple, the suggested policy is that a user in this position who just wants to use their normal connection but there's an IP block on it (schoolblock, vandalism, etc), can be given IPEXEMPT by any admin, but there's a condition they may not use it to edit via blocked proxies, or else it'll be removed. Logging may be needed to track when the right should be removed (ie, block ends), perhaps. Nothing much more. Making non-proxied use a condition means minimal scrutiny is needed and avoids loads of needless inquiry and such. It also means most requests don't need anything more than a quick check it's justified (ie, due to an IP block on their native IP), since the right will be removed if used to edit via a proxy. Easy.

Users who want IPEXEMPT to edit anonymously need more scrutiny. That's still being discussed. Main risk - Admins might quietly give the right to socks or friends on a pretext (send self email). We've had a few sock-admins and some abuse proxy access and unblock methods. This should be a rare request, and it requires a high level of trust of the user, and certainty of uninvolved admin scrutiny (IPEXEMPT is effectively an admin level tool). But yes -- if there is a bona fide need for anon proxy access by a non-admin, and sufficient trust, then to answer Lawrence Cohen's question, we now would have a way to let them do so.

Thats the quick comment version, anyway.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. We definitely need to create a page listing recommended "good" anon proxies for people to use, then.

t/e

02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, FT2. This is excellent - Alison ^❤ 04:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

....So, the only really trustworthy admins will be the ones who don't request it? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ipexempt comes with the bit already ;) Trustworthy admins are those who don't ask it for their sockpuppets :P -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another email

Resolved

I have a question that I would like to ask an admin via email. Any volunteers?--

Rose

03:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm open.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs

) @ 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sent.--

Rose

03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy by proxy, one editor counting as 2 for consensus?

I'm baffled by this, where User:Hiding has apparently named

t/e

15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRX would appear to have been rejected, so no they shouldn't be doing it. DuncanHill (talk

) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this comment was intended to be taken seriously, so don't panic. — CharlotteWebb 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because Hiding says it, doesn't make it so. I doubt anyone trying to judge consensus on anything will take this into account, so it's meaningless, and therefor harmless. --

barneca (talk

) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca is speaking for me as well, so his comment counts twice. In fact, he is also speaking for my 100 abusive sockpuppets, so his comment has the power of 102. Since his strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure, that makes his total score 1020. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 16:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an intriguing situation indeed. I'm going to have to think very carefully before I respond. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You think you have to think carefully before responding? You're only thinking for two; I'm evidently thinking for 1020 1021. The pressure, oh the pressure... Not that it isn't

barneca (talk

) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd situation, yes, but it appears PRX and this idea have no popular support...

t/e

16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Does that mean that I'll now have to look up every page where e.g.

ask) 16:14, May 7

, 2008

• Seems silly to say, but Barneca has captured my thoughts perfectly on this so. . .(no need for me to repeat). This strikes me as kind of funny, am I allowed to have an "anti"-proxi? That is, suppose there's an editor with whom I usually disagree. . . everytime they comment somewhere, the "consensus talliers" could add in my minus 1 !vote. But then we might need some kind of board to keep track of all the proxies and anti-proxies. . .seems complicated. Well anyway, agree with Barneca. Bemusedly, R. Baley (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What would happen if you delegated proxy to me, and I delegated my proxy to you?
2. More interestingly, what would happen if you delegated proxy to me, and I chose to have an ANTI-proxy to you? --
   barneca (talk
   ) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's all amusing. First of all, the proposal involved is "delegable proxy," though, in fact, because no special meaning was assigned to proxies by WP:PRX, which was just about how one would technically name a proxy, not about what would be done with the information, the proposer understood that, later, proxies might be considered delegable, because that creates certain very interesting possibilities; among them would be the "election" of a standing assembly or committee with purely voluntary representation, revocable at any time, and without any necessity for formal election process. But that was all deferred. The question in front of us with WP:PRX was *if* proxies are to be named, set aside what they *mean*, how would we do it? And because there was some level of consensus on *how*, WP:PRX was reasonably done. Those "rejecting" WP:PRX generally gave the reason for rejection as "we don't vote," but the proposal did not propose voting, unless naming a proxy is voting (it's unanimous voting, by definition, so it isn't what we normally think of as voting.) I think the fact that proxies *are* used for voting, such as in corporate environments, confused a lot of people, and no matter how many times it was said that WP:PRX wasn't about voting, the comments that it was rejected because we don't vote continued to this day, as we have seen. Hiding *did* make that claim. But so what? It doesn't matter at all if nobody pays attention to it. If a closing admin thinks it means something, then it means something. To him or her. And if not, not. WP:PRX made no changes at all to policy or procedure, it merely suggested a new procedure for experimental use that did not bind or prejudice anyone or any process.

Indeed, a more cogent object found recently has been that it wouldn't do anything at all. And that's correct, if nobody uses it. And the labor of naming a proxy is trivial, so ... what, exactly, is the problem?

Now, some specific questions were asked. What if A names B and B names A. We have a proxy loop. It means that, if we *were* counting proxies for voting, as an example, if either one of them participates in a discussion or decision, the comment or vote of either one stands for both, unless the other also votes, in which case they each stand only for themselves. Generally, proxies only represent in the absence of the one represented. So proxy "votes" are not a fixed quality settled on the proxy, so that Bruning would automatically have two "votes" in any situation. I won't describe how to do proxy expansions. Why bother when few are naming proxies? But it can be easily done.

There are a number of groups around the world working on web sites with automated delegable proxy, and many have thought that "proxy loops" were a problem, because if neither A nor B participate, they are both not represented, so these systems have sometimes tried to prohibit such loops. But it's shallow thinking, actually. If everyone names a proxy, there *must* be loops, and the only question is how large the loops are. My own conclusion, after working on this idea for about thirty years, has been that the matter should simply be left to the individuals involved. At most some systems might notify consenting members when they aren't represented in a debate or decision.

Nobody ever brought up the idea of an anti-proxy before. It's an oxymoron, actually. A proxy is a person, an intelligent actor, not a remote voter, not a rubber stamp. An anti-proxy is a kind of rubber stamp, an automated vote, and a thoroughly offensive one. I'd say that anyone can name such a proxy, but who is going to pay attention to it? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and automatically voting the opposite of someone else could be pretty foolish. So if someone tries to be foolish, we will politely ignore it, I'd say. Instead of naming an anti-proxy, just name a sensible user who would, when this really bad editor votes, counter it based on an intelligent decision, not an automatic rejection.

Delegable proxy, if enough editors use it and enough of the proxies named are active, would allow far more efficient participation in, say, AfDs. Entirely aside from any consideration of voting. And how that would happen ... hey, how much of Wikipedia could all of you have anticipated, sitting and thinking about it theoretically. Wiki theory and practice didn't develop until there were wikis, and only a few were able to anticipate how it would all work out in actuality. That's why I say, "Just do it!" If it doesn't work, no harm is done, except for the wikifuss created by people who try to crush harmless things when they don't understand them.

I.e., just do two things: first, start an assembly. But also do it in a way that, as it grows, it can manage the traffic and follow true deliberative process, where ideas are broken down and considered in detail before being rejected in toto, or blindly accepted. This has been done countless times, it is how real democracies work, it is known how to do it. And, no, you don't just call a meeting and everyone shows up and starts talking. A few people set up procedure that then allows larger numbers to participate without it becoming a mob scene. And, with delegable proxy and committee systems, (we call committees "pages") it becomes possible to have direct democracy *and* representative democracy at the same time. And every time I try to explain this, the words multiply. Just understand that I see a *lot* more than I can say. --

talk

) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I would then file an RFAR against myself (then again, I did AFD an article I wrote once, giving myself a notification via Twinkle, and I MFD'd an AFD another time, so stranger things have happened...)

t/e

16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• <coughs>Kim is male.
  talk
  ) 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then neither one of us would have to comment . . .no wait, that's not right. I know, we can make this all go away if one of us designates Kim as our anti-proxy, thus bringing her non-vote back to one -as if none of this had ever happened. :-) R. Baley (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest for others to be very careful as well. Hiding has put us all in a bit of an interesting situation with this declaration. If you just respond without thinking, you might find yourself shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not going to say more now, I'm really going to think about this for at least 24 hours. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously considering this viable, that your voice now carries Hiding's authority as well in discussions?

t/e

16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to just comment for Lawrence not to take this seriously as no admin or editor will in any discussion needing consensus. However, I'm confused as to what Kim Bruning wants us to be careful about. I am not in an "interesting situation" from Hidings actions, I don't know who else here is. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's your choice. :-) I'd like to point out that this comment was made (by someone ~in support of the consensus model) in a discussion on the topic of terminating the consensus model, which was originally started by 2 arbcom members. So things are a little twisted, and I'm going to keep thinking. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean Hiding is still thinking about it, thus negating his outright acceptance of it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, please don't hurt my brain further than it is already hurting. ^^;; The simple diff is torn out of a very very twisty context. Hiding could actually be saying the opposite of what they're saying... or something. Argh... <goes to get paracetamol > --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) things get twisted when people start to invoke the system they are attempting to overthrow ;-P OR I'm reading too much into it, and it's really just very simple. But... ok, I'm really going off to just think about this now and come up with a properly sane comment. Have a nice day!

Hiding can call leader till his... well, let's just say I agree with Barneca. Although I'm wondering if I gave an ANTI-proxy to Kim, would it cancel out Hiding's proxy? Screw it, WP:TINP. --Kbdank71 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You could do that, but you would likely end up rejecting consensus. The discussion where this occurred is long and twisty. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, so (theoretically), If I named Hiding as my proxy (which leads back to Kim), but also named Kbdank71 as my proxy, would I end time as we know it? : ) - jc37 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading this discussion is making my head hurt. Who's my proxy for that? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. Kim B already took a dose of paracetamol for you...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why each of them still has half a headache. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good editors count for an infinite amount of people when they are correct. Bad editors are worthless. That is, consensus is defined by the strength of an argument, the quality, content, and context of the argument, not by the mere quantity of arguers. Only appeals to reason and evidence are sufficient for consensus. Appeals to popularity (often mistakenly referred to as "consensus"), tradition, bureaucracy, etc., are irrelevant. The fact that questions like this come up is silly. Lawrence sounds like he's accusing him of voting fraud. If Kim Bruning and Hiding are both hypothetically making the same bad argument, it doesn't really matter that they're both making that argument. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• To answer Lawrence's question, if 100 editors name me their proxy I can roll into an RFA or AFD and wield supreme power?, I'll pose one back. What do you seriously think? However, you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the wiki here somewhat. You are free to try it. Consensus will determine whether it's a good model to be adopted. Obviously, having commented in this discussion I revoke my granting of proxy to Kim for this debate. You see how tiresome typing things like that will become? To answer the other question posed by Lawrence, "Is this even remotely allowed?", I would point Lawrence to
  WP:IAR. A fundamental part of the wiki is related to that great line from the movie Grease: "The rules are, there are no rules." obviously there are rules, but we find the rules by breaking them, breaking them even before we knew we had them. It's that kind of place. It tends to work too. Yes it is remotely allowed. Whether it is followed, indulged as eccentricity or thoroughly ignored are different matters. Largely, based on this debate, I would suggest the latter two. Hiding T
  09:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since it may have become relevant, here is how proxy assignments could be handled. First, very simple: there is a proxy table somewhere. To name a proxy, you add a line to it, naming the proxy, and you sign it. Most systems being set up suggest that proxies should be accepted to be effective, so the one accepting could sign it, or alternatively, delete it. But WP:PRX did it differently. For that, a proxy file was placed by a user in their user space. The file included templates that brought in the timestamp and verified the identity, in the file, of the one who created it, and when. Then the user went to a central proxy table and added a record transcluding the individual proxy file. It wasn't difficult to use, and you could change your proxy at any time by just changing the designation in your user proxy file. That was the process, more or less as suggested by Mangojuice and implemented by Sarsaparilla, though it was still a bit buggy, due to a bug in MediaWiki. I set up a somewhat simpler system that allowed the proxy table to reside anywhere, not just in one central place. Basic idea, though, was that the user has total control over the proxy assignment at all times, because it is in the user's space. And in my form, the central table could be anywhere, and there could be more than one of them; one could make up special tables with subsets of users whose proxies are transcluded. Who would want to do this? Well, one has to understand, first, the uses. Thinking of possible uses, one could, for example, decide only to look at proxies for users who have been registered for, say, a year. Or who have more than a certain number of edits. Or who are administrators. Who would make these choices? Someone who wants to understand and estimate a consensus for the subgroup selected. This is Wikipedia. Votes do not -- or should not -- control. Rather, they advise, and it is up to the person who is going to act to consider and weigh the advice. ArbComm has been seeking advice and some have proposed an Assembly. A system PRX could generate and estimate consensus on proposals, without elections. Have I gotten anyone's attention yet? This is a proposal to *preserve* the best parts of how we do things, while becoming more efficient, i.e., requiring everyone to look at every decision (something we never did, but then we have problems which arise when those who do look have been self-selected in a problematic way) or even to vote on members of an assembly, beyond the easist kind of vote: pick the person you trust most. It doesn't have to be perfect. --
  talk
  ) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it - I've seen a few things where Ive disagreed with Kim, but he then persuaded me. I'd happily let him have my proxy VOTE (let's stop kidding ourselves, a bunch of stuff is pure and simple voting (and worse, it's voting with low turnout)). An anti-proxy vote might be handy for any prima facie anti !votes. The discussion about proxy shows how much importance some sections of WP attach to voting. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Serafin, or not Serafin - that is the question

The article Nicolaus Copernicus has a long-standing problem with endless socks of User:Serafin. Usually, they are easy enough to spot. However, there's been an edit today that could be him, but might not. User:Shpakovich, who started editing in January, made a "Copernius is Polish"-type edit earlier today. While this editor differs from the ususal pattern in that the account has other edits, some aspects of it seem suspicious - specifically:

• The edit comment "Ok nationality i wont enter, but his Polish ethnicity should be mentioned", which reads as a continuation of the two socks that tried to make changes earlier. (Shpakovich has also never edited the article before.)
• The comment on User talk:Shpakovich from early April, where the editor admitted to having been blocked and also to having socks that were blocked without stating outright who he/she was.)

Does this warrant a checkuser? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see

suspected sockpuppets instead. Carcharoth (talk

) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I was actually hoping, though, to see if any other admins who have had more extensive dealings with either Serafin or Shpakovich in the past see a parallel here. (I don't want to block Shpakovich, or even suggest a link to Serafin, if someone who knows them better feels there's no connection.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a lot of dealings with Serafin. In my opinion its is unlikely that User:Shpakovich is Serafin - this just isn't his/her editing pattern. Serafin is much more single-minded and uses highly-recognizable edit summaries and rarely strays beyond three core articles Copernicus, Recovered Territories and Bureaucracy. Serafin, by the way, edits from IPs associated with the University of Guelph, usually Johnston Hall, so if you do request a checkuser, you might ask the CU to see if any of the user's IPs resolve to there. Gwernol 12:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Email

Resolved

I would like to speak to an administrator via email concerning a dispute.--

Rose

00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Then e-mail one...? --Deskana (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he'd like a volunteer. He did the same thing the other day and I got a very productive email off him, which I dealt with appropriately. Unfortunately I'm a little busy - is anyone else free to help Urban? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a "she" actually. Just to let you know.--

Rose

00:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I do appologise. I hope I didn't cause any offence. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to mail me, but can't promise I can help... —

iridescent

00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"This user is interested in beauty." is a dead giveaway, although maybe not. MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in beauty, but perhaps for different reasons than Urban Rose :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent Iridescent an email so I'm marking this as resolved, okay?.--

Rose

01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, it's OK. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:FMGADMIN

Resolved

I think this user breaks the

talk ♠ Review

) 01:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the context makes it clear that he claims to be an admin of FreeMafiaGame (FMG), not of Wikipedia. — CharlotteWebb 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless. Its still misleading and inappropriate. The policy clearly prohibits this type of username.

talk

) 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Update. Its been reported at
  talk
  ) 02:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers.--

talk ♠ Review

) 03:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked, adding insult to injury as I doubt anyone expected him to continue editing after the

abrasive welcome. All in a day's work I guess. Blehhhh... — CharlotteWebb

11:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Usernames that need to be instantly blocked go to UAA. Otherwise it's better to take them to WP:RFCN, after discussion with the user. Don't forget that WP policies might be confusing to new editors, and that it's easy for a good faith editor to pick a "bad" username. We don't want to scare away good faith editors, eh? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard1

User:Steelbeard1 and I are having a dispute that User:Lar is attmepting to mediate at[[User:Lar#Problem editor. These are somewhat complex issues that need to be parsed one issue at a time but steelbeard1 is burying my comments under comments of his own designed to distract from my point. Can somebody please ask him t ostop and wait for Lar to read my comments. I will be happy to discuss all issues with him but Lar needs to read my imost recent responses before we continue and he is burying what Ihave said.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, Dr who1975, that Lar is experienced enough to figure out what is conversation and what is fluff. Trust your mediator to mediate, even if the other side is perceived as disruptive. Keegan^talk 07:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ok. I guess I should have more faith.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The disputes are about persons speculated to be running for public office or declined requests to run for public office who never become candidates for the public office in question. The consensus which developed is that sourced speculation is allowed in the body of articles, but is never allowed in candidates' lists because they were never candidates in the first place. The latest dispute involves speculation removed from candidates' lists but with most of the citations becoming dead links so they couldn't be verified before insertion in the body of articles. You can see what I mean at

Louisiana's 1st congressional district special election, 2008 article which I deleted. The citation Dr. Who gave was from Nevers' official state senate web site which would never give out Nevers' congressional ambitions unless he gave it himself. Also, if you look at the User talk:Lar history page, you will see that Dr. Who had deleted then undeleted my rebuttal comments. Steelbeard1 (talk

) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is now underway at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda#ongoing elections and prominence given to candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk

) 02:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See

Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008. Dr. Who is now discriminating against me by complaining that I made a new comment concerning a merge proposal when another editor did the same thing before I did and Dr. Who did not complain about that editor. Whatever actions are taken against Dr. Who by Wikipedia higherups I'm in favor of. Steelbeard1 (talk

) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Very Abnormal Problem

I think this is the right place for this, if not please redirect me.

A friend of mine wrote a wikipedia article about me. He was just being ridiculous, knowing it would get deleted. However, he used full names of people, and made the article pretty racey. This is not a huge problem for me, however, my father found the article, and was not impressed. The article was deleted. However, google "cached" it. This means it took a "Snapshot" of the article in case it got deleted so that it could be viewed in case of deletion. My father googled my name, and thus got this article. So regardless of it's deletion, it is still there.

My proposal was to make another article about myself ONLY UNTIL it was "cached" by google, and then just get rid of it. The article can be blank or whatever, I don't really care. I just want the new cache to replace the old one to get this off of the internet.

Also, I first asked "faithlessthewonderboy" for help, and he was of great assistance in redirecting me and stuff. Give him a cookie or something, he's a nice guy.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:jCg3nNE3KD0J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Feldmeier+Jacob+Keith+feldmeier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

That's the google cache of it.

As I am new to wiki, and know nothing of how my account works, please respond to me by writing to <removed>. I realize this is a bit of an inconvenience, but it would help me so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrizzledog (talk • contribs) 04:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Google's caching, please contact them at [6]. Nakon 05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the cache should clear itself, since the page no longer exists. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct. Although, as said above, you can contact Google and request that they remove the cached version, I'm fairly sure they'd be happy to help out. J Milburn (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree not a bad idea to contact them, as the cache may show up for quite a while. Jussen (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you whether you contact Google or not, do what you think is best. If you which to remove the cache as quickly as possible, then it may be an idea to do so, but it will inevitably disappear before long. Lradrama 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

GFDL problem

Who Shot Mr. Burns? looks like a GFDL problem. If you look at this history snippet, two separate pages with greatly overlapping histories were both moved into this spot. As a result, you have a plethora of diffs like these where you jump back and forth between part 1 and part 2: [7] [8] [9] [10], etc., etc. I haven't determined how far back this goes but here are similar diffs from May 2007: [11] [12] [13]. Do we need to try and untangle these or just leave it alone now? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as all the material in the article was added by edits in the past and there are no current copy-paste issues in the article, this is just an ugly merge that doesn't need anything. MBisanz ^talk 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood that merges like this were not supposed to be done. Notice

WP:SPLICE#Requests which cannot be fulfilled where various admins refuse to do merges with overlapping histories. —Wknight94 (talk

) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK this is the only way to properly merge two pages, where the cotent of the final revision reflects material from both prior pages. In the future we will have the Merge feature, but right now I think this method of overlapping histories is the only way. MBisanz ^talk 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(I meant

WP:HM#A troublesome case which recommends skipping the history merge and simply adding a note to the talk page. —Wknight94 (talk

) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I only know of one or two admins who have the skill and patience to undo a history merge, so it might be a moot point. User:Rjd0060 did the merge, so maybe ask him his thoughts. MBisanz ^talk 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I know it is an ugly merge, but its done. There is no reason to think that the merge shouldn't have been done. Not sure what you want to accomplish here, Wknight94. Feel free to let me know if I can be of any help. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was supposed to be done like that, but if no one agrees, then I must be wrong. Hence why I didn't pursue any further. If no one else cares, then neither do I. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Wknight is right; my understanding is, when you merge articles with long, overlapping histories, you add a null edit to the target article, and a note on its talk page, pointing to the other article's history, and keep that page alive, as a redirect. Otherwise, the combined history is almost useless.

I'm also pretty sure that MBisanz is right, this would be ugly to undo. I think we should just live with this. The GFDL is technically satisfied, and there are certainly worse situations floating around out there. --

barneca (talk

) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

History merges are not difficult to undo - just time consuming. Viridae^Talk 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:In the news

From Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Can someone fix the wording to "Skirmishes erupt in Beirut between supporters..."? Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems it's already been changed. Happy‑melon 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The wording in ITN says, "Skirmishes between supporters of Lebanon's government and the opposition erupt in Beirut." while the prefered wording is "Skirmishes erupt in Beirut between supporters..." And you might want to see the following link:

Template talk:In_the_news#Image_is_fair_use. Spencer^T♦C

18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now it has. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Wims

Resolved

Hello Wikipedia administrators, recently I have noticed a user editing my talk page requesting that I remove a mention to

WP:AGF. Thank you in advance! Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!)

16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was created by, and all significant edits came from, User:Jmccarthy96. Happy‑melon 16:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 18:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Gavin Wims has been cleared of all sockpuppetry charges. Mww113 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Libelous?

Could someone please take a look at

Deadly∀ssassin

10:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the article as a G10 speedy deletion and as a repost of an article deleted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Kofmel. Davewild (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your quick action, I wasn't aware of the AfD discussion. --
  Deadly∀ssassin
  10:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Review of topic ban on User:DemolitionMan

Resolved

 – There is no consensus to lift DemolitionMan's topic ban on British Raj related articles at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Following a WP:AN thread a couple of months ago, DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) was placed on a topic ban on British Raj related articles. This followed a RFC and a a previous editing restriction confirmed here. On the last thread it was stated that the restriction would be reviewed in two months time, now. I'm looking for a consensus of opinion on whether the topic ban can be lifted, or should remain. Thanks. Leithp 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the editors contribution history shows very little editing since the topic ban anyway, so lifting the topic ban shouldn't be troublesome - unless they return to the previous editing problems (in which case it is re-imposed longer/pernanently). I would point out that I was involved in some previous discussions - and may be included in some of the links, but haven't bothered clicking them - as a fairly neutral party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the topic ban could be lifted if DemolitionMan is willing to express willingness to follow policies and abide by any community restrictions. One of the links above suggests he never recognized the 1RR as actually applying to him. In the thread about the topic ban he does not seem to recognize any problems with his editing or any desire to cooperate in the future. For a recent nationalist POV edit on Kashmir see [14], for which his edit summary was 'rv vandalism.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And on the talkpage: I don't think that he's quite ready to acknowledge that changes in his editing are required. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

His response to the review is here. Leithp 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care if my ban is continued or lifted as I don't see myself editing articles on wikipedia except for correcting grammatical errors. I take "facts" expressed here with a pinch of salt and usually double check them in another resource now. The views expressed here are more subjective than objective and I think that is a humongous shame. To elaborate further on what I said to Leithp - I personally think that this board is a sham - despite there not being a consensus last time, the ban was upheld on basis of comments by POV pushers. And I think Leithp was the plaintiff, judge and jury last time around - he will be one this time too. The ingrained racism masquerading as political correctness is painfully obvious to me and I am not going to bother civilizing him or his cronies. Honestly, they are not worth my time and effort. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, leaving my "ingrained racism" to the side for the moment, DemolitionMan hasn't expressed any indication that he realises why his editing was/is problematic. I'm unsure whether we should continue with the topic ban, and review future contribitions of DemolitionMan closely, or keep it, since he apparently has expressed no desire to change his style of editing. Would someone else care to close this out? Leithp 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA - There was no consensus last time to uphold a ban, but I was banned - this time time there was no consensus to withdraw the ban - so I remain banned. Thanks for proving my point. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

David L Cook

Resolved

Hello, sometime back I requested slanderous information be removed from the abovementioned article on David L Cook. The information was inflamnatory and was to be deleted. I got a response that the information was removed and not able to be seen in the history. However, when I went to look this morning at the article, I found this; [15] and this one, [16]. I cannot seem to get anyone to answer me at oversight. Can you please remove these from the edit history so that other people cannot find this stuff? It could prove to be very defaming for this subject. It was already removed by one admin at Oversight, but I guess somehow it did not get deleted from these two. Maybe it was because of the rollback? Canyouhearmenow 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 14:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom cities

Resolved

 – There's no admin action necessary here. Discussion is on talk page, or take to

WP:DR —Alex.Muller

17:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention about users

UK. According to the census, Manchester is the ninth largest city, and the two images on these templates should be first largest city then second largest city. I wrote on the talk about it, and they still continue to insist on this. Can I get an opinion on this. — NuclearVacuum

14:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to WP:Dispute resolution, not the admin noticeboard. Neither me nor Jza84 are seeking to start a war, it is yourself who is not trying to reach a consensus and is instead deciding only your opinion counts. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spent convictions

Resolved

- _{My mistake creating this, per the deleted talk page consensus. --1qx (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)}

I'm just informing admins of this essay I wrote: feel free to tweak it as much as you want. Ta, --1qx (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice about

I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series)

The above article covers a reality tv show which is currently airing in the UK. Each week there are two shows, one airs on Saturday and the Results show on Sunday. However, only the Saturday show is live. The Sunday Result show is recorded about an hour after the Saturday show finishes and then shown "as live" on Sunday without the results actually being released before the show airs. Each week on the Results show two contestants enter a "sing-off" and one of them is then eliminated from the show from that sing-off. There is a hidden message on the article on the "Finalists" section requesting that the details of the Sunday show are not added until after that show airs. Despite this for a number of the weeks details of the Results show have been added before the show airs. Yet again it has happened today with full details of who was in the sing-off, what song they sung in that sing-off and which one of them was eliminated. It usually seems to be IP users who enter this information. Should I be requesting semi-protection of the page at the relevant noticeboard so that IP users and new users can't edit? I have yet again removed the details from tonights show and added yet another hidden note asking for details not to be added until the show airs. Any advice would be great. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You could try asking at

WP:RFPP on the Saturday afternoon for 31 hours semi-protection - that'd expire after the Sunday show had been broadcast. _GB^T/C

16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are

reliable sources that prove this is true, IMO it should stay in the article. D.M.N. (talk

) 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The point being though that there are no reliable sources when it is added before the show airs. The content being added is not verifiable until the show airs, as the information is not being released prior to that. And with it being added in advance it is then ruining the show for those who watch it without knowing the result, which is the vast majority of viewers and readers of wikipedia. In addition at no time during the series when the details have been added in advance has it ever been added with a source - because there are no sources, the information is not released in advance. If you check the edit history you would see that none of these edits have included a source. And for all anyone else knows before the show airs, the edits could be completely false. Also the show is aired "as live" without the result being known beforehand.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to concentrate on the "lack of reliable sources" part to get anywhere. You'll find that no-one cares about spoilers, and it'll end up in some weird edit war. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is fair enough and is easily done as when the edits are added there are never any reliable sources and so aren't verifiable until the shows air. And none of the edits have ever included a source simply because there aren't any when they are added. Cheers for all the replies anyway.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a FYI about the above. After the show aired tonight, the information added earlier today by an IP user about the eliminated contestant and the sing-off was all totally false. Wrong person, wrong song they sang and completely made up comments supposedly made about her by Andrew Lloyd Webber.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the information is factual, there is no reason to omit it from the article. Kingturtle (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Our bar is set at

reliably sourced, remove it on sight. Happy‑melon

21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is reason to omit the edits before the show airs simply because they aren't verifiable and especially so given todays false edits. None of the edits over the various weeks have been sourced as before the show airs there are no reliable sources to confirm the content. The edits made today were completely made up and false for whatever reason including a whole "speech" supposedly made by Andrew Lloyd Webber which he didn't make at all, the wrong contestant listed as being eliminated and the the "sing-off" song also made up and incorrect. There is no way of verifying whether they are factual or not each week until the show actually airs and given todays false edits it is impossible to say whether any edit made next week for instance prior to the show airing is factual or not until after the show.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions regarding interpretation of WP:RS and WP:SPS

We have an ongoing discussion on WP:RSN regarding the RS-ness of the boxofficeindia.com site. I am of the view that it is not RS but some defenders of the site as a RS point to the less than a handful of citings of that site in RSes and are arguing that a source automatically becomes RS once it gets cited (even if only once) in a RS source. Atleast one editor has also opined that it is OK to use the "best sources we have" at hand even if they are not demonstrably RS. I neither see any merit in these arguments nor do I see any evidence of WP:RS and WP:SPS lending credence to these arguments. In fact, imo these arguments go against the very grain of WP:RS. I will be grateful if some eyes from here can take a look at the discussion and weigh in. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bsrboy

Resolved

 – Removed by J Milburn.

H₂O

) 07:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection on User talk:Bsrboy has expired, and Bsrboy is once again asking to be unblocked. Since the protection has expired, could an admin please remove the protected tag on the page? Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If the protection has expired, anyone may remove an outdated maintenance tag. Nakon 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to overstep.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Doritites bosniackii

Resolved

 – stub created

For some reason I get a blacklisted noice when I try to add this page, one of many Parnassius previously submitted pages on Parnassius which wre without problems.My text with a taxobox links etc reads '''''''Doritites bosniackii''''''' is a fossil [[Papilionidae|swallowtail]] [[butterflies|butterfly]] in the subfamily [[Parnassiinae]]. The genus and it sole species was described from the [[Miocene]] of [[Tuscany]], Italy {{butterfly-stub}} Can you help please Robert (Nash) FRES aka Notafly (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Some sort of glitch, obviously. --Rodhullandemu 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Last.fm TFD

An admin needs to close the Template:Last.fm TFD which has been going on for almost 3 weeks as there's a backlog. -Halo (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done

☎

18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

need help unblocking

Resolved

I am trying to unblock User:Ronmccaffer, a user I had blocked yesterday, but have come to an understanding with via email. Unfortunately, the network I am using right now has an Internet filter that is preventing me from performing the unblock. My guess is because it involves a URL that contains the word IPBlockList.

Can someone please unblock User:Ronmccaffer for me?

Thank you. Kingturtle (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant User Groups

Is there any reason why any of us administrators would need to have our accounts added to usergroups that gives us redundant permissions? (e.g. +sysop and (+ACC/RBK/IPBE)? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is no as well, unless it's right before you give up your +sysop under non controversial circumstances, but wanted to get a wider view among others here before doing any cleanups. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or it's just toying with the permissions in a way that won't effect an any other account. UserRights management is a new thing for admins, and two more permissions in a day seems like a county fair. Keegan^talk 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the other issue, messing with user-rights to test things creates ugly, hard to monitor logs. MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:I'm playing devil's advocate. I haven't messed with my own rights. Well, how am I supposed to practice an learn how to use the function in a safe and secure manner unless it's on an account I own? I'm not going to download MediaWiki and try to figure out how to install it because I know nothing about computers. I can sympathize with the mushy logs, but as I said it is new and I don't anticipate this lasting forever. Even practicing with test

WP:NAS accounts will cause log entries. I'm just going to put down a "Wet Floor!" sign. Keegan^talk

05:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont mind Rollbackery nonsense or even Account Creation, but IP block exempt is a powerful tool and tracking log entry adds and removals is tedious. MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wots IPBE? With regards to rollback, I prefer having that installed, so that should I ever temp desysop I have that straight away without the fuss of requesting it. That was used when I last went on a short no-tool break. Viridae^Talk 06:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IP block exempt, a tag long ago written by Werdna IIRC and is part of the admin package, is now available to be doled out by admins to unflagged editors with UserRights managment. Check your new shiny Special:UserRights options. Keegan^talk 06:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I know first had the struggles of all these new userrights management options and can understand one or two test, like MBisanz it screws up the logs and confuses users. I say that admins should not add themselves to "rollback" or "accountcreator" as there is really no need. I am all for going through and clearly out the large amount of new admins that still have "rollback". Tiptoety ^talk 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If clogged logs are really an issue, going back and removing rollback from admin accounts will clog them even more. --

barneca (talk)

(see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 11:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I went ahead (with the help of giggy and SQL) created

Wikipedia:New admin school/Accountcreator granting and revoking just in case anyone was curious. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk

18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all of the

^{[omg plz]}

 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, could an admin upload a screenshot of the Special:UserRights panel? Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you go; that's what it looks like to an admin, it's more interesting for a 'crat and even more functional for a steward. --ais523 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; of course, we don't have local Stewards, do we? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but Jimbo has a permission that lets him do the same thing. --ais523 08:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well technically the Founder flag is the same as the Steward flag minus the Central-auth facility used for SUL renames and merges. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock block request

Kindly request that this sock be blocked. RFCU came up as "obvious". One of the socks as been blocked already, so the user was appropriately warned. Bstone (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Just an FYI that we have a backlog at Wikipedia:Editor review that could use some eyes on reducing. MBisanz ^talk 09:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Help requested on

Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion

We have a couple of issues happening at TfD. First of all, we have a backlog that goes back a couple of weeks. Any help would be appreciated. Secondly, right now, the bot that has been updating the pages daily is malfunctioning. So the pages are not being updated promptly. What does updating the pages involve? At 00:00 UTC, the previous day needs to be put under Current discussions and the 8th day before today needs to be put under Old Discussions so they can be closed. This is a summary of what needs to be done. Also, the current day needs to have ===Current Date=== added to the top of it. For example, today is ===May 11===. Any help would be appreciated as right now I'm the only one doing it and I can't get to it until 6-7 hours after 00:00 has been hit. It's causing discussions being placed in the wrong spot and other formatting stuff. Thanks! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind :) Bot is working again. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blind reversion of edits, despite earlier warnings

talk

) 11:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harrassing me with spurious and frivolous complaints all the time. Reverting an edit is not vandalism, as you have repeatedly called it. TharkunColl (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, as has been pointed out to you before on numberous occassions, reverting an edit without discussion or comment is vandalism. This is an incident requiring administrative attention and possible intervention. --

talk

) 14:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not vandalism - as has been pointed out to you, on your own talkpage, by others. In any case, in my last edits I provided a summary. Satisfied? TharkunColl (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite your protestations, it *is* vandalism. And should an admin take the time to check your behaviour, they'll find that your behaviour is very disruptive, and whether it is related to a concept of content-dispute or not, this behaviour should not be tolerated. --

talk

) 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And as another case on ANI demonstrates, TharkunColl's edit summaries may not be based on truth or facts or the references. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No uninvolved editor agreed with Wotapalaver on AN/I that there was anything misleading about TharkunColl's edit summaries. This is forum shopping- the editors involved have already made 2 threads on ANI in the last few days- now they make a thread here instead because they're not happy with the responses they've got there IMHO. If they'd posted this on ANI it would have been merged in the previous one perhaps. Even if they believe this is a separate incident, there's no need to be posted on this board instead except in the hope of eliciting a response they prefer (i.e. forum shopping.) Even if they see Wot's issue as different from Bard's, bard already posted about it on AN/I a few days ago so why choose a different forum to raise his complaint I wonder.:) Merkin's mum 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject I'm involved in TharkunColl's edit summaries were 100% misleading, untrue, non-factual, inaccurate. The diffs prove it. That may or may not have been the case with Bardcom's case. The only reason it's worth mentioning is that TharkunColl is here claiming that the fact that he's making edit summaries means that there's no problem. That may or may not be true. As for a "they" making complaints, Bardcom and I are independent, unrelated, non-cooperating. Hints otherwise are nnot only speculation, but wrong. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading on AN, I took a quick look.

Bardcom was making large scale changes, changing Great Britain to British Isles wherever they went, and this is what TharkunColl was reverting. I was almost fooled though, because TharkunColl uses rather succinct edit summaries when reverting these, (to wit "Rv.".) It might have been better to provide a somewhat longer summary or even a link. :-)

Note that this was a quick look. There might still be other things going on that people "forgot" to mention. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rv. means revert doesn't it, lots of people use that in edit summaries when they revert, so it just describes what he did. I don't think not mentioning what he was reverting specifically, if that's what TharkunColl did, is misleading. Anyway he seems to be explaining all his edits in the edit summary very thoroughly now, in a fair few of the last ones Special:Contributions/TharkunColl. Of course that he has to explain in an edit summary, hints that he fears he will be reverted by edit warriors other highly motivated contributors.:) Merkin's mum 11:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-deletion proposal at MfD needs to be closed

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Award Center 2 isn't a page deletion proposal - it's a proposal to delete certain types of entries from a page, and therefore doesn't belong at MfD. It also involves setting policy about how barnstars can and cannot be used, and policy proposals don't belong at MfD. Someone please close the discussion. Thank you. The Transhumanist 04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer who closes XfD's I agree. This acts like a content issue. Whether parts are removed is negotiable yet its in userspace and for the good of the pedia. I'd close it myself but I'd be reverted as its semi-controversial now.

talk

) 04:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. The Transhumanist

05:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the MfD's discussion. The closure was not an endorsement of Keep, Delete, or No Consensus, but rather that The Transhumanist is correct about the policy. XfDs are not forums to force community discussion when there is not a true belief on the part of the nominator that the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Keegan^talk 06:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I can't find the appropriate Request for Comment template, so I'll initiate a discussion on the talk page, most likely where it will be ignored. But, meh. I just see an issue with certain tasks. If they're ignored, then so be it.
  (talk) (review)
  06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hm, I can't find a proper template either. This should probably go to RfC, any ideas of how to process it? Keegan^talk 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd like one, there is no doubt that a Request for Comment is required. I'd also like to note that

(talk) (review)

06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't responded yet, because the discussion hasn't been posted in the proper forum. If restrictions are going to be made on barnstars (on what they can and cannot be offered for), the discussion should take place at

Wikipedia talk:Barnstars. The Transhumanist

16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Evidence presented did not disclose a history of problematic editing, in terms of basic content policy, by

chat

) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Users talk page

Would someone please have a look at this users talk page - User talk:Irishman66 which claims to list the full name and address of a boy who they claim is vandalising an article on wikipedia. Surely that is not acceptable on wikipedia? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And just to point out that despite the above being removed, the user has recreated it here Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Both should be gone —Alex.Muller 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Deleted from talk page and will notify Oversight assuming nobody else has done so. --Rodhullandemu 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for the quick responses, both are gone now.I presume they were made in good faith to report a vandal, just not the way to do it, so maybe someone could point the user in the right direction how to report the vandal? Thanks again.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV backlog

Looks like there are quite a few DRVs that need to be closed. Is there some way we can add old DRVs to a queue of some kind, like

WP:AFDO? GlassCobra

07:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the AfD backlog is meagre, for a change.

H₂O

) 08:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd help if someone would just to close a few. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26 has one outstanding, after that the next with any open is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4. I don't think we need anything special done to them, except a few closes would be nice. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

What are rules for Wiki stalking ? Is it allowed ? I being wikistalked by Ragib. I will be making a formal complain to Wikipedia. Misaq Rabab (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous accusation. The user Misaq Rabab has recently made a lot of disruption in various articles, some of which are on my watchlist. Some examples are below:

• Modifying a direct quotation to change the word "Pakstan" to "Pakistan" [17] (see the article for the scan of the pamphlet which includes the spelling "Pakstan")
• Repeating the above in other articles as well [18], [19]

• Unilaterally removing many articles from Category:Bangladesh Liberation War to Category:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which are two separate, but related wars), ([20], [21] (this one also includes blanking references and reference list sections) etc.

• Incorrectly replacing any reference/wikilink for
  Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (Dec 3 - Dec 16, 1971). (e.g. [22]
  and several more).

Note that, this is not an isolated behavior pattern by the user ... he has recently also removed categories from many other articles in the same manner .. see User talk:Misaq_Rabab#Vandal_edits_:Massive_deletion_of_categories_from_articles for details.

This user has also been involved with creating many non-notable or copyvio articles, such as Karakoram Motors, Ahmad Ali Jinnah, Category:Name, Kiani (cartoon).

Since this user displays such disruptive behavior, I have looked into some of his edits which violate wikipedia policies. In each case, I notified the user about his disruptive behavior and requested to stop. Under no circumstances did I edit or undo any of his other non-disruptive edits. So, I find his accusation of "stalking" quite objectionable. --Ragib (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed research test for better editing

I would like to propose a research experiment that may help better Wikipedia.

Hypothesis: Anonymous editing leads to less responsible editing, more edit warring, worse encyclopedia.

Practical considerations: Naturally, changing the requirement that prohibits editors from hiding behind a user name is such a large change that it will not happen.

How about asking people to do so, instead, so it is purely voluntary?

Research design: I propose to edit by my real name and will verify it with a trusted person, such as an Administrator who edits by their real name. Then I will ask up to 50 new editors if they wish to participate. After 30 days (can be extended), I will look at the behavior of these editors versus up to 50 randomly selected new editors and see if disclosure of real names promotes better writing compared to the other group.

Opinions? Are you opposed to this research or will you allow it to start? JerryVanF (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of how some cynics might think. So we'll use a random number chart to select the users whom we will ask to participate. The details are not yet important. The first step is to get opinions about this research project. JerryVanF (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a structural "issue" with your proposal: there are 2 variables. The first is use of a "real" name. The second is the message from you asking them to participate in a study and to use their real name. To make this a randomized controlled trial, you'd have to be able to assign editors to the "anon" and "realname" groups. Self-selection, which is what would happen here, is a powerful contaminant.

You could create a cohort study, wherein you ask the next X hundred editors if they are editing with a false or a real name, then aggregate their activities into "anon" and "realname" groups for purposes of analysis. This would still be subject to self-selection, but then at least you're asking both groups the same question. It wouldn't really answer the question you're trying to ask, but it'd be interesting, anyway. Antelan^talk 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I was afraid the first reply would be "shut up Jerry".

Self selection is a factor. However, it may be a practical first step. I think it is too big a change if the research project shows better editing with real names so that effective Jan. 1, 20--, all editors must edit this way. A more practical change would be that Wikipedia encourages people to edit by their real names and this would be based on our study. If the new policy is voluntary then it's ok that we allow people to choose real names or not when then start participation.

The trouble with asking if people are editing with real names is that few usernames even sound like real names so I would think that <1% of editors do that. JerryVanF (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my name is my name, for what it's worth, and that's an interesting idea for a sociological experiment. From my practical experience, I've found that continuous edit warring usually comes from registered accounts and the fact that registering an account hides IPs, thus anonymizing the edit warring with sock puppets. IPs usually just prove that Friends of gays should not edit Wikipedia. So I think that your hypothesis would prove what we all have observed to be social practice. Is it practical? Give it a try. Keegan^talk 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Using your real name online is rarely safe, and it is officially advised against by at least the British government. Why would you encourage people to perform dangerous activities when government (expert?!) advice is to the contrary? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not encouragement, but asking for willing participation.

Now, to get philosophical, Wikipedia was started to flesh out articles for Nupedia, whose articles were authored with real names. From what I understand (I wasn't there), Wikipedia started out with everyone knowing everyone's name, an signing with initials. Now as the project grew in size, membership, and web ranking, obviously anonymity became important and still is. Off wiki harrassment is a very real thing.

The point of the GFDL and free distribution is the selflessness of authorship- some are proud to put their name on the work and then release it, others do it under a pseudonym. It's not an exercise in vanity, but an exercise in awareness of freedom from intellectual property.

I think that however one chooses to participate online in a community of such internet standing should be fully aware of the consequences of either anonymizing or openness. Such a study could be greatly interesting in that regard. Keegan^talk 07:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on WP:AN? MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC). And the proposed 'experiment' is clearly set up to prove a point. The Kansas schoolboard would be so proud. MickMacNee (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We have done some number crunching already. Over half of unregistered edits are useful, that's why the wiki tends towards order over time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC) There's this company this one economist(?) ran (he down-shifted from his previous job to an office confectionery delivery company ;-) ), where he relied on the observation that ~80-90% of his customers were honest. I'm sure the story is on wikipedia somewhere in an article. Now where was that again?

You probably mean Paul Feldman. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

HYPOTHESIS: Editors who tend to edit responsibly would be more willing to disclose their real name than editors who do not. How does this proposed experiment distinguish between this hypothesis and your original hypothesis? I don't believe it does, which means you can't distinguishe between cause and effect. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (not my real name, BTW)

Nice idea, but selection bias would be too big a problem. Andrew Jameson (if that isn't his real name), says it best: There's no way to tell if people are editing well because they're using their real name or their using their real name because they intend to edit well. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is the possibility that a person could be using another person's name and claiming to be them while potentially ruining that person's name by making really bad edits. We have seen that on AN/I before some one (no names will be mentioned) used some one else name and blanked AN/I. I my self use my real name to edit and as so I try to make non-controversial just in case. But that is me. There is the second part here. A user could use their real name to edit but not care what others think and just make whatever edits they feel regardless of it's potential post-effects. I myself am not opposed to this. But I do see it being a little flawed. Rgoodermote  20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not in Kansas analogy territory anymore; more like Durham Country Council, I think. Regardless of flaws, I can't see how this project could ever generate benefits that would outweigh the harm. How do we reconcile "use your real name" with "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" and with the longstanding policy that registration is not necessary? The majority of contributors would be put off registering, I think, and we have enough issues with death threats and harassment already. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You forget lawsuits. (added) I really thought this guy was studying the difference between those who use Pseudonames and those who use their Real Names to edit. I was kind of for that. Rgoodermote  20:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HYPOTHESIS:The research proposer wants to prove anonymous editing is bad for the 'pedia, and therefore once proven we can launch the zomg bots on them and the world will be a better place, free of lies, bullshit and deceit. I ask only for US$3m to be able to research this. MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your replies. (unlike MickNacNee, I will work for free) I plan to begin a very small pilot study of maybe as few as 10 users. I plan to find an administrator who could work with me as either co-author, question answerman/woman, ethics review panel, etc. Since I will ask users if they are using their real names, I will ask the same question to myself and reveal my real name. I do listen to others. One said that there should be some sort of privacy. So I will change the research design so that only a first initial or a shortened family name will be requested (for example P. Hilton or Paris Hilt instead of Paris Hilton).JerryVanF (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on mail below. JerryVanF (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Any administrator with a post office box?

REQUEST relating to above discussion: Is there an administrator who has a post office box and is willing to receive a letter from me. I wish to send a legal document for my study. You don't need a post office box but I would feel more comfortable not asking for your street address. You can e-mail it to me. JerryVanF (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to email the Foundation about that. Administrators are volunteers, and we have no affiliation with the legal matters of Wikipedia. The WikiMedia Foundation maintains in-house as well as outside counsel for document review. Keegan^talk 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a legal document pertaining to WikiMedia. I wish to send me research plan and my real name to an administrator, who will act as sort of an ethical review board. This is the best way to run a research project. If I mail it to WikiMedia, they will have no idea what is going on. There are some administrators who say who they are and whose address can be easily googled but I want them to volunteer, not for me to force a letter on them. JerryVanF (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is the document a "legal document", then? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It may just simply be an agreement. Dunno. Does it have to be an administrator? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerry, I have a postal address and I use it for WMA and a number of people here have it already. If I knew you and if you had taken the time to establish a reputation here I would have been willing to accept mail from you, but you've been here for a week and have around 100 edits to your name and I think anyone willing to accept mail from you under these circumstances should seriously reconsider, especially given your very short wiki short career here (at least with this account). Frankly, saying you don't want to force snail mail on one of us by looking up our addresses is extremely alarming. If you have a legitimate reason for sending mail then you need to send it to the Foundation. There are administrators who work there and if your purposes are genuine and legitimate then I'm sure they'd consider helping you. Other than that I do not recommend any users give out their real world identities and postal addresses to a new user with one hundred edits to their name and some very strange and suspicious behaviour. If this is in relation to User talk:JerryVanF#proposed_test then you don't need our mailing addresses to do that. You can simply email an administrator you trust (although that may be difficult for you to decide given your short wikicareer) and provide said information electronically, if you really want to. The rest of that proposal, selecting the fifth username after "troublemaker" usernames and making them part of your study whether they like it or not ("I will then ask every 5th name if they want to participate...If they don't, they will be assigned to the anonymous group.") sounds very peculiar and I might suggest that you would do better spending the time working on the actual encyclopedia, which is what we're here for, not mandated studies of other users. Sarah 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of my request is simple. I want to let an administrator know who I am and prove it to the administrator. Anyone who proves their identity is going to be on their best behavior. This is the first step of doing a good research project. I think it even has worked with me. I was going to edit something a bit silly then I thought that people will know Jerry did it and not some anony-user.JerryVanF (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question...

What's the current position regarding a

iridescent

21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My past interactions with this user suggests he seems to have serious issues understanding what Wikipedia actually is, and now he appears to simply be trolling. I support the removal of the comment and another reminder of what Wikipedia is about, and that his right to free speech is not what he thinks it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removal of that...it really has no place here, badsites or not.

H₂O

) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out BADSITES is, thankfully, a wholly failed proposal. My reaction would have been to ignore it. There's no policy against a user writing "tell the wikitruth". (just don't say it

☎

09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing what you guys are discussing here (If I got this right) is that I posted TELL THE WIKITRUTH in my page and it caused a problem? It seems the other problem is my debate on the Freedom of Speech and my site? If so what do you want me to do?

Just to make it clear my intentions are not to bring down the Wikipedia or to make it look bad. The only goal we have if you read our Freedom of Speech page is to ensure the protection of certain inalienable rights to the people. PediaOpeness.org is all about keeping options open for people and making sure that their freedoms are in tact. If we wanted to make the Wikipedia look bad we would write up bad things about the Wikipedia but the Wikipedia Administrators and other Wikipedia users already did that for us. All I'm stating at my Wikipedia link is that others agree that there is an attitude or belief at the Wikipedia that the Freedom of Speech needs to be much more limited than it is on our site. I don't understand this. Neutral777 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is NPW dead?

Posting here to attract a few more eyeballs to the issue as posting to the relevant talk pages has gone unanswered. For over a month now,

New Page Watcher has been unable to populate it's list of new articles. A user can log in, but that's as far as one can go. Early reports were that it was a server-side problem, but it's been several weeks since any replies have come in. Martin is apparently still on a wikibreak, and Snowolf quit completely. Is there anyone left to fix the problem, or is it time to declare NPW a dead project? DarkAudit (talk

) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reedy Boy and Martijn Hoekstra may be able to help out, but they, as far as I am aware, were not as active as Martinp23/Snowolf in keeping the program running. Have you tried contacting them? It'd be a shame to lose it- I used it for ages before it died, and it's a great program. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My only contact with them had been through their talk pages. Martinp23 hasn't responded, and Snowolf quit before I could leave a message. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pinged everyone on the NPW IRC channel (me, Martinp23, Snowolf, Reedy and a bot who I didn't realise was a bot) and alerted them to this thread. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Martinp23/NPWatcher#NPW_dead.3F - I've just been busy lately. And Martinp23 has been away since a wiki-drama... As per the NPW Page, when im past exams (about a week from now), i'll have time to look into sorting out the bugs and such. Martijn is semi-active on the launchpad, and sometimes on IRC. It wont die, just inactive for a bit... I need to start pumping more time into AWB too, but that will come post exams too =) —Reedy

16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just been busy with exams recently, and remain as such. The bug was reported some time last week I think. Hopefully we can get a fix out within the next week or so, exams and our time pending.

inp23

16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User keeps removing sourced statistics and suspected sockpuppet

The user

WP:V. He ended up getting blocked

for 48 hours for violating 3RR. Now he's back from his block, and the first thing he does is revert back and remove the statistics. He now says the material is poorly sourced/original research, even though the material is clearly and perfectly sourced.

Also, during his block a suspected sockpuppet, Trysty, removed the same material here. The suspected sockpuppet is a one purpose account (looks like he made some very minor edits to other articles to try and make it less obvious, as well as making his name blue), and notice how he used the comment box citing wiki policy, and even uses the same rationalle for removing the statistics.

Muscovite99: "Put back the proper source - the article is about Putin and his word should be taken over AP claims or Krawn's original research about PPP and "nominal GDP"

Trysty: "Apparent WP:OR -- the cited source does not speak of PPP or "nominal GDP" -- per WP:V" Krawndawg (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One of those articles Trysty edited, Gennady Timchenko, rather obscure, has been edited by Muscovite as well diff. Krawndawg (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: i removed Krawndawg's conjectural interpretation of a source (the AP article he bases his claims about GDP in terms of "PPP" and "nominal GDP", contains no such thing, and thus his frivolous insertions of the terms constitute
  WP:POL.Muscovite99 (talk
  ) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also I should like to draw the attention to the exceedingly rude and obscene language that is habitually employed by Krawndawg in his communication with other editors, such as these [23] [24].Muscovite99 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lets look at the differences here.

• The version you just reverted said: "the economy bounced back from crisis seeing
  GDP
  increase six-fold"

• The article says: "Average wages rose eightfold during Putin's eight years as president, from roughly $80 a month to $640, and GDP sixfold."

What's original research? What's contentious? (do you even know what that word means?)

And even though I've already explained it to you, Putin was talking about the PPP GDP, which did indeed grow 72% over the past 8 years. There is no conflicting information here, the only problem is your ignorance on the subject and your inability to differentiate between nominal (normal) and PPP GDP.Krawndawg (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am not going to discuss any thing related to the subject of the article as it is pointless to debate with a person who had already opened the debate with the assertion addressed to me «you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I don't feel it's my job to educate you»[25]. I shall only repeat your correct words (apply them to your very fascinating inquisitions about "PPP" et al): "That's a very interesting opinion, but wikipedia is not a soap box or blog, nor is it the place for original research."[26].Muscovite99 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[Also all this economics numbers have no place in a biographical article per

WP:BLP].Muscovite99 (talk

) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this. That's the economic growth of Russia, in both nominal and PPP figures, according to the

IMF

. Those figures are identical to the sourced figures that I inserted into the article and that you continually remove.

Please revert yourself and in the future do your research the next time you decide to bring up such a silly debate about verifiable facts. Krawndawg (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, although one that appears to also include possible socking, allegations of incivility, the questioning of sources that have been held as reliable in many other contexts, and the interpretation of sources. In all, this is not a sysop matter (as yet). I suggest that a form of
  request for comment. That said, my reading of the above suggests that Muscovite99 is arguing from fairly shaky grounds - the statement of a politician (especially regarding their own constituency) being more reliable than a reliable source? I think not. LessHeard vanU (talk
  ) 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that nominal GDP is irrelevant. Most serious studies analyze real GDP (i.e. inflation adjusted GDP). --Doopdoop (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My main complaint here isn't about the content. It's the fact that he's violating

WP:V by removing correct and well sourced information (regardless of what it is), and is suspected to have used a sockpuppet during a block. Krawndawg (talk

) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus you can point to that indicates that the sources are agreed as being reliable, rather than quoting the policy? While I have sympathy with your argument that reliable sources are being removed it is not considered vandalism where there is good faith belief that it isn't a reliable source - or can you provided evidence that it is not a good faith belief no matter how inappropriate it might seem. Until there is evidence that the editor is acting either against consensus or in bad faith there is nothing an admin can do except suggest taking it to dispute resolution. Once there is a clear line then an admin can act to ensure there are no violations of policy/consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well isn't the fact that he keeps changing his story enough evidence? He stopped calling them unreliable sources, then started using the "PPP" argument to justify removing it. To me it's pretty clear that he just doesn't want the information that GDP grew 6fold on the article no matter what, this is evident if you look at his posts in the articles discussion page. Krawndawg (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Is there a consensus you can point to that indicates that the sources are agreed as being reliable, rather than quoting the policy?" - Does that mean if I gain consensus on the reliable sources notice board it will change anything? Krawndawg (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the opportunity to fully review the complaint, and while I feel that it is still in the basis of a content dispute I acknowledge that Muscovite99 was incorrect in insisting that the sources mentioned should be removed, and for edit warring over their removal; the guideline being

Bold, Revert, Discuss. The content should remain unless Muscovite99 can change the consensus to that they are inappropriate by use of debate on the article talkpage. I shall advise Muscovite accordingly, commenting that any further removal of content without consensus is vandalism and can therefore be reported to WP:AIV as such. I suggest, although with little expectation of agreement, that you continue to engage this person in discussion regarding the validity of sources and their interpretation. I hope this suffices. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Krawndawg (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about sources. It is a dispute about which facts taken from the sources are relevant for the article, and which of them amount to POV pushing. As nominal GDP is distorted by inflation, citing nominal GDP growth as an example of a successfull policy is misleading POV. Real GDP growth should be cited in such contexts in order to comply with the NPOV requirements. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review Part of the Porn Smear Campaign

My guess is that it's WR's resident high school music teacher, TheFieryAngel, but somebody has been engaged in trying to whip up conservative frenzy over pornography, tarring me in the process and bringing in Wikia boy scout stuff that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Here are two posts on "The Lonely Conservative" website (the second clearly placed by a WR member - perhaps the one who suggested they bring it into the mix: TheFieryAngel):

• Wikipedia porn feedback - boy scout spanking art on Wikia
• Parent alert Wikipedia contains porn

So, for all you Wikipedia people who go on WR, if the defamation of the Deputy Director of the WMF wasn't enough, and their extortion negotiations of Newyorkbrad wasn't enough, now we have a porn smear campaign that doesn't even involve our website. --David Shankbone 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ignore. Wikipedia Review are a bunch of silly fools with little influence. Also, they are highly prone to changing their minds. Six months ago they were painting me as the biggest villain in the West since Al Capone. Now I'm actually reasonably popular over there. Doubtless six months from now they'll be so pleased with you they'll be trying to get jobs for you, and I'll be done in the tar pit again. Life goes on much as it did before either way. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the Valleywag stuff may very well cost someone their job and working status in the U.S., this is quite serious. They have attributed statements to Erik that he never made - complete defamation. They have repeated my psychopathic troll's allegations that I live with

User:SqueakBox, for listening to them and then coming here as if I live with Lucas and have a COI. They only have influence because some of us are foolish enough to hang out over there, and then bring their words over here. --David Shankbone

20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

David, not only have I never said or thought you live with Michael Lucas or encouraged others to do so but I also shifted that thread away from its focus such mindless gossip and onto talking about your actions and interactions at wikipedia, which IMO was a helpful thing to do as your actions here are anyway public and also what WR should be about, ie reviewing wikipedia instead of trying to out wikipedians rela life activities, which I have not ever engaged in and which i oppose always in principle and practice. Indeed I retuirend to posting at WR after several months of not doing sdo in order to get my pic removed from the old Hive Mind site that got reposted, and successfuilly got that page reduced 40% in content. Now that is really helping real live wikipedians. Thanks,

SqueakBox

20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, SqueakBox, that is why I was so pissed off with you - you had replied in that thread and quoted the allegations, and the thread was over my COI, and then you came here talking about my COI with the photos - that's why I thought you were repeating those allegations. For three months I had some psychopath vandalizing my work and threatening to come after me at Wiki events, and TheFieryAngel had to go searching not only on the Polish Wikipedia to find my troll's "I live with Michael Lucas" ridiculousness, but she had to find it in a cache since I removed the comments back in April (also on the Italian, French, Dutch, German...). The fact is, this pretty typical for WR - and their behavior has gotten more outrageous in the last few months. --David Shankbone 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

David, Squeak is a constant troublemaker when it comes to sluething other users he thinks are rotten apples. He's always quick to label them wikipervs and try to get them banned. I'm not surprised that he engaged in dubious tactics when it came to you. He's given cover to at least one SPA who come here solely to wikistalk and to attack editors who they believed to be immoral. I'm sure we all remember Pol from a few months back who was harassing everyone with all caps unfounded allegations for just editing a page tangential to the articles which shall not be named. Those two managed to drive away a pretty decent contributor who got sick of their screwing around with cats so that they could continue to fight so-called evildoers. Nobody dares to edit the controversial pages anymore, lest he go crying to arbcom with lies and innuendo about you being a supposed PPA. Just ask SwatJester, who he was terribly hostile towards for having the temerity to dispute him on a page about an anti-PPA. But his actions do lead to many lulz for the channers, so if we want to continue the dramaz, then by all means. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

David does have a point. We would all be better off ignoring Wikipedia Review as much as possible, though very occasionally the site can be useful. If people think something unethical is going on as regards Wikipedia's internal processes, I hear The Register is always eager is listen :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly do not want to fight with you, David. I think WR makes for a good read but Moreschi may be right that posting there can create issues, David is nott he only person to have commented on my return there to me. Thanks,

SqueakBox

21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Moreschi. I think we need to stop paying attention and taking up their issues. I made the point over there that they only have themselves and Wikipedians as their audience. Good faith editors (like
  User:SqueakBox, User:Lar, User:Alison, User:LessHeard vanU and User:David Shankbone (me), amongst others) go there, listen to them, but in the end they are only trying to hurt Wikipedia - not improve it. Sometimes they have valid issues, and I used to think they were not so bad, but now they have gone crazy. Newyorkbrad was the last straw, and their defamation of Erik is OTT, actually attributing false statements in quotes to him that he never wrote or said. Repeating my troll's sociopathic comments is just par for the course. --David Shankbone
  21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • David, with the greatest of respect you are a bit wide of the mark regarding Newyorkbrad because 1) Daniel Brandt is not Wikipedia Review. He is a member, just as you are and isn't even a mod, etc and 2) Brad quit due to a thread on Don Murphy's forum, not WR. Let's not try and criticise them for things they haven't done. If one person on Wikipedia uploads pictures of someone molesting a dead body, does that make me and you necrophiliacs? George The Dragon (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• In cases like these, I think we should just ignore them. I've been lurking around on their forums for the past few days. For the most part, it's filled with just crap. Every now and again, though, they bring up a few points about BLP subjects that no one else noticed, though, so I don't think we should shut them out entirely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• We need to be exceptionally careful that no one does anything irresponsible like try to remove references to this brewing controversy from article space, if it's properly sourced--even if that sourcing "names" Wikipedia users or WMF employees. Many, many eyes are on this, and even if those are eyes we don't like, that doesn't matter. If we play games with this in any way it will burn a hole in us with the media.
  t/e
  22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy change

There is a proposal at

WT:PROT#Proposed change to policy to ensure that it is the "right" version (rather than the "current" version) that gets protected when protection is applied to stop edit wars.--Kotniski (talk

) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• It ended a little while back. It appears that they are singing "In the Army Now", "Down Down" and "Pictures of Matchstick Men". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges edit warring on Herbert Schildt

An anonymous user with various IPs from Hong Kong, identifying himself as Edward G. Nilges – also known as Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs) – is edit warring on Herbert Schildt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He claims BLP issues because we are reporting public statements by experts saying that Schildt's books contain factual errors. Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. I am not familiar with the exact status of this user (banned or just blocked) and the fine points of our policies. Is it OK to edit war with him? How about temporary semiprotection of this BLP page? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't decided on the third source in that section, "public statements by experts" are irrelevant as far as BLPs are concerned, when those statements are negative. In fact, no criticisms should be included that are sourcable only to self-published sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

From the BLP noticeboard discussion I was under the impression that this is not a BLP issue. If you think otherwise you should comment there. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at Talk:Herbert Schildt? Edward G. Nilges seems to claim that while the user account Spinoza1111 is banned, he, as the person behind it, is not affected. Does this make some sense because of BLP exemptions? Note that he doesn't claim to be the subject himself.

As a German mathematician I am also a bit sensitive to comments like the following:

I think what you are doing is creating a mathematical model of ethnic cleansing and genocide, since all you have to do is say I am "banned", to have people disrespect anything I might say.

This is in fact a cybernetic and virtual way of calling a person a "jew" in order not to have to deal with him. I say that subconsciously you may be repeating a nasty historical theme in a new way.

I don't think I have done anything that warrants such an extreme reaction. FCYTravis has protected the article on Nilges' version after these absurd accusations (probably without reading them). Since Nilges is currently the only person who argues for the "wrong version", do we have to seek a consensus with a banned user to get it changed? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since User:Spinoza1111 is indefinitely blocked, if he edits using an IP, that represents block evasion, and the IP can be blocked without further ado. (I'm willing to do so, but since it seems to be a dynamic IP such a block would be pointless. It would be more logical to semi-protect Herbert Schildt). Since Nilges is not banned, his edits don't qualify for immediate undoing without discussion. I'm tempted to think he has a point about Schildt's book. Though Schildt's work may be of dubious value, if the only negative review is from a self-published site on the web, that makes it questionable whether we should include the criticism. I bet there is a way of rephrasing the point so the criticism doesn't entirely depend on self-published material. Maybe there is published criticism elsewhere.

I see that Hans Adler removed a lengthy tirade by Nilges from Talk:Herbert Schildt and that removal seems correct to me. Nilges' claim that we have to listen to him since he is not banned doesn't make sense; I believe that editors on each talk page can agree to remove Nilges' comments. Before getting into an edit war with Nilges you should first ask an admin to semi-protect whatever page it is. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful explanation, and especially for the clear instruction not to edit war with Nilges. I actually agree now that a section "Criticisms of Schildt's books" was too much, even though I still believe that this criticism is his main claim to notability and must not be swept under the carpet. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Would it be possible for an uninvolved and impartial admin(s) to close this centralized discussion?

I set up the discussion on 11 April, following a proposal (to suspend use of the image placeholder graphic on article pages) here. The debate was widely notified through WP (as a centralized discussion, RFC, on the Signpost and various projects). More than 50 editors participated in exchanges about this controversial issue. The discussion closed by agreement on 23 April. Conclusions were debated between 23 April and 11 May.

AFAIK none of us had prior experience of managing a centralized discussion and it's been difficult for to keep the process moving forward to secure a satisfactory outcome, given the lack of general guidelines and the inevitable difficulty of applying consensus policy to such a large and polarized group of people.

Please note I have no intention of criticizing any of my fellow editors here (or indeed of replying to any personal attacks). I just think it is time to hand over the discussion to neutral and disinterested parties for closure. Is this the right place to make that request? Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this from ANI (where there was no response). Maybe this is a better place for it? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at drafting a solution: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders#Advice_to_the_closing_admin_from_an_uninvolved_reader. Not being an administrator, I cannot impose a binding resolution, but this should help anyone who wants to step forward. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated given the scale of the discussion. I hope a 'closing admin' can draft the wording for

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions and indicate a suitable place for technical discussions to continue. --Kleinzach (talk

) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User name

Is it ok, for my username to contain celebrities, or famous leaders, or is it prohibited. Buddha24 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not ok - see

☎

21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring you your current one? Buddha24 is ok, if thats what you meant.

talk

) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone that's very active on

WP:UAA, I can safely say that I would steadfastly decline a request there in regards to your username. I think it's perfectly fine. EVula // talk // ☯

// 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's generally only not accepted if you use the name in a way that either (a) looks like you're impersonating them, or (b) constitutes a verbal attack against them. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Endless edit war in Olympiacos F.C. during the 3 last days. - Sthenel (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It started a while ago. Multiple IPs are involved, and some logged in users too. Cenarium (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

MFD Backlog

Any non-involved administrator is invited to close the backlogged discussions at

Wikipedia:MFD#Old_business. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk

00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized bots

Resolved

 – Probably normal editors; no need to take action. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently discovered two new accounts making repetitive tasks:

WP:BOT says that unapproved bots should be reported. Cenarium (talk)

17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Plonker bonker looks like a bot. Kwhit244 looks like a bored person. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Plonker bonker defiantly looks like a bot. And with Kwhit244 I still this account is a normal user although he does make the same sort of edits repetitively, but things such as his summary, Major/minor change. Also he isn't editing to fast and seems just to have made edits in one block.

Agreed, Plonker has over 100 edits between 17:00 and 18:00 UTC; quite a few, even though it's a tiny change repeated over and over. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Block or warn?? There have been no warning so far

Spartaz ^Humbug!

18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed, Kwhit244 (talk · contribs) makes various contributions. Plonker Bonker (talk · contribs) makes always the same edit. Cenarium (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say warn; their last edit was 10 minutes or so ago, so it appears that they've stopped for the moment. Now would be a good chance to keep them from starting again. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either look like bots. That speed of editing is fairly easy to acheive with tabs, and the occasional lack of an edit summary by Mr. Bonker isn't very bot-like. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am not a robot! Plonker Bonker (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Add to this that he is making valid edits and you'll have to wonder what it is he's getting warned about. Editing too fast? As long as he is manually reviewing each edit there is no problem. are his edits violating/igonoring some consensus? Policy? Guideline? In that case which one?

talk

) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he's probably not hurting anything - I even noted that. It doesn't necessarily bother me, but if he were operating a bot, I'd prefer to have it be a properly approved bot to prevent problems for him in the future. On further analysis, though, there are inconsistent edits that point to a human's active involvement. No problem here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I also thought like this, the users make no harm. I hesitated to open a thread here, but I still was puzzled by the fact that they immediately started with this kind of editing. I'm unfamiliar with bots, so I preferred to let you know. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Commonsense wins this round. WP:BOT is only about malicious or potentially dangerous bots. Where were you guys when ol' miterbox got WP:guidelined out of existance? "I am not a Bot!" is the best and worst defence for this type of baseless charge. --

talk

17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica restored

Link: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8

I have closed the DRV here with a "recreate" result. I realize that opinions on this have been very strong, and for good reason, since the subject of the website is responsible for a reprehensible culture of harassment and attacks against volunteers who have done nothing wrong, but reading the discussion, it appeared clear that the consensus was against simply leaving the article deleted due to the presence of an independent source. (Personally, I continue to doubt the notability of the website.) The option of AFD is something I have left open, and I suspect someone will be nominating it in a few hours. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

no biggie, but could someone unprotect the talk page please? - Privatemusings (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Have done so. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG - nuked!

... and it's gone again! Deleted by

WP:RFPP when it vanished. Ah well - Alison ^❤

07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Perhaps its a mistake? (ie wasn't aware of the DRV) Viridae^Talk 08:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears not to be the case.

Bencherlite^Talk

08:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And you'd think that people would realize that it isn't exactly a good idea™ to wheel war with an article of this nature :/ ...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but per this DRV, I'm seeing that as an out-of-process delete, but I'm not about to wheel-war over it - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Its only a wheel war if someone restores at this point... MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It would also be common sense prevailing, considering it has *just* gone through a DRV to not force it through another one. Viridae^Talk 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize it was on here and DRV and all that. I saw Encyclopedia Dramatica and instinctively reached for the delete button! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Figured :) Viridae^Talk 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, no harm no foul! Just restore it so we don't have to plummet into further drama.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted as above and Adam Bishop's comment - hope to god I got that right! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

... and back again!

FT2 has restored it, referencing Adam's comment above, so I guess that's that! Drahmaz over:) - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) ... Unless I undeleted the

wrong version. I followed the "recreate" comment by the closer, plus Adam's comment that the following redeletion was mistaken. If that was mistaken, then someone correct it, of course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email}

) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what purpose this could possibly serve. Wouldn't this just create more "drahmaz"? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain that? The outcome of the DRV was to recreate - hoepfully the drama on the article itself will be kept under control by the watchful eye of many people. Viridae^Talk 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not say my re-deletion was a mistake. I was trying to imply that I do not care one whiffle for whatever process says we can keep a re-created Encyclopedia Dramatica article. If such a process exists I'm sure we can safely

ignore it. Adam Bishop (talk

) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the strength of involvement in the DRV - i would say anything other han an AfD would be a very bad idea at this point. Viridae^Talk 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest I would say an AFD wouldn't accomplish anything either. As rubbish as the website is, there is an expressed consensus to restore the article and all that another AFD would do is generate more heat and no light.
  talk
  ) 09:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to remain, I would submit that there will be quite a few admins and editors ready to regulate on any shenanigans that crop up. Hell, if it's

well-sourced, it doesn't bother me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a very good idea to have the page protected fully - Acalamari, Nakon, and Maxim can all attest to the fact that semi-protection doesn't stop trolls from ED/slash-b-slash/4chan. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Only too true. Acalamari 17:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Links everywhere

Just a note that I mistakenly blocked (and then unblocked)

barneca (talk

) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO disallows links to ED anywhere on Wikipedia, including on an article about the site itself. You may request clarification, but if he continues, he can be blocked because he knows not to. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He isn't linking to the actual site; just the article. I don't think anyone sincerely hope no one thinks external links to ED are now OK. --

barneca (talk

) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is a difference between an external link to ED on the article about ED, an external link anywhere else on Wikipedia, and internal links (wikilinks) to the article. I think barneca is talking about wikilinks to the article, not external links. Sceptre, have you misunderstood things here? Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a reference to and a wikilink for an article unrelated to the topic in question can itself be disruptive. That said, I think the inclusion criteria of that list of encyclopedias could use some shoring up. I don't know that the other links are relevant to the topic, but - if they aren't - then they should be removed. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If anything ought to be banned, it's citing that awful MONGO case... by its own admission, ArbCom neither makes policy nor intervenes in content issues, so it has absolutely zilch authority over whether an article on a particular site should include a link to that site as is normal practice. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another victory for the trolls. Splendid. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that a drive-by comment? Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How so? It is another victory for trolls. seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I voted to overturn because it just pushes into notability for web content. Just. Still, I can see where you're coming from: I do agree that wearing a Guy Fawkes mask passes WEB, but I don't agree with WEB's leniency itself because just a small spate of notability (q.v. Canada on Strike's plot) can get an article on a somewhat forgettable thing. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If it only just pushes over, it should stay out until it's unambiguous. They need Wikipedia to drive up their traffic and advertising revenue, they nearly went bust once. Incidentally, I LIVE IN A HAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has zero contributions outside of ED / 4chan and banninating him would be a rapid net gain to the encyclopaedia. We need ED trolls almost as little as we need 9/11 conspiracy kooks. I honestly think this was one of the most stupid things ever done on Wikipedia, after all h work we did to get d of their pointless elf-aggrandising article, they have agitated and agitated until it came back, but all their attacks on Wikipedians who advocated deletion remain, so the world is a bit more shitty thanks to this article. I remain unconvinced that anyone outside the ED community cares about the site at all. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • More like a victory for common sense over fear and loathing, in the direction of something closer to NPOV even regarding sites our members don't like. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Precisely.
      Doc remarked on several occasions that our deleting Daniel Brandt would demonstrate our having, as a project and as a community, "grown up" (with which proposition I, of course, it happens, disagreed), and I'd suggest that our permitting recreation here, consistent with the principles that would guide our editing with respect to any similarly situated website, is a sign, albeit for reasons significantly different from those to which Doc refers, that we have matured in some not insignificant way. Joe
      18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with trolls, but this is a trashy article about a trashy subject. I would attempt to make it less trashy but I don't have the faintest idea what it is about. An encyclopedia article should be reasonably informative to the average reader. This reads like some in-joke article written for a schoolboy magazine. There probably should be some article covering 'web culture', but it shouldn't be written in the language of 'web culture'. Translation required. Peter Damian (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves, in clearing which any help would be much appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts

I often see accounts blocked as vandalism only accounts, yet when I listed Special:Contributions/RedHeffer which has only made negative edits since September, 2007 at ANI it was removed because it hadn't edited for 4 days. Isn't this completely mad? The editor clearly has no intention of making positive edits so should be blocked. If they really want to contribute positively they can start another account. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in the sense of AIV has to be 100% obvious to everybody. A more complex situation is best handled elsewhere like on

WP:ANI -- Agathoclea (talk

) 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• I can't speak for everyone, but if it's an account and not an IP, I don't care about the "must be vandalizing right now" requirement; it's the same person, they've seen the warnings.
• If it's blatantly someone out to damage the encyclopedia, I don't worry too terribly much about warnings either; but in the absense of clear, irrefutable evidence, I usually assume plenty of good faith that it might just be someone goofing around, who might, just might, be turned from the Dark Side, so I'll give 1 to 4 warnings clarify: I mean, between 1 and 4 warnings, depending on the severity, not that I always use the level-1 thru level-4 sequence. I don't. RedHeffer seems to me to be someone goofing around, and until your level-4im warning a few days ago (4 days after their last edit), they had never been warned, or welcomed, or anything. They haven't vandalized since you gave that warning.
• I don't think the account should be blocked now. If vandalism resumes, whether you catch it "active" or not, an indef "vandal only account" block is warranted.

--

barneca (talk

) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty nonsensical to me. This person has repeatedly added false information to articles using possibly real names of people they dislike, some which stayed there for days. If they decide to contribute positively they can start another account. By tolerating this you just allow people to game the system and make a lot of unnecessary work for WP users in reverting vandalism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is twofold. AIV deals with obvious and warned vandalism in progress - We also warn editors before they do get blocked - which now it has been done can serve as a precedent for a future block. Gaming the system? No as people like yourself will be quick to point out that a User X is following a particular pattern of blocked/banned User Y. In fact many do get blocked without warning if their vandalism gives the impression of someone familiar with Wikipedia (it does not matter whose sock they are - they are an abusive sock). In this case it would not be a case of reporting to AN/I like you did as reporting "vandalism" will get the static response "Go to AIV". You would need to report the situation why a block outside the usual parameters of AIV is warranted. As a matter of fact more often that not I succeeded in getting blocks on complex reports on AIV before I was admined myself by being verbose enough in the report "xyz was rcently warned as user zxy (and blocked) continuing same pattern". Content misinformation has to be very obvious though and it is best to get one of two admins to familiarize with the case at hand and notifying them of future incarnations. In this particular case we are no way near that scenario and I do recommend to let things be after your warning until there is further reason to act. Agathoclea (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we will have to monitor this account more closely and try and get the warnings on the day and preferably after each edit, as per the numerous edits 09/05/2008, before referral to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, if this user returns in June, (presumably) reads the warning, and then makes another vandalism edit, and then we stumble across it in July, I would have no problem blocking the account as vandalism-only. The emphasis on "currently active" is mostly for IP addresses, which are often shared and dynamic. What we're trying to say is, for run-of-the-mill vandalism, which this is, we generally don't block without warning. And I must say, implying that admins who work at AIV are "allow[ing] people to game the system and make a lot of unnecessary work for WP users in reverting vandalism" is a little galling. --

barneca (talk

) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That would all be fine if people placed warnings on people's pages when they revert but very often they don't therefore the system doesn't work properly and we are left dealing with a lot more vandalism that could easily be avoided. We should now look at the situation, and say this person knows very well that they are vandalising yet people have forgotten to place warning templates on their page but it is clear this person is not editing in good faith so we shouldn't give them further license to muck us about. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible IP trolling at help desk

This thread Wikipedia:Help_desk#A_question_about_wikipedia.27s_stance_on_pedophilia strikes me as being inspired by recent less-than-honest reportage in WND and other far-right muck sites. Would some admins care to take a look? DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing on page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or HEMU

While I was putting citations on above mentioned page, someone edited half the page. I am finding it difficult to re-frame it. Please help.

[email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.130.63 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For advice: Putative anti-wikipedia-"porn" campaign probable

Admins may wish to be advised that the one Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues of the Concerned Women for America, a Biblically principled organization, is currently [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 fulminating in the press] at sexually explicit images on Wikipedia, and his press release has turned up on the Christian Newswire as "Wikipedia Peddles Porn to Kids".

You may want to anticipate some incoming flack from this - we've had a first inquiry on the reference desk this evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, somebody nobody has ever heard of is attempting to use Wikipedia to generate free press for themselves then? Resolute 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement "Children will be exposed to this destructive material if you fail to protect them." sums it up pretty well. Of course, so does Raul's comment here. - auburnpilot talk 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG

iridescent

23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally find it odd a man is in charge of making policy for a religious woman's group. Hypocrisy much? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and religion? Those have never crossed paths before, have they? Regardless, if mommy and daddy are going to use religion as an excuse to hide natural functions of humanity from their kids, better Wikipedia teaches them than most anything a google search would turn up, imo. Resolute 23:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A women's organisation founded by Christians as part of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Quite. —

iridescent

23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certian wikipedia articles stick to natural functions.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does google, heh. Resolute 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmp wikipedia.com again.Geni 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scary, dont these people have jobs? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's minds of their own they lack, not jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we prepare a statement with our site's disclaimer, a selection of family-friendly mirror sites, and some suggestions about parental control software. Durova^Charge! 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any open source parental control software?Geni 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, when even WR thinks they're a pack of crackpots, I think we're probably safe (note to the badsites police - that link is permitted as it it's directly relevant to the topic and not to ED) —

iridescent

23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's the Foundation's job, not the community's. As for wikipedia.com..._sigh. Keegan^talk 05:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone show me where the "hundreds, if not thousands, of hardcore pornographic images and online sex videos" are available here or on Wikicommons for, ur, my research into this terrible obsenity? Seriously, haven't responses centred around

talk

) 23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

zee only video would be Image:Blonde_stag_film.ogg. Only hardcore photos (we have a lot of softcore tends to pick a lot of copyvios mind) would be commons:Category:Pornographic film.Geni 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some fairly dubious photos here - anyone want to explain exactly how

iridescent

00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea about the first image, but the second & third are used to illustrate the article

Hogtie bondage as any fule kno. --Tagishsimon (talk)

00:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons isn't concerned with 'encyclopaedic value', it is a repository of free media. -- Naerii 04:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not specifically "encyclopedic value", per se, but images on Commons do have to be potentially useful to current or future Wikimedia projects. Powers ^T 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes!!, i mean , its all in artistic taste obviously. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was really conservative. Not that much, apparently. I don't think this will turn out to be anything big. I still think, however, that a parental control option would be good. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think it falls under the usual CENSORED argument, ive fallen victim to that thing a number of times, yet i respect it. Wikipedia is not censored, we shouldnt give in to the political/religious ideology of ANY group. It will be bad for the community, a lot of people are already tired of this sort of pushing.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

But not one wikipedia will support. Of course if some third party were to develop one we could hardly object.Geni 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They also say "With great power comes great responsibility." Good thing to keep in mind in case you get bitten by a radioactive spider. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a boilerplate message as outlined by Durova would be quite handy, both in this instance, and in the future, and to me personally. I know I, for one, would be interested in the location of family-friendly mirrors (if any exist) that I could feel comfortable sending my kids to. I seem to recall hearing about a CD version for school, I wonder if there's also an online version. No need to make fun of people who want to take advantage of the best online encyclopedia in the world, but don't want to expose themselves, or their kids, to images or subject matter they find objectionable. Delicately pointing out that they are responsible for what their kids see on line, not us, but giving them other options would be quite magnanimous of us, I think. --

barneca (talk

) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Online version of the Wikipedia for Schools CD at [27]]. DuncanHill (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I think you have a valid question - but I wonder why parental controls for pages aren't being used? After all, most of our images that are objectionable are on the body part and pornography articles. Setting parental controls to filter for certain key words would take care of many of these articles. --David Shankbone 00:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So a teenage boy couldn't read about testicles, but could read about testicular cancer? A teenage girl couldn't read about breasts, but would be able to read about breast cancer? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we also have something for article that link to hate sites aswell then? There are a number of articles that provide URL's to some very hateful places. Do we need something for that aswell? I find thinks like that more worrying than a few naked bodies. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

& if no family-friendly mirror sites exist, we should certainly encourage CWA or anyone else interested to create one. If someone wanted to create a 99% mirror that specifically left out the 1% or so sexual content, they could presumably filterg mainly on the basis of removing all articles that are in certain categories, then do some blacklisting and whitelisting to deal with the outliers. I think that would be a great project. I'm actually surprised that no large city school system (for example) has done this. Of course, knowing CWA, they have a lot of other objections Wikipedia & are just using this as a convenient stick to beat us with. But objecting to us containing reasonably neutral articles on socialism and the like wouldn't make as big a splash in the press. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• In case no one's linked to this here yet: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Porn for prudes. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• *Ahem* *Cough* seicer | talk | contribs 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Following up on the above, I'm planning a blog post about family-friendly options. Some outreach and communication could help here. Really, a lot of the public doesn't fully understand how wikis operate and North American social conservatives are accustomed to asking for child-appropriate content at the provider level on a local or regional basis. We can't fulfill this type of request in the way they expect. Any unprotected page could get vandalized at any time, so it's possible that someone's eight-year-old could download an article about a Disney movie two seconds after someone replaced the content with obscenities. If we tried to prevent that from ever happening we'd stop being a wiki. What we can do is educate them about their other options. I welcome input from other Wikipedians about preparing this post and making it useful. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to

• • • After communication with Bastique, I have a list of images that one of the emails to OTRS has got. I, along with him and others, are going to sort thru the images and see what should stay and what should go. As for their location, many of the ones pointed out to OTRS exist on the Commons. Plus, porn to them is probably a lot broader definition than what we think. I found many pieces of historical art in the list of images to look at. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're aware that I'm an admin on Commons? Durova^Charge! 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, but I do now. I am also a Commons admin, so I can help you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Won't fly to well. We need something like a firefox plugin that can blacklist certian pages. I'm sure there would be wikipedians who would help in provideing blacklists.Geni 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, I'd like to point out that when I checked earlier today, we were getting anywhere between 1 and 5 emails per hour to OTRS about this. That's a significant amount (though not nearly what the height of the muhammad controversies were).

^{Son of the Defender}

07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of such a campaign. I find it disgusting that there are Wikipedia users who will do things like crap on plates and then insist such images be used in articles. We don't need explicit stuff when a scholarly diagram or something similar can do the job just as well. Jtrainor (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all images in such articles can be done up in such a manner without confusing the picture. Any diagram of smegma, for example, is going to end up looking "moldy" and thus be confusing. And, indeed, there's been some concern about the image on the page currently (as well as some glacier-mo edit-warring over it), but unless we have a useful diagram (read: one that doesn't make the subject look like mildew, cum (pardons), or bread mold) then we can't remove the picture quite yet. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not see how poop on a plate would be worthwhile (I do not see any value in the stripper picture linked to above, either), I think that images that some people find objectionable have a place on Wikipedia. Most of the potentially objectionable images I have seen relate to medical topics, and you find graphic images all of the time in certain high-quality medical publications. Dermatology books and journals have some particularly delightful ones. ;-) In regards to diagrams/drawings, unfortunately, it can be hard to find one that can be used on Wikipedia legally. Also, as Jéské Couriano mentioned, it can be difficult for Wikipedians to create their own.

It's not poop on a plate, it's in a toilet, for pete's sake. Powers ^T 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a drawing request page for articles for which a photo or drawing cannot be found. We already have photo requests, and this would allow those with the skill to create drawings know what topics need them. -- Kjkolb (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• If anyone complains just redirect their user page to Category:Bad images Jackaranga (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• The way to deal with issues like this is to make absolutely sure that when we include content that is of an explicit nature, it is clearly evident to the impartial observer that it has self-evident merit in illustrating the subject. The image at fluffer seems to me to fail that, as do many other images originating in the world of "teh pr0n". We should aspire to a quality of image that would not be out of place in an anatomical textbook. Such images tend not to be particularly titillating. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Kiddie Porn?

At least one of the OTRS messages concerns children in pornographic images (full frontal, prepubescent, sexually provocative)which are posted here. Maybe we should reconsider our demand that anything goes. After all, if a child posts personal information on his talk page we delete and oversight it - but if they are nude it's acceptable? Doesn't make sense. -JodyB _talk 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kiddie Porn" images is a favourite meme of pro-censorship interests. Are the pictures intended as sexually provocative? If a picture of a naked child in a "natural pose" excites sexual desire in someone then it is the problem of that viewer, not the host of the picture, and the potential of the reaction of a small minority should not disallow the use of an image in an appropriate context. So, are examples of images of naked children acceptable? Within context, yes, as this is an encyclopedia that uses various media to illustrate subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only think of two images of naked children - one is a child (and her father) in the naked bike ride article and the other is an album cover. Neither is porn. Viridae^Talk 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sexually provocative" is the key word (well, words). If we have any sexually provocative photos of nude children, that's undoubtedly against our policies and they should be deleted, rather than defended with the usual "no censorship here" rhetoric. But I doubt such images actually exist here currently -- people tend to just see nudity and recoil in terror. I know beans and all, but specific links to the photos people consider to be "sexually provocative" are in order in this case, if we are to discuss this productively. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it refers to the Scorpion's album cover, which the "World Net Daily" (whatever that is) is currently trying to publicise as much as it possibly can, see [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722] DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer - That's an interesting problem. It's provocative, but at the same time it's not merely a photo taken for that purpose, but a historical (artistic?) album cover from the '70s. This could really go either way. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Its also not the only one. Srsly, and I speak this as a born-again Christian myself, these people are only out for self-aggrandizement and aren't really making these statements to "make the world better". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also the famous re-imagining of

Bow wow wow article. --Relata refero (disp.

) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, those news sources have questionable intentions, but that doesn't mean we can't re-examine the issue for our own purposes. That first article does feature a provocative photo of a naked 10 year-old, whether or not some tabloid-esque news magazine is who's responsible for informing us of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to use the girl Virgin Killer picture? Since there is an alternate and the girl album cover is not the subject of the article or of any critical analysis...I'll be

bold. Seraphim♥Whipp

13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, when I said critical analysis, I meant that what was there already wasn't really enough to make a strong argument to keep the image. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why give in to a few hate-mongers on a fringe website? DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done it anyway if I had known before. It was brought to my attention from this discussion. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose what you did. The album cover was controversial and having it in the article does help greatly with illustrating the controversy.-Wafulz (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki. Feel free to revert. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wafulz that the image does help the article. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the image is in line with our policies -- but if it is, then it should probably stay, as the replacement image isn't just as good. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG CHILD PORN. WND is horribly sensationalist and they’ll put a spin on anything to rid the world of "liberal" values. I suggest we carry on with business as usual.-Wafulz (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

An earlier removal of the image was reverted as vandalism, I think content issues such as this should be discussed on the article talk-page. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already left a message on the talk page. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, that is the image I was referring to. It was simply a gratuitous image that was even dropped by the record company. I appreciate Seraphim's boldness. As one who has professionally with victims of child pornography I will not give space to those who seek to excuse it. As a parent of three young boys the image was horribly offensive. This is not merely a naked picture, but a deliberately provocative pic of a child. We should at least have some small standard of decency here. -JodyB _talk 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's... a mass-market heavy metal album cover, of which no doubt tens of thousands (if not more) were produced. Everyone who owns this Scorpions album is a child pornographer now? Come on. World Net Daily is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist "news" (used very loosely) outlet pushing an extremist, anti-American censorship agenda. We should not be gratuitously publishing porn, because we're an encyclopedia, not a porn shop. But if the worst that WND can throw at us is "omg noes an ALBUM COVER," I'd say there's really not much to be concerned about.

talk

) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be the appropriate point to mention that

iridescent

17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed these emails are fun to deal with. But we are not censored, and in this case in particular the image does help the article (IMO; note, it's been removed). The album isn't porn, and I'd be more worried about people who think it is than the image itself. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the positions should be reversed, and the revised cover put at the top, changing the labels appropriately. DGG (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Mike.lifeguard and DGG on this. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As was suggested, this is being discussed at the article's talk page. Come take part in the discussion there :). Seraphim♥Whipp 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a situation a couple of months ago where a minor was taking photos of his bits and uploading them here to articles such as "Puberty" and "Penis", and we dealt with it by speedying the photos and warning him. I'm not sure what came of it, but it seemed a thoroughly sensible approach. Orderinchaos 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty obvious "delete, no questions asked" issue.

talk

) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, World Net Daily is certainly right-wing, but it's not particularly Christian, unless "Christian" is just taken as code for "Moslems not welcome." This bit of moral panic is sheer opportunism. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's interesting that they hired Matt Sanchez, former gay porn star as one of their correspondents, isn't it? --David Shankbone 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is up for ifd in today's log anyway. Thanks,

SqueakBox

20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That IfD should be closed extremely quickly as it starting to garner unwanted attention. Rgoodermote  18:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, have these people taken a good, long look at the genre of medieval paintings? An awful lot of them show the Virgin Mary with the naked infant of Christ. So when will they get around to nominating for deletion all of that smut on Commons under Category:Circumcision of Christ? -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related topic...

Might I point some admins besides me to Talk:Smegma? I've practically been the only one to rebut the calls of IPs for censorship on that page, and other IPs are being emboldened by this and deliberately removing or redlinking the image on the article, seeing it as consensus. I need to walk away from it at this point; if I continue there I might blow a gasket. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 08:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for 1 week. Rudget (Help?) 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The article, yes, but not the talk page, which is where I'm asking for assistance. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A solution

I knew this would come up someday. In fact I'm surprised it took this long. I can sit here editing from behind an educational filter, look at Vagina, and see some of the sort of images such software was intended to block. All because it only reads the domain name.

And only Geni, in the above discussion, seems to have hit on what is to me the obvious way to solve it, that could make everybody happy. We (wisely) rejected

TOBY

a long time ago. But that doesn't mean the problem went away.

MediaWiki is open-source. I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that would make it very easy to write a similarly client-side open-source free filtering program that could block images some people and institutions do not want displaying on their computers. Not that we have to develop and make it available ourselves, but certainly someone could. I'm sure there are enough programmers out there, and enough money in the constituencies CWA claims to speak for, that it could be created independently of any effort on our part.

We don't censor ourselves, but we can't stop other people from doing it as

our experience with China

demonstrates. And I wouldn't want to, even if I find the example I gave a regrettable one. For our right to run this project the way we want to and not censor it for the protection of minors is someone else's right to censor what goes on a computer they own and administer.

Such software might also help us ... a cooperative LAN administrator could issue client-side blocks to the local accounts of vandals, sparing us the auto and unblock requests from users at large shared IPs and overall reducing the amount of blocks we have to administer. Or, a school could perhaps protect its own article from its own vandalizing students, so we don't have to.

Any thoughts on this? I've thought about this for a while and mentioned it at a few meetups, but this is the first time I've posted anything about it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with what you're proposing, I sincerely doubt that it will work to alleve the fears of people like CWA. You're offering a solution that would handle the pictures, but their principal problem is not about the pictures, but that they'll read the articles & might start thinking for themselves. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think conservatives created Conservapedia in the first place? :-) Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking articles would also be posible. Some of the hostility towards web filtering software is due to it's secretive nature. In theory a far more open version should appeal to the free software community but in the end there isn't much we can do to make it happen.Geni 12:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth it?

I have serious doubts that most pornography-related images are even needed. I mean, take a look at Sex industry. What purpose does the image in the adult films section of that article fulfill? Is it illustrative? Educational? Does it demonstrate something that would not be as easily grasped or understood if the image was not there? (I also have problems with a gay pornography image when straight porn is by far the best-known and most commonly depicted form of porn, but that's a different discussion) If we're putting pornographic images in articles just to fill up blank space on the sides, or for aesthetic reasons, or (worst of all) to stick it to our critics, we should reconsider it from an editorial perspective. In short, does having an image of two guys having sex really improve the encyclopedia? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"I also have problems with a gay pornography image when straight porn is by far the best-known and most commonly depicted form of porn, but that's a different discussion" indeed it is a different discussion - so why raise it here? And why use "an image of two guys having sex" as your example? You have a problem with pornography-related images - OK, discuss it and see where that goes. Don't single out one form of sexuality for special treatment unless you can demonstrate really good reasons for doing so. DuncanHill (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that was the first link I clicked on from this whole grandiose discussion? I wasn't singling out any form of sexuality. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I really fail to understand how a photograph of the making of an adult film, complete with filming crew, is in any way questionable when attached to a section about adult film. I seriously doubt the same kind of skeptical questioning would arise if there was a photo of an assembly line next to a section about the automotive manufacturing industry. Vassyana (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks about the debate overall, I think it is highly dubious to claim that there is no difference between a picture depicting a sexual act and one depicting a car assembly line. This does not mean the former should not be included, but the contention that there is no difference between them is not tenable. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Car manufacturing and hardcore pornography are two different things. Good thing too, or else we'd have even more problems with gas prices. But we're digressing from my point: what purpose does that image serve? What educational value does it provide? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The fluffing picture shows a fluffer, complete with latex gloves (sensible chap). Try substitution: would you object to a picture of a welder welding on a welding article? Or a car fitter fitting on a car fitting article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Or let's not try substitution, since all we're getting are examples that have nothing to do with the topic at hand and are just red herrings. Was I talking about the fluffer article? No. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I's an article about the sex industry. It shews people who work in that industry doing their jobs. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I had fluffing on the mind. Okay, we'll do this on your terms: What purpose does the image in the adult films section of that article fulfill?: Per Duncan, above. Is it illustrative?: Yes. It illustrates a gropup of people in one aspect of the sex industry. Educational?: Yes. It reminds us that there are others in the studio besides the naked guys on the bed. Does it demonstrate something that would not be as easily grasped or understood if the image was not there?: At a glance, yes. Were there enough well written text, perhaps not - though given that a picture =1,000 words, I do not find your last test very compelling. In short, whether by substitution or whether by point by point answers, your doubts are at least being met; whether to your satisfaction is entirely your business. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a good argument to be made that showing a gay porn image in an article on adult film might be seen as, to choose three words at random, violating undue weight. That said, there's a balance to be struck between avoiding illustrations simply because some people might be offended by them, and adding dirty pictures as fast as we can upload them, simply because

WP:NOT#CENSOR. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the image released under an editable licence? Why don't people just crop the shagging people out of it (whatever their sex) and leave the film crew? Dan Beale-Cocks 15:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Or people who don't want to know what goes on in the sex industry could simply not click on sex industry. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the two pictures in that article, the picture discussed was in the top screen--a non-objectionable picture was further down. I want to maintain non-censorship as strongly as the law permits. The way to do that is to insist on having the material that is needed, but using some degree of discretion in how to show it. This could even be done without rearranging, simply by expanding the article, (which it very much needs in any case) so the picture does not show up on the initial screen. Then nobody would see it who a/ did not come to this article specifically, as DH says just above, and b/ did not actually continue reading it. Any reasonable person who actually scrolls to see all the content on an article such as this knows what to expect. As Samuel Johnson said in 1755 to two young ladies who congratulated him for omitting naughty words from his dictionary "What! my dears! then you have been looking for them?" [28] DGG (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly

Since

talk

) 11:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since most of the information would be pieced together from coverage of larger topics, I'd say it's pretty borderline-notable at best. Because he's involved in controversial topics, we should err on the side of our

living persons policy and keep the information on him within parent articles like Conservapedia, Phyllis Schlafly, and others.-Wafulz (talk

) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• To paraphrase the above, who needs the hassle? Schlafly is a minor, minor figure. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and nevermind then. (logged out Dorftrottel) 78.34.130.176 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've noticed a relatively new account that I suspect may be operated by a particular indef-blocked user. Are such accounts usually tolerated unless they do something blockable themselves (so far this one has only some borderline incivility and disruption to its credit, but nothing rising to the level of a potential block) or is this something I should be reporting to SSP or RFCU? Deor (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that such accounts would constitute evasion of the original block, and as such are not permitted. Let me know if I can help. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If it's likely evading a block, you have good evidence indicating who it likely is, and the new account does have some incivility/disruption, I would suggest you request a checkuser as such behavior is generally unacceptable. Best, --

Tally-ho!

04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things to be clear about for this to make sense: there are users, and there are accounts. Users operate accounts.

If an account is blocked, it is to prevent further disruption. Creating a new account to continue edit patterns of disruption is sockpuppettry on the part of the user, and that account is blockable to prevent further abuse.

If an account is blocked and the user goes a makes a new account an edits constructively, that is acceptable. This often happens in the case of inappropriate usernames, early vandalism, etc.

A ban is prohibiting the user from operating accounts. Those accounts can be blocked on sight because the user is unwelcome, no matter the account name.

So it depends on the situation. Keegan^talk 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'm going to hold off on SSPing this guy until I see whether he's going to ramp up the disruption a bit more. Deor (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

00:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Desione

Is making several uphelpful edits on wikipedia, in particular on

Invasion of Goa, which he decided to change without any concencous and totally off his own back the actual name of the page to `Liberation of Goa` as with edit [29]. Can you please help and administer this user. Please also see the concencous agreement for no change which was ignored by Desione [30]--Rockybiggs (talk

) 09:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed a double redirect here. This needs some more attention I can't give at the moment as the issue involves cut&paste moves. Agathoclea (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I made the necessary moves, deletions, and undeletions. El_C 10:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify: 1) user Rockybiggs has been following me around for months and will continue to do so in future. For him this is a personal battle. 2) There is no consensus on the name "Invasion of Goa". The original name of the article was "Liberation of Goa" and the name was changed to "Invasion of Goa" without any discussion and consensus when no one was watching. I am simply restoring move to original name. 3) I have shown evidence for the fact that the most common english name for this article is "Liberation of Gao" (see

WP:COMMONNAME). Thanks Desione (talk

) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

Resolved

 – See diff at end of thread to comment by

Mike Godwin. Carcharoth (talk

) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the newfound newsworthiness of this subject (see, e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] etc), I'd like to create a new page about her. However the page is currently protected from creation with the comment 'Per WP:ANI'. I can't find any discussion about protecting this page, though; the only reference to Barbara Bauer is in this discussion, which doesn't concern Bauer at all.

Any chance of unprotecting the page? JulesH (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. The links (from May 2008, not from March/April 2007) are

WP:OFFICE action was taken to remove the planned Signpost story about this lawsuit. See here. I am presuming that this extends to the article itself. See the deletion log of Bauer v. Glatzer: "OFFICE-requested deletion; concerns should be addressed to Mike Godwin via e-mail." I presume something similar should be placed in the deletion log for Barbara Bauer, but possibly not. Maybe someone should contact Mike Godwin to get confirmation that Barbara Bauer should not be recreated either? I'm not even sure we should be having this discussion! But someone has to say "no", otherwise someone else might unwittingly unprotect and allow recreation. Please do just e-mail Mike Godwin and do not discuss here (or wait for him to say something here). Carcharoth (talk

) 10:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Found it. See the diff from Mike Godwin here. That clinches it. I'm marking this as resolved. No action can or should be taken here, except possibly updating the article deletion log in light of recent events. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've appended that diff to the Protection Log, so that it comes up when an attempt is made to recreate the article. Given that diff, I'm hesitant to restore the article, even briefly enough to append that notation, but the protection log skirts that issue. I also protected Barbara bauer, lower-case "bauer", as a possible alternative article title, citing the same diff. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Page creation is protected case insensitive - so the article is now double protected. Will need to keep this in mind in case of a future unprotection. Agathoclea (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right - this is why I don't do that many protections. Is it worthwhile to unprotect the lower-case article, or would that also unprotect the uppercase article? Or, given that the article is unlikely to be properly recreated in the near future (as per Mike Godwin), is double-secret uber-stealth protection acceptable? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will do some testing. But at the moment I have the feeling either the case insensitivity has changed or it does take a while for the servers to catch up with it. See User:Agathoclea/ProtectionTest. Will check again tomorrow and then unprotect one to see how the second protect affects it. Agathoclea (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I had it wrong. Only the leading char is case insensitive: [35]. -- Agathoclea (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT to the rescue. Thanks again for checking on that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some personal attacks

So perhaps I'm just growing soft, but I figured I should bring this here. I deleted an attack page that Ryanwwf (talk · contribs) created, and another had been deleted before that. I warned him that if he continued creating attack pages he would be blocked from editing. He then proceeded to entertainingly curse me out on my talk page, and hasn't edited since. He probably could be blocked, because he has continued personal attacks, but a) I didn't want to be the one to do it, because he's attacked me, and it could be a conflict of interest and b) He hasn't edited since, so I'm tempted to just ignore it if/until he continues. But I may be going soft, because it does seem pretty much like a vandlaism only account, but yet, I figured I'd bring it here to have another admin take a look. Thanks, -- Natalya 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them. You warned them for the creation of the page, but I would say that kind of attack warranted a block regardless. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Natalya 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)