Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive145

The user creation log bears looking at, for the new users added from 21:53 onwards ... two entries per new user. Not a normal pattern. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same issue on the RC feed and have alerted the system administrators. Nakon 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by brion. Nakon 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Could somebody please block User:140.247.60.83, confirmed Tor node? Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – warned, not active, moving on

The IP User:96.245.92.31 has been severely vandilizing articals, replacing their content with some of the nastiest stuff I've ever seen. Just look at some of the edits they've made! It's sickening! I redid their edit on the Zenon page, but it was horrible!24.3.180.166 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning on their talk page. Next time feel free to report blatant vandals at

WP:AIV.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk)

05:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 3 hours. Any further action would be moot at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

24.3, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

masterka

08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sort of at a loss here...appears we have a

• Have I missed something? The article looks like an obvious db-bio candidate but, history doesn't seem to show one being added. I can't see any assertion of notability whatsoever. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see how well Betacommand is observing the recommendation/suggestion/whatever-the-heck-that-was, that the ArbCom did in the Betacommand case. Bellwether ^B_C 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and here is how he deals with an administrator calling him on the carpet about such nonsense. Bellwether ^B_C 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted an admin about it? They still have the authority to deal with any disruptive incidents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it here, so that the Arbcom could see the result of their (in)actions. And there's already an admin involved. Bellwether ^B_C 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Post back here how this goes. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I told everyone that all the remedies are useless, but nobody listened. ArbCom is failing. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Arbitrary Committee is working normally. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Was Kurt the first to use that phrase or is it spreading? The ArbCom do good work. Even if you disagree with them, or see their decisions as arbitrary, it would be very divisive to adopt such a dismissive nickname for them. Please focus on the decisions, not the contributors (the committee). Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to their "working". If more than pronouns are used then something more specific can be discussed. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But if you use terms like that, you may discourage reform or you may discourage people from standing for election. You may also discourage sitting arbitrators. If you think something is failing, do you continue to knock it down, or do you try and support it and make constructive suggestions? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How are edits like that, irrespective of any AC decision, not block worthy as outright NPA violations?

Because I like to warn users before blocking them, even in serious cases like this. Any admin was free to overide that and issue a block, I just do things differently. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And thats the right thing to do. And I love Beta, but these NPA violations are what... every other day? Every second day? If there is no sign of stopping, and no one is preventing him from attacking others, something is obviously broken. Why is anyone exempt from NPA?

t/e

16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How many warnings does Beta need to get before being blocked? It's not like he hasn't been told that his behaviour is a problem. He has been told time and again, but apparently he doesn't change. I hate to make this comparison, but any other user would have been blocked a long time ago. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because "Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable…" [1] Mike R (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No one gets exemptions to policy. No one. Any attempts to give anyone a free pass needs to be not just shot down, but executed. Anything that makes all editors not the same in this regard is incredibly disruptive and unfair.

t/e

16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be transferred to the noticeboard so the rest of the community can comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone is subjected to policy. See

Ɣ |ɸ

*** 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We need good editors, but only those good editors who are capable of working cooperatively on the project. Both halves are important. At the next one after this, I suggest short blocks, starting maybe at 1 hour, increasing in the usual way if needed. We dont need arb com for this--just the usual standards.DGG (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One hour? I was thinking maybe start with a week or so. Shorter blocks have not worked. I have no confidence that longer ones will either, but at least it's something that hasn't been tried yet. Friday (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a week's block in the last thread on this (see my comments here); given Beta's lack of attention to any of the attention s/he's stirred up, I suggest a 10-day-block. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, a lynch mob. And TreasuryTag leading the call for a piano-wire hanging of the accused, as usual. Glad to see things don't change. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the fourth of five editors calling for sanctions against a user who told another user to "grow a brain" - I don't call that leading a mob, I'm not sure what as usual refers to (other than the fact that you don't like my signature, Reddy) and it's reasonable that users are blocked for violating

WP:CIV. And I hope you accept that the insults Beta used were violations of CIV. —TreasuryTag—t—c

19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

CIV is probably the most misused policy here, almost always applied to "things they said that I don't like". And I didn't say you were leading this lynch mob, just that you were the one in the lead handing out the piano wire. Ten days? Ten days? Shockingly punitive and you should be ashamed of yourself. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see things don't change. You mean like certain editors being allowed to do whatever they wish, policy and ArbCom decisions be damned? Yep, nothings changed. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess one editor's "lynch mob" is another editor's "finally trying to actually do something about a problem that's been ongoing for a couple years." Friday (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, we've already got a discussion about incivility going on; let's try not to add more incivility to it, if we can manage. -- Natalya 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, β should have kept the high ground there, and he did not. I would prefer nobody got blocked over this, but if he gets blocked then so should those who baited and trolled him. Gimmetrow 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously wonder why we still have an arbcom if they never come up with any decent remedies. All they seem to do these days is not look at the evidence and end up saying something like "please be nice". Practically all conflict solutions are de facto routed around the arbcom and resolved by the community (which is a basically good thing).

When dealing with editors whose excellent contributions are matched only by their difficulty dealing with other editors (Betacommand and Giano are the community's two most prominent examples), I like to weigh them on something I call the House test. That is to say, does the level of quality of a specific editor's contributions outweigh the negative effect said editor may have on community morale? What effect would that editor's absence have on the quality and continued building of the encyclopedia? Is that editor's focus something that any editor can do (such as categorization, image tagging, or other "chores") or is the editor's focus something less commonly found (DYK/GA/FA-level contributions on a continuous basis, expert in a subject, experience in a field)? We allow some editors to skirt the rules because they are positive forces overall, just as how Dr. Cuddy tolerates House's antics, Vicodin addiction and disrespect for rules because he saves lives that no one else can save. Similarly, we must balance Betacommand's willingness to delve into a darker section of Wikipedia policy against Betacommand's continued problems dealing with other editors in a civil manner. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with every word of this, Hemlock, including and and the. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course; as I've long said, we would do well to evaluate everything we undertake with respect to any individual editor in the context of what the net effect on the project of that editor's presence (or of his/her involvement in a specific area of the project) is. It happens, though, that I think it (and have long thought it) to be clear that the net effect on the project of Beta's involvement is (at least in the absence of his being willing to recognize that the community are paramount and may require of him whatever level of civility they think appropriate or his being willing to comport his editing with those guidelines and standards for which a consensus of the community exists) negative—the benefits of his involvement are, IMHO, greatly overstated. What is not clear, I'd say, is where the community stand on the "net effect" question here, although I think it is fair to say that although those who think the net effect of Beta's presence to be negative remain steadfast in that belief, those long situated on the other side of the issue are steadily losing patience and rather rethinking the issue, such that a consensus on the broader issue might develop in the not-too-distant future. Joe 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of this; House is a TV show and can be scripted. There is no acceptable reason for someone to continually be abrasive and act in ill-manner. No one is irreplacable on Wikipedia. To hold someone to a different standard because of pervceived need or want for participation is antithesis to the wiki idea. Keegan^talk 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is undeniably true that BC is not irreplaceable, we cannot and should not deny the effect an editor can have on the encyclopedia. What would Wikipedia look like if RickK or NYB were still active? To use examples from active editors, what would our articles on cricket and Vietnamese history look like without Blnguyen's excellent work? Would we be as comprehensive about Norse culture without Berig, or Chinese history without PericlesofAthens? The House test (and I only use House cause it'll stick in your mind better that way) isn't to establish different standards for different groups of people, but to give us something to assess how best to respond to a situation like the one Betacommand faces on a regular basis. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Now Hemlock Martinis, you know very well that the questions you pose are rhetorical and have no response available. Dragons flight's comment below more succinctly explain how I feel. Keegan^talk 04:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are really two philosophical positions here. Hemlock has articulated one of them well: That we should accept Betacommand for who he is and weigh the good he does against the problems he creates in order to decide whether his work is net positive or negative here. The other philosophical extreme, is to argue that a just society depends on the even-handed enforcement of the rules for everyone. In other words, to ignore transgressions undermines the foundation of fairness for everyone and creates a situation where others feel entitled to ignore social norms. We don't allow great scientists or doctors to ignore traffic laws simply because we value their other contributions to society. Personally, I hail more from this second school thought. BC is still wrong for being grossly incivil irregardless of how much good he may also do.

The real problem, however, is that unlike traffic cops we don't have any effective tools for dealing with what are, in the grand scheme of things, small infractions. I'd love to see BC fined $10 every time he acts rudely towards others, but we don't have any mechanism for enforcing that. Basically the only tool we have is to block him (or not). I sympathisize with people here who think that a block is too harsh. It doesn't really fit the crime. We want him to be more controlled and more responsive to others. Blocking does litte, if anything, to accomplish that. That said, if the choice is between blocking BC for a short while, or admitting that there are no consequences for incivility, then I'd have to go with blocking. That follows from my belief that the maintenance of just and equitable social norms depends upon the reasonable expectation that those norms will be enforced. Others may disagree, but that's how I feel. Dragons flight (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the double standard of remedies, but I disagree with how we respond to it. We can't punish BC, partly because policy forbids it and partly because you can't slap a digital wrist. I would be extremely troubled by blocking BC for incivility especially given the flexibility as to what incivility is. For example, telling someone they lack a brain and to shut up is relatively minor in my personal assessment of incivility. I haven't seen (and I admit I'm not familiar with BC's history) any evidence of stalking or harassment or anything else other than snide remarks and rude comebacks. It's distasteful for such an editor to act in such an immature manner, but we can't force him to grow up. That either leaves us with blocks and bans, or warnings and inaction. And in this case, I'd rather err on the side of keeping an editor than losing one. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you, and others, look into his past in detail, it makes for invaluable reading. To cut a long story short, his behaviour as far as I see it and have been forced to read, is completely unchanged over a year to 18 months, despite 2 arbcoms, a desysopping and a failed application for re-sysopping. I am in no doubt as to the fact that beta knows exactly what the community is and is not willing to put up with regarding his behaviour, and that beta considers himself no longer part of the community per se, fully prepared to work outside it as long as his actions meet with his own personal standards of what is and isn't allowed. He has, with continual appeasement, developed his own standards regarding wp:civil etc, which, once you get into his mindset, are startlingly consistent (for which he can at least be commended), hence the complete lack of acknowledgement of any wrong doing for any infraction. Honestly, I challenge anyone to find an admission, at least without an accompanying caveat of two wrongs. Per his own personal policy framework, he believes he is acting in the interests of the community, justified due to their apparent failure to adequately protect him from attacks and people 'talking shit because they know nothing'. He is quite the creation. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's really sad about that statement is that it's true. We do allow users to skirt any rule they want to as long as they are a net positive, because there are enough admins around here who think we can't live without them. The few times someone has the balls to say, "No, that's not right, we all play by the same rules or we don't play at all", it turns into a wheel-war. --Kbdank71 20:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath before commenting — we don't need to cause even more drama and flame-throwing. Thank you, Maxim_(talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Asking the community to deal with Beta is like asking the African Union to deal with a diplomatic crisisAlleged personal attack removed after a warning from MSBisanz. Barring the usual staunch defenders, 99% of users just accept he is untouchable now, to pretend he is going to get blocked for anything non-capital nowadays is just pure fantasy. I pointed out a while back that reading the wording of the arbcom policy pages, remedies are actionable by administrators, and I pointed out bc's precise civility remedies. The silence was deafening. Since that case I'm aware of at least 4 cases of outright incivility from him. MickMacNee
  • Compare and contrast no less, the indefinite block I am threatened with for the above apparently unnacceptable statement. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a quote from Jimbo Wales that might be appropriate to all who say he's invaluable to the project...I haven't had any dealings with him but all I ever see is complaints, RFCs, ArbCom, at some point well...here it is:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008

Something to think about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. I, for one, as a supporter of a "net effect" standard, certainly don't mean to suggest that the unseen consequences should be discounted; it is perhaps for that reason that I have yet to encounter a case in which I found a user's good contributions to be so great as to offset the harms caused by his/her being broadly and often disruptively incivil or otherwise unwilling to behave in a fashion that tends toward the promotion of collaboration. I simply don't think it appropriate to consider a user's problematic behavior absolutely without reference or respect to his/her constructive behavior, at least not in those cases where the effects of that problematic behavior can be roughly quantified, such that the harms caused by that problematic behavior and likely to be caused where it persists might well be weighed against the benefits accrued and likely to continue to accrue should the user remain with the project. (In this instance, I think it relatively clear that because Beta's behavior has continued for some time, including after the community expressed its disapproval of much of his manner of communication, and has caused, at least AFAIK, a non-trivial number of editors to leave the project or to edit with reduced frequency, the negative effects of his participation cannot be surmounted, or even offset, by the positive substantive effects of much of his editing.) Joe 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A more worrying cause for concern is his tendency to dismiss even people who extend him good faith in the technical aspect, that ask him neutral questions, namely the recent attempt to understand his assertion that because he uses a secret coding method, copyrighted to his employer (but shareble among trusted wikipedians), and that it is this that stops him from splitting his bot tasks, code that he is unwilling (or unable due to the unbelievable complexity and his view that the requester is an idiot and timewaster) to explain further beyond an apparently made up term. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I myself am prepared to put up with β, but there are too many editors here who are not, and we need them too. To keep this one editor, how many are we willing to risk losing? I would not assume he'll forsake us even if we prove we mean it about NPA. I don't think that poorly of him. DGG (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That Jimbo comment was his statement regarding his own blocking me "for being incivil" for a week (see here).. but BC can be uncivil all he wants, because, well, darn it, we just can't live without him and Wikipedia will fall into the abyss and be haunted by devil-smurfs for ever more.. </sarcasm>. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My essential problem with BC's behavior isn't even that he's not nice.. it's that he acts like a 15-year old. You cannot have an adult conversation with this person; he's simply not reasonable. He's unwilling or unable to collaborate in a meaningful fashion. And, since Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative project, where does this leave us? He's had plenty of time to start behaving reasonably, so it's now time to whack him with a cluestick until he either goes away or starts playing along. Friday (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here is replaceable. If someone is capable of writing a bot or bots that can do the same work, by all means, give it a shot. I have not had the "pleasure" of direct communications with Betacommand, but from the volumes of material preceeding this discussion, it's clear to me that it is only the bot that saved this person from a long block. The bot and Betacommand can be replaced. Maybe it's finally time to do so. DarkAudit (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I dislike the equation X = a license to be rude.
  WP:NPA is policy; it applies to all of us. Yes, we can be lenient up to a point for temporary lapses, but no amount of useful work creates a permanent exemption from the consequences of habitual violation. Durova^Charge!
  07:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the negative effect of Betacommand's style of communication that you can't see from just one or two diffs: it makes people reluctant to get involved with certain areas of Wikipedia policy, because doing so could get them into a nasty confrontation with Betacommand. Most people would rather work on things where they don't get insults hurled at them on a regular basis. The people who do get involved are mainly the ones who are already in a conflict with Betacommand. (I suppose I'd include myself there.) This isn't a good thing, because it severely hinders reasonable discussion. It's very hard to un-polarize a discussion with Betacommand in it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I believe that if Betacommand acts up in such a manner again, it needs to be posted here, and someone can block him for a week. I know I'd support that. He's also on a last warning still not to fuck around with his bot and use it to disrupt things to make a point.
  ☎
  10:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And that is the problem, imo. BC does something, and we tell him that next time, he will be blocked. Next time, BC isn't blocked, but warned that he will be blocked next time. And again. And again. He gets away with disruption and incivility every time. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "other" final warning is for dicking around with his bot (ie, spamming a user who he'd argued with with a few hundred templates), where I warned BC if he did something like that again, he'd be blocked for at least a week. He hasn't done anything like that since.
      ☎
      12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I LIVE IN A HAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've block I LIVE IN A HAT because he's clearly an ED troll here to campaign for the website. Just a look through his contribs show he's only been editing Encyclopedia Dramatica and 4chan pages. A review would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd give serious consideration to deleting

iridescent

15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Sadly, his friends will be along soon to work on our shiny new article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was an orphaned fair-use image, so I deleted it. Also, it gave me teh lulz. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I think we all knew this would happen. I think Krimpet made a good decision semi-protecting it, pre-emptive or not. I think though, that several editors will be watchlisting this article, so any content that is, well, out of line, so to speak, won't last too long, but, well, we will see as time passes, I suppose.
  (talk) (review)
  16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• No objections to the block from me. Acalamari 17:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse the block. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment - Block makes sense to me. I have the ED page watched, knowing that there is likely to be trolling/disruption. I have some ideas about what may happen, but I won't mention them here for
  Ɣ |ɸ
  *** 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've protected the talk page and replaced it with {{

indef}}.-Wafulz (talk

) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• No problem with the block. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Back comes the ED article, back come the ED trolls. Same ol' same ol'. I say we nuke the article, it took a few months last time but they went away aprt from their monthly deletion review. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• We should once again nuke this useless article. The trolling level has already reached a fever pitch, including a request to unprotect it (which I almost immediately declined without elaboration), and a truly startling amount of edits in the few hours the article has existed in article space. I think we're better off without the ED trolls, who don't bother us much unless ED is being discussed. Horologium (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• And I say again, why is this useless, troll-attracting article still around? seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because troll attraction is not a characteristic which is of relevance when considering whether an article should stay or go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• If you do not want the article on Wikipedia, despite it meeting our relevant criteria for inclusion (
  ☎
  11:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note I have no opinion either way on the ED article but I do have a thought provoking question: Are trolls and rabble rousers the standards we base our content on? If so, Depictions of Muhammad, Don Murphy, and slew of other articles should not be here. If it meets the criteria we set forth for content, keep it, defend it like any other article we have. If it doesn't, nuke it and move on. spryde | talk 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see

I'd be willing to help out. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good reason we shouldn't indefinitely move protect all featured articles? Gimmetrow 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking "Why should we indefinitely move protect all featured articles?" to which I would response "Why indefinite?" Move protecting while actually featured on the main page seems reasonable but doing so indefinitely does not. What am I missing or not understanding? --ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because most FA moves are either vandalism, POV, or ill-thought forks. An article through FA usually has the appropriate name for its content. Gimmetrow 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Gimmetrow. Raul654 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but I disagree. In any case, this doesn't seem to be the right place for this discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the right place? Gimmetrow 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the best place. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Seresin. - auburnpilot talk 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and move protected all the current scheduled TFAs with the exception of Lion which was indefinitely sprotected from editing/moving. Hope that helps a bit :).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moves are only available to autoconfirmed users in Wikipedia by default, so the move protection status of lion was no different than any unprotected page. I've added move protection to the article. Graham87 12:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution

I discussed this with east718, and he worked out a simple script to run under his account to move-protect the day's FA for 24 hours and 2 minutes, starting at 23:59 UTC. Call it a bot if you wish, but it is a script to move protect the FA without anyone wondering why the FA redirects to Poop since someone went to pick up dinner. He's going to run it, and any criticism/suggestions are welcome here, at my talk page, or his. Keegan^talk 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually coming here to suggest that exactly that be done. This seems like an ideal task for a bot/script. Resolute 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Redirect deleted. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Halp, I stumbled on a Video Game stub named "Inside Moon" and found that the game is just called "Moon" so I moved the page but could someone delete the redirect? [2] It doesn't link anywhere. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. You can also request that by using {{

db-author}}. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk

) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it, but wasn't sure since it was an article move type redirect? I wasn't sure if it needed more explaination...thank you for sorting it out :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably {{db-r3}} would fit better. But if it fits to two deletion criteria... well.. delete :-) - Nabla (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Following inquiries from the Arbitration Committee, The undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has requested that his sysop privileges be removed temporarily. Prior to any application to reinstate The_undertow's sysopship, the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

For the Arbitration Committee.

James F. (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, is this resignation under controversial circumstances meaning an RfA is required, or is he free to regain them at any time after telling the committee? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is controversial, as the committee have to be consulted should he want resysopping.

talk

) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What did he do (did I miss some huge controversial thing)? 2. He has to tell ArbCom if someone wants to nominate him on RFA? FunPika 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"did I miss some huge controversial thing" - yes, yes you did. See RFAR. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I have in the past protested Arbcom's claimed right to prevent a someone not a party to the case from nominating someone at RFA. (not that I intend to do so in this case) --Random832 (contribs) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been pointed out on the prop decision talk page that his desysopping did not numerically pass.

t/e

02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems 1.2 (Tango is suspended as an administrator for one month) has passed.

chat

) 02:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It actually seems like 1.3 is the operative remedy passing in this case, because it passes as the clear preference and supercedes 1.2. I'd suggest not posting definitively about this here or elsewhere until its cleared up.

^T

02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a 7 to 2 majority is not sufficient, but (1) it ought to be sufficient, and (2) the committee members agreed to close the case with remedy 1.3, i.e. Tango is desysopped, clearly stated on the Proposed Decision page. If this was an honest mistake, do correct it, but it looks kosher to me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The desysop has been done.

Resolved

 – empty as of 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC). MCB (talk)

Could somebody take a look at

Can I ask under what authority the Arbitration Committee has enacted a content decision, as seen at Erik Moller? Yes, I'm aware of the current hoo-ha, but this person is the 2nd in command of a major world-wide organization, and is so notable that there is no way they wouldn't pass AFD today without flying colors. That begs the question of where did the Arbcom authorize a content decision, which they have neither the power nor authority to do?

• Please clarify when the AC gained this new power, and where did the community authorize that?
• Please address the edit protected request at
  Talk:Erik Moller to redirect it to Erik Möller
  .

The Arbitration Committee granted itself the right to do whatever it wants on paedophilia-related issues a long time ago, purportedly to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User behavior, yes, but content, negative. They simply can't do that, and they can't empower themselves to do so. As a body the AC has no editorial power over actual article content <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">(obviously including redirects and images, and text), and no individual user, admin, arbiter, or otherwise, has binding editorial power over any content matter at any time--that is 101% community derived exclusively.

t/e

23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, I'm not a sitting arbitrator and any such message is a suggestion to other admins of good sense and clue. As for your assertion that they have no power over content, that's actually not the case - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did the community grant the arbitration committee as a body, with their nominal authority, power over editorial matters? They are empowered wholly by us, and I don't recall seeing this detailed on their official page. They can only do what the community proscribes.

t/e

00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The community didn't prescribe the Arbitration Committee the right to carry out a nineteen minute

creating a userbox declaring a fondness for "young women" (and not even using it himself, or warring over it). But there was little objection to that. We've just slipped down the slope to content censorship, now. It's only a matter of time before we're invading ru.wikipedia to claim the server space that is rightfully ours. --AnotherSolipsist (talk

) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Sounds like a fun game. All their server are belong to us. You don't happen to know an open-proxy sockpuppet army that could help us out with the invasion, do you? :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Arbitration Committee doing behavioral sanctions, and the like, but I'm in general opposed to things not being transparent. What I am opposed to however is anything that attempts to usurp control of article content from the community. If the Foundation themselves can't step in to do what except in rare cases when legal issues are at play, to not risk their Safe Harbor/Section 230 protections, the Arbitration Committee or individual admins certainly have no authority to do so for deeply embarressing problems.

t/e

03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does deliberately violating Godwin's Law in that manner mean you have no intention of putting forward a valid argument? John Nevard (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever actually, y'know, read about what

Godwin's Law is? I'm getting plenty tired of people mentioning this meme where it doesn't apply. Neapolitan Sixth (talk

) 18:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not making any assertions one way or the other, but I think we all have the right to know what the Arbitration Committee's powers are, where they are outlined, and how they are proscribed. It simply is not our way, otherwise. --David Shankbone 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fight the powah! There's some history to read up on, as I'm sure you'd be insulted if people assumed you needed to be spoonfed - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not averse to spoonfeeding, can you help a brother out and say what you are trying to say? Arkon (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The words "content" or "article" don't show up in the Arbitration page at all. The page in fact just details who was picked, why, where, how, and how Jimmy yielded all his authority over time to the AC, that leaves them... still with no editorial power over content.

t/e

00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment is slightly tangential but I don't think we can say something as clear cut as "the Arbitration Committee cannot determine matters of content". It is certainly true that they have traditionally refused to determine such matters, but to say they are prohibited from doing so needs some explanation. If we look at

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope, "4. The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" the use of the word "primarily" suggests they can hear other matters. That said, "5. The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus" suggests that if there is a community consensus that the Arbitration Committee may not hear matters of content, they cannot do so. I'm not sure there has ever been such a discussion. These wiki-constitutional issues are not though I think what this discussion turns on. Whether ArbCom can or cannot determine this issue, it would I feel be unwise for them to do so here given Erik's status within the Foundation. WjBscribe

12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be unwise, but also they can still only do what the community deems to let them do at the end of the day. We let them do a lot, but if the community ever totally rejected something by the AC, the AC can't really do much about it, since they rely on the trust and faith of the community to empower them. They were once empowered by Jimbo, but now that Jimbo no longer owns Wikimedia and is just one board member, the AC derives all it's authority from us. They are not autonomous to do whatever they want. As you mention, though, it would be very unwise for them to try to start without asking the community's permission first.

t/e

15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that as editors themselves, the members of the Arbcom should have as much power to determine content as any other user, but no more than that. Saying "because Arbcom says" isn't an automatic pass on a content issue. As the collective-entity-known-as-Arbcom have always refrained from making any judgement on content issues, they cannot suddenly start to do so because it suits them to do so.

☎

13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they have, I think their name has been used because Gerard believes the pedophile rulings give them the power over all pedophile issues including content - a simple mistake. Viridae^Talk 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As the person who initiated the pedophile directive with the AC, I hope this invocation of the AC by David Gerard was unrelated to this ruling. I devised of the ruling to protect minors from pro-pedophile activity (and by extension, the project from disrepute), and not for any other reason. El_C 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been broadly used in the past to suppress accusations of pro-pedophile editing; I take it this was also not your intent? --Random832 (contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My intent was to curtail pro-pedophile editing, so it would be a given. -El_C 11:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaaa? This pic weighs in 105 KB, and our current logo is only 19. We can't replace it until it's optimised well. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to optimize. It seems

User:Cryptic has done that now though (thanks Cryptic). The image weighs 23 kilograms, er, kilobytes now (teehee). If someone could now do the honors, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Equazcion •✗/C •

20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, hold on - whilst I agree the image is better, can I suggest that this is premature? Have images been created for all the other languages? We can't have them being different. When this is done, I think it would be a good idea, but give everyone time to comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the other languages have already had their logos changed in this manner. I initially got the idea from the German Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the new logo cannot be in public domain, as the current logo is copyrighted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ignore my license summary, I just wanted to get the thing uploaded. We'll of course keep the current summary that already appears at Image:Wiki.png. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Most other languages already have smooth globes, and some (like German Wikipedia, whose globe we are now copying) have for years. It's EN that is a legacy. Dragons flight (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

^Yup. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be done, please check the licensing and what not. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, I've reopened the bugzilla ticket. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This should also be an opportunity to also fix the invalid japanese (and there was one other language that also had a problem, I don't recall). It should be ウィ, not ワィ --Random832 (contribs) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it will work that way, the logo issue in this case deals with the shades and layering of the entire image, which can be done post-original creation. I don't think the characters on the globe can be changed without the original rendering settings, which Nohat lost years ago. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be possible. We could do a new rendering of a simple sphere with the new correct symbols, then just take pieces of that and edit them into the present logo in 2-D. I'm not good with 3D rendering so this is beyond me, but just saying, I think it's possible. I don't think we need the entire original 3D source, necessarily. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referred to here (from Village pump). Why is this discussion taking place in AN? Anyway, I found this image [5] to be really nice and less intimating than the current one. It also shows there is a way to create something similar to the current logo from scratch. And, of course, if the logo were to be recreated, some erroneous scripts can be corrected once and for all. (I, though, concur with the argument that since Wikipedia contains errors always, that the logo contains errors is somehow fitting. But showing that we are ignorant of foreign scripts isn't terrible good, I think. Shouldn't we solicit more feedbacks from the community at large?) -- Taku (talk)
Err.....I thought all images had to be PD and not copyrighted:

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest we use it. As you can know from the above, the logo has to be copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation. This is a different matter from the use of free images in Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User-created images

Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license such as the

Resolved

Same-sex marriage has the padlock icon and claims to be semi-protected, and as far as I can tell was semi-protected at the time that [6] this anon-IP edit was made. On the other hand, I can't see the protection event that would apply in the logs. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

it was protected on

15 May but the protection has now expired. I have removed the padlock. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk

22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'd assumed the icon automatically appeared & disappeared. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, we got a bot somewhere checking the articles once in a while to see if they are still protected and removing the icon if needed, but I don't know how often it is ran. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DumbBOT does that, and it's normally pretty quick from what I've seen of it. Acalamari 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See this user's Pianist ru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He is being repeatedly disruptive and incivil, and use cyrillic very often, even when talking to non-Russian speakers. I see other input on what to do next. Someone else should respond to him this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The user is being disruptive and abusive. I have watchlisted his talk page. It seems that he has been given another warning. If he does not clean up his act, I think yet another block is in order. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It was my warning, I have noticed he was already blocked. Well, he had a valid point regarding the

Abkhazian SSR, it is pitty he was blocked for arguing a valid position. On the other hand I am skeptical on the usability for English wikipedia. Of a user with {{User en-0}} on his user page, especially if the user is combative and inclines to swearing. On the third hand, call me paranoid, but for a new user with almost no English he knows to well our jargon and alphabet soup. He might be a sock. Requires monitoring anyway. I would shorten the block but it is up to the blocking administrator Alex Bakharev (talk

) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is a Russian language Wikipedia. If the person does not speak English well enough to make meaningful contributions here, they may certainly be welcome there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: He is not currently blocked. — Rlevse • Talk< /span> • 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently I commented on a discussion at

I've been going through and replacing the transclusions in the month articles for 2004 (

March 2004 so far) with substitutions, then redirecting all the individual day pages. I haven't checked through the histories of the days themselves, but this does at least leave the content readable on the month pages. As far as I can tell, this is a workable solution regardless of where the original historys lie, since the histories remain intact in one place or the other. I'd suggest keeping the redirects even if they were copy-paste moves in the first place, because they're reasonable search terms. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs

) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dang, I've got no idea what to do with

April 2, 2004 etc.). Could someone help me out with this month? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs

) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly revert to this version and then redirect the individual pages? Guest9999 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That worked, thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User has taken this to

WP:AIV. PeterSymonds (talk)

11:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could an administrator please have a look at this user. They have been continually removing the category from the List of 4Kids cast members article with no explanation (they may be right to do it, but a reason would be helpful). However, looking at their talk page, they've been continually warned for distuptive editing, and the last one was a 'you will be blocked'. Obviously, I can't do this, and it needs someone to review the situation before this is done. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops _ I see I should have dropped this into WP:AIV - apologies in advance ! CultureDrone (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PUI is backlogged by over a month. Can we get a couple of folks over to clean out the holding cells? (All it takes is verifying that there is no justification for keeping the image, and deleting it.)

Just a heads-up that the upload bot for CommonsHelper has been blocked at Wikimedia Commons. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Favicon improvement. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Today, I was contacted suggesting that

I then contacted a Danish user, who also asserts that it does not exist. Before I delete this (very shortly), I would like to provide the opportunity for a couple of extra opinions from English Wikipedians just to make sure that we're all on the same page and not missing something, given this article has existed since September of last year. Furthermore, if consensus is that this is a hoax, we need to decide what if any action should be taken against Thrór (talk · contribs).

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections to deletion...the URLs on the articles being down is just one of many issues here.

H₂O

) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)