Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive196

This category contains over six thousand articles deemed "unsuitable" for the article namespace. I am unconvinced by the reasons at the AFC talk page for keeping these around. One editor suggests that deleting these old pages "would add to the burden on administrators". However, these pages can easily be deleted by a bot or by some

Remember, these pages are just as scrapeable as the rest of WP. If they're crap (as a great many of them are), why keep them? DS (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But, at the same time, why delete them? There isn't a good reason to do either, so I'd say we don't need to use the system resources. Some might be useful for possible future article creation, though, so do be careful if you decide to delete them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are maybe possibly good, yes. Others are idiotic scribbles and self-obsessed babbling. DS (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly an appropriate topic for discussion, but Nakon, using G6 as a reasont to delete these pages is completely inappropriate. In the thread you point to on WT:AFC, there are three administrators who declined to delete the archives at all. While I agree that many of these can be deleted without any issues arising, they are kept for a reason, and that is so the submitters can continue to work on them, and also see what was wrong with their submissions. They do not show up on most search engines, and they are not linked from anywhere except the category pages themselves. So while I don't disagree that some are deletable, I can't see a reason for a mass deletion for which there is clearly disagreement and where the pages cause no harm to the project. Please stop. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinions to not delete these pages came from the idea that it would cause more work for administrators. This is not the case and keeping these pages that are months and years old does not make any sense. I am not proposing that these be deleted immediately or withing a few days upon rejection but rather after an extended period of time (1-3 months). Nakon 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with making the proposal, and I'm sure one could be worked out that satisfied everyone. The only issue I have is the deletion of hundreds of archives without first making that proposal. I'm thankful that you've paused. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For those that are unfamiliar with the project, here are examples of pages that require deletion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and that's just a very small part of the pages beginning with "A". Nakon 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The pages should not be deleted, the policy has been to retain these pages. Many of the proposed articles in tehre are actually superior to others in article space, because higher standards are used to accept. The idea is not to accept and article that then will be speedy deleted. But you will find many proposed articles that only have a problem with missing references. The pages that could be deleted would be the same ones that we blank, such as copyright violations and attack pages possibly after a month so that the submitter can work out why their proposal led to no article. Otherwise I would urge not to delete stuff from the AfC project, and let the administrators who are part of the project do the needed deletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the pages shouldn't be deleted because of past "policy" doesn't provide a reason for keeping them around. Please review the examples I provided above and tell me how you think that these should be kept because they are "superior" to article space. Attack pages should be immediately deleted per CSD G10, regardless of where they are in the project. Nakon 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the category contains a tangled mess of pages that should be deleted. However, we must take into consideration the fact that there are many submissions there that should be kept, at least temporarily. Well, my admin friends, who is going to volunteer to manually delete over 5,000 pages? We couldn't go ahead and nuke all of them; they should all be checked, at least minimally, before deletion. I suggest changing the method by which submissions are declined at AfC. Here's a proposed solution: submissions could stay in the category for three months (at most) after they are declined before being deleted. Of course, this would pertain to submissions with actual content. Declined submissions that are copyvios, or declined submissions that have been cleared using {{

There are not too many pages to delete. I was able to nuke a good handful of these old pages without the use of a bot. Throw a handful of admin

wikignomes at the backlog and it'll get done eventually. As long as pages that are not up to article standards are removed after a reasonable period of time (IMO no more than three months, but that's debatable), I don't see an issue with either of your suggestions. Nakon

04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Earwig to keep the submissions for six months, or longer (a year, maybe). I watchlist all submissions I decline, and I do see editors continue to work on them even months after being declined. As for articles that meet speedy deletion criteria, I have seen submissions that started as empty, copyright violations, A7's, and spam turn into something that could be accepted, or at least not be deleted by CSD from the mainspace. Now, I have nothing against deleting attack pages or copyright violations early (I delete the more serious violations immediately), but there's actually nothing there to harm the project. When blanked, the bad edits are hidden in the page history, and are as harmless as bad revisions of an article, which the same, no one cares about except in the more serious cases. But regardless, I think deleting all of them would be rather pointless. We have marginal, hypothetical value to these pages, and equally hypothetical harm, which is why I've always supported leaving them right where they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of blanking versus deleting? Nakon 05:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The blanking makes sure that the offending material will not be visible to the casual visitor, or scraped off by the Wikipedia mirrors, or seen in search engines, but there is some feedback for the contributor so they can see that their page was declined. If they want to they can then fix it. For copyvio's they are often actually COI situation so the copy may not really be a violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For submissions that are only deficient in sourcing, (d|v) I believe we should keep them indefinitely. Other people are welcome to fix them up too by adding references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I have this got this right: (times in UTC)

• WT:WPAFC
  back in March and doesn't agree with the points made
• (00:00) Without any discussion, proposal or warning he goes against the consensus from that discussion and starts deleting the pages
• (00:11) Nakon makes his first announcement about his actions on this page
• (01:31) The first request for him to stop his deletions is posted on this page
• (01:42) Resumes his deletions
• (05:36) Despite concerns from several editors here, he continues to delete these pages

If this is correct then I believe it is appalling behaviour and misuse of the admin tools. I strongly urge Nakon to stop these deletions and obtain consensus before continuing. I will consider a block if this behaviour continues. There are various reasons for keeping these archives, and I shall be glad to share my thoughts (I suggest

I don't consider deleting pages that meet CSD G1/G11 abuse. The CSD general criteria apply project-wide. In the future, I will include a better deletion reason. Nakon 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nakon, it borders on abuse when you know there is no consensus to delete the pages. The response to the deletions should be evidence enough that these are not the sort of non-controversial deletions CSD was created for, even if the pages would be deleted anywhere else in the project. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone close the discussion at the top of this page please?

I'm reading through it now. lifebaka++ 08:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And done. Phew. lifebaka++ 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at my contributions list and it now has an "abuse log", not present a few days ago. Is this new?

This is very tactless. I've engaged in no abuse yet I now have a criminal record. I merely created my own sandbox for article work and this is called abuse.

Perhaps it should be renamed "filtering log" or "filter log". Wikipedia has some areas, procedures, or people that are very hostile. That's not nice.

Requests:

1. Rename abuse log to something less nasty.

2. Possibly start a rule book. There are too many unwritten rules or rules that are scattered. I am willing to help organise such a rule book. No writting is needed, just some links to existing pages.

User F203 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For the morbidly curious, here's the abuse log. Nothing exciting.

17:01, 14 June 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 176, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox/Liz. Actions taken: none; Filter description: user space link added in article space (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)

User F203 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• How about "Abuse filter log"? And maybe a message on the log screen to explain what it is? Dcoetzee 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• The abuse filter did its job in alerting that something wrong was going on. From your talk page, I presume you know that you created the article User F 203/sandbox/Liz when you presumable meant to create a user subpage of User:F203/sandbox/Liz. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the current naming sucks. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• If we do add a message to this page, I suggest something like the following: "The abuse filter is a tool that automatically flags suspicious edits for review. Sometimes valid edits are accidentally included." Dcoetzee 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it's new. It's useful for those dealing with the
  abuse filter. That may be renamed to something like 'filter log', yes, or only visible by default to admins, with option to enable for users, as it's not of much use for the vast majority. But I still don't get why Special:Log/abusefilter is installed but doesn't work, we could avoid having this at all with that working (just one more click). Cenarium (talk
  ) 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Heh, only just noticed that on my contribs page. I have triggered the abuse filter a few times, and even filed a false positive report, but I can see how "abuse log" could be taken the wrong way - even knowing what it was I was embarrassed to see that it logged me "replacing content with obscenities" (on Michelle McManus articles, for anyone curious as to why I'd be replacing content with obscenities). This part worries me: anyone seeing my abuse log might take it out of context and assume I've been up to no good, when in fact I have a perfectly good explanation. Could the abuse log be made so that it's only visible to admins and the user concerned, maybe, or - better still - could items be removed from the log if they're reported as false positives?

  Cheers,

  propaganda_deeds
  01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I just noticed, too. To me, it sounds like "long term abuse" as opposed to setting off
    WP:ABFIL. MuZemike
    03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The name does seem problematic, as is the opaqueness of the information. I think I understand what triggered two of the three entries in my new abuse log, but after examining it quite thoroughly I still don't understand the third: "user space link added in article space" which is apparently link 176, which was triggered by an edit to
      Union Square (New York City) in which I moved images around. I think if the information is going to be openly available to everyone, then it needs to be much clearer and labelled something other than "Abuse log", since what is being logged is not necessarily abuse, but the triggering of a filter which indicates the possibility of abuse. On the other hand, if it were perhaps made to be visible only to admins and the user involved, then what it's called is less important (although I'd still say that "Abuse log" is a poor choice; "Filter log" would have been better). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c}
      03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • This edit triggered filter #176 because you had "[[User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing]]" in the wikitext. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• I replaced it with "abuse filter log" on two special pages I could determine and {{userlinks}}. Someone who knows how the $2 in MediaWiki:contribsub2 is generated may want to change that as well. Regards SoWhy 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, for Heaven's sake, guys—it's a piece of software. "Tactless"—it's obvious what it means, and I don't think anybody should get offended. Can we not get on with improving the encyclopedia, or is it absolutely necessary to continue griping about really minor and cosmetic issues? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? Yes, it's a piece of software. A piece of software we all use far too much.  ;) Until it's sentient and makes decisions for itself, however, we have some say in how it is presented. And, while I think User:User F203 needn't be quite so disappointed in the wording, it can and probably should be phrased a bit more clearly. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• This is a fairly easy fix. Just edit MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs to say "abuse filter log" or whatever. While you're at it, you might also want to change MediaWiki:Abusefilter-edit-action-flag, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs-text, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-search, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-loglink, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-topnav-log and MediaWiki:Abuselog (which appear as a consequence description on (say) Special:AbuseFilter/80, the tooltip for the abuse log link on Special:Contributions, the box description on Special:Abuselog, the navbar at the top of Special:Abusefilter and don't know respectively). MER-C 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for identifying those messages. I just
    went ahead and replaced "abuse log" with "abuse filter log" on those. If someone working on the filter objects, they can delete/revert those again but unless anyone does, I do not think that anyone will mind that I did so. Regards SoWhy
    11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Did you know that depending on route, it's 52-55 miles from Penistone to Scunthorpe? I didn't think it was that far, but there you go. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no need for opacity. We have an actual article on the Scunthorpe problem, which of course all people managing or reading the output of these filters should read. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the changed name is a good idea, but I'd still try to find another term than, and least for the contribution list part, which seems the most sensitive. DGG (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why not simply "filter log" ? –xeno^talk 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• My vote would be to make the abuse log visible only to admins. Why? As you can see from my abuse log, edits that I made to pages that have since been deleted are visible. Now, of course, the pages on MY abuse log were deleted at my request, but what if those pages had been oversighted? The abuse log could potentially provide a workaround for anyone to see exactly what it was that was oversighted. Not a good thing. Matt (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like some closure on this subject, as I believe it will soon end up becoming an "edit war", which we all would like to avoid. From the discussions on it's

I feel that most of the articles which have spawned into shows outside of/after Xleague (Games Night, Reviewmageddon, Wez and Larry's Top Tens and Guru Larry's Retro Corner) deserve to remain intact. There was a vote of 5:1 in favor of retaining them as well as severe

WP:COI for trying to put up false "speedy deletion" claims for the exact same articles for copyright infringement. On top of that vandalized several of my comments on said talk page whenever I mention the name Steven Tu.--FirecrackerDemon (talk

) 08:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I do agree the lesser popular/smaller show article such as Game60 and trailblazers could essentially be merged.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The 5:1 favour, for me is a little dubious as one of the comments come from the presenter of some of these shows and the other 3 are just comments saying how "stupid" the merge is without a concensus reason as to why it isn't a good idea - thus not placing a valid argument for not merging the articles. If there is a severe

WP:COI

violation to these pages, then that would also single out Guru Larry for creating and editing some of these pages in the first page, which I found from the history of these pages. I feel that placing COI violations are counter-productive and doesn't resolve the primary reason for the merge, which is to improve upon a particular article.

The speedy deletion was not solely for copyright infringement, but rather to have these shows into a single article on the XLEAGUE.TV page. I do realise that, that was the wrong proceedure and found out recently that requesting a merge would be more appropriate for creating a better article. As I've said before, I would like an admins input to find out a resolution to this. Ryoga3099 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am not an employee of either XLEAGUE.TV or UKeSA and I am not on their payroll. I have been through this before when users were asking whether I worked for UKeSA when I created and edited the UKeSA article. Employers/employees have confirmed to these people that I am not part of the organisation. Ryoga3099 (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryoga3099, you have been an employee of Xleague which is evidential by your own confession on several websites, You were the "Steven Tu, XLEAGUE Community Manager" amongst other jobs. Also being on a payroll or not has no bearing on employment. Again, by your own hand you've admitted that you've offered volunteer work to the company (for written articles and creating the logo) therefore you are part of UKeSA, so even if you're not a current PAID employee, you are at least an affiliate of the companies and always will be.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Does writing articles on Wikipedia mean I have an affiliate to the company who owns Wikipedia? Does public beta-testing a video game voluntary mean I'm associated with a particular company? Does knowing a person in a particular company mean I'm associated with a particular company? Doesn't your argument also puts Guru Larry under the spotlight for having worked for XLEAGUE.TV?

Regardless of where I come from or what I do or where other people come from or what they do, it doesn't resolve whether these articles should be merged or not. A personal attack, which is what it appears to be, is counter-productive to the original issue. This is why I request an admin to look at this and avoid this "war of words". Ryoga3099 (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:OuroborosCobra seems to be having problems being civil and may need a time out. --Protostan (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're engaged in an edit war with him on multiple articles and several people are saying that your edits are original research. My advice would be to stop edit warring, take it to the talk page, and not draw attention to yourself by asking for a block of a user you're in a content dispute with. Also baiting is considered a form of incivility. Mr.Z-man 04:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying he's not in any way in violation of the rules when he write "I don't give a damn about cliches, it is the wrong category and you know it. You know it here, on Paul Harvey, on Abraham Lincoln, and everywhere else you edit"? --Protostan (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The "and you know it" might be pushing past

WP:AGF a little (not being completely familiar with the context, I can't tell whether that's warranted), but it definitely isn't block-worthy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk

) 05:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think swearing at people is smiled at here either)--Protostan (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We want to have a collegial environment, but we don't achieve that by being a police state and blocking people for saying "damn" once in an edit summary. I also note that you haven't notified OuroborosCobra of this thread, I've gone ahead and done that. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

blocking does sound like a bit of an overkill. What the next step down from it? --Protostan (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing (intentionally or not) that your actions are part of the problem here, and any action you think should be applied toward your enemy could just as easily be applied to you. Dispute resolution implies that people are trying to resolve conflict. You seem to want to escalate it and try to prevail then by getting your opponent in trouble. That's not how things work here. If you want people to be civil you first need to be civil yourself, both in words and, even more importantly, actions. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys are already aware (as it is tagged), but just as a precautionary FYI,

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – No. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I do quite a bit of editing and would like to quit my job and edit Wikipedia for a living. Would it be possible to get some advertising for these pages and use the income to pay regular editors a salary? Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think this advice has never been more appropriate: "Don't quit your day job." --64.85.222.104 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Marking "resolved" – obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 16:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, I wish. (I wish I could get paid for editing. I'm NOT in favor of advertising.) Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the opening poster was being 100% sensible, and I don't think that we should

continue humouring him/her. No administrative action is required here. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat

─╢ 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec - please don't shoot me for editing an archived thread!) No. The idea of putting adverts on Wikipedia has been discussed plenty of times before and a large proportion of the community has been very much against it. It is possible to get a third party to pay you to edit Wikipedia, although you need to be careful there (there is an RFC on the subject going on at the moment

WP:OFFICE actions). There may also be jobs working for local chapters, but they wouldn't involve editing either. --Tango (talk

) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

... is developing a bit of a backlog. Anyone else who might be interested in helping to clear it would be appreciated. :) JPG-GR (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for reporting Administrator backlogs.--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's very common to post admin backlogs here as a large number of admins keep an eye on this page so they can be aware of things that need to be noticed (hence the title of the page). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the place to report backlogs. In truth, my feeling is that a lot of the stuff here (complaints about specific users, etc.) should be an

T • C • L

) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Technically one shouldn't post notes about backlog here, owing to the instructions at the top of the page to just use
  the template, but people do it often anyway. –xeno^talk
  20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a point, but that cat doesn't seem to get looked at quite as much, so if there's a major backlog this will attract attention faster. –
    T • C • L
    ) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • yea, I never said it was effective ;p –xeno^talk 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. :) –
        T • C • L
        ) 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Banjeboi

15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly has been attacking you, Ibaranoff? You say I'm a liar, and that people like me are what is wrong with Wikipedia, yet you claim you have been attacked? By whom, and some diffs to support this claim please. What are you trying to accomplish, first consensus did not agree with you, then you nominate the article for deletion after not getting your way, and now this thread? What is next? I would not complain about Gwen if I were you, she could have blocked you and been well within her rights to do so. As an indef-blocked user you promised not to engage in this type of behavior. You did well for a few months, don't throw it all away now.

Landon1980 (talk

) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While you didn't directly insult me, you appear to show condescension in your tone towards me. (

talk

) 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Care to back that up with some diffs? Please highlight exactly what you took to be condescending, and why.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In this example, Landon responds to my statement about what is sourced by telling me, essentially, that anything that doesn't reflect the "accepted" opinions is original research. (

talk

) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

since it's here, let's judge it by the results. DGG (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if he was being uncivil to you, that does not give you the right to call him a liar, or tell him he's what's wrong with wikipedia. You should know this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are the diffs of me being uncivil, or attacking you, Ibaranoff? In fact, I see no evidence to support a single claim made in this thread by you.

Landon1980 (talk

) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No action necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that rollback was supposed to be used for blatant vandalism. Surely all of the recent edits by

It doesn't look to me like rollback was used to perform those edits. Matt (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem - rollback cannot be used to make edits, only revert edits. Shereth 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am here to also announce my confusion. Nothing was reverted.

Tan | 39

18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I get it - you're seeing "[rollback]" next to every edit - that's because you have rollback and that gives you the option to rollback his edit, not because he's using rollback to perform the preceding edit. It's kind of odd to start with.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed—tagged as resolved. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly correct, as I don't have rollback, so I don't see what you're describing. The problem here is that I made an unwarranted assumption. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago I responded to a

I know there are admins involved with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect also are aware of the problems at this article as well as others. I may have jumped the gun a little by imposing first and asking here later, but I think the situation more than warrants quick action. The article is a hot mess, 158Kb long now, and we've got to take control of it. I ask for support of the restriction, extra eyes on the Fascism article, and any help my fellow admins can give. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 04:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of fascist BS --NE2 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? That's typical coming from a guy who tries to railroad others. :-P - KrakatoaKatie 05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that the particular RFC/U was about as messed up a one as ever found, and that the editors who cite it repeatedly seem to think that are showing how good they are <g>. Further that I made no recent reverts on Fascism at all, which means mentioning me here is a teeny bit irrelevant. One of the editors involved seems to deleight in calling me "deranged" and worse, and on the basis of "do not feed the trolls" I have avoided filing WQAs on him. I also recommend that anyone reading this also read User:Ikip/Disclaimer and User:Ikip/Guests as well as the current ArbCom AMIB case/ It might result in a better balanced view of my posiions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Cirt undid close, I reclosed - Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt (talk · contribs) closed the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations_(2nd_nomination). Previously he participated in the Deletion Review of the previous discussion. That deletion review that was closed by User:King of Hearts contrary to his recommendation. His closure is contrary to the relevant guideline (Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete). -- Docu (talk · contribs) 19 June 2009 08:48

Deletion review is that way. This board isn't for deletion review. Whispering

08:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If this closed AfD is taken to

Deletion review, I will defer to the outcome of consensus there. Cirt (talk

) 08:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, would you consent to undoing the close, and/or allowing me to reclose it? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, see [7]. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, re-closed Fritzpoll (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fritzpoll (talk · contribs)! :) Cirt (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fritzpoll, much better. -- User:Docu

Hi admins, please consider the unblock request at User talk:Thantalteresco.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally (as an unrelated yet involved admin) I do not know whether it is Premier or not. The person is pushing the same controversial race theories that Premier/Steakknife/various other alteregos was on Australian Aboriginal topics (especially Talk:Indigenous Australians, but appears more literate. However we had evidence that that user was a student of an Australian university, so it is not beyond possibility they could have gained literacy, but this user hasn't moved into the republican debate issues that user did. I'd say this one is a common or garden SPA, but don't quote me. Orderinchaos 23:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Message left at

Bencherlite^Talk

23:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for people's benefit, memories fade - Gnangarra was referring to User:Premier, who was blocked in 2006 and more recently used User:Steakknife and a whole swathe of IP addresses. Orderinchaos 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yep I was refering to User:Premier, this appears to be consistant with the user and some of his socks is based on the standard Duck test. Gnangarra 10:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Gnangarra: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck... but, if you say that he edits like Premier and speaks like Premier but someone says that his IP is not like Premier's, is he Premier? We can know what is the truth with this.

I don't know who are Thantalteresco and Premier, and it's your word against him. Has he violated any policy (apart from the alleged 'block evasion') by which deserves to be blocked ad infinitum? ~~×α£đ~~^es 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Further discussion to occur elsewhere. –xeno^talk 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please try to explain to Arcadian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) why

1)

WP:HATNOTE

on the primary usage is all that is necessary and

2) if one does vacate a primary usage and replace it with a disambiguation page, one should repair the

links to disambiguation pages

that were created

I had a tough time dealing with them when they did this on Amoeba (see User talk:Arcadian#Amoeba) and notice they're still doing it, i.e. most recently with Acanthocyte (I've already moved back). Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would appreciate if someone informed Arcadian of this thread - they've asked me not to post to their talk page even though I tried to bury the hatchet at User talk:Arcadian#Amoeba redux. –xeno^talk 15:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User notified.

Tan | 39

15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, I believe my conduct has been compliance with disambiguation policy. On the Amoeba page, the links to the page were genuinely ambiguous, and so a disambiguation page was the most appropriate target. For Acanthocyte, the reason there was an overwhelming majority of references to the blood usage was because I had already updated it on

Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings. --Arcadian (talk

) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would've explained that to me up front. We couldn't gotten on a lot better. However, the 2DAB rule still applies to many of the "disambig" moves you've made. You could save everyone a lot of trouble and not create links to disambiguation pages that later need to be fixed by just adding a hatnote. –xeno^talk 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is an accurate summary of the relationship between my conduct and

Wikipedia:2DAB#Disambiguation_pages_with_only_two_entries. Please provide a diff. --Arcadian (talk

) 15:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You vacated

primary usage) on the 16th to place a disambiguation page with 2 links in its place - as a result, pages such as XK (protein) pointed, inappropriately, at a disambiguation page. You could've then repaired the link, but it would have been better to simply add a hatnote as I did [8] after reversing your move to point users to your newly minted article if they landed at Acanthocyte looking for Acanthocyte (mycology). –xeno^talk

15:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To make sure I understand your position -- are you stating that after a disambiguation, an editor is required to edit all the pages that pointed to the prior version? If so, I would welcome feedback from other admins on this page to confirm that point, since it does not seem to be supported by the policy pages you've linked. For reference, here is the version before I disambiguated. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". --Arcadian (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "required" (it's a volunteer project), but cleaning up the links to disambiguation left lying around is the responsible thing to do. Nevertheless, in the present case, Google seems to indicate that the "blood" usage is the primary topic, with only 355 of 26,400 results making reference to Stropharia. However, if in your expert opinion there is no primary use, then yes, repairing the links to disambiguation pages yourself would be a good idea (as we saw in the Amoeba case, this required some more refined knowledge of the subject). –xeno^talk 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would appreciate someone telling me if I'm completely off-base here - but as far as my understanding goes wrt to
  WP:DPWL, these page moves are unnecessary, or where they were necessary, they made work that Arcadian didn't follow through on, i.e. repairing the links to disambiguation pages that were created as a result. Such repair may in fact require some specialized knowledge of the topic area and as is seen at the #Amoeba thread on Arcadian's talk page, I didn't have the requisite knowledge to properly repair all those disambiguation pages with links and Arcadian wasn't too forthcoming in offering advice on which links should go where after I attempted to do the clean up myself. –xeno^talk
  16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And Dear God, if you're not interested in burying the hatchet, please just ignore this instead of saying something like "I'd be happy to, but he's the one who started it"; it will reduce me to a whimpering amoeba-like lump lying on the floor weeping in frustration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to bury the hatchet and would be pleased to assist Arcadian repair links to disambiguation pages on his advice if he feels there is no primary topic and makes moves like this in the future. –xeno^talk 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Xeno reported me as "reckless" on the Administrator's noticeboard, which makes this process more formal than any of us would like. It's possible that he's indirectly withdrawn that claim, per this header edit. However, that's a very indirect way doing this, and since he's using past conduct as evidence to support his claims in this current thread, I want to make sure that this thread is as easy as possible for people to understand in the future. If Xeno is withdrawing his claim, I would be delighted to let the matter drop. --Arcadian (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I decided "reckless" was escalatory and thus amended - however, the problem of leaving behind links to disambiguation pages remains. If you make moves like this in the future (vacating a page to make a disambiguation page), the links need to be repaired - links to disambiguation pages are almost never appropriate. My bot is approved to do this and if you gave me some pointers on distinguishing to which usage the links should point, I can do the grunt work if you don't feel like doing it. –xeno^talk 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Given this edit, xeno is welcome on my talk page again, and I look forward to productive collaboration in the future. I do think in certain examples, linking to a disambiguation page is the best choice, but I'm confident that we can resolve those issues on a case-by-case basis, rather than raising it to the level of the Administrator's noticeboard. --Arcadian (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Marking resolved and we'll go forward on a case-by-case as you suggest. cheers, –xeno^talk 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. Administrator's opinions are solicited on the issue of self electing groups on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:82.198.250.66 where the hardblock rangeblock of the LGFL is being protested. Is the vandal these blocks were intended to prevent still active? –xeno^talk 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, this month we've had this request in extremely uncivil terms, and vandalism of the talk page on the 9th. I'm not convinced it would benefit Wikipedia to unblock, but I'll go along with consensus.

talk

) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe his/her main concern is that the block is a hardblock, registered users can't edit without requesting IPBE. –xeno^talk 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've read it again and am beginning to understand the issue, luckily one I haven't had to deal with yet. :-)

talk

) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm traveling and my username has been spoofed. I haven't gone back through all of my edits since June 13, but I just learned about this one: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography#Location_maps_for_continents_-_proposal. I'll change my password, and I'll create a new account for use while traveling. But I'd really like to know who spoofed my account (and others at WikiProject Geography are probably interested, too, as the action effected their discussion). Perhaps a checkuser can assist. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Spoofing" means to imitate, for example, if someone created "Rosistep" and acted as if they were you. Do you mean your account was compromised?

Tan | 39

15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on [9] and [10] I would say that yes, what she intends to say is that her account had been compromised. Shereth 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably foolish to speculate based on insufficient information, but since this happened at a page that was likely on your watchlist, appears to have only happened once, didn't advance any other editor's dispute (i.e. a pretty lame hack if it was a hack), and appears to have been a use of rollback, I wonder if it isn't more likely that you accidentally clicked rollback on a diff or on your watchlist, and didn't realize it. It's not that hard to do, I've accidentally rolled something back before and almost didn't catch it. I think this might be more likely based on Occam's razor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that the account was used by anyone at a different location than the two locations you routinely use. There is a 5-1/2 hour gap between the revert you say you did not make and the rest of your editing that day, but the location is the same as the other edits that day. If it was not an accident, could it have been someone else using your computer, and finding that your account automatically logs in? Thatcher 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It seems Floquenbeam is right. After logging in, I must have accidentally clicked on rollback... I feel pretty lame about that. I guess it was just easier for me to assume that some jerk compromised my account, rather than the error, though accidental, was mine. So I'll go back to Polargeo and the project talkpage with an apology. And thanks to all of you for being so speedy assisting me with this. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, stuff happens some times. Better than that someone guessed your password. Thatcher 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rolledback and not realized until someone pointed it out to me later. It happens.--chaser (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've unintentionally rollbacked when I was trying to get to an article section. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A notorious sockmaster has been allowed to create a new account, but with limitations on his editing rights. I question the manner in which this happened and would like to see this discussed thoroughly. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent that makes the project vulnerable to gaming and undermines confidence in the blocking and unblocking processes. Just how far should AGF be stretched toward such disruptive users?

I would like to see wide community input. So far very few editors have been involved, and I am unsure of the matter. I have my own opinions on the matter, but the community should make the final decisions.

Notifications of this thread:

• User talk:Georgewilliamherbert
• User talk:Avathaar
• User talk:JWSchmidt
• User talk:NootherIDAvailable
• User talk:Brunton
• Talk:Homeopathy
• User talk:Whig

Relevant links:

• Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#NoOtherIDAvailable

• User talk:NootherIDAvailable: Lots of discussion.

• Archived NPOV Noticeboard discussion

Newer developments:

• Discussion at Talk:Georgewilliamherbert that started the reinstatement of the banned user. It was started by User:JWSchmidt, whose role should be examined. Is his role a form of meatpuppetry? Should he be allowed to (mildly) "intimidate" (maybe a strong word, but I'm not sure what other word to use) users who question the "new" incarnation of a banned user? While I believe his actions may be unwise and ultimately futile, I AGF that he has the best intentions, and the desire to help someone in need is generally a good character trait. For that I applaud him.

• Latest block discussion with lots of input by the involved User:JWSchmidt

• User talk:Avathaar: New identity of User:Dr.Jhingaadey.

Note that this user was still evading his blocks using various IPs right up to while these discussions were occurring!

Fundamental matters of principle to decide:

1. Was proper unblocking procedure followed?
2. Shouldn't the unblocking of such a community banned user first be discussed using an RfC/U, rather than occurring on an obscure corner of Wikipedia (a userpage) where few editors realized what was occurring?
3. To what degree should editors here be allowed to act as advocates/meatpuppets for banned or newly returned users who are under "probationary" status?
4. Should this banned user be allowed back at all under these circumstances?
5. Should the new account be closed and the banned user's bans be reinstated?

Consider this thread to be the start of such a discussion.

--

Responses

I don't a problem with it as long as he is watched closely, we can see where it goes from here. Banned users should be given the opportunity to reform.

We aren't the Supreme Court; we don't have to follow precedent. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's human nature to follow examples of what's been done before as a guide and justification for how to behave now. Wikipedia will be no more successful at waving its hands and saying "Precedent doesn't matter" than Communism was at denying the existence and power of the profit motive. Precedents do matter, and we'd all better get used to the idea that things we do now will potentially be used as models for things done in the future. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Therefore it would be extremely helpful if BullRangifer could clarify what these precedent-setting procedural issues are in his opinion. His thinking tends to be a bit woolly, and I simply can't follow him here. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Those procedural issues are mentioned in part of that last five point list. --

talk

) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
2. Since this isn't a full unblock/unbanning, that is not a big problem. What occurred here is pretty reasonable. However the community should have been alerted to this, as they are now.
3. If someone wants someone back then there is probably a good reason, assuming good faith. A ban is a community thing after all.
4. We can take this slowly from here and see what happens.
5. If the community objects to this allowed return then yes.

We do a lot of this - if a blocked/banned editor says "Oh I get it, I won't do that anymore" we tend to give them another shot. You mentioned that this user was evading blocks with IPs recently - do you have evidence of this you can share? If so, did it come after the I promise to behave note? Its fairly easy to reblock someone if it turns out they don't truly want to contribute productively. Shell ^babelfish 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe many if not all of the IPs are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. But it's a bit tricky to find them because they are mixed with those of last year. I am not aware of any since the promise. By the way, as he seems to be using dial-up, changing IPs should not be held against him. I guess part of the problem was that admins did not have the technical means to communicate "we really mean it" under the circumstances. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's welcome to use dial-up IPs, but he should have logged-in. That's why we have usernames. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors, especially for disruptive purposes, is forbidden here. If you have a username, you're supposed to use it. --

talk

) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer is overreacting to RJ (I will call him by the initials of his Citizendium username). Currently he is the only one doing so; last year, when RJ first appeared at Homeopathy, there was an entire mob. In my opinion:

• The greater part of the disruption that surrounds RJ is caused by overreactions from the anti-homeopathy camp.
• Even under the most favourable circumstances that we can realistically expect, RJ will not be a net positive to Wikipedia. To one side he is an easy target; to the other he is an embarrassment with his extravagant claims of healing cancer and AIDS and whatnot with homeopathy.

This opinion is based in part on what happened here before it was found out he was User:NootherIDAvailable and on his editing history at Citizendium.

BullRangifer's questions are bit misleading. They, and the title of this section, assume that he is formally community banned, perhaps even multiply. His real status is that of an editor who was getting on everybody's nerves, who was blocked a bit out of process, and who acquired the status of a "no admin willing to unblock" de-facto indefinitely banned user through a series of naively transparent block evasions. (E.g. initially he used various subsets of his real name in various spellings.)

Under these circumstances and assuming what I believe is the standard reading of the "no admin willing to unblock clause" (that the ban ends as soon as an uninvolved admin is willing to unblock – please correct me if there is no general agreement on this) it would be totally OK for JWSchmidt to unblock one of RJ's accounts. I am not sure why the new account, but there doesn't seem to be much wrong with that either since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the user was banned by the "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" community ban process and that any uninvolved admin may unblock; but I also believe that decision to unblock is subject to community discussion to determine whether there is consensus that the user remain banned. In other words, we all have a stake in the "de-facto ban" and we have a right to consider whether in the absence of a de-facto ban we would have banned the user by another process and would not now lift the ban; in which case the unblocking would be a bad idea.
• I generally think we should give the user a chance and that sock bans can become poblematic because a blocked user trying to get a fresh start but not understanding how things really work quickly becomes an illegal sock, even if no harm is intended. So, in general, I would support unblocking. However,
• I find the link provided by Scientizzle at User_talk:JWSchmidt#Nootheridavailable to be particularly troubling as it shows the user has been given a "second chance" before and I do not generally support third chances.
• I applaud JWSchmidt for this bold and demanding endeavor.
• I am not willing to give the user a third chance but I will support giving JW a chance to prove to me that I should. In other words, you won't get any leeway from me and I'm fairly certain you'll be bashed against the rocks, but I wish you luck and will support your attempt by waiving from the shore you crazy fool.--
  talk • contribs
  ) 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re your first point: I totally agree, and I expected that BullRangifer would start a community ban discussion. If that's what he intended, he could have made it a bit clearer. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• The last two points in the five point list mentions this, and I ended with a shot from the starting gun, so to speak. Now the community is having its input, and that's what I believe is the proper procedure BEFORE unblocking such a user. --
  talk
  ) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I offered this user a "second chance" months back because I felt the banhammer came down too quickly on an obviously upset newbie editor that may not have received sufficient instraction and warning. It became quickly apparent, however, that this editor (at that time) was not willing to appropriately engage the relevant issues, instead engaging in largely combative behavior to achieve ends that were at odds with the Wikipedia pillars. It's been a while since then, and little I've seen since convinces me that this editor is willing/able to distance himself from his deeply held beliefs to work within NPOV, UNDUE, RS, FRINGE, NPA, and all the other relevant acronyms.

I also can't help but note that the most recent incarnation, Avathaar (talk · contribs) was created 12:05, June 11, 2009, half an hour after his latest IP sock made an appearance and four hours before JWSchmidt's generous offer of another chance...my suspicion is that this editor would likely have continued this nonstop cycle of disruption and block evasion using this account anyway. (Note: I see no evidence of block evasion since JWSchmidt's offer.)

All that said, I'd be comfortable echoing every point Doug made here. JWSchmidt appears perfectly willing to see this through and has laid out a rather restrictive re-imersion program that has at least a chance of working. I wouldn't have the patience...As I said to JWSchmidt: give it a shot. — Scientizzle 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that anybody who sees any good in someone with this user’s history has just completely lost the plot. There’s assuming good faith, and then there’s handing an escaped mental patient a loaded gun. I don’t see any good in allowing this user to return, other than maybe giving an admin some training in chasing him around fixing the damage he does. — 

), 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"chasing him around fixing the damage he does" <-- That is a fair description of what Wikipedia got from past treatment of this editor, including the initial failure to welcome him and explain our rules. "allowing this user to return" <-- Wikipedia cannot stop him from returning. "completely lost the plot" <-- The problem is larger than this one editor. Wikipedia has systemic biases and the world is not blind to this phenomenon, even if many administrators are. I agree with "Dr.Jhingade" that there is room for improvement in Wikipedia and I'm willing to listen to his suggestions for how to improve articles such as Homeopathy. All I've done is make it clear that I'm willing to listen as long as he follows our rules. It is up to him to decide if he will follow the rules of Wikipedia and make constructive contributions. It saddens me to see administrators who only have one tool -the mighty ban hammer- and an approach to new editors that treats difficult contributors like nails. I have the time to treat "Dr.Jhingade" like a person. If my effort falls short then all the nail bashers can continue their game of wackamole. --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any problem with JWSchmidt helping the editor to become a constructive contributor, but the multiple accounts are a bit worrisome. I'm frankly not sure what talk page to leve a request on, but I think s/he should be strongly encouraged to pick one username and stick with it... whichever one is preferred can be unblocked by JWSchmidt, but the other accounts should be locked down. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SB Johnny. Right now, TTBOMK, none of the blocked accounts have been unblocked, so we are actually dealing with a currently blocked editor who has never been unblocked, but who is allowed to edit anyway (at present in a limited manner). I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. He needs to have one account unblocked and use only that one, IF HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK AT ALL. --

talk

) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dr. Jhinghaadey has shown absolutely no respect for or interest in this site's goals, content policies, or conduct policies; he constantly creates disruptive socks and then lies blatantly, if unconvincingly, when caught red-handed... someone please explain why we're contemplating abusing the time and goodwill of editors who actually bother to respect this site's policies? I'm not going to stand in the way of allowing him to edit one account's userspace, but I will reblock him myself without a second thought if he fails to adhere to those terms, or if those terms are expanded without input from the people whose volunteer efforts are most adversely impacted by Dr. Jhinghaadey's
  inappropriate advocacy. MastCell ^Talk
  03:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have tweaked my statement involving JWSchmidt in the introduction to this thread. I AGF in his intentions, even if I think they are unwise and ultimately futile. --

talk

) 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for JWSchmidt: Who formulated the statement in Avathaar's first edit? --

talk

) 04:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Who formulated the statement? Several days after I exchanged a few words with "Dr.Jhingaadey" on his user talk page, he contacted me. I told him what I thought he would have to do in order to be able to participate at Wikipedia. After several more days he informed me that he had posted a statement at User talk:Avathaar. That statement says what I told him he has to do if he wants to edit at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was wondering about that wording as it doesn't sound like anything he would have the slightest ability or understanding to formulate on his own. --
  talk
  ) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I find that the restrictions set by JWSchmidt are enough to warrant the least disruption possible while trying to recover a banned user for wikipedia. Whether Jhingadeey is actually recoverable is a different matter. If JWSchmidt manages to get him to become a productive editor then he can bring him here for review, if he doesn't manage it.... then... well, then JWSchmidt will have learned a valuable lesson about how you can't force people to change unless they don't want to change. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Doug - Oh, and the user needs to disclose all socks, certainly he may not be able to disclose IPs as a practical matter (he may have no idea what ones he's used) but any registered accounts must be listed on his userpage before we go any further. Any that are discovered post hoc, even if created before this discussion, would be a VERY BAD THING.--

talk • contribs

) 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interviews needed. I would like to have users question him about each of the four parts of his statement:

• ""I have previously been blocked from editing as User:NootherIDAvailable. I agree to editing restrictions and mentoring: 1) I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction. 2) I will restrict my edits to specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia 3) I will not behave at Wikipedia as an advocate of homeopathy or proclaim any personal partisan point of view with respect to the efficacy or medical value of any treatment, therapy or style of medical practice. I now recognize that such advocacy disrupts Wikipedia and does not help to improve the encyclopedia. 4) I now understand the goal of creating neutral Wikipedia articles that describe, in a balanced way, what is said in all reliable sources about each topic."-Avathaar (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)"

I'd like to have him explain to their satisfaction what his understanding actually is. That can be done in appropriately titled sections on his user talk page. We can thus ascertain for ourselves if he is (1) capable of rehabilitation and (2) really willing to reform. This is a process that I envision will be happening with candidates for rehabilitation in the

talk

) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that any further sockpuppetry by this user will put a speedy end to the slack he's being given. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I agree with BullRangifer that he must be subject to questioning. I'm not sure I'd say he has to run all of this before there is any decision, just make the decision "subject to". It's a valid part of his rehab anyway - part of "coming clean". If he balks, he's toast.--

talk • contribs

) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In the past he has shown no hesitancy to tell bald-faced lies when it suits his purpose. So, his response to any questioning should be taken with a few grains of salt (or a whole shaker-full).

talk

) 08:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) I think it's pretty clear that he should stick to one account and disclose the others, but outside of that I think we should do best to close this thread and let JWSchmidt work with him without a parallel discussion hanging over them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The experiment isn't working, so reinstate ban

The fourth edit he has made has been a

talk

) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Bran, let the experiment run its course and give time for JWSchmidt to realize by himself who he is dealing with. It will be a valuable learning experience for him (no, seriously, he will learn a lot). Also, watching slow-motion trainwrecks is fun, and this one looked promising, so don't be such a party pooper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Mind you, I respect and admire JWSchmidt's efforts to recover users for the project, it's just that I don't think that this particular user has any interest in becoming a NPOV-respecting wikipedia editor, so I find his efforts to be doomed from the start. Still, he needs to learn this by himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I could commit a combined

talk

) 05:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

He's kept to his talk page, so it seems to be "working" at least to that extent. JWSchmidt has dealt with even tougher cases before [11], so I doubt he has any illusions about the chances of success here. It's only been a few days and a few posts, so way too early to judge success at this juncture. IMO, at least. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pow pow pow! — 

TALK

), 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another overreaction. The user is staying on his talk page. It would have been enough to instruct him clearly not to use the helpme template again. BullRangifer's reaction reminds me of a news story I can't find anymore. An American was convicted of indecent exposure for walking around naked in his house. This could only be observed by using binoculars. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The experiment hasn't, in my opinion, had enough time to work or fail. In the course of less than a week under the new paradigm we've had precisely one comment from

n of 1 in the new experimental conditions. I support giving JWSchmidt a little more space to work for now. — Scientizzle

22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What a colossal waste of time and effort. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In his response to the notification of this thread, for some reason DrJ decided to attack me and my edits at Chiropractic - an article I am hardly involved in (I find it quite dull). I, and others, have wasted far too much time trying to help (initially) this editor, and all they do is attempt to subvert the project with their version of

WP:THETRUTH, abusing socks (which have been explained many times) and sources (ditto). I don't mind him being allowed to work on his user page, so long as John comes down hard on any more attacks or swipes at other editors, and keeps his abuse in check (such as the "helpme" template abuse.) So long as he's there and doesn't mention me I'll ignore him. Verbal chat

14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

With n up to 3[12][13] and little beyond personal attacks, consider my support vanishing like so much active ingredient in preparation of a 30C dilution... — Scientizzle 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "DrJ decided to attack me" <-- please list here the text of exactly what you feel is an "attack". Also please explain how his use of the helpme template constitutes "abuse". "little beyond personal attacks" <-- please list the "personal attacks". --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. In the first of my two links immediately above[14]: it was unacceptable to the skeptics-they want only negative stuff to be in the article ← this statement distills multiple discussions into a simple and objectionable claim that a swath of editors are deliberately acting in bad faith. Additionally, the assertion that this editor should be defended because he "doesn't know all the rules yet" is...disingenuous, in my opinion. This person has made hundreds of posts, since at least March 1, 2008, and has been spoon-fed advice on Wikipedia sourcing, neutrality, and behavioral policies and guidelines. Many of the previous incarnations of this editor have also claimed to be "new". At some point, though, the proverbial training wheels need to be ditched; when can we reasonably expect some understanding of, for example,

WP:FRINGE

?

In the second link[15], Avathaar lists three editors by name with the clear implication that these individuals are not working in the best interests of the project.

By the way, I don't think these two edits are particularly awful. However, they fit the pattern established over the last year-plus. I don't yet see any change in behavior occuring, and still no concrete suggestions for article improvement, thus my diminishing support for continued tolerance of this editor. — Scientizzle 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

JW, If you can't recognise clear misuse of the helpme template and rather obvious attacks directed at specific editors (linked above, including "not neutral" and "battling at chiropractic" and implication of puppetry) then you shouldn't be mentor to this person. I no longer support this process. Verbal chat

• Charges of abuse and personal attacks. I requested explicit descriptions of the claimed abuse and personal attacks. Judging from the the replies( here and here), it seems to me that Scientizzle and Verbal are unable to document any abuse and they are unable to document any personal attacks. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, I don't consider those two particular edits in isolation to be all that bad...I just don't see them as any improvement over what the last 15 months have provided from this editor. I'll agree to disagee as to whether they're "personal attacks" (they're minor ones--I wouldn't block someone for those statements, for example, just call them on the incivility); but they're obvious broad allegations of bad-faith editing, which is completely counter-productive. Do you agree with this assessment, JWSchmidt? If so, as his mentor I'd hope you would point this out. — Scientizzle 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was some trash-talking (in the sense of rather dismissive comments about the intentions of other editors), and DrJ should be discouraged from doing that. Scientizzle and Verbal wouldn't have to get involved if you (JWSchmidt) would do the discouraging, rather than compounding the problem by dismissing their concerns about that. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the folks closely involved in this could take a step back - you're smothering an editor who is clearly going to need some instruction in how Wikipedia works. Instead of jumping on him for every move he makes, let someone without a horse in this race try educating him on policy. If that still doesn't work, fine, but lets not pretend the situation right now is anything like giving it an honest try. Shell ^babelfish 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The current situation is an excellent demonstration of the fact that some of the editors opposed to homeopathy are a significant part of the problems in the area. I really don't know what's so hard about not watching the talk page of an editor who is getting on one's nerves and who is under a restriction not to edit outside his talk page. After all, given the overall quality of this editor's contributions to our discourse, it seems extremely unlikely that this develops into a pro-homeopathy think tank that will suddenly become so influential as to change the homeopathy situation in a significant way. --Hans Adler 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a very slim outside chance that an editor with DrJ's track record might reform, given a mentor. There is zero chance that he will reform if given an enabler. We seem to be well over the line here into the latter scenario. MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Would it help if someone more neutral was found and a more standard course of teaching someone the rules was followed? I agree if this is just someone trying to add another voice to "their" side its not going to be good for Wikipedia or the problem editor. Shell ^babelfish 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This is ridiculous. I can see no indication that the homeopathy side (which currently seems to consist only of Whig) is interested in recruiting Avathaar. Quite the contrary, because of his extreme opinions. What JWSchmidt and Avathaar discuss on Avathaar's talk page is not disruptive unless you choose to read it and interpret it in the worst possible way. If this circus doesn't stop soon, I will ask for the worst offenders to be banned from Avathaar's talk page per WP:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions. Of course JWSchmidt's rehabilitation attempt is going to fail, but I am not going to watch it fail prematurely because a bunch of hysterical homeopathyphobes start shouting at the top of their voices each time JWSchmidt is showing a bit of empathy with Avathaar. Without empathy there is no effective mediation. Here is the current ranking for User talk:Avathaar, in terms of number of consecutive edits:
      1. JWSchmidt (7 edits)
      2. Avathaar, BullRangifer, Hans Adler (3 edits each)
      3. Scientizzle, SB Johnny, Verbal (2 edits each)
      4. Brunton, 龗 (1 edit each)

    To me this looks very much like collective baiting. It may not be intentional, but that's the effect. --Hans Adler 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I only commented there as my name was mentioned, and it was brought to my attention. I will support mentoring with a neutral mentor. As I said at the start, JW is enabling rather than educating DrJ. It wasn't on my watchlist until the comment, and my edits were consecutive. I have on other talk pages of DrJs been supportive and given him the benefit of the doubt, and have even had email exchanges with him (before his NootherID persona). Verbal chat 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is a huge overstatement to say that JW is enabling Avathaar. As Hans says, he's showing empathy. He may also be naive, or he may just be very optimistic, either way but that doesn't make him an enabler. What's he enabling? These "attacks" are extremely mild and should be ignored. Maybe, it would be best if JW were to remove them. If venting like this is necessary maybe JW should take the conversation off-wiki. Maybe the community would support this more if someone more experienced and with a more neutral appearing attitude rolled up and said I'll step in here and work with this guy and see if he has any potential and report back. But it's not about to happen. This guy is under a community ban but for the fact that there is one and only one editor who would unblock him. No body else is willing to help, myself included, so we should all just stay the heck out the of the way. JW has the lead on this for lack of any other interested parties. Let's let him work at it because God knows there's a lot of work to be done!--
  talk • contribs
  ) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe JWSchmidt could suggest that Avathaar edit the article about his favorite pet, I have a developing theory that editors will find battlefield editing impossible when writing about small, fluffy animals. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

update to {{

Italictitle

}}

A function of the {{

str sub

}}.

I've done all the dirty work already fixing the code, all that's left is a copy-and-paste job from

italictitle}}. After that, I'd appreciate that user subpage being deleted (but only after the code has been copied). Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs}

) 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of moving code around like that and destroying the underlying work (attribution and all...). Perhaps move the subpage to Template:Italic title/sandbox 2 or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point...it is an odd situation. I was the only contributor to the user subpage, and it was all done within a matter of minutes, so the history on that page is worthless. The changes to the code are very minor (I added the code "+ 1" and "- 1" to two sections). I'm not sure how moving the code to a new subpage will preserve my name on the code...it might be appropriate to simply credit me in the edit summary. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(p.s.) Perhaps it would be easier to unlock the page long enough for me to make the changes? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Y Done, and seems to work. As you said, it was a minor request, pretty much like any other {{

editprotected}} request (which you can use the next time you want a change to a protected page). Thanks, Amalthea

21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)

Resolved

Discussion has began on a Nightmare-related talk page ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

---

This page was created, not enough content was added so it was turned into a redirect to future section on the the franchise page. More content was discovered, still, not enough, the page again was deleted and the little new info was added that future section.............. I agreed with all of the deletions, but recently more critical content was added (see this edit). Is this enough for it's own page or not? ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

First, per

WP:NFF indicates that future films require notable productions and we don't have true production information, but really the same pre-production info we had months ago. Nothing has really changed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please review uploads of Cowbell31 (talk · contribs)

Can someone please review the uploads log of this editor? I have found two blatant copyvios uploaded under Creative Commons licenses (they're screenshots from the movie Back To The Future III). One other upload, an obviously professional promo-photo of Don Knotts. I tagged the blatant copyvios but someone should review.

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those were screenshots of Back to the Future III, and were unused, so I went ahead and deleted them as copyvios. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Announcement of pending Checkuser and oversight elections

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for further oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning June 20, 2009, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply. Voting will begin on July 28, 2009 and close on August 10, 2009. Further information, including instructions for application and a complete timeline, are available at

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009. For further information about the Committee's relevant resolutions, please see the Arbitration Committee noticeboard

.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

I have removed the challenged material here... and I won't remove it again, since I have removed it a couple of times, and more would be edit warring... the reinserting editor will not address the issue. It is disruptive for the editor to demand that I challenge the file itself. I am challenging the inclusion of the file to the article, exactly as policy states. This is the link to the talk page section. This is a differential to the editors talk page. Please advise. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu signature RFC/U

A RFC/U has been started regarding Docu's refusal to use a normal signature. Please comment there if you wish. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if someone with a signature in the Roman alphabet posted rather than 日本穣 User F203 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue you have with my sig? It complies perfectly with

WP:SIG, so please let me know and I'll see if there's anything I can do. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe

07:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's customary for the user who opened the RFC to post the notice. If you think Nihonjoe's signature is problematic, you can talk to him directly. Regards SoWhy 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of usernames around here in the Roman alphabet that I can't pronounce. Where's User:Llywrch, anyway? I just think of him as being pronounced "low-rock", because that sounds cool. Nihonjoe, on the other hand, I think of as "crazy asian character man".

I hope that helps. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm lurking, GT. I agree with your point, though. FWIW, you pronounced my username wrong. Everyone pronounces it wrong -- including me. :) -- llywrch (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee that my usernname gets mispronounced; I've had it for years, and rarely come across anyone that gets it right on the first attempt. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure mine gets mispronounced all the time, too. It's pronounced "knee-hone-joe", but I suspect most Americans (and perhaps many other English speakers) pronounce it "nigh-hawn-joe" or "knee-hawn-joe". ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm sure that we don't need to bicker about this. This was a simple notification thread. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 08:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)

Resolved

 – Thanks Lifebaka!

Could an admin please delete this page? A very improved version has been created and we're currently waiting to move it to this name. Thank You! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 13:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Restored and history merged. Cheers! lifebaka++ 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions need administrator closing

I mentioned this a few days ago, but it seems to have been lost in the archives without discussion.

T • C • L

) 02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of these look like a no consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What would you say the default result is then? On the upload one it seems certainly a no consensus... the edit links seems trickier (granted though, my view would strongly be in support of moving them). There isn't a huge consensus either way there, although the majority supports it (last I checked). Anyway, if we're saying that that one closes as "default to keep as-is", I'll implement the gadget discussed there. –

T • C • L

) 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an early closure there wasn't it? I did ask for the discussion to run until the beginning of July. It has twice been reported in the Signpost that consensus is to make the change, so why has it been closed as "no consensus"? Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did you request that timeframe? I guess that I missed it. And both of those comments in the Signpost were by me so I'm not sure if they're completely neutral (I try to, but you know how hard it can be). –

T • C • L

) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment of 27 May, timed at 16:31 hrs Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Joel Warady Group

Could I have a copy of the deleted article Joel Warady Group if you dont mind? TrioRuleYou (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Following up at user's talk page. lifebaka++ 02:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sent location. TrioRuleYou (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame you simply recreated a deleted article word for word twice, without resolving the fatal issues, resulting in it being speedied. You didn't even keep the improvements I myself made during the second AFD in an attempt to help you out. Your spam has been deleted and the article salted.

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Erection_Development.jpg

Resolved

 – Not an English Wikipedia issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to use this image on the nl article about Penis. Zaheer12a (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to use it for the nl article. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Dutch Wikipedia. Unless the image was blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia like it was on the English Wikipedia, it should be available at nl:Bestand:Erection Development.jpg because the image is on the Wikimedia Commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Media-encouraged disruption

I've semi'ed the articles Richard Herring, Andrew Collins (broadcaster) and Duncan Norvelle, as each of these has been subject to vandalism that would seem to support the allegation of deliberate inciting of this at Talk:Andrew Collins (broadcaster). Since they're only semi'ed, they could probably do with additional eyes anyway, and I'm out of town next week. If anyone can temporarily keep an eye on? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

Resolved

 – Userboxes reworded, agreement reached on moving text to draft article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per SOAP, Wikipedia should not be used for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. A number of users have included

^discuss

20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, not a soapbox.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. So what should be done? --

^discuss

20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It was speedily deleted. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This item contains material of similar vein. Unomi (talk

) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to a user's main userpage, I think it's best to bring up any concerns you might have with the user first. I note that a discussion was started on the user's talk page on just this subject. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Would it be fair to say that Add your signature to the thousands of others. constitutes advocacy and/or recruitment? Unomi (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that's a fair assessment. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. Whether the position has merit or not, this is completely unrelated to WP and is inappropriate to have on a user page; there are plently of sites which offer free web space and allow people to blog or advocate to their heart's content.

Wikipedia is not a free web host. – Toon^(talk)

21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not really true, people have reasonable latitude to discuss non-Wikipedia issues that concern them on their userpage, unless this material is extremely offensive and might bring Wikipedia into disrepute, such as

Wikipedia:UP#NOT for more discussion on this point. Tim Vickers (talk

) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

They have a right to discuss non-Wikipedia issues - not recruit signatures for a political cause. This is obviously WP:Soap. --stmrlbs|talk 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the other material on his userpage, linked above by Unomi. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Add your signature to the thousands of others. is arguably advocacy / recruiting. This text is on his userpage linking directly to a website of a lobbying organization. The situation is like a group of rabbits being spotted by a hunting dog. They have hoped to remain unseen by the hunter (the public), but they made fun of the dog, and now the hunt is on. They and their dubious practices are now very, very visible and publicized by the entire British press! This text is also there seemingly solely for the purposes of gloating/advocacy. The full text which he put on his talk page is even worse, while there may be some sources useful for a future article the text is in no way laying the foundation for it nor engendering such a discussion that would help bring it about. BullRangifer/Fyslee has also been made aware of the potential copyvio problems surrounding making copies of emails available via wikipedia. Unomi (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"making copies of emails available via wikipedia" ?? What's that about? I haven't heard anything about that from you or anyone else. --

talk

) 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It was brought to your attention by Toon here and you responded to it more than 4 hours ago. Perhaps you did not give his post a careful reading. It explicitly states the reproduction of the letters here may infringe on various individuals' copyrights (an area I work extensively in on WP). Unomi (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Those aren't "emails available via wikipedia". I thought you meant that I had copied someone's email sent from Wikipedia. I wouldn't do that. OTOH, the material (letters) from the chiropractic associations has been deleted per Toon's request. Since it was source material that will be used, I had just copied it from one of the myriad sources available. My userspace is my sandbox, but I have complied with Toon's request, so no problemo. --

talk

) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of it is problematic, other parts are acceptable and within the latitude we give to editors on their talkpages. I've advised this editor myself to reword parts of his userpage. Other material might be moved to a subpage and developed for addition to the relevant articles. However, I don't think this is ready for mainspace yet, since the sourcing isn't good enough. However, as this is a current event, that will probably change, so I think it is quite reasonable to keep a draft that can be updated. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Intriguingly the whole text could constitute copyvio see here. Unomi (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Worthwhile concern, but I see versions of the text being actively edited on WP several days before the blog post. Beyond that, I can see why users might take issue with recruitment links or template, but otherwise would like to see more voices in the discussion before we go about removing self-expression on userpages. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's my own blog. I knew that my own comments wouldn't be acceptable as an article, but still legitimate here as my own personal opinion. I also realized I could use it on my much neglected blog, so I placed it there. (I have now moved and am revising the material per NPOV.)

Now, just how far is everyone willing to allow the chiropractic profession, through their unofficial representative here, Levine2112 (and his sidekicks), to replicate their censorship of

talk

) 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any place the Levine has said that you shouldn't be discussing the issue. The problem is with the solicitation of signatures. He has stated that several times. Imo, if you want to rail about censorship, then you should be contesting the WP:SOAP policy instead of attacking the editors that noticed the policy violation. --stmrlbs|talk 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your edit summary, I don't think SOAP is involved with censorship issues. I was clearly talking about Levine2112's well-known motives, which have a very long history here. In his early days he clearly stated that he was here to protect the reputation of chiropractic (pretty much his exact wording), and his editing and actions since then have shown that to be true, even to the extent of carrying on many very long-lasting campaigns of stonewalling to prevent the inclusion of even very well-sourced criticisms of chiropractic. This is just one more example. If the subject had been any other, he wouldn't have been involved. I have also agreed that he was partially right (about SOAP). Wikilawyering is a form of propaganda, IOW it uses something true (in this case the SOAP policy) to advance a personal agenda (in this case his attempts to keep a high profile situation that is well-documented from being noticed here at Wikipedia). It is this wikilawyering I have been objecting to. The SOAP violation, when explained to me, has been given my full attention and cooperation within the time constraints which I have. I hadn't even thought that a link to a RS would be considered a SOAP vio, but then I forgot that Levine2112 doesn't like attention being focused on chiropractic's dirty laundry. --

talk

) 16:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All this has been in the context of my preparation of a new article covering the situation, which is being prepared here:

• Backlash to chiropractic lawsuit against Simon Singh

It is still unfinished, but I would like to give credit to

talk

) 16:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you can try to turn this into much more than it is, but the fact is you can't use Wikipedia to solicit signatures for a political cause. That is recruitment for a political cause - whether you think the cause is justified or not.. it doesn't matter. That is WP:Soap. For some reason, you seem to think that Wikipedia rules should apply to everyone but you. Remember, it is not just Levine2112 that thinks that a banner to gather signatures pointing to an webpage which gathers signatures is a bit over the top. I see that you still have a big sign with a link to the external webpage gathering signatures on [talk page], so I guess this is your way of saying you don't agree with this policy, and therefore you aren't going to change this particular sign like the others have been changed to follow WP policy? Do you think it is all right for people to use Wikipedia to canvas for political support? If so, you should take it to the powers that be and try to have the policy changed. The thing to remember is if this is ok for you to do, then everyone should be able to do it. That includes people using Wikipedia to support causes that you might not be so thrilled about. --stmrlbs|talk 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Other uses of the banner outside the above template

The banner is also used on several other user pages and at least one other template. The File links section on this page will provide illumination.

And with regards to Toon05 comments above, I believe that

WP:SOAP

.

Please note that in

^discuss

21:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted a CSD G11 request on the other template page, per the rationale given in the main thread above by SarekOfVulcan. --

^discuss

01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Remaining usage of the banner/template appear on just a few user and user talk pages:

• User:BullRangifer/Leftcolumn
• User:BullRangifer/Userboxes
• User talk:QuackGuru
• User:Crohnie
• User:BullRangifer
• User:Verbal
• User talk:Verbal

Notice has been given these users; however the notice has gone unnoticed, ignored or rebuffed. How to proceed? --

^discuss

01:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how long did you give them to respond? Not everybody is in the US time zone or on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer - the engineer of this campaign - responded very quickly, removed one message of recruitment, but seems reluctant to remove anything else. Totally understandable. Verbal responded pretty quickly as well, changed one statement of recruitment but kept the link, and when pressed further gave me an edit summary of

^discuss

01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, patience and calmness are two virtues I admire. She may choose to remove it, or reword it. This doesn't seem to be any kind of emergency, so I'd favor letting her decide. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The box and recruitment link has been added here now. Don't you think we should nip policy violations in the bud? --

^discuss

02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just discovered this whole drama by THE arch-protector of chiropractic's reputation here at wikipedia (yes, that's his avowed purpose, in nearly those exact words), including keeping well-sourced criticisms out of articles.

I notice that the template has been deleted, even though I had revised it per the concerns of the nominator. That's not right. It should be restored and I will then revise it if necessary. Please AGF.

I will definitely address all concerns now that I have a little time. I haven't been aware of any of this. Please be patient. --

talk

) 02:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that google indexes and caches wikipedia pages is one of the reasons why this is problematic witness that your user page is ranking very high for "libel suit filed by the British Chiropractic Association against Simon Singh" Unomi (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that dead last can be called "very high", especially when searching for a handpicked quotation that's known to be there. Try removing the quotes. --NE2 04:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

True, very high was incorrect, but the fact that it is listed at all should be a cause for pause. What is also interesting is the fact that almost the entirety of the questionable content is in fact a copyvio, which is not allowed anywhere in wikipedia, including user pages. BullRangifer should be aware of this and remove the content, after all he can just reword it from his external source. This shows that it was never 'the start of an article' merely copy paste soapboxing. Is that kind of behavior coupled with reticence and attacks on levine for bringing it to wider attention really something to be rewarded on wikipedia? Unomi (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares if Google indexed the page? It's not criminal, and it doesn't need to be suppressed from Google. It's just not appropriate for Wikipedia, so let's remove the incitement to sign the petition and move on. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are overlooking the fact that Bullrangifers userspace text is identical to external content, a fairly blatant copyvio. I have asked for further guidance here. The fact that the domain trust for wikipedia is quite extensive means that we have to be fairly careful about the content that we host. Copyvio or otherwise. Unomi (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already done what I can about it. Why the impatience? You should have dealt with me first and given me a chance. That's MY blog, and you've found it commented on exactly ONE place, with a few weird mirrors. That's pretty LOW placement. --

talk

) 07:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that was your blog. I am not sure if wikipedia is the right place to use as a notepad for your blog posts. I initially thought it was a copyvio, and as such the number of times the external content is reproduced beyond the first is immaterial. The fact is that wikipedia has a high domain trust value with google, one of the reasons that wikipedia is sought out by self-promoters and advocates of all sorts. As stated below, I am disentangling myself from all of this for the moment. I suggest that you sort out the verification of your identity with OTRS and remove the content in the interim, there is no deadline, after all. Unomi (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence from the edit history that I wrote that content HERE long before placing it on my blog. I dont' normally do that, but I realized that in that form it couldn't be used here, and it was too good to waste, so I copied it to my blog and was intending to start cleaning up for an NPOV article. Levine2112 and yourself beat me to it and started all this rucus without giving me a decent chance using only my talk page. You two could have saved a lot of trouble for a lot of people. I am always open for discussion on my talk page, and if the arguments aren't Levine2112's usuall chiro thought police "I don't like it" type, I can be reasoned with. Now I have to run. Please leave anymore concerns on my talk page. I will indeed deal with it when I can. --

talk

) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I just now saw all of this and I am so disappointed and to be honest disgusted with some of this. I came on line this morning at 5 AM to see a message from

User:BullRangifer. If you notice, this was found from watchlisting BullRangifer's contributions. The rest of us who put it on our user pages was an after thought. If you look at other users pages you will see they have links on their user pages about all kinds of things including personal blogs and/or the favorite website. This kind of thing comes to these boards and usually it's not a problem being on a user page as long as it not an embarrassment to the project, which I don't think this is. I think it's time to tell Levine to stop his WP:Advocacy because I'm sorry, this is what this is all about. He doesn't like it so it's got to go. Sorry for the angry tone I have here but this was totally uncalled for. Leave a message to me and I respond usually in a timely manner, like I did here! --CrohnieGal^Talk

09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Administrators, please feel free to refractor my comments if they are too angry, thank you.

Crohnie, first, apologies for any perceived incivility. Second, apologies for not alerting you to this thread. I believe that if you were to reread my two statements about you above, it is rather clear that I am not stating or implying anything uncivil about you. I don't feel that you ignored my request on your user talk page, nor do I feel that you rebuffed my request. I simply stated that my request was unnoticed by you and that we should give you more time to respond (or have an admin remove the SOAP violation from your user page, no harm done). Again, apologies for anything which you perceived beyond that.

I can certainly understand where you are coming from. In the past 24 hours, I have been on the receiving end of much incivility and assumptions of bad the worst faith. I've been told in so many words to "fuck off" and then had vicious hyberbole misapplied to my intentions many, many times over. I've been attacked for acting out of vendetta, assuming bad faith, and out of professional bias. None of these are even remotely true, which is evidenced by the fact that I stated quite clearly at the start of this thread that I actually support the cause associated with this SOAP violation. I am all for free speech and think that nowadays people are often overly sensitive and too quick to sue for libel, especially in the scientific and medical arena. However, on Wikipedia we are bound by a set of rules which marginally limit our free expression. We all need to abide by those rules. Having this situation examined under the light of those rules was and is my only intention. And really that's all this thread should be about. --

^discuss

17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Banner question

Is this banner appropriate. I tweaked the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend you just stated "This user supports the

Sense About Science campaign to defend Simon Singh against the British Chiropractic Association lawsuit." That way nobody can accuse you of trying to advertise an external petition. Tim Vickers (talk

) 03:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ongoing campaign

Why is it that Levine2112 and Unomi are doing their best to ensure that Brangifer's (somebody whom they have both had "episodes" with in the past) User Page is splattered all over various WP boards? Don't they have anything else to do on WP other than harrang an editor they have had "issues" with in the past? Shot info (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Its worth noting that if bullrangifer had actually followed up on what he had been advised of from uninvolved editors, none of this would have come to pass, am I supposed to simply ignore copyvio because it happens to have been created by bullrangifer? If you look thru this you will see that bullrangifer was made aware of his being in absolute violation of

WP:SOAP more than 24 hours ago, to which he responded as if it should be taken to rfar?! I think we all can agree that free speech is something that should be defended, but it is activism that should be done outside wikipedia. The matter of copyvio came up later, but it is crystal clear that the content currently featuring on bullrangifers userpage is also featured on external blogs as original content with no clear indication that it is under gfdl or CCA/SA. This is not really a matter of interpretation or wikilawyering. It would not be acceptable on any user page and you should try to refrain from acting as well-nigh disruptive enablers. Unomi (talk

) 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't live in front of my PC. I'll get to it when I can, and I've already done what I can right now. I have left messages on the pages of those who have copied the old version. What more can I do? Oh, I forgot....never criticize chiropractic, because of course it's not the slightest bit controversial in the real world, and there isn't a single RS that ever criticizes it. NOT!!! And even if there was, you and your shadow Levine2112 would try to get me to delete it. --

talk

) 07:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am detaching myself from this drama, I am glad to see that you are increasingly trying to abide by our copyright policies and general consensus regarding using wikipedia as a staging platform for activism, however well intentioned it may be. I would suggest that you follow Tim Vickers advice regarding a more neutral wording for your userbox, one which leaves out external links to lobbying organizations. Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already complied by revising the userbox. The external links are perfectly fine. Any delay in dealing with this was because I wasn't aware of the drama going on here. I have done what I could to cooperate. --

talk

) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where is the immediate urgency in all of this and why is it splashed all over the place? I've looked and from what I can see BullRangifer and others, including myself, have been trying to tend to all the complaints as they are brought up in a reasonable manner. Unomi and Levine are not

WP:SOAP violation yesterday and it appears he responded in a timely manner for a non-emergency situation. Can someone get these editors to back off now and allow editors to make the adjustments without being pulled in multiple directions? There really is no urgency here and it seems to be only a couple of editors have a problem with this, time to close this already I think. Thanks for listening. --CrohnieGal^Talk

12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the past history of BullRangifer and Levine, this recent discussion has been about adherence to fairly clear wikipedia policy. The above userbox was in violation of

Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/New_Userboxes I very much doubt you will be able to find many if any userboxes in wikipedia which contains external links or even directly endorses lobbying groups. Wikipedia is already plagued by infighting, we do not need to loosen the existing norms to cater to even more of it. Consider Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. Consider the discussion regarding deleting all political userboxes

as they foster divisiveness.

I do not believe this is a case of hounding, the userboxes are so blatantly and absurdly out of touch with policy that it pains me that people who otherwise seem able to function in daily life would even think that it might possibly be a good idea. I really, honestly, do not think that the kind of thinking that would precipitate these userboxes has any place on wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the relative integrity or veracity of chiropractors,medical bloggers or anyone external to this project wikipedia. This has to do with us. Create a userbox stating 'This user supports free speech in science' and I will put it on my userpage, so would the majority of wikipedians. Making a userbox that links directly to a lobbying organization and which alleges that a broad group of people are responsible for the actions of a single(?) trade organization.

Bullrangifer responded to the initial queries by stating If I were so inclined (which I'm not at the moment, but if pressed could change my mind), I could press the issue all the way to a major RfArb and thus get your censorship actions widely publicized. and was to rather sound critique with a, imo, solid foundation in policy. A complete and rather defiant disregard for policy based reasoning which seemed to force levine to bring the issue to AN, where there was, understandably, support for resolving some of the policy violations by completely uninvolved admins. Unomi (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, to summarise, if I have understood the discussion above, BullRangifer has agreed to move the quote of the petition and the comments on the "Chiropocalypse" to User:BullRangifer/Backlash to chiropractic lawsuit against Simon Singh, is free to add links to his blog on his userspace, and is encouraged to further reword the userbox. Are there any remaining non-personal issues that need to be dealt with? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am still bothered that the link now installed in the restored template goes to a page on the site with the bold header "Sign up now to keep the libel laws out of science!" Linking to a page with this sort of bold recruitment message still seems like a violation of

^discuss

16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this template still needs more rewording. However, editing an unprotected template isn't something that needs administrative powers. I'd agree that the userboxes with external links to a lobbying organization are also not acceptable, which I think was agreed above. Is there any thing else that needs admin attention? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing more from me. Anyone else? Thanks, Tim! --

^discuss

17:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing from me. Hear hear, Thank you Tim. Unomi (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at DRV

Resolved

 – All closed now.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent ← backlog of three to close. I think the issue is that the (small number of) regular DRV closers have participated in them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Only one left: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_9#File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg, which I would close except that it's appealing an FFD that I closed.--Aervanath (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done I would just park the backlog template at the top of the whole DRV page next time, but individual templates work as well. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, gents.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridernyc and Neon white

talk

) 17:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

What makes this a bad faith proposal? It seems that you've tried to delete his merge proposal and been reverted by multiple editors, so it appears more than one editor feels the proposal has merit. Probably the best thing to do here is to make your feelings known on the merger proposal, and try and get consensus there. Also, telling people they are "clearly not paying attention" [16] isn't very productive. Dayewalker (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is in bad faith because the article is clearly sourced, and there is enough rationale for a separate article. (

talk

) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment: I have read

WP:RFC, rather than engaging in disruptive behavior. Cirt (talk

) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First I was not informed of this thread by Ibaranoff24. Second he keeps insisting that the article is well sourced and has 15 sources. I posted a detailed critique of the articles sourcing here User_talk:Neon_white#Rapcore he has totally ignored the specific issues raised with sources and continues saying the article has 15 sources, never commenting on the quality of the sources. I then tried to find sources documenting and giving a description of rapcore.I posted the results of that in the merger discussion. So far all Ibaranoff24 has responded with are generic searchs on broad terms and accusations of bad faith. He keeps insisting there is consensus on his side, even though there is no evidence of any consensus. His attacks also continue to become more and more personal. This is a simple discussion about merger, cleanup and sourcing. For some reason Ibaranoff24 has taken a very aggressive stance, I became involved in this when he performed this edit [17] removing and shooting down the merger before discussion had even started. Ridernyc (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hespeler

Resolved

 – copyright concerns dealt with Guest9999 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this, I tagged it as a

speedy delete candidate (criterion G12) yesterday as it was largely a copy of this copyrighted website. No one deleted the article (or removed the tag) and now the creator claims to have fixed the problem by paraphrasing the copyright text. Comparing the text I'm not 100% sure if it constitutes a derivative work - the editor does seem to have done a reasonable job but I'm no copyright expert. Either way I think the previous versions should be deleted as it remains possible that at some stage someone could unknowingly revert to the copyrighted text. Guest9999 (talk

) 11:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted and selectively restored the post copyvio edits. From a review of the content as it now exists I feel that the article needs substantial work to make it encyclopedic, but that is for the community to resolve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A summary of the findings may be found at the Arbitration Noticeboard.

- For the Arbitration Committee,

Mailer Diablo

15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge and delete

Resolved. Closed.--Aervanath (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything seems to have been said in this discussion and the debate hasn't be active in two weeks. Would an admin take the time to close it? Preferably someone who didn't previously delete any of the merged articles. As far as I know, the main outside view came from User:Moonriddengirl. -- Docu (talk · contribs) 19 June 2009 / 10:21

Talk:Kohuept#Requested move, part 2

I closed this move discussion, which is being challenged. If I could get some others to check it as a sanity check, that would be great. Comment here or at User talk:Aervanath#Kohuept.--Aervanath (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if discussion took place at

Talk:Kohuept#Post-closure discussion, if only for centralisation. Sceptre ^(talk

) 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine.--Aervanath (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Xinyu

Resolved

 – User has blanked the page. In that case, it looks like we're done with this one. The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 22:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Xinyu transcluded the Administrators page onto his User Talk page, in removing that copyright violation, I deleted far more of the page than needed to be reverted, but when attempting to correct myself, my edit is rejected because there are admin edits on the page rejecting Xinyu's unblock request, and since I'm not an admin, I'm not allowed to add those even though all I'm doing is trying to re-add what I deleted. Could somebody please fix this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, never mind, Xinyu has replaced it with a soapbox rant. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Note Xinyu has since been indef blocked for hosting further attacks upon the current US president on his talkpage, and disruption generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that 'Criticism of Wikipedia' rant.. uugh, five lines down, my stomach churned. Better off as a blog post somewhere. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Account creation blocking for indef blocks

I'm a little rusty here... I came across a user account with an inflammatory name, whose first edit was blatant vandalism (Special:DeletedContributions/Bringdownwikib). I indef blocked it. The tricky part is: I don't want the person behind it creating a new account for the next day or two, but that limitation seems like it shouldn't be indefinite. I could come back later and change the block settings, but I don't really trust myself to remember to do that.

Any advice? Melchoir (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The account restriction will last until the autoblock expires (24 hours), though that account cannot ever spawn new sockpuppets while logged in. MER-C 09:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Resolved

I'd appreciate an admin with some spare time remove rollbacker from my user account. If it's important to the process the rights were granted by User:Juliancolton. Thanks Tiderolls 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD

-- Banjeboi

03:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done as a NAC. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted website

http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/407631/interview_singer_quentin_elias_from.html?cat=33

Due to sometype of block, I can't post a link in an article. I am trying to use this article to link it to a reference link in the article for Quentin Elias. For the time being, I have to list the reference from the magazine's print edition info. I can't find another link on the internet with the information found in this link. I had to separate the url, http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/407631/interview_singer_quentin_elias_from.html?cat=33, in order to post it in here. There is a space between "associatedcontent" and ".com". Please note that. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See [18] and [19] for why. Prodego ^talk 06:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict and I can see the question has been answered, but I spent a while composing so I'm going to reply anyway!) I believe this URL was blacklisted as part of a previous discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard here and the linked "See Also" discussions from that section. The main concerns with the site were that the content is self published, so it cannot be considered reliable for the purposes of referencing and that authors on that site get paid according to the number of pageviews, so spamming links to articles on that site by page owners was a problem. Removal of the site from the blacklist would be unlikely based on what I have read of the discussion unless things have changed greatly within the past year. Camw (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussions, I also see no reason to lift the blacklisting. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User Space Deletion Needed

Resolved

Could an admin please see my contributions and look for the note in the summary. They are redirects from a recent name change and I no longer need them. Thank You ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

These were taken care of by Tnxman... In future, feel free to replace page in your userspace with "{{

db-user}}" –xeno^talk

13:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did use that template, didn't I? (don't feel obligated to reply) ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 14:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps. I didn't check. If you did, there was no need to note here as well. –xeno^talk 14:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

This is a call for more administrators and editors to help out at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎. We have recently created templates that format requests into a more manageable format. We need the following types of help:

1. Administrators to keep threads on topic by discouraging tangential discussions or outright disruption on the board.
2. Experienced, uninvolved editors, whether administrators or not, to review evidence and provide opinions.
3. Administrators to close discussions.

Greater participation at this board would be a big help. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:2542jack

• 2542jack (talk · contribs)
• 69.124.112.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

On the 1st of June, I came across this group of edits on the article Matt Mulhern (history). Essentially, it looked to me like the user had accidentally blanked the article, was unaware of how to retrieve the content from a previous diff, and so had copy-pasted the rendered content of the page from his web browser into the article, thus losing all of the links, formatting and categories from the article. I restored the previous "good" version of the page, under that assumption, and left the user a welcome note.

I didn't return to the page for a while, but during the interlude, a different user, Boo24yu (talk · contribs), reverted to 2542jack's version, which was subsequently re-reverted by CardinalDan. 2542jack then made a similar edit which was reverted by LedgendGamer.

Another similar edit was made on the 16th of June by an anonymous user, which I undid assuming a simple test edit, not yet having made the link between the user and the IP. The next day, the user 2542jack restored the edit, and sent me a courteous e-mail:

[email text redacted]

Note that due to the time difference, this e-mail was sent three minutes after the edit to the article.

Having read this e-mail, I reviewed and reverted 2542jack's edit, keeping one addition which had been made in that edit (although it was difficult to tell, as the diffs were smokescreened by the odd copy-paste editing method) and added a few links and tags. I left a message on 2542jack's talk page, explaining concerns about

WP:OWN

and the way that his editing MO stripped all of the formatting from the page.

The version of the page as edited by 2542jack was then restored by the same anon. I undid the edit, adding a couple of reasons into the edit summary.

Unsurprisingly, the edit was restored by the IP two days later. It was accompanied by the following e-mail:

[email text redacted]

This time, I reviewed the edit further, and copied the plaintext of the original and the weirdly edited versions of the page into a text editor to review the differences. The only real content additions were the addition of the website link, which I removed per

WP:EL#EL5, and the mention of Mulhern's appearance on Fringe which I added back into the reverted version of the page. Apart from that, I cleaned up the mention of Mulhern's novel, as it was still written as before the book's release. I explained my edit here

, and issued a cease-and-desist per the attitude shown in both e-mails.

And it must follow, as the night the day, 2542jack has re-reverted to the same version as before. I have a feeling that it's time to place this in the hands of the cabal, but I didn't feel that it was a simple enough case for AIV. Hope I haven't rambled on too much... haz (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

He asked you not to edit the article because it was about him and he preferred to have the biography as he saw fit? Sounds like owning to me, and I don't think he understands the disclamer below: If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I redacted his emails. Please don't post emails without their author's permission as they are copyright violations, also see Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence. I reverted his edits to the page and will protect the article if he continues reverting. I also left him a message and pointed him to OTRS if there are factual errors he's concerned with. I can't really work out what he's objecting to but it's probably best just wait and see what happens now. Cheers, Sarah 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; was looking for a policy on the reproduction of Special:EmailUser correspondence, but couldn't find it, so thanks for the link. I wouldn't have posted them up, but for the fact that their content, in conjunction with the reversions, was the main reason I levied the level-4-esque warning. haz (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Needed

I archived a talk page, into a few pages, then I realized I can fit the same info into less pages. Could an admin please delete...

• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5

Thank You! ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 16:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please simply tag the pages with the appropriate

Speedy deletion template. --auburnpilot talk

16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion and salting of account page and talkpage

A quick review please; I have deleted and salted the user and talkpages of

an incitement to attack Pakistani's) does not appear again in the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 09:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Judgment by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) seems sound here. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Only edit was vandalism, although usually we leave user talk pages as is. So the talk page should probably be restored.--Aervanath (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The talkpage can be viewed by admins - but this is a very sensitive issue in regards to British racist sentiment; I cannot believe that the majority community would permit an editor talkpage of "User talk:Assassinate the Black President" to exist, so I would suggest that the sensibilities of other participants be acknowledged in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If there was any possibility that this was the account of a luggage/package handler for a freight company, I'd disagree here, but the one edit this person made is clear proof that LHvU got it right in one. -- llywrch (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

My understanding of the CheeseDreams ban is that it has expired, and the banned tag should be removed from its userpage. At Tony Sidaway's suggestion, I'm bringing the discussion here. Enigma^msg 05:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I just realised that CheeseDreams was locked out of her account after revealing the password in public. A user changed the password to stop it being abused, but as CheeseDreams did not have an email address she will not be able to reclaim the account. Because she was restricted by the arbitration committee to using that account, she will not be able to use Wikipedia at all. I suppose it would be up to the arbitration committee or the community to decide whether this is a desirable state of affairs. --TS 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Has CheeseDreams indicated that she wishes to return to editing? If so, I suggest she gets in touch with arbcom by email who may, if they feel inclined, amend the account restriction appropriately (perhaps to restrict her to using another, nominated account). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I'm asking a procedural question regarding the banned tag on her userpage. Enigma^msg 05:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block that no one is willing to lift = a ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between a de facto ban and an ArbCom ban, though, or else we'd go around tagging all indeffed users as banned (since no admin has shown a willingness to unblock). Trying to clarify the status here. Enigma^msg 07:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the community want CheeseDreams to return under any name?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

After the amount of time that has elapsed, I think the question is moot; either they have returned under another account and the link has not been made, or they have moved on from the project. Under the circumstances - and in response to the original request - I think the banned template should be removed and replaced by an indef block notice, with a comment that application by email to the ArbCom for a password should they wish to use the talkpage for an unblock request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are free to remove the tag from her page, but based on my experience with her if any recent troublemaker is determined to be this person under another name -- or she returns to resume her disruptive behavior -- it's time for a permanent ban. This is someone who did not come to improve Wikipedia, just to advocate for some of her idiosyncratic theories on religion by any means fair or foul, & I don't need a tag on her user page to know this. -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Forged sig

Resolved

Not sure where to inquire on this, but a talk page signature was forged in this edit by User:162.83.176.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who created the signed edit in this edit. I've annotated it.LeadSongDog come howl 17:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned/notified user. Malinaccier (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dellwood Country Club

I think a admin needs to take a look at

WP:CSD as it is written now. Click23 (talk

) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that it has a slight claim of importance (not notability) in that it was designed by a notable golf course architect, which is enough to avoid a speedy deletion. I would recommend bringing it to AfD to get a clear-cut decision. TNXMan 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for permission to create article

I'd like to create a little article on the Everett Clinic in Washington and I don't seem to be able to figure out how. I have managed to write it on my own page but I don't know how to link it to the entries for Everett, WA and healthcare in Everett. I would really appreciate some help on this. So far the article is posted on anacalugar's page but I'd like to make it it's own entity that pops up when you search for Everett or Everett Clinic. Thanks! -anacalugar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anacalugar (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Put it here: Everett Clinic. But be forewarned that it may be nominated for deletion. Kingturtle (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't move it yet -- as it stands it will almost certainly be

Afd. It's also rather spammy.  – ukexpat (talk

) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

After recent installation of Twinkle, I see next to all edits in the history have a tab now that says [rollback] and [rollback (Vandal)]. Does this mean I have rollback privileges or do I still need to apply for it before using? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this doesn't mean you have the rollback userright. However, once you've proven that you can revert vandalism responsibly with Twinkle, you may successfully request the userright

Beta

) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

May I just add, you might find

MediaWiki feature known as "rollback" and the Twinkle version of rollback may appear very similar, they are in fact different. The MediaWiki version is significantly faster, but obviously requires an admin to approve you for access of the right. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs

) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there is nothing to be gained by asking an admin to approve you for rollback if you're using Twinkle; it's far superior. Added to which administrators have an unhealthy tendency to punish by removing, or threatening to remove, your rollback rights for any minor infraction in your use of the tool. All in all just not worth it. In fact I gave it up, as I found that I never used rollback in preference to Twinkle anyway. --

Fatuorum

21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I debated rolling back that edit, just to see the ensuing melee.

Tan | 39

21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the first time I've laughed out loud today, so thanks for that. :-) --

Fatuorum

22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from its historical importance, rollback actually matters little now. It's original intent to rollback vandalism without additional server load is relatively insignificant with the growth of the Foundation's server capacity. Just sayin'. Keegan (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I find that I hardly ever use rollback "in the browser". I prefer to use popups or twinkle. However, it's required to use Huggle so I'll keep it for now. Popups rollback has one major advantage over native rollback. It allows you to quickly choose the revision you want to revert to. Very useful if a page has been vandalized multiple editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this constitute a legal threat? - user possibly active again

Resolved

 – Account indef blocked by another admin.

Talk

01:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following that was just added to the archive on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive546#Does this constitute a legal threat?:

Since this issue was looked into, an admin changed the GoDaddy page and this user has since gone back and added his content back in. The user has also added a section mentioning Dotster on the "terrorist" page.--Dotsterrep (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This may need attention.

-- Banjeboi

22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the account; a look through the contribs shows that slamming this company was the editor's raison d'être. Did not respond to the previous ANI thread and resumed the same pattern of behaviour. Clearly not positively contributing. – Toon 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins with history merging experience wanted

This discussion is now in

Wikipedia talk:New histmerge list#Automating these history-merges?

.

• I decided to embark on a little project, and wrote a program to try and figure out just how often
  cut-and-paste moves happen. The answer seems to be "OH MY GOD! THAT OFTEN?!?!". The program is working its way through the most recent database dump, and as of this writing, it's 6% of the way through, and it has registered over 3,700 hits. I've been in touch with User:Anthony Appleyard
  , the only admin who performs history merges on a regular basis. Both of us agree that this is way more than what he can handle, and I, not being an admin, can't do anything to help him.

  So, with that, any admins who are willing to help should take a look at

  User:Mikaey/Possible cut-and-paste moves

  .

• WAIT: I like cut-and-paste moves to eliminate useless old revisions. Such as: a new user User:JonQuePublic writes several marginal articles (perhaps named like "My rare notable" ). Well, as a typical new user, he saves each edit after every 5 words, then 200 revisions later, goes, "Wow, now that I know how Wikipedia saves & names articles, I'll just redo all of those articles, renaming them better as 'Our rare notable' etc." Hey, I think that's great: just copy/paste into the better article-names, re-created as perhaps 5 revisions by one user. Then, finally, delete all those neophyte articles that had 200 (or more) 5-word revisions. Please, let's not make Wikipedia a monument to proving newbie editors make 200 revisions to each of their first 100 new articles. It is time to start pruning old revisions. Plus, do you realize Wikipedia is lacking perhaps 10,000 highly notable articles, not yet written? ...because people are obsessing about keeping marginal, minor old stuff. Hence, what I'm saying is "purge the old name variations" and "purge even more old 200-revisions by newbies". Then, focus on adding missing articles, while renaming many newbie articles to better titles, such as "Jon Tee Public" becoming "Jon Tee Public (footballer)". There are over 32,000 footballer articles, so far, and I think many of them could be renamed/purged to remove thousands of the current 315 million revisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Cut and paste moves should never occur. Revisions are saved for a reason. Viridae^Talk 08:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What Viridae said. None of those revisions are actually in the way of anything, and they are required for reasons of copyright and attribution.--Aervanath (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Attribution-evidence is an easy issue to resolve: just note, on the talk-page under topic "Copyright concerns" that the article was re-created from the prior name (at a specific time). In cases of copyright dispute, the old-named article can be un-deleted, and the lawyers can check the date/time of the 200 revision entries. There is ample legal precedent for this: in a
  registry of deeds, documents constantly refer to prior deeds filed by page/line number, without the need to repeat the entire deeds within the scope of the current deed: all that is needed is a named/numbered reference. Hence, that problem is solved, so feel free to copy-paste when moving articles, but remind people to note the original article name on the talk-page (or in an early edit-summary). If there were a legal mandate to keep prior revisions, then user-space versions would need to be history-merged to "prove" the users had written the added text on a certain prior date, within their own user-space areas, as full documentation supporting the day they added those changes into the live version of an article. However, when an article "ttt" is deleted, it should be archive-named as "ttt-2009Jun22-hh:mm" to ensure a unique archival name, relative to future articles of the same name. That would allow precise tracking to a particular "John Smith" article being scanned for copyvio. There is no legal reason to retain every prior revision of a page, especially for numerous 5-word revisions made within a few hours. If you have any other questions, let me know. -Wikid77 (talk
  )

You might try making the recommended move procedure easier. The 1 time I tried it I couldn't get it to work. Subsequently I did a few c&p moves until an admin told me I shouldn't. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing on the White people article

To support his position that all images should be removed from the

talk

) 17:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

nonsense. The only editor exhibiting disruptive behaviour in this case is Erik9, first in revert-warring against consensus, and now in creating wikidrama at ANI. The Ogre is free to avert editors who interacted with the article in the past individually, on their talkpages. If The Ogre's "canvassing" was perceived as spamming by the recipiens, you would, like, expect the complaint to be filed on the part of a recipient.

My involvement at the article in question is completely unrelated to The Ogre's note, since the article is on my watchlist anyway.

In view of the blatant piece of wikilawyering above (zomg, "non-neutral messages" on user talkpages. topic bans for everyone who tries to stop me), I would advocate a rather stern warning addressed to Erik9. Let Erik9 seek consensus before implementing his proposed changes like everyone else. --

dab (𒁳)

17:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_canvassing prohibits canvassing intended to influence the outcome of content disputes through the non-neutral selection of editors to whom notices are delivered or non-neutral wording, even when the canvassed editors welcome the notices and enjoy the opportunity to participate in the content dispute:

Campaigning

Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

Votestacking

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

Editorial disputes on Wikipedia are not resolved through brute force recruitment of as much "backup" as possible :)

talk

) 18:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that User:The Ogre selectively canvassed perceived sympathetic editors with regard to the image dispute at White people, despite User:dab's rather original concept that it would only be the recipients of canvassing that should complain - which would be perverse if the canvassing was accurately targeted; who would complain of being alerted to a position they are sympathetic too, and why would they be aware only certain viewpoint editors were being contacted? However I don't think this is a matter for admins to resolve, since the underlying dispute (of whether and of what images of "White people" should be included in the article) is not one that sysops are remitted to resolve. The issue needs to be placed before a wider readership, likely in the form of a RfC. I will note The Ogre regarding the need to gather the views of a wider range of opinion in future actions, but I don't think any greater admin action is required.

ps. I took the opportunity to further format this page. I trust this is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban someone because another person put a note on their talk page? Well, that would be one way to silence a group of people an editor doesn't like I guess. But we aren't going to do it. Thanks though for drawing my attention to this -- ok, I've just looked at the history, and it looks as though Erik9 is disputing an old consensus not to have pictures and is in a minority.

talk

) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see

talk

) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

there is nothing to be said against bona fide "disputing" an old consensus, which would contribute towards a wikilike process of the iterative emergence of a new compromise consensus (aka

dab (𒁳)

19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you believe that consensus still favors The Ogre - that's why he invited you to the party [26].

talk

) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From my review of the matter the old consensus arose from some dodgy attempts to impose a "Aryan" viewpoint of what being

WP:BRD have been exercised, perhaps some thought should be given to the Discuss side. Personally, I think an article that relates specifically to a subject based around visual appearance should require some images to illustrate it - but it needs to be a decision that results from discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"dodgy attempts to impose a "Aryan" viewpoint of what being

talk

) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, people! This all looks rather extreme, does it not? Erik9 has tried to change the article in question without discussion or a buil up of a new consensus The previous consensus was reached because editors were unable to come to an agreement on who looked white. And the article was permanentely targeted by racist users who basically wanted a full Nordic/Aryan depiction of Whites. Given the fact that Erik9 acted without discussion I dropped a quick message with a very small number of user I remembered participating in the previous consensus. This was a limited posting, with what I believed (unlike Erik9) was quite a neutral message, to serious and established editors who, having played a part in the consensus reached (and you can not just throw away a consensus because it's old...), have different opinions regarding the issue of pictures and therefore constitute a nonpartisan audience. And I did all of this in a completely open and transparant process! Now, even if after these, some may consider that I engage in canvassing, well... My deepest apologies! But I believe I did not. And I do find Erik9's level of violence quite disturbing. You should try talk to people before hitting them with such swift "disciplinary actions"... The Ogre (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here

talk

) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we transwiki from Wikibooks?

Resolved

 – Easy … for me anyway. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this GFDL-compliant (since we don't have

w:New Hampshire state elections, 2004 or similar articles. I'm just not sure what to do about the contribution history... anyone have experience with this? --SB_Johnny | ^talk

15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please see [28]
  Triplestop (talk
  ) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Well there are a bunch of ways to comply with GFDL. You can list the 5 largest contributors to the deleted article in an edit summary to the imported article, you can copy the history of the deleted article to the talk page of the imported article, you can copy the list of contributors to the new article and then revert the edit. Most of the time we don't care since in general Wikipedia does a poor job of following the GFDL and very few edits end up being GFDL-significant in the long run. MBisanz ^talk 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • People doing transwikification care, and the fact that in other places the GFDL is sometimes not adhered to by some people (a problem that other people devote time and effort to fixing) is not a reason to encourage its non-adherence here (or indeed anywhere else). Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• I know how to do this the old way, without Special:Import and making all of the interwiki links in the edit summaries and talk page and other acoutrements for GFDL compliance; and I have the tools to do so. User:Uncle G's 'bot has just transwikified the article. The tools make the necessary old-style transwikification log records, too. See b:Wikibooks:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/en.wikipedia and Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Special:Nuke

Hey everyone, this is just a note informing everyone that after talking with Dev Rob H, Special:Nuke and mw:Extension:Nuke are now operational on the English Wikipedia. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexy. –xeno^talk 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be used with care. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks Dev Rob H! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean I shouldn't type "Dr. Blofield" into the field and then then try and nuke hundreds of thousands of articles? =) –xeno^talk 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, two new additions in one day! Thanks for all the hard work, devs. Nuke 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick, someone go rouge and nuke Nuke. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm far too wary to try it myself, so I'll ask: what is

Beta

) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a native version of mass delete. –xeno^talk 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So it allows you to delete a bunch of pages at the same time? That could be interesting. Admins only, I presume?

Beta

) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. –xeno^talk 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

<humor>No no, it's available for everyone. Now even vandals can delete pages!</humor> –

T • C • L

) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently my decision to change the text of my 'delete' button to read "nuke from orbit" was somewhat prescient... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any documentation available other than mw:Extension:Nuke? That page is good for the technical side of things but it doesn't give the practical side. It claims to "mass delete pages recently added by a user or IP address" but doesn't say what recent means. Within the last few hours? Day? Week? --auburnpilot talk 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If I'm reading the code correctly, it is every page the person created and every image they uploaded for the last month. Dragons flight (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What use does this have here? Couldn't a malicious admin easily destroy the server by mass deleting many pages with many revisions quickly?

Triplestop (talk

) 22:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, because it only gives you a list of pages created recently by a user or IP, so they are unlikely to have many revisions. Even so, given that a malicious admin could do
  quite a lot of worse things if they were so minded, the point is effectively moot. Black Kite
  23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I get nervous just looking at that page! I think I'll stick to the old-fashioned speedy deletion process. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

@Triplestop - Well, it's lighter on the server than User:AzaToth/twinklebatchdelete.js =) –xeno^talk 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC 3rd party Admin Request

Due to the highly political nature of the RfC at Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights, I would appreciate a neutral, 3rd party administrator to close the discussion. I opened the RfC on June 16th, and feel that it has been throughly discussed, however in the interest of neutrality and fairness to all, I would like to request an Admin who is not associated with the discussion to take the closing action. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The talk page has now degraded to personal attacks: Talk:Golan Heights#I do not support the actions and views of Oren0 as 3rd party. Yet another admin is now needed to deal with this. Rami R 12:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Need page deleted

Resolved

 – HIstmerge complete; FAQ issue is not for this board.

-- Banjeboi

18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The

Article Rescue Squad set-up a FAQ page which was met with some editing issues which seemed to have resolved. Within that scuffle the page was moved mucking up the {{FAQ

}} template use.

Our talkpage

Wikipedia talk:ARS now correctly links to the correct page at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ

• PLEASE NOTE: Wikipedia talk is where this FAQ is supposed to be, the associated page
  Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ
  should be deleted but not the talkpage. I've even written that on the page.

This may seem counterintuitive but the FAQ is a subpage to the talkpage not the mainpage. Lordy lawd I hope that makes sense.

-- Banjeboi

21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was only following orders. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you!

-- Banjeboi

21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, but the history has been lost; a history merge should occur. nb: this is a piece of a current ArbCom case and this has messed with evidence. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the Arbs can see the deleted content if they need - it would seem the case is winding down. I'll look into a histmerge.

-- Banjeboi

22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the arbs can see it; for transparancy, all should be able to see it. Jack Merridew 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update. Request is at
  -- Banjeboi
  22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  This is still an incorrect move-back; the issue is that {{FAQ}} is on the wrong-track; FAQs should *have* talk pages, not *be* talk pages. See User talk:John Vandenberg#Namespaces for some background; the FAQ template needs to be more aware of namespaces. Jack Merridew 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The histmerge is completed. The FAQ is a subpage of a main talkpage so that is where any issues regarding a FAQ would take place. In any case the article in this instance is now conforming to community standards to both the histmerge and template so further discussion should likely be taken up with the template itself. FYI, there are about 100

    -- Banjeboi

    18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at British Isles

• British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Protection log

I've had enough of the edit warring (over the most trivial matters) that's been going on at this article. The root cause, needless to say, is mutual British/Irish antagonism. I have

WP:1RR

) will be blocked.

Posting here for review and any constructive suggestions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree with your suggested restriction - there's been some utterly ridiculous edit warring over pointless details. People need to be encouraged to discuss more and revert less here. ~ mazca ^talk 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with the ruling is that it allows one side or another to revert valid edits without a means of comeback. Revert restrictions, blocks, protections etc have all been tried on that article to no avail. It is protected more times than not. I honestly think this is one of those articles that needs to be permanently protected to admins only, and changes discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Otherwise the page will just be an eternal warzone with editors making claims despite references and evidence to the contrary. Too many hot heads for the articles good. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this solution is pretty close to what you suggest. Noncontroversial edits or edits with clear consensus can be made either way. The disadvantage of this limitation is that a solitary editor can theoretically prevent a changes that actually has consensus. But in any solution I can think of, that problem would require admin intervention. So far it's been quiet... let's see how it goes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuse by User:J_Milburn

Nothing to see here; no admin abuse. Horologium (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Please see this diff

It is part of a discussion on my talk page.

"if you can't use non-free content fairly, please stay off Wikipedia."

I thought admins weren't allowed to tell registered users in good standing to stay off Wikipedia. In fact, I thought that was exceedingly frowned upon, and considered an abuse of admin power when used as part of a content dispute. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well being that there is no actual tool abuse here, maybe you should place this at
  talk
  ) at 11:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought registered users in good standing weren't allowed to abuse non-free content. In fact, I thought that was exceedingly frowned upon. Seriously, will you stop playing the victim? I hate to say it, but you really need to stop resorting to accusations of personal attacks. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not see any misuse of admin tools here. Cirt (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not even close to abuse. Timeshifter, en.Wikipedia mostly carries wholly free content and the rules allowing non-free content are

very narrow. J Milburn was a wee bit snippy after being badgered by you but even one fair use image in the article could be dodgy, two or three are indeed likely to be way over the top. The outcome is that many articles here lack images we'd like to see them carry, but they stay free. In the meantime,external links to non-free images (so long as they're not copyvios) are ok. Admin warnings made in good faith aren't personal attacks or harassment and there is no way to skirt this website's fair use policy. Gwen Gale (talk

) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In Iran women are required to wear a scarf in many situations. So we need a photo of her with and without the scarf in order for Wikipedia not to be perceived as having a Western systemic bias in its selection of photos. Plus in the video of her just before being shot she is wearing a dark scarf also. When she is dying in the other video we see her face and hair more clearly. There is lots of confusion about how she looks, and there are only 2 photos of her so far confirmed as far as I know; this one and File:Neda Agha-Soltan.jpg. There is a third photo that is questionable. File:Neda.png. So the 2 confirmed photos are needed to "convey equivalent significant information" to both Western and non-Western English Wikipedia readers worldwide.

Maybe some people need to remove their Western systemic bias blinders. I am sure that if I asked about this at some of the Middle East WikiProject talk pages that many people would understand exactly where I am coming from.

Also

Neda Soltan image page "vandalism". See the edit summary for this diff

. All I did was add source info for the photo. This is way past being a "wee bit snippy."

There was another incorrectly deleted Neda Soltan image (in my opinion). Please see:

• commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Incorrect deletion of photo in very timely en:Neda Agha-Soltan article

Or at least incorrectly speedy-deleted. That is also my problem with the actions of User:J_Milburn. What's the rush? Why can't my arguments be addressed civilly, and why can't the deletion discussion be allowed to finish before removing the image from the article. Why does the admin get to keep the image out. Shouldn't the other editors of the article have a say first? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I immediately reverted the "vandalism" edit with an apology. That was my mistake, I was looking at the page history and clicked a Twinkle link by accident. It's not at all fair to bring that up here as misconduct. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But I think it indicates the problem of your rushing around on all this, and your jumping to conclusions, and your tone in addressing me. I repeat, what is the rush? Why not wait until the image deletion discussion is finished. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is a big deal here. Truth be told, I think only one of the images in the article comes even close to being fair use and even that one may not be at this early date. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is indeed a big deal here. J Milburn has not abused his tools, so the title is misleading. His statement, in addition, is perfectly reasonable - if you can't follow copyright policies properly, you should leave before we kick you. Whether or not your actions are problematic is another kettle of fish altogether, but that statement is a reasonable one to make. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"if you can't follow copyright policies properly, you should leave before we kick you." In a disagreement about Fair Use images, that statement is both offtopic and an attack. We are having a discussion on the talk pages in question. Disagreements on interpretation of Wikipedia Fair Use policies are not settled by your personal attacks. See

WP:CIVIL. --Timeshifter (talk

) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:EL and other pages to do so has been ongoing for probably six months or more. He seems fundamentally opposed to the limitations imposed against copyvios and is disrupting Wikipedia to try to get others to follow. I think something more drastic has to be done here. And yes, if someone is uinwilling to follow core policies then they shouldn't contribute -- that's a no brainer. DreamGuy (talk
  ) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy has been blocked many times, and he is mixing me up with someone else. I never pushed for Fair Use of YouTube videos. I pushed for removing his non-consensus addition of the word "rare" to linking to non-copyright-violation YouTube videos. That word was removed. See

WT:EL and the YouTube discussion archives there. --Timeshifter (talk

) 16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not admin abuse in any way. Throwing around "fair use" is directly opposed to the aims of Wikipedia.
  talk
  ) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm finding that Ts seems far more keen on skirting/altering image policy than following it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have brought up your interpretation of English Wikipedia

WP:NFCC policy also. --Timeshifter (talk

) 16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeshifter, our copyright policies are policies like any other. Your statement to Ironholds that "in a disagreement about Fair Use images, that statement is both offtopic and an attack" is frankly ridiculous- is it an attack when we warn vandals that they are going to be blocked if their vandalism continues? The same thing would be true of a serial copyright offender- they will receive warnings, and blocks. No such thing would have happened in the discussion between me and you, but, in choosing to edit war and read everything as an attack, you have completely blown this out of proportion. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who seems to have jumped to conclusions. You deleted the image from the article without discussion first. Why did you choose that

Fair Use image over the other Fair Use image in the article? You should have asked first on the talk page. Now you again use the word vandalism in this discussion. Not appreciated. Let's move on. I withdraw my accusation of admin abuse. Decide for yourself if there is merit in anything I said. --Timeshifter (talk

) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I chose that one as the other one was in the infobox. The infobox image served as the "main" image (higher resolution, promintent position, etc) where as the other was the "spare" one. It seemed to have already been decided which was which... J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

While we don't always agree I have found User:J Milburn to be good at his job, intelligent and fair, although sometimes his choice of words can be improved upon...Modernist (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please close this thread? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

New user group – 'Autoreviewer'

After a

Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. NW (Talk

) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother to check whether the account is retired or no longer actively editing. It's obviously a race to get as many user rights log actions as quickly as possible. So, GO GO GO. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I granted this right to you. You are now an 'autoreviewer' :-) Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading logs is hard. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, if you'd bother to educate yourself. Keegan (talk

) 05:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's been implemented in order to keep up with new pages patrol. Especially at the back end to make it easier to keep up with blatant copyvios and gross BLP violations before they drop off the new pages list after a month and go into the general pool of articles. In other words, this user group helps us prevent another Siegenthaler incident. If you'd like to help the very small group that patrols the back end of new pages we could really use more hands. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 17:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re to MZM) Indeed. The very first name I clicked on at random at

iridescent

17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like perhaps one of the admins who's assigning it isn't screening adequately. Admins can also toggle it off, so suggest reversing the action and communicating with the individual who granted it. Durova^Charge! 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally granted it to about a dozen users I knew to be active and whose edits I've been patrolling in the last week or so. I notice several other admins granting based on the Whitelist, which while comprhensive, isn't current. As long as we go through from time to time and prune it for inactive accounts, I'm not motivated to go undo 100+ userrights grants. MBisanz ^talk 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At the current moment, everyone on User:JVbot/patrol_whitelist#No_restrictions is going to be added. This represents no change from the current situation; it is merely the beginning of a move-over from a userspace list to Mediawiki code. I imagine the initial move over to being done without several checking for convenience sake only. NW (Talk) 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As I see it, most additions of the flag are preliminary at this point, until we develop a better system. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems pointless to add them to inactive users. –xeno^talk 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good time to review the list. Instead of automatically adding the people, could a review done. It would save work in the long run, maybe. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the whitelist contains blocked users, including indefblocked socks, it will have to be reviewed sooner or later, and now is better time. The confusion with the

WP:FLP/PR review rights is also ... confusing and will complicate discussions for the implementation. Not giving the rights to inactive users would ease the management of this user right. I removed some. Cenarium (talk

) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been screening the list for the past couple hours, and only granting the right to active users. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to go through the lists tonight and make sure the rights log is current, but the last time I did that, people yelled at me, so I want to make sure no one is objecting to it for this userright. MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections here either. Now is certainly the best time to do this. ~ mazca ^talk 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, what rights does this new group grant that are different from vanilla Admin rights? -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be for non-admins so that they can gain the autopatrol/autoreview ability without being a full admin, kind of like how rollback is handled now. They wouldn't have access to other admin abilities. –

T • C • L

) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did usernames from A through N, I'll try to do O-Z tomorrow. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All current, now just to keep it up to date every couple of months. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucaspet

Mostly looking for advice on the next step and/or other admins willing to lend a hand here.

Lucaspet (talk · contribs) has been reverting any attempt to redirect articles on individual Pucca episodes to List of Pucca episodes. (examples: [29], [30], [31], [32] and others.) This alone isn't problematic; the problem arises because several editors, including myself, have made multiple attempts to engage this editor in discussion about the need for references and the importance of notability without success. Unfortunately this editor is not fluent in English, is very young, or both, and the few answers have been difficult to understand. (See User talk:Lucaspet, this, this, and this for examples.)

A previous block did seem to get some small discussion going, but nothing came of it. And my gut says blocking isn't the answer here -- if we can establish some real communication, Lucaspet could become a very good editor. But I've run up against a brick wall on how to do it. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Complain at

WP:VPT

The Moon Is Blue

This was moved from the accurate The Moon is Blue to the incorrect The Moon Is Blue. Could someone please move it back to the title without the capitalized is? Thank you for your assistance. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, see WP:CAPS; The Moon Is Blue would be the correct title. — Edokter • Talk • 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From

Fram (talk

) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How to request summary deletion?

Resolved

 – Edit summaries have been oversighted — Gavia immer (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How does one go about requesting deletion of an edit summary? The following vandalism to the featured article is highly offensive [33].

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You would make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to have the edits removed from the page history. Hoever the request would likely be declined - as Wikipedia:Oversight explains, the function is approved for the removal of personal information, libel or copyright infringement where advised by Wikimedia counsel. It is not approved for removal of simple vandalism or offensive edit summaries, even ones as unpleasant as these. Euryalus (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To add on to what Euryalus is saying, edits such as these are usually just deleted by admins from the history. In this specific case, the article

Talk

04:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

... which proves I should keep up with recent developments more. RevisionDelete is a new (2009) feature which effectively hides the comments from public view without entirely removing them as oversight does. Details of how and when are also at WP:Oversight. Sorry for not keeping up with the times :) Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision delete is what I was looking for, if that's what was used to strike the edit summaries. Thanks folks.

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 07:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick template help needed

I need an admin with template experience to modify Template:Harvard citation no brackets, as it is protected and I don't know how to write template code. From the discussions I've had on the talk page, found here, it seems to be a quick fix. I believe the change needed is also explained by another editor there. Thanks ahead of time! Wizard191 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Does no replies mean I'm in the wrong place? If so, please point me in the right direction. Wizard191 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You can post here, but it's more effective to add {{

editprotected}} to the talk page, along with a description of what needs to be done. These instructions are found on the talk page in question

.

I'll look at it and see if I can figure it out. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend requesting someone look at it by using the template I mentioned above (in fact, I've done that for you). This one is beyond my meager skills. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(I edit conflicted with Nihonjoe a little while ago, but since he's punting, I'll go ahead and add it now) No replies probably means no one on this noticeboard is a template coder. On the theory that fairly useless information is better than no response at all, I'll try to suggest a couple of possibilities you can try:

• If you know exactly what to change, you can put {{
  editprotected
  }} on the talk page of protected templates, and theoretically an admin will come by to make the edit. However, it seems from the talk page like you don't know the exact change, so that might not work
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates looks like it occasionally answers template help requests, but it seems to be fairly inactive for days/weeks at a time
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be your best bet; that's probably where I'd go in your shoes.

There's probably a much better place than these three options, but I don't know what it would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the recommendations. This is the first time I've tried to get a template modified, and was unaware of the {{

editprotected}} template. It looks like User:MSGJ is going to help me out. Thanks all! Wizard191 (talk

) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Indef'd by

User:Bubba hotep. –xeno^talk

13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a legal threat from a person who also says he's not committing sockpuppetry, blaming it on the person he's sitting next to...: [34]

^{Wake me}

13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Granting "Abuse Filter Editor" to non-administrators

This is to advise that Cobi has recently been given the "Abuse Filter Editor" userright [35] after a brief discussion at at

Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Abuse Filter editors group membership request

.

I support Cobi having the userright, but it has set a precedent. It's probably a good idea to discuss (at the above-noted link) what procedures should be followed when determining whether to grant a user the AFE flag. –xeno^talk 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an awesome idea: why not make it a part of the Rollbacker title? —harej (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea for trusted users, but no, I don't think that it should be collapsed into Rollbacker... they are for very different things, and I'd say that Abuse Filter Editors need a much higher level of trust than a Rollbacker. –

T • C • L

) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Drilnoth. It's far too easy to seriously bungle something with AFE (which is why I rarely edit it ;>). –xeno^talk 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is probably harder to give non-admins the Abuse Filter right than it seems. The warning templates used by the filter (MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning and friends) cannot be edited by non-admins, so that prevents them not only editing abuse filter warning messages, but from adding warning messages to new filters (unless, of course, they get an admin to do it for them). It simply doesn't make logical sense. The abuse filter (not right now, but possibly in the future) can block or degroup editors. We obviously can't have non-admins creating filters that block editors, can we? And think about it, if we dumb-down the non-admin version of the user right, what's the point of even requesting it in the first place? As much as I want the abuse filter right myself, as do many other non-admins, it just doesn't seem like the abuse filter was designed to work with us. In my own opinion, it seems like a better idea to request adminship than request a user right that doesn't let you use the filter to its full potential. Heck, I'd support a user that ran for adminship simply because they wanted to edit the abuse filter, provided that they were trustworthy nonetheless. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Maybe just giving admins the right and getting rid of the actual abuse filter editor right altogether would make more sense? Then admins couldn't give the non-admins the ability, which really isn't a good idea since it can block people and degroup editors. There should probably be a community process for this... aka,

T • C • L

) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several admins I not would trust with the abusefilter right (not because they're bad admins just because they lack the technical knowledge to use and write filters safely). I think it would be much better to keep the rights separate (maybe even have the right assigned by a 'crat) --Chris 10:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would say I'm a pretty good admin (in the sense that I believe most admins on this project are good) and I wouldn't know - 1. how to do it correctly, and 2. how to know if I've stuffed up and am causing collateral damage. It's more of a technical role. Orderinchaos 16:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it is possible to add 'editinterface' to the Abuse Filter Editors group. Ruslik_Zero 05:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see Chris' and Drilnoth's suggestions combined, i.e. creating a community process that decides it with crats given the flag out, something like

WP:RFBA. But it would also need a change to the AF itself so that admins without the flag can view private filters but not edit them. For example, I gave myself the flag, not to edit the filter but to understand those filters that are private but deal with certain kinds of vandalism. Regards SoWhy

10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that excluding non-sysops from the AFE group is particularly criminal, as there are certainly enough administrators to take care of things there, and keeping it sysop-only will probably save a lot of extra legwork in terms of editing system messages, as The Earwig states. I also think that granting editinterface to the abusefilter group is going to be both mostly needless, as any AFEs with sysop rights already inherit editinterface permissions, and potentially controversial as (

WP:PERM similarly to rollback. haz (talk

) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, admins should be able to view filters, since most abuse filters are used for admins-related tasks, like vandalism, for example users reported at

WP:AIV by User:Mr.Z-bot, but also deletion, like those at C:SD, and the filters can give relevant information, especially for sockpuppetry cases in which admins are not familiar. But there's no need for non-admins without abusefilter-edit rights to have this access, and it would allow security breaches to grant it to rollbackers since it's easy for vandals to become rollbacker, and they could then spread the info. Cenarium (talk

) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion also

here. Cenarium (talk

) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reporting possible stalker

Someone seems to be looking at my contributions, and reverting them. This has been going on for years. For example, I changed the first sentence in Finance from "The field of finance refers to the concepts of time, money and risk and how they are interrelated" to "Finance is how money is obtained for spending. For example, money might be obtained from fees or taxes." I did this because finance is not a field. It does not refer to time. It does not refer to risk. A professional field does not refer to anything. The word finance does not refer. It has a meaning. When you say, "How are you going to finance that" you mean "How are you going to get the income to pay for that." Therefore, finance is how you get the income, and it does not refer to a specific field or interrelating risk, money and time. However, someone removed my edit, see diff. To that person I would like to point out that edit waring (even slow) does not help improve this encyclopedia. Yes, I believe it's an admin or a small team of them.--Chuck Marean 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of evidence to support the idea that someone is "stalking" you or otherwise misbehaving? Otherwise this looks like a simple content dispute. Shereth 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That article is wholly unsourced and hence, more or less

reliable sources and cite them. Gwen Gale (talk

) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When last you

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as does 69.212.64.248, which removed a P:CE entry that was inconsistent with our guidelines; 71.244.177.15, which removed at least one of your P:CE items, is owned by Verizon and geolocates to Connersville, Indiana; and 76.64.168.94, which removed yet another of your P:CE items, is owned by Bell Canada), and neither, unless we’ve a sockpuppeteer who is able to edit for twenty hours daily for months and months, are the many established editors who have participated in an AfD of your On financial regulation, June 17, 2009, the same person, your suspicion of sockpuppetry notwithstanding). I should not be surprised to find that your contributions are regularly examined by other editors, for the reasons set forth at the last AN thread, but I cannot believe in the absence of additional evidence that your edits are being reverted by nefariously. Joe

18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the revert. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –xeno^talk 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, placing a disputed tag on an article is a claim of factual inaccuracy. "Badly written sentence" does not equal "factual inaccuracy". I fixed (somewhat) the original sentence, and the article is already tagged as needing a major rewrite, anyway. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disscuss on talk page request

Does this edit have a consensus? The article is about finance? --Chuck Marean 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This would appear to be a question that belongs on Talk:Finance. --Onorem♠Dil 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Help on a deletion - David Everett

Resolved

 – Article restored; mistakenly deleted as vandalism

I put together a stub, David Everett on the 22nd July 2008. I see that the article was deleted in 2009 as G3 Vandalism. I'd be grateful if an admin could look at the deleted page ... if it describes a minor poet, would you pop the text in my user page, please. (In short: I seem to think I appended an article, it is no longer there, and I'm trying to find out what happened to it. Any clues gratefully received.) thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the article. An editor came along and replaced the original article with crap; the deleting admin probably forgot to check the page history for prior versions. – Toon 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:PilotMaker66

Not entirely sure what to do here. This is banned/blocked user

talk

) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, users that are banned by the community are supposed to appeal the block to ArbCom; perhaps that is the best route to go. Shereth 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, a community ban is "a block that no administrator is willing to remove", making a simple unblocking here a possibility. In practice, that's rarely viable given that it can cause a great deal of needless drama if lots of people feel that unblocking would be a bad idea. It is, indeed, probably best to direct the editor towards the

ban appeal subcommittee. — Coren ^(talk)

17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not always true. An indefinite block that no administrator is willing to remove is by default a community ban, but a community ban enacted by discussion and consensus cannot be overturned by a single admin. I'm not familiar with this user, or which of the two types of community bans apply, but it is a common misconception that a community ban is only established if a single admin will not overturn a block. --auburnpilot talk 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My personal take on this one - he was blocked over three years ago. If he is (or was) a young user willing to cooperate now I see no reason not to unblock him so long as someone is willing to take responsibility for reblocking him if he does resort to the behaviour which got him blocked. Whether this is an opening to future drama and wikilawyering, though, is something one would have to carefully consider before doing so. Orderinchaos 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki brah may have been blocked three years ago, but disruptive socks have returned, been revealed to be his socks, and blocked. If they hadn't been disruptive, nobody would have questioned them and there would have been no Checkusers performed. Wiki brah under that account may not have edited for three years, but the person behind the account continues to be disruptive. Wiki brah is Jean LaTore, and see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in Los Angeles County, California 1985-2009

Resolved

 – Article is at AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this newly created article generally meets with Wikipedia's quality standardss. There might be a suitable article topic in there somewhere but currently it's more of a personal essay than an encyclopaedia article. I think its size, layout and current content would make it very difficult to improve by general editing and I was wondering if someone with experience of this kind of thing could explain to the creator (User:Jz12345678) how to get it up to scratch. I've tried to a bit - adding section headings and stuff but I think generally the piece just needs to be entirely rewritten. Guest9999 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer and requires little discussion. Speedy userfy and delete. Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Father Casey's

Resolved

 – "22:13, 24 June 2009 Stifle (talk / contribs / block) (2,419 bytes) (CC-BY-SA permission received; this page is not GFDL-compatible)" –xeno^talk 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A followup from above.

Father Casey's is a copyright violation. I db-copyvio tagged it, and User:Stifle replaced my speedy deletion tag with a posting on the Copyright violations board and a template saying the page is copyrighted. Are we now no longer speedy deleting copyright violations which have no other non-copyvio text in their history? If so, db-copyvio should be deleted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I changed it was because we received an OTRS ticket about the page. I should have noted that in my edit changing to regular copyvio; my apologies.

talk

) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, before resolving it. What does all of this gobbledygook mean? There was an OTRS ticket, but it still fails copyright, so we have to wait weeks before it gets deleted because the Copyright violations noticeboard never get resolved, whereas a db tag wasn't appropriate because there was an OTRS ticket? I still don't understand. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And now the copyright tag has been removed altogether, the text that was there copied word for word from the club's website is still there, in an unencylopedic manner, and Stifle's comment on removing the copyvio text is that it isn't GFDL compliant. Please, explain? I'm thoroughly lost here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(triple-ec) Sorry, let me give you the full sequence of events.

1. I got the OTRS ticket, and looked up the page.
2. The OTRS ticket didn't have a specific CC-BY-SA release, so I replied to the ticket asking for one
3. I changed the db-copyvio to a regular copyvio so the article wouldn't get deleted in the meantime, but failed to mention the ticket in the edit summary, only providing the details at the
   WP:CP
   listing
4. Shortly afterwards, I received a proper CC-BY-SA release in OTRS
5. I removed the copyvio notice and placed an OTRS permission template on the article talk page

Text doesn't have to be GFDL-compliant any more as long as it's CC-BY-SA compliant. Obviously if you feel it's unencyclopedic you can prod or AFD the article.

Hopefully that clarifies things. Apologies again for the confusion; I'm editing while sick and tired which is a bad combination.

talk

) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've asked the Gaelic football WikiProject to look it over. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that

talk

) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is intentionally a week before issues are resolved to allow time for permission to be sent and verified. – Toon 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Donation buttons being discussed at Meta

There's an interesting discussion at m:Fundraising 2009/Donation buttons upgrade regarding donation buttons. All are welcome to participate! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that an admin issue? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not, but this board is usually used as a general discussion board. And admins are usually some of the most active (and vocal) users. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Having a conversation with yourself is not a good sign. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about having inane conversations with yourself which wound up with me profiting a dollar...hmm... Keegan (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, he could have just been self correcting and didn't want to do the disrespectful thing of altering his edit after making it, in an attempt at clarification. Keegan (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Conversation with myself is always more thought-provoking and insightful than conversation with you, Keegan. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Patent lies. Keegan (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Keegan, it looks like he's just stealing your materiel, but in a far less elegant and grandiose way. Travesty, a travesty for certain. Keegan (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – this joke has gotten WAY too old, fast--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias on the main page (On this day)

There is a biased statement on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 25:

"

Palestinian militants in a cross border raid from the Gaza Strip on the crossing Kerem Shalom, and has been held hostage by Hamas

since."

The statements "kidnapped" and "hostage" are both biased, as from another point of view he was an enemy solider who was captured and detained. If Israel made a cross-border raid into Gaza and captured a Hamas militant, then demanded the Gilad Shalit's release, no one would dare call it kidnapping or hostage-taking. When I brought this up on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and alerted administrators via IRC, I was told nothing could be done about it without discussion. The way I see it, removing bias shouldn't need discussion unless the proposed changes may also be biased, which my proposed changes are not:

"

Palestinian militants in a cross border raid from the Gaza Strip on the crossing Kerem Shalom, and has been held by Hamas

since."

Anyone willing to change it for the sake of preserving a neutral point of view? Mnmazur (talk)

I have changed it. Gilad Shalit also uses this wording (see first sentence of the article) and it is backed by several other sources. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see there was a dispute about the word "hostage" discussed on Talk:Gilad Shalit#RfC: Use of the term "hostage" regarding Gilad Shalit and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit. Again, the Main Page defers to the article for accuracy or when there is disagreement, so whatever is consensus on the article should be reflected on the Main page, and not unilaterally changed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the policy is to default to the article, it might be worth mentioning that Mnmazur changed the article from "kidnapped" to "captured" on the article just prior to raising it here. Prior to that the wording had been "kidnapped" for quite some time, so the version examined above probably didn't reflect consensus. Another edit has since reverted the Mnmazur's change. - Bilby (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize that this user had done this and have since self-reverted my edit to the page. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all - it wasn't reverted on the article until after your edit, so there was no reason to assume otherwise. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy

United States presidential election, 2012, both of which were very, very disruptive nominations (in fact, I just non-admin closed the former). Clearly, this user is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and something needs to be done about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer}

) 02:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with the removal of the warning, which he is allowed to do. I am very concerned about the obvious

WP:POINT campaign by his AFDs. He needs to be made aware that this behavior is not to be tolerated at Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

03:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing this up for discussion without personal judgement, I noticed that the immediate previous contributor to New Black Panther Party before Radiopathy nommed it for deletion was Wikidemon (talk · contribs), who warned Radiopathy on his talk page about edit warring at Barack Obama [36]. Dayewalker (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have left a stern warning at Radiopathy's talk page. Lets just say that the ball is in his court now. Lets see what he does with it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He blatantly ignores it, just like the others. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reply. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

per

WP:BLANKING, there is no reply. People are free to delete messages once read. He has done nothing at all to attract attention by blanking his talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

04:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are right about within guidelines there's nothing technically wrong, inherently there is something wrong with not being respondant in a collaborative environment like we have here. We have logs that allow us to follow each other around for constructive and accountability purposes. When a user ignores them, that goes against the idea of the community working together to build the encyclopedia. Keegan (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely true that I am watching him like a hawk from here on out; he has clearly stepped right up to the disruption line with his

WP:POINTy AFD noms, and should be watched for that reason. However, blanking his own talk page is a non-starter; certainly doing so only raises general awareness among everyone. Blanking your own talk page is often a sign to everyone that the person needs extra watching in most cases; however it is an unactioanble from an administrators point of view. He knows he's been warned. He is not required to wear the scarlet letter of that warning. If he violates the spirit of the warning with his future actions, he can and likely will be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

05:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that by blanking it would violate any policies or guidelines, just that it was a reply and a notation that he had acknowledged the information presented. seicer | talk | contribs 05:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderfool

Wonderfool shortly after/before/at the same time as deleting their Main Page. How about we nip this one in the bud before he somehow manages to get sysop here (again)? I'm not even going to begin to understand how the fuck he could have gotten sysop on Wiktionary again (Jackofclubs was probably the fifth time).—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 08:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as a sock of a banned user. --Chris 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm curious about the last point too. Orderinchaos 16:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • wikt:Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-04/User:Jackofclubs for admin. Uncle G (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Keene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still unblocked. MER-C 09:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Stifle's Talk page

Resolved

 – There is no need for this to be discussed here, a more appropriate place is User talk:Stifle. — Aitias // discussion 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:Stifle/wizard. This is the page that Stifle links to in his Signature. That message tree is far too complex for the ordinary user who wants to contact not only an admin, but an OTRS member, as well. It's almost as if he's trying to avoid being communicated with. Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The message wizard is designed, among other things, to:

• Ensure that users' messages are directed to the right person or place, which may not always be me (e.g. issues that any admin could resolve are directed here)
• Give answers to frequently-asked questions, so that users don't have to wait for me to be online to answer them
• Provide template messages for new users who contact me about deleted pages so that they can provide all the information I need without having to message back and forth
• There is a link at the very top for experienced users which cuts out the message tree, gives four short responses to common questions, and a link to leave me a message.

I, and many users, have found the system helpful; suggestions on how to make it more helpful are welcome on my talk page. However, in response to concerns that some users have raised, I am working on an FAQ-based system to replace the talk page wizard. This is under development at

talk

) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You did discuss this with Stifle (talk · contribs) before posting here, I guess? — Aitias // discussion 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a link to the relevant discussion then, please? — Aitias // discussion 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he suggested I should change it at 21:59, and then reported it here eight minutes later, before I'd seen his message or had a chance to reply.

talk

) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stifle's "wizard" is essentially the Wikipedia version of "Press 1 for Customer Service" or "Press 2 for Technical Support". It is just an easier way to get things done for him. As a non-admin, I see no problem with this...and kinda like it :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my biggest problem is that none of the topics he wanted me to choose matched what I wanted to say on his Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, try Wikipedia:Contact us. Stifle's wizard runs circles around that. Keegan (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he could add a section for "If you don't see your issue, click here" or whatever. A page for everything else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Already done., the very last entry is "Some other reason".

talk

) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also note the
  breadcrumb at the top of the page which allows you to go up one level to the proper talk page. That's what I would do, if I ever wanted to leave Stifle a message. My suggestion to Stifle would be to create a user talk page header that offers answers to f.a.q.'s instead (if that is your plan already, then - as you were =) –xeno^talk
  23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  Yup, that's on the way.

  talk

  ) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question re Spanish

Hey, need some help re an SPA situation. I was dealing with it here (see Talk:Infanticide, User talk:Thantalteresco etc), and foolishly tried to do so on es.wiki as well, where pretty much the same stuff has been going on, but my language skills in Spanish are beyond poor (I never actually learned the language so it's a mixture of third-iteration machine translation and paper dictionary!) and I think I have probably screwed up the situation over there as noone can understand me :P If anyone is interested, it shouldn't be hard to find the source of conflict from my contribs there. Note this is not a request for admin intervention specifically, as the matter is on another wiki - anyone who speaks English and Spanish well enough to understand both sides is fine. Cheers Orderinchaos 09:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You get your message across all right both at the English and the Spanish Wikipedias, and you and Thantalteresco are debating the same issues at both places. This is not a language problem, it's a content issue regarding infanticide practices among Australian aboriginals. Perhaps you should go for mediation? AN/I doesn't seem to be the right place. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I wasn't sure, as I got some responses which suggested I was not making a great deal of sense. If what I've said over there is comprehensible, then that's OK. I don't honestly feel mediation would help - one need only examine this user's history of contributions to see it would be a waste of time for all concerned as labouring the point, ignoring all reasonable arguments to the contrary and raising red herrings, including accusations at the other editor, are a feature of their style. I have yet to see any evidence we are not dealing with a disruptive

SPA across two wikis, he actually has less contribs at his native wiki than he does here and about half of those are on this topic. Orderinchaos

03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed [reply to

Wikiquette_alerts

.

Recently I was confused with another user, a banned Australian. I proved that I live in Spain and that I edit the Spanish Wikipedia with the same user name, Thantalteresco, that I edit here. The problem is that User:Gnangarra, a blocking admin, has threatened to reblock me again—that is: blocking a user who is not the banned Australian—if I dare to edit articles of my interest, as you can see in the amin’s talk page:

If you are willing to unblock this account then thats your choice, when this editor turns up again in articles on my watchlist I will apply the duck test and re-block because I have no doubt its the Premier.[37]

Both the blocking admin

user:Orderinchaos

are Australians who are very upset about scholarship that attest to infanticide in Australia in the historical past; and both have edited the Infanticide article from their own negationist POV.

User:Orderinchaos has removed tons of sourced content in the article Infanticide on this very subject when I was unjustly blocked. The problem is that I cannot even discuss his removals in talk page even after Fred Bauder unblocked me because of User:Gnangarra

’s threat that “when this editor turns up again in articles on my watchlist I will apply the duck test and re-block”.

What can be done? Even if I give up editing there out of desperation, a future editor may want to balance the negationist POV in the Infanticide article. But the “duck test” may be invoked again to block the newcomer who wants to challenge the negationist POV: that there was no infanticide at all among Australian aboriginals in the past.

So this is not only a content dispute. Abuse of sysop powers might occur in the future (it’s occurring now: I am afraid of discussing the massive removals in talk page out of fear of being blocked again).

Thank you for your attention.

Thantalteresco (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this source, which looks pretty reliable and is the first I found on this topic, the idea that infanticide was more accepted and significantly more common among the Australian native population than e.g. among the British was a typical misconception of colonialists. It's the usual problem. If a mother in your home village kills her child it's a tragedy caused by a psychosis. If a mother in an aboriginal village does the same, it's because these people are savages. If

children

it's because it's an exciting literary topic. If some natives somewhere have similar stories, it's because cannibalism is an integral part of their culture. I am not too surprised if there were scholarly sources in the 60s that still believed it, but they can't be used to contradict the more recent research. You would need recent scholarly sources for that.

So it looks as if your activities are in fact misguided, and perhaps you should concentrate on something else for a while. Hans Adler 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you're entering to a content dispute in this board, something we should avoid. (Suffice it to say that a much more recent monograph on infanticide accepts the historicity of the practice among Australians in the past: a subject for talk:infanticide, not for ANI boards.) Thantalteresco (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be

wikilawyering. Interesting that I quoted from exactly the same source in that place, and you completely ignored it. I think Hans Adler's advice is well informed. Orderinchaos

03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I hope this admin problem --not the content dispute which is irrelevant for this page-- is solved before this thread is automatically archived... Thantalteresco (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Afisair

The user seems to be adding original research, unverified claims, and biased edits, alongside acting on ownership of his submitted content and being uncivil to a fellow editor (more specifically, me). I believe he's a new editor who's trying to make his way around the place, but I've brought it here for further review. Diffs (see his contributions for further information): [38] [39] [40] ^blurred_peace ☮ 06:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm most concerned about is him saying that his intellectual rights are being infringed. In my view that's a sign he's unwilling to honor the licenses Wikipedia uses. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not so much as "not honor", as "fails to understand" that his work is immediately placed under the WP licenses. I will drop over to their talkpge. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, look people, when I say "intellectual material" I am not saying it really BELONGS to me, I make no claims on that, just that it is material that I myself have put in, I don't really plan on explaining more of that to you if you don't understand that. They are contributions that I have given freely, but I don't want you guys pretending that some non-entity made those contributions, because I EXIST. Don't try to impose some sort of online neo-communism. Yes, I've been using wikipedia for years now, and I think that it's about time that I put in some contributions. I'll try to abide by these standards that have been set, but don't try to just toss my contributions out of the window. You can edit them if you've got something better to say about it, or put in one of your "citation needed" statements, but don't just delete it, this is a collective effort, not a little dominance playground. -Good day, Sers. Afisair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
And just so I'm clear, can you guys sue me for making edits that violate your policies? Because I am not interested in being sued for wasting my time trying to improve wikipedia (see the gumdrops page if you don't believe that I am genuinely trying to make this a better place).

I very much doubt anyone would be bothered to sue you for your contributions, when it is perfectly permissible to remove or overwrite them (if they were considered as not improving the encyclopedia). We, all of us, exist, and there is no reason to believe that any one editor is more worthy of having their contributions retained than any other; only the quality of the edits matter. However, anyone is free to improve the encyclopedia - and it is the community that decides which of two edits are more appropriate; neither the original or subsequent editor has any right to insist that their edits are the better, other than by reference to the sources and the application of guidelines and policy. WP:Consensus is how things are decided, not right of occupation vs. right of conquest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to like this Wikipedia thing. It makes me feel like an ant. FOR THE COLONY!(talk

Possible copyright violations

Resolved

I am not terribly experienced with copyright issues but I'm pretty certain that the uploads being made by User:SpongePedia WikiPants are not in line with our licensing policy. Could someone more experienced with copyright issues please take a look and perhaps contact this user with some relevant advice? Thanks. Shereth 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking into it.

talk

) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, images deleted and polite message left.

talk

) 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Second draft of updated arbitration policy

The Committee has prepared a

second provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy

for community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.

Release of this draft was approved by an 8/1 vote, with no abstentions or recusals:

• Support: Carcharoth, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: Casliber
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My Changes to MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js

Because this might cause confusion if not mentioned somewhere visible, let me say I have centralized the blacklist that was previously on MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js to User:AzaToth/twinkleblacklist.js. This new configuration has the functionality of blocking problematic users from using it via either their preferences or their monobooks. I have included a short documentation on the new page. Yours, —Animum (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

TW does not work for me, and I'm an admin, something is wrong with the change. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• There must have been a botching somewhere =) –xeno^talk 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Javascript

Resolved

 – Animum reverted the change and it works again. –xeno^talk 23:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I may have broken Javascript by using Mr.Z-man's auto-patrol script to patrol 500 user talk pages created by a vandal-fighter. Immediately after on IRC, users started popping up complaining that their userscripts weren't working...

^{Wake me}

23:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

hehe... no, I think this may be related to Animum's recent changes to the twinkle framework. –xeno^talk 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't explain why Friendly, Mr.Z-man's Autopatrol, patrollinks, and move-revert scripts, my dashboard link, and the admin-highlighter script don't work... Nevermind... works now

^{Wake me}

23:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you break javascript? It's a client-side deal. —harej (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I greatly apologize for the deal of trouble I've caused. Second, I have unreverted myself after successfully testing and retesting it in my monobook. If you have problems, first purge your cache; if they persist, revert me. —Animum (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously been a long day for me. I instantly got a vision of people I'd like to revert to a previous version of themselves in real life. Now if there was a script for that... ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues resolved, code re-added

The blacklist array is now itself at the bottom of morebits.js, which does not and should not break Twinkle. I've re-removed the old code from MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js; the directions for using the array can be found directly above the array in morebits.js. Yours, —Animum (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Spam" in userspace

What is the threshold of spam-ness for a userspace page? Im talking about pages such as

Triplestop (talk

) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Baltimore Brownie was deleted by User:Kinu for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Other two userpages remain. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But how should db-spam apply to other similar user pages in general?

Triplestop (talk

) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe

talk

) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged

snigbrook (talk

) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I commented (disobeying the rules) on
  talk
  ) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In anyone else's userspace, it would, I think, look like someone starting a legitimate article in a sandbox, particularly as the person has worked on some very notable TV shows and I find some google news hits for him[41]. I would probably keep an eye on it for a week or two and see what happens (or even have a stab at writing an article about the chap myself) but there's no harm in making contact as you have done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, the spam speedy deletion criterion is #G11. That's "G" as in "general", not "A" as in "article", meaning that db-spam applies to ALL pages across Wikipedia, not just articles. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern was that we might delete a legitimate userspace page. Also, I notice people are now patrolling user space pages more. Triplestop x3 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Continued at

WP:ANI#Michael Jackson heart attack / reported death. seicer | talk | contribs

22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

As many admin eyes as possible on

iridescent

21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On it myself, but I would have no qualms about protecting, since

WP:V trump most other policies, whatever the involvement. Two hats, you know. Rodhullandemu

21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Miami Herald reporting that Michael Jackson is dead. Thanks for the preemptive protection. seicer | talk | contribs 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Repeated removal of info by an editor who has nommed the page for deletion

Do we have a policy against the repeated removal of information from an article by an editor who has also nominated that article for deletion? (See

conflict of interest for the nominator to interfere in the improvement of the page that he wants to erase.--Cdogsimmons (talk

) 21:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See my responses here and here. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume on good faith that the editor is not secretly trying to destroy the article, yet such removals for me do raise problem, particularly with regard to the possible short time the article may be around to work on (due to the efforts of the same editor). Yilloslime has expressed the opinion that he doesn't think anything about the article should be kept, so for him to chip away at the article arguing he is "improving" it, also seems a little disingenuous.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have often tried improve articles that are at AfD. Sometimes, as is the case here, these improvement come in the form deleting superfluous material, but in other cases I have added relevant material. Here's an example of a time I added content to an article, even whilst voting delete it's AFD. And there also examples where I voted keep while improving an article. So it goes both ways. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There exists no rule against editing an article even in the midst of a deletion discussion. In cases where there is some attempt at sabotaging the article with regards to the debate, that can be dealt with as it happens, but otherwise editorial actions on an article may continue. Shereth 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought conflict of interest policy relates to if an editor has an actual connection with the article subject. eg employed by the article subject, or perhaps he has stated he doesn't like Spanish and Armenian people. Inclusion and removal of information during an AfD is still permitted as per above comment. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have often edited articles which I have nominated for AfD. Many of those changes were improvements in anticipation of the article possibly getting kept. It's not a conflict of interest. Orderinchaos 07:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Resolved

User:Rterrace who is the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, has singled out my prod tags for a mass deprodding. He gave no explanation for the deprodding, as is required by policy. I ask that these prod tags be reinstated, as they are not deprodded in good faith. Abductive (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For a little more context, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like obvious sock puppetry

whack-a-mole. Hopefully a checkuser will notice this comment and act swiftly to prevent further wikistalking. Jehochman ^Talk

05:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed thread title. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Response by Rterrace. *
  to make any attempt to verify or improve an article before adding the “prod” tag. Abductive
  claims to be an established user who continually changes his account names, but he has refused to disclose who his many different ID's were or are. I am not the only user who has deprodded his deletion nominations. More than 40 different editors have been forced to contest Abductive’ prods. Infact, every single one of his 150+ prods have been contested. The following established editors have all been forced to remove Abductive’s prods on multiple occasions.
• User:Colonel Warden
• User:DGG
• User:Kyle1278
• User:117Avenue
• User:ThaddeusB

In summary, it is true that I have contested several of Abductive’s prods. It is my right to contest a prod, and I have not done so in bad faith. I have contested several of his prods because Abductive apparently randomly selects articles to prod. In his haste to prod articles, Abductive does not follow

WP:BEFORE. These articles that I have deprodded can all be improved, and need not be deleted. Policy on this topic is clear (see WP:CONTESTED), a prod tag should not be restored, “even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith”. If Abductive still believes that the articles needs to be deleted, then he should list them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Rterrace (talk

) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Comment: I've never spoken to either editor, only crossed paths in AfD discussions, so I have no dog in this fight. "Contested several" is an understatement in my opinion. user:Rterrace contested 41 of them on June 22 alone, in 21 minutes. That is over 25% of the 150 he says were contested. 25% of the total by a single editor in a 21 minutes does seem a little questionable. He had 3 per minute in some of those 21 minutes. Yes, sometimes I use multiple browser windows at the same time too and click save page on several in a short period of time, but they never all belong to the same editor.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only reason "all" my 150+ prods were contested is because you went into my contribs and deprodded them, it is suspected from multiple accounts. Actually prior to this Wikihounding many of my prods made it through and quite a few articles got deleted. Frequently other editors have followed on my prods and your deprods and nominated the articles for deletion, and they have ended up deleted. Abductive (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• I invite anyone who is interested to look at the articles I prodded and tell me which ones were prodded incorrectly. In the meantime, I suppose I shall have go directly to AfD until this Wikihounding is stopped. Abductive (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Or you might try to follow

WP:BEFORE and make attempts at basic research and article improvements before prodding or bringing an article to AfD. Deletion should be the last resort, not the first effort. Rterrace (talk

) 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you determined that all 41 could be improved in 21 minutes, but I disagree. All of them could probably be expanded, but if the subject is not notable, as is the case on some of these I've looked at, no amount of additional prose will overcome that basic shortcoming. Non-notable is non-notable, no matter how much window dressing is added to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rterrace, you are being disruptive, and I am pretty well convinced that you are a sock puppet of a banned user. To prevent further disruption, I have blocked your account temporarily pending the outcome of checkuser. If Checkuser comes back positive, I or another administrator will increase the block duration to indefinite. Is there a checkuser who could look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz? Why does it take so long to address disruptive socks? If Checkuser is so backlogged, why aren't we appointing more? Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We are. Rodhullandemu

14:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In two months. *headkeyboardermntbvghsdf Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, but such trusted positions should be subject of suitably deep review, and community consensus. I suppose ArbCom could, if it felt appropriate to do so, apply temporary permissions for Oversight and Checkuser to suitable candidates if the backlog was dangerously impacting on the operation of the encyclopedia; but as I see it, backlogs are a way of life here, and although dealing with them should not be a responsibility that is shirked, neither should it be left to any old Joe that comes along, since there are issues such as privacy that arise. ArbCom has, in my view, recently cleared a number of outstanding thorny issues, and for that, they deserve some kudos. It's perhaps no surprise that other arguably less pressing matters have been left until now. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Rterrace is being disruptive though unintentionally. Being overzealous in deprodding is just as bad as overzealousness in prodding.
  WP:BEFORE should work both ways. Drawn Some (talk
  ) 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • They are intentionally disruptive. A checkuser has confirmed that they are a sock puppet of a banned user. There is no assumption of good faith here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Community ban on User:Esasus

ban as no admin will conceivably unblock any time soon. MuZemike

15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Orderinchaos 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong endorse. I'm trying to clean up after the mess of invalid prods and AFD votes from all these socks, and it's insane. One person is causing a large number of other editors to waste time going through pointless AFDs when the original prods were minutes from expiring when deprodded for no reason. (And I'm afraid we'll just have to keep doing this all the time from the huge number of socks this person is using -- it's a damn shame deprodding/prodding/AFD votes etc. can be limited to established accounts, like semiprotection.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• The account is indef blocked and nobody is willing to unblock. Therefore, they are de facto community banned. I see no reason not to make the ban explicit. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The serial deprodding is disruptive but not cause enough for a ban, but the sockpuppetry and harassment is a much bigger problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - People often say there is a difference between a formal ban enacted through a discussion and the 'default' ban that occurs when no admin will unblock. It's worth the effort to enact a formal ban in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note – three seven more IP socks have popped up. See the same SPI. MuZemike 03:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse This is all very disruptive behaviour, and he doesn't seem intent on stopping. ThemFromSpace 03:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse: He's shown a total unwillingness to play by the rules. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

*grinds teeth*

Someone want to look over the contributions of MitchCool (talk · contribs), please, before I lose my temper and do something I'll regret? He's upset about the deletion of an article, I've tried to explain politely, and he doesn't want to let go. I'm >< that close to losing my Zen-like cool on this one. I refer you to his talk page, my talk page, his deleted contributions, and a wayward attempt to file an arbitration request on me. I'm going to go finish off some work now, and then find a heavy object to beat my head on. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a note about his options (being DRV or rewriting the article to assert notability and include sources), plus another reminder about personal abuse. I also removed his post at

WT:RFARB

as a personal attack. I'm reluctant to deny someone the chance to make an arbitration request but this was not a particularly serious attempt, and no other dispute resolution process has been followed. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert my edit.

Lastly, he seems to have stopped editing for now but I'll keep a watch for when he resumes - if it hasn't all blown over by then there'll be an opportunity for further action. Euryalus (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a pit bull about this or anything, but I've looked at all his undeleted comments. Why isn't this guy indef blocked? Is there any reason to think he's going to produce anything remotely productive, even by accident? Are his deleted contributions orders of magnitude more reasonable? If so, then ignore the following. If not, then this is a classic disruptive user, show him the door. It's hard enough to weed out civil POV pushers and trolls, let's not give uncivil POV pushers and trolls lots of chances too. Waiting until he comes back is like coming across a vandalism-only account, and not blocking because they've stopped editing. You know they're going to waste someone else's time if you let them keep editing; at least a block has a chance of stopping them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Floquenbeam has it right. We are wasting time with this person because why? There's not a single constructive undeleted contribution, and one can only assume that the same obtains for the deleted contributions else they would not be deleted. //roux   17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I found myself too entangled in the situation to make any blocks and feel proper about it yesterday, as the editor decided to focus on me. That's why I asked for further admin support. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The deleted article memorializes a friend who died in the September 11th attacks, and notes that a scholarship has been established in his name. I agree with the deletion of the article, and that MitchCool's response to the deletion has been excessive, to say the least. On the other hand, I think his heart is in the right place and he's trying to do something good; it just happens not to be a good fit for this particular website. I think that will sink in on its own, without a block. That's not to excuse the attacks on Tony, but just to say that maybe we should let this go. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Glad I had that deleted edits caveat in my comment, makes me appear more reasonable than I am.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar registrations in short amount of time

In the last 48 hours, 5 accounts have been created:

• I Hate Big And Small
• I Hate Harold And Toto
• I Hate Maya And Miguel
• I Hate Piggly Winks
• I Hate Third And Bird

IIRC, none of them have yet edited, so they're not causing a problem. Is admin action required here or not? I'm still learning. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems not to like Children's TV much. I think "hate" might be against username policy, but I'm not familiar in this area either. –xeno^talk 14:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Three of these are already blocked for username and the other two have been declined at

WP:UAA, with the message 'Wait for user to edit.' Personally, I think all these names are inappropriate, since they sound hostile and they may confuse other editors who don't know that they refer to TV shows. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they may be socks of each other. Triplestop x3 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. No one has registered user:I hate sockpuppet accounts. Yet. -- llywrch (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee,

Mailer Diablo

21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

please delete my user talk page

an IP user left an unnecessary remark on my talk page. This user has vandalized other pages too--24.218.164.106 (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bits

Just out of curiosity.. is the admin bits an "all or nothing" package or can specific work-related parts of the bits be granted, such as only the right to delete images? I was looking at Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and was thinking this is something I could do.

Also, would an admin please add me back to

Wikipedia:Image renaming please? I was removed from the list as "retired" although I wasn't retired, I was dealing with my house having burned down and really wasn't that active. I also have this status at Commons. Been informed this is dead while Betacommand is banned. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here}

03:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The admin package is all or nothing. If you want to work with image deletions, submit an

RFA. Nakon

03:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.. and no thanks for the RFA. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson edit notice

Perhaps an admin could be bothered to create Talk:Michael Jackson/Editnotice to clear out some of the banner clutter at the top of Talk:Michael Jackson? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of what there is talking about the main article, and should be visible with out eidting the talk page. Do you have any specific proposals for an editnotice? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with Asmahan dispute

I asked for help at the editor assistance but was redirect here.

We need help with a dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan#Dispute.2C_3O_given

This is very important, We need an admin that is directly and actively involved and takes a close look at every single one of the 7 different points I have made. And also changes the article in to what he decides.

We have been arguing over this for almost two months. Admin has to take action now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deir el-Madinah

Resolved

 – Page moved.

Could someone please move this article to Deir el-Medina as per the article talk page. I tried to do it but since there is a page redirect with the new name it will not let me complete it. Taam (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you have more page moves which can't be done directly, you'll usually get a quicker response at

WP:RPM. -- Euryalus (talk

) 11:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for speedy response. Taam (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems, and congratulations for your improvements to the article. Euryalus (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:MusicInTheHouse

User:MusicInTheHouse keeps reverting my edit without reason or just cause which created a link to a relevant article in a section of the Republic of Ireland article which didn't already have a link to the relevant article in that section. 88.110.40.109 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Above user is a sock puppet of

MITH

13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first time the edit was made it was by

propaganda_deeds

13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of user space pages under promotional or non-notable grounds

A recent look at pages in the speedy category included:

• User:Bettencourtbooks
• User:Boyce Solicitors
• User:DeClars
• User:Educationalmusings
• User:Elephantdna
• User:LightwaveIntl
• User:Nmrg
• User:ProLivery
• User:TTAA
• User:Theflutterbies
• User:Wavgen

Since we encourage users to start articles in user space if they do not meet the notability guidelines for article space, I'm not convinced that speedying these pages is completely appropriate. Yet, in some cases the pages have clearly been abandoned by their creators. I'd like some discussion on whether it is appropriate and worthwhile to speedy such pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the first and realized immediately it was a copyvio of [42]. I'd say that even in user space, a page designed to promote something should be deleted. But if something seems salvageable, perhaps decline the speedy and let the user know there is a concern? They'd always have a week to clean it up if someone takes their user page to MfD. Resolute 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At

Wikipedia_talk:CSD#And_what_to_do_after_it.27s_been_userfied, following a discussion about userfication there was support for giving people two months to work on stuff in userspace. There wasn't widespread support for speedying after that time (nor was there widespread opposition). The weak consensus seemed to be to send them to MfD until such time as volume became a problem.--Fabrictramp | talk to me

00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these usernames (possibly all) have been blocked as promotional, and the content of their pages is related to their usernames, ie: adspam. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The key there, I think, is "to work on it." If something is being ignored, then it's just spam we're allowing to stand around. Resolute 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that since these are spam usernames, and spam "articles", that they should be deleted as spam, since the spammer can't edit them, but not salted. If the subject matter is legit, a non-COI, non-spam editor can create legit articles at any time. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I first came upon spam pages in user space when I switched to all namespaces at newpages. I would say delete them all since it is unlikely that they are legitimate non-spam article startups, per WP:NOT a webhost and because of the spam username issue. These pages are promotional in spirit. Also, we need to have more people patrolling userspace. Triplestop x3 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User space (as opposed to a user's talkspace) shows up on Google, and I've found promotional userpages in the top 3 Google hits for a search. So I agree, we need more people patrolling userspace.

talk

) 08:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I put this together a couple of years ago when I used to tag userpages by the bucketload and Wikipedia's search sucked badly. If you're bored, you could try each of those searches with Wikipedia's search engine now that it sucks less (including the mainspace is instructive at first). MER-C 08:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Mandatory_.2F_Automatic_NOINDEX_of_user_space_pages

talk

) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that MfD is sometimes allowing things like this to stay, such as User:JRC3 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:JRC3. Gigs (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, I was going to jump in on the side of deleting virtually everything, but a recent example changed my mind. A user posted a description of a charity the were a member of on their user page, and then stated what it did and what its aims were. Is this really so bad? It's not even blatant promotion in my book. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If it meets the notability requirements, then it could be an article. If it is in user space to be worked on, for a limited time, with a view to creating an article, fine. But if it doesn't meet notability standards, I don't think we should allow userpages to be used indefinitely as a noticeboard, even for worthy causes. That's not what the encyclopedia is for; any exposure is promotion of a kind, even if not written promotionally. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Backlog om

WP:MFD

MFD is backlog. I closed some discussion, however, I want to ask other admins to pay more attention to MFD. Ruslik_Zero 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone creating virtually identical usernames

I happened to notice the creation of the following users all in a row:

• User:Cazzzzzzzaman
• User:Cazzzzzzzzaman
• User:Cazzzzzzzzzaman
• User:Cazzzzzzzzzzaman

I can't think of any good reason for someone to have 4 very similar user names and I intend to block three of them as disruptive/misleading per the username policy. Thoughts? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would try to assume good faith, but in this situation, comment sense would be more helpful. User(s) has(ve) a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia. I support blocking the bottom three, keep the first. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've done, and no edits from any of them so far. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You all probably know this better than I do, but isn't registering similarly named accounts to prevent impersonation allowed by policy (as long as only one of them is used for editing)? The accounts seem to have been blocked before any of them made an edit. Jafeluv (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Doppleganger accounts are permitted, yes, and they must be clearly labelled as such on the user page(s). I haven't disabled talk page posting and will be happy to unblock the 3 caz(zzz)mans I blocked if they indicate that was their reasoning. At first glance, however, I find it unlikely this was the case. This isn't a J.Smith/J. Smith/JSmith type of situation. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, if these were doppelgangers, then having them blocked is moot; it's the same outcome, indeed, mission accomplished. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The accounts were registered between 5:45 and 5:47, and blocked at 6:08, about 23 minutes later. Shouldn't users usually at least be warned before blocking, to make sure they know what rule they're breaking? I don't think all new users should be expected to know the username policy the moment they register an account. If I was a new user, I'd feel pretty unwelcome if three of my four accounts were blocked without a warning in 23 minutes. But anyway, you probably know this stuff better than me. Jafeluv (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I will bet you one shiny penny that it's not a new user and they knew quite precisely what they were doing. //roux   20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I echo Roux's sentiments. "If I was a new user, I'd feel pretty unwelcome if three of my four accounts were blocked" says it all for me: who registers four accounts before using one? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 20:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Usernames can be blocked without warning if they're disruptive (note this refers to the name itself, not necessarily the behaviour of the user). In this case it is only the specific usernames that are blocked, not the IP. The message left on the relevant pages explains that they were blocked per the username policy and are welcome to change usernames or contest the block. The user can still edit the pages connected with the various usernames under the format of this particular block, and the first/main account wasn't blocked at all. As Jarry points out, if the user's intent was to create doppelganger accounts, then that has been accomplished whether the doppelgangers are blocked or not. But as Roux points out, it's unlikely that a brand-new user would register several accounts in one go. Anyway, I'm confident the blocks were justified, although I am always open to reconsidering if others feel it's necessary. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I refer you to the last sentence of my previous comment. Have a nice day, and sorry for interfering :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Users are free to question admin actions and should expect to receive a reply. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce discography

This

page is constantly edited and reverted by Beyonce fans. There is a day that goes by without it being edited with the same information and then removed. I propose that it be fully-protected against all users. I also recommend that only be updated with reference/sources are indicated instead of making edits all over place again adding and deleting information. Here is an example:[43] In my opinion, I don't this has anything to do with music anymore, it's begun to get personal between fans. The page basically need a time out from over 20 edits a day. Lovejonesfly (talk

) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to use

WP:RFPP in the future.--Rockfang (talk

) 22:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Plastikspork user rights

Resolved

 – Rights changed. –

T • C • L

) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The user rights of recently promoted administrator Plastikspork (talk · contribs) state that they have both rollback and administrator rights. Apparently, the user who promoted them forgot to remove the rollback button from the their user rights. Since rollback is available with all adminships, having the non-administrator rollback on their account would be moot. I am asking an administrator to fix their user rights. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for mentioning this. –

T • C • L

) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of removing the redundant rights? Triplestop x3 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It prevents

T • C • L

) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why didn't you just ask them to remove it themself? –xeno^talk 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why didn't ask him to go ask him to remove it themself? Heh. Just pickin on you Xeno.  :-) Keeper | 76 02:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:LTA/Grawp

Resolved

 – Actioned by LessHeard vanU. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin create the above two pages,

Sign here!

23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:92.0.49.21

Resolved

 – No admin needed; User was just reporting in Good Faith and IP has been apologized to and welcomed

Amendment: The IP DID have a previous case of vandalism. However given this is an IP and provided diffs and latest edits are too old, nothing can be done until/unless the IP continues at a later date. Reporting editor has been made aware of this. Rgoodermote  01:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

This account has a high rate of vandalism, has received a prior warning before one I issued but continues to vandalise. Aogouguo (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I need to ask, how are the latest edits vandalism exactly? They look right to me..however I am not regular there..so some one else should take a look. But it does seem that this IP has traded hands. Rgoodermote  00:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and in addition, you shouldn't issue a "Only one warning" warning on an IP if they haven't vandalized after a few days or hours. Rgoodermote  00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For real, the last few edits I spot checked are perfectly fine. I see no reason to block that IP based on the edits of whatever person used it last... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to remove your warning on that IP and explain to them it was a mistake and I'll chalk this up to Good Faith. But please, be more careful. If anyone does not approve of my actions, this is a wiki. Rgoodermote  00:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the List of territorial disputes article history. Aogouguo (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You know upon surfing that history..it looks like you're the only one actually reverting edits and in addition the edits are too old anyways for a block to be even remotely reasonable. Rgoodermote  00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are their edits [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] Aogouguo (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, those edits are too old, like I said on your talk page. The only thing you can do is revert, warn and repeat three more times then report to

WP:AIV afterwords, also note that latest edits are too old as well. This is an IP and we must consider the possibility that a new person has taken over this IP..and if I read the whois right this IP is mobile. Rgoodermote

  01:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, a note here, I'm closing this and I want to point that yes...only this editor has made any reversions on that topic, take a peak at the history and the userpage. Rgoodermote  01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Overused non-free images

I couldn't find a better place for this,

WP:CP is for text and Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free

is inactive, so I'm posting this here.

There are currently 42 images tagged as non-free that are used on 30 or more pages. Many of these are being used in templates, including talk page templates and userboxes, so fixing it is as easy as editing one page, though some may have questionable fair use rationales. So if people are looking for something to do:

List of files

File	Uses
File:UMass_Seal.png	380
File:Glogo-small.png	174
File:Liga-Nacional-de-Futbol-de-Honduras.png	99
File:Seal_of_the_Prime_Minister_of_Thailand.svg	96
File:Canadian_Forces_emblem.png	85
File:EnverHoxha.jpg	82
File:INS_Vikrant.jpg	81
File:U-47s.jpg	79
File:Seal_of_the_National_Assembly_of_Thailand.png	65
File:Minneapolis_flag.svg	61
File:OMosley.jpg	59
File:Tennesseestateseallrg.png	57
File:JoseAntonio-DeRivera.jpg	57
File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png	55
File:Ion_Television_logo.svg	54
File:UnionArabeFootballAssociation.png	51
File:Gpap.PNG	50
File:Uk1pnd2000.jpg	50
File:GLRockwell.jpg	49
File:Paralympic_logo.png	49
File:INRNPA.png	49
File:PrefSymbol-Chiba.png	48
File:Trans-Canada_Highway_shield.svg	48
File:RiverCityLogo2007.jpg	46
File:JCL_Seal.png	46
File:Miami_Dade_County.png	46
File:Libertarian_Party.svg	45
File:Abclocalradio.png	44
File:FloridaGators.png	43
File:MarylandTerrapins.png	43
File:Virginia_Senate_Seal.png	42
File:Us-ok-tu.png	40
File:Newpalmlogo.svg	39
File:StMartinCoat.png	38
File:Artix_logo.jpg	37
File:CBCRadioOne.svg	37
File:DaytonFlag.png	33
File:LSUTigers.png	32
File:Oklahomastateseal.jpg	32
File:Dharmalogo.svg	31
File:Seal_of_ASEAN.svg	31
File:CMCLogo.jpg	30

-- Mr.Z-man 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at some of these. –

T • C • L

) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did some of the ones higher up on the list. –

T • C • L

) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things:

• Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the more appropriate place to post questions of this nature in the future.
• Images used in templates will show as being used in every article where the template is used, which is technically true
• Non-free images may not be used in lists within articles, navigational boxes, or galleries in articles or categories
  • The standards are Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline
• Example: File:Seal of ASEAN.svg is incorrectly used in the navbox {{Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)}}

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is this directed at? This wasn't really a questions, so MCQ didn't seem like a very good forum. I'm not asking if these are overused and used inappropriately, I'm pointing out that most of them almost certainly are. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, frack; I didn't notice it was you. Never mind. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on these now. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make an example of it, I'd say that 90% of the uses of File:LSUTigers.png are complete bunk. Resolute 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Same with the other sport logos. However, removing them would probably be deemed "controversial", as there is a long history of editors completely failing to get it with regards to sports logos. Of course, sports logos, especially for universities, are so different to other non-free content. I'd have removed them myself, but my Twinkle is playing up. Dealt with a good few, but more eyes are needed (and a tool for mass removal would be nice in some cases). J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a long RfC on sport logos recently? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming they're being used in mainspace with rationales, that question is still up in the air (there's an attempt to get mediation on it). However, any use outside of mainspace is clearly a violation of NFC policy (no ifs, ands, or buts) and that action is what needs to be undertaken. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a RfC, yes, but it was a joke, naturally. Policy is clear, some people just refuse to accept it, as articles look so much prettier with logos splashed all over them. They should just be removed, I don't really see why it's still being discussed. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the comedy RfC and whatever "mediation" takes place (since when do we do mediation on policy?), of course overuse shoudl be removed in the meantime. Black Kite 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I went through over half the list. The majority of the issue was these were being used in templates, which isn't allowed per NFCC 9. Also, while we have half a dozen places this could have gone, I think Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review would have been the best place personally (take that Gadget850 ;) I also didn't want to touch the sports logos with a 10 foot pole. Seems like majority rule/consensus of avid sports fans get to circumvent NFC, and I'm not up for any fights like that again. Just curious, how was this list generated?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I generated the list with a Toolserver query. Mr.Z-man 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When we have respected admins unwilling to deal with blatant abuse of non-free content (presumably because of a fear of drama/general backlash?) we have a problem. This sports logo issue needs sorting... J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Try going after television screenshots. I had more fun dealing with the Croatian/Serbian fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

CBM · talk

) 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not an issue; article space is different though - still, remember that

WP:3RR is your friend and doesn't apply to removing NFCC violations ;) The use of File:MarylandTerrapins.png is ridiculous, for example. It should be used in the main article and nothing else. If someone else hasn't fixed this by tomorrow I'll be wielding the NFCC axe. Black Kite

00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I misread the original post above. The uses in mainspace are more painful to deal with, unfortunately. Was there actually an RFC on the sports logos? — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There was. I can't find it now - can anyone link? Of course, it was just a small number of users pointing out policy vs. a collection of editors who didn't give a shit about NFCC. I've just cleared File:MarylandTerrapins.png in about 12 minutes, incidentally - I'll do the other sports logos tomorrow if no-one else steps up to the plate. If you do remove the violations, watchlist the pages - you will be reverted. As I mentioned above, though, you are in the right - and point it out. Black Kite 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the (still undetermined) RFC. The Request for mediation is currently going on and most (on both sides of the issue) have a de-facto truce not to remove or add anything until the issue is decided. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, some of the images are Trademarked and NOT Copyrighted (apparently the Maryland Terrapin one cited), so that makes the issue even more thorny since they are very likely to be allowable. (as discussed ad nauseum in the sports logo discussions, for anyone interested) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

File:MarylandTerrapins.png? That is without a doubt under copyright protection. Yes, its trademarked too, but that doesn't mean its not also copyrighted. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The terrapin image is tagged as non-free copyrighted. If it were tagged as a free image, I believe it would not have appeared on the list above. If it really is not copyrighted, the license tag should be updated. NFCC does not apply to images that have a free copyright tag, even if they are trademarked. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 02:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, you might be right, I am not sure. I don't know specifically about that image. I just know that it is the case that there are several that had originally been misidentified as copyrighted and then (over the course of the many, many months of discussion in the sports logo fiasco) it was realized many were only trademarked. (and not copyrighted) Again, not sure about the Maryland one because I haven't researched it specifically. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In the USA and Canada (and I believe the rest of the world), copyright exists as soon as a work is created, and has done so since the mid-70's. That you think something can be trademarked without being copyrighted is a rather disturbing proof that you don't really know much about how copyright works and probably shouldn't be opining on any discussion involving it.//roux   17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's only true if the material has sufficient originality to be the subject of copyright. Clearly, "IBM" can be trademarked but not subject to copyright. I haven't checked whether this applies to any of the materials discussed, but it is quite possible for something to be trademarked and not copyrighted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This also makes Roux's "haven't the foggiest" edit summary above to be interesting. However, this is all sort of drifting from the intent of the thread.

Tan | 39

17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well no, actually. IBM can trademark that arrangement of letters without being able to claim copyright on them... however, we are talking about images here, logos, which as original works are indeed subject to copyright. Indeed, in order to successfully trademark something (Kleenex, Google, Xerox), one must aggressively defend the trademark and not allow others to use it. But again, that's all rather beside the point, since we are in fact talking about logos, not text, so it's all a bit of a red herring for you to be bringing up here. But hey... if you're okay with someone who doesn't actually understand what copyright is and how it works having any influence on copyright policies, by all means go ahead. //roux   19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Every time I look at the NFCC, I can never ever find the wording that Black Kite always asserts is in there and is being flgrantly/abusively/deceitfully/outrageously ignored by everybody except him. I am always amused by the thought that, by just using one logo in one place instead of x places, for the exact same purposes in each place, that that is somehow protecting a copyright holder, or upholding the free content mission. Sort of like, 'if we hide it in just this one article, nobody will find it to copy it' bizarreness, or even worse, 'look dear re-user of free content, you can have all these page for free, but just not the one that explains the whole topic'. There are many many other examples of simple abc wrongness that surround certain users attempts to 'interpret' the NFCC. I find in these never ending POV wars over the NFCC, its always best to actually look at what the foundation lawyer has actually said about NFCC about a hundred times. And although my memory may fail me as the kilobytes have stretched into eternity in the Good Fight, I am quite sure that not once have I ever seen him agree with Black Kite, and in most cases he never even responds. Too busy on important legal type stuff I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to read
  WP:NFCC#3 - "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.". 43 usages of one logo isn't minimal use. I notice that all the overused logos that I removed last night have been put back by User:Strikehold quoting the mediation. My temptation would be to keep removing them until editors get the message that policy = policy. The mediation is irrelevant because mediation won't change policy. Black Kite
  10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The mediation is not about "changing policy", it is about determining the policy's actual meaning. I'm sorry, Black Kite, I guess those who don't agree on your interpretation of NFCC are just a bunch of simpletons. As for the policy: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Why would that be interpreted to mean anything other than on a single article? You don't think readers go directly to articles like, say
  LSU Tigers, or LSU Tigers football, or Louisiana State University, or whatever article in your interpretation is the supposed only allowable usage? And if they do, that means they are not gaining the "significant information" available through the logo's use. Strikehold (talk
  ) 23:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The previous wording of #3a (it was changed on a basis of consensus here) read: As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It was changed because of discussion here, where it was agreed that "Wikipedia as a whole" was understood to be redundant. That discussion is a further extension of this one where it talks about how these points in #3a are duplicative with #8. The core of all these arguments is that given a piece of non-free artwork, there is likely one and only one article where that article is significant and necessary; if there is an additional article where the image can be placed, it needs a strong rationale as to why it couldn't just be replaced with a link to the core article. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And they're back: File:LSUTigers.png and File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png. Good effort, though, J Milburn. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And gone again. If they come back without rationales I think that a hard line is required. Poor rationales are one thing....totally missing ones are a different matter - Peripitus (Talk) 07:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is fine, although
  talk
  ) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha! Just great. Another page to add to my watchlist. *grumble* -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Here is an idea. Text-only logos. Seeing the
      Arkansas – Texas A&M rivalry article made me think of this. I could imagine a sports fan being really upset that their arch-rival gets to have a pretty logo in the infobox, but not their team of choice. So I made File:LSU text logo.svg. I imagine almost every sports team has a text only logo equivalent. I believe a coordinated effort with the Graphic Lab could help produce a series of these text only (and thereby public domain) logos that all the sports fans could use in templates and infoboxes and userboxes and so-on. It may take a little work, but I think this is a rather ingenious compromise that would still allow logos on these pages, but still be in compliance with NFC. -Andrew c ^[talk]
    • File:Arkansas text logo.svg. Since these two files have been the source of some edit warring. There are probably hundreds of others to do, Category:Academic sports logos seems like another place that needs clean up, if we really are going to push removing these logos from by season and by sports articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am fine with the text logos (as evidenced by me changing several of the logos to the text ones, haha), but I know most people will not be. Get ready for a lot of pushback if this is widely implemented. (I speak from experience in the many discussions that have taken place on this issue.) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If this "pushback" comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved. As you're familiar with the subject matter, perhaps it would be better if you worked on your idea of implementing non-copyrighted text-only logos (though the threshold of creativity is very low- any styalisation at all would be copyrightable) rather than edit-warring with myself and others? If you meet with resistance, I'd be more than happy to help you as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • "If this 'pushback' comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved."---I would tend to agree (although that seems a little harsh) since that is what those attempting to make non-policy changes were doing, but I'll leave it to others to pursue that course of action if they feel it is warranted, as I do not wish to pursue it myself. On the subject of non-copyrightable text only logos; As I said, it is an acceptable compromise for me personally (although I certainly would not be excited about it enough to undertake any projects implementing that fix), but I know it is unacceptable for a variety of reasons for a number of people, and I do not wish to have that fight either. Good luck with your edits. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't really care about the text only logos. I'm not certain about their status as PD, but I am happy to trust other administrators in that regard. My concern is that these non-free images are not abused any longer. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cardsplayer4life

The actions by

burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content, so these actions are wholly inappropriate. J Milburn (talk

) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You were the one mass removing content. I am trying to keep the status quo that was agreed upon. If it changes, that is fine, but I am following policy. The "burden of proof" argument has already been raised and answered in the many, many months of discussions. (multiple times) I am not going to rehash every argument here again, please read through the discussion or make any arguments there if you wish. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree to any "status quo". I see a large number of images for which there is no consensus, so I remove them. A second mass reversion is completely disruptive. You are really crossing the line now. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am "really crossing the line now", because I have been 1) placing images in allowed spots based upon the current wording, and 2) been upholding a well-established status quo truce? Not sure what line that makes me cross, but ok. I never claimed you agreed to anything. Whether my reversion seemed disruptive to you or not is irrelevant since it upheld wikipedia policy, sorry. To try and accommodate you further (why, I have no idea) I changed most of the images to the less-desirable (for many reasons) free alternative image. (But, that was before you even wrote the above.) If you feel the image policy should be changed (or clarified), then please take any argument you have to the appropriate discussion on the subject instead of trying to argue with me about it, (Lord knows there are enough of them.) as I have no interest in arguing over changes in image policy, but only upholding current policy. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very interested as to why the text "burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content" is wikilinked to

WP:RFC/U of course but there are several editors who have been far less civil and far more tendentious regarding these issues. Oren0 (talk

) 10:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you people ever actually read the non-free content criteria? Direct quote- "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." No consensus to include the images, no inclusion of the images. Seriously, I'm starting to think you people are just trolling now, I'm getting sick of this crap. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the NFCC more times than you can count, and there ARE valid rationales provided for these images to be included. Links have been provided to the arguments back and forth on it. (It is likely that the reason the fight has gone on for so long is that there are valid rationales that can be provided to support either side of the debate.) If you would like to read through some of the rationales provided, I would read through the links here. (especially the arguments back and forth in archive 1, where in the initial support arguments you can find most of the rationales, although some are scattered throughout) I am not going to compile and paste every single pro and con argument here because it would be too time consuming, but rest assured that we are certainly not trolling. (please assume good faith in editors, and try to avoid personal attacks) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was heavily, heavily involved with the "debate" to begin with. I have seen the arguments offered, yet when I continue to see people willing to edit war to keep these images, I become a little dubious. Being agnostic as to the necessity of the images is one thing, but edit warring with multiple admins experienced in NFC issues is completely another. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because it has a rationale for every use doesn't mean it has a valid rationale. Many of the rationales for File:MarylandTerrapins.png are just ridiculous. Some of them just give "infobox" for the purpose of use. The "Purpose" field is supposed to describe "How does the media contribute significantly to the article(s) in which it is used" (quoted from the FUR template documentation). How does "infobox" do that? Others have "Used to illustrate athletics at Maryland." - That's pretty much the same as "decoration" Mr.Z-man 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny to see how this is being brought up in multiple corners of Wikipedia. The concept of overuse is being misused when it comes to team individual or multi-season pages. The community has seen fit to pass FAs, 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team, and the logos were permitted because they represent the essence of the team (itself the basis of trademark). The same can be said for bowl and conference title game FAs (example 1, 2, 3, though there are sometimes slight difference when those logos are changed from year to year (example 1 vs. 2). What it boils down to is, though the idea of overuse is valid in some circumstances, this is a case of square peg in a round hole. To make an analogy: interpretation is the cornerstone of the American common law system, which isn't the rote inflexibility of continental civil law systems. The rationale already exists for why these images are being used, and claiming the burden has somehow shifted back to us is inaccurate. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As a separate note, I find J Milburn's conduct here to be a little harsh. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would- you've done your best to create an "us and them", and I happen to be the "them". The fact that there are FAs is sad, certainly, but I'm not quite sure how that suddenly justifies abuse. You claim that the problem of overuse doesn't apply in this case, yet make the classic "mistake" of forgetting to explain why. You can state as much as you like that these logos should not be treated as other non-free images are, but stating doesn't make it true. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure why it needs to be explained, yet again, that an image can have the most fantastically written rationale possible, but if it doesn't pass all the criteria of NFCC (in this case 3a and 8) then the rationale is irrelevant. No-one has yet managed to explain how a non-free logo in a sports season passes NFCC#8, and I suspect no-one ever will. Black Kite 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Trademark vs. Copyright

I only just discovered this AN thread today, but I have also been keeping an eye on the sports logo RFC and mediation efforts. In my opinion, I think the biggest issue confounding editors in this area is the status on English Wikipedia for trademarked images that are also ineligible for copyright. For example, Commons has freely accepted the text logo for Sony (

Trademarked}} licensing information. So far, editors on this wiki have refrained from using that image on the many articles in Category:Sony, but only showing it on the main Sony article as though it was non-free. (But I see that the Chinese Wikipedia have no concerns about its appearance in a navbox: zh:Template:Sony Group.) On the other hand, the text logo for House (TV series) (Image:House logo.svg) is used widely across every page related to that television show, through Template:House and Template:WikiProject House. In the situation at hand, the college sports editors seem to think that text logos of their favourite universities can be used widely on many per-season per-sport results pages, like the House text logo. But in the larger scheme, it seems to me that there is very unclear guidance for editors, from the combination of statements at WP:Restricted materials, WP:General disclaimer#Trademarks, WP:Logos, and so on about what is acceptable usage for trademarked images. We are very clear on our policy with regards to copyrighted images (well, clear to me at least) but not so much for trademarked non-copyrighted images. It would help tremendously if some knowledgeable editors (i.e. no "I like it this way" opinions) could help craft clearer guidelines and policy explanation. I believe that acceptance of those images on Commons does not immediately equate to "not non-free", but I am unsure about what exactly it does mean... Policy for this Wikipedia (which will be different from Commons policy) ought to be clear. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs

) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, trademarks that are not copyright should not bother us. The property only applies to the use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered or similar products, not writing about it. DGG (talk)

Since Wikipedia is neither a for-profit nor a commercial entity, the use of non-copyrighted trademarks is a minor concern. This is the reason they are accepted on the commons and are freely available to be used across the various Wikimedia projects. This issue is not just limited to trademarks. There are other IP protections, such as Personality rights, House rules against photography, etc., which some jurisdictions observe. These non-copyright restrictions vary widely from one legal jurisdiction to another. It would be virtually impossible, and of very little (if any) real value, to try to apply them all on a consistant basis. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)@DGG: Perhaps, but perhaps not. My point is that the relevant policy and guideline pages on this Wikipedia are not clear about how "free" trademarked images really are. There seems to be an undercurrent that we should be "careful" in using them, but how? Should they be treated the same as free images (placed anywhere without concern), the same as non-free images (per

WP:NFCC), or somewhere in between? I suspect it's "somewhere in between", but that needs to be more fully explained. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs

) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: The problem is that this position doesn't help average editors decide what is acceptable usage and what isn't. Can we at least find a definitive position for this Wikipedia for text logos (since personality rights etc. wouldn't apply)? With some concrete examples, do you see any problems with how File:House logo.svg and File:LSU text logo.svg are currently used? Why or why not? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok let me say it another way. Unless it's being used in a commercial context, you're free to use non-copyrighted trademarks. As Wikipedia is non-commercial, I think you can use them on Wikipedia just like you would use any other "free" image from the commons. And I used personality rights as an example as there are many images of living people on the commons and used across Wikipedia without a second thought given to it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We only accept images on this Wikipedia that can be freely used by anybody, not just free for our specific noncommercial website only. We should not be excessively using content that limits the rights of any "downstream" user, even if it doesn't interfere with our own rights for usage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

By that standard, all pictures of living people would not be allowed on Wikipedia either. Just like I can't take the LSU text logo off of Wikipedia, slap it on a product and sell it, I also can't take File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg off of Wikipedia, slap it on a product and sell it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But that image is not used on dozens of mainspace pages. That is my point: in many cases where a non-copyrighted image has other potential restrictions (e.g. Merkin's photograph, the Sony logo), we seem to respect a "minimal usage" guideline (as though it was under NFCC, but without the need for a fair-use rationale), but for other non-copyrighted images (House logo, LSU logo) we use them on dozens of pages without regard for those other restrictions. Why the discrepancy? We need some non-vague guidelines that the average editor can understand. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is really no reason that a non-copyrighted image can't be used widely on Wikipedia though, since it's not trademark infringement. All the trademarked image pages (should) have a trademark warning on them that clearly states that certain commercial use restrictions apply. If a person ignores this and removes an image from Wikipedia to use it for a non-permissible reason, that's not our concern. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is. And I've seen this debate elsewhere, but with no conclusion. The essence of the question is how free do we want Wikipedia to be? As free as possible? Or relaxed in a few areas (such as fair-use images)? And if relaxed, where is that bar set? I understand our consensus criteria for non-free images. I do not know the answer for trademarked content. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anderwsc, I agree with your original assertion that further guidance would be useful and there is no current conclusion. If you would help me in coming up with a Mediation Case, I'd appreciate it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be some misconceptions here. Wikipedia isn't allowed to use trademarks because we're non-commercial, but because we aren't using them in an infringing way. As long as we don't use the trademarks to suggest we're affiliated with the organization that has the trademark, we can use it. Being non-commercial has little to do with it, its primarily because we're an encyclopedia and only using the images for illustrations rather than to market something. If someone founded a non-profit delivery service, painted their trucks brown and called it UPS, it would still be trademark infringement. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the basis for your argument (even using an apple to market a new computer could be infringement), but the line then becomes what is trademarked? A trademark lasts as long as a company protects it (i.e. indefinitely) while a copyright is only good for so long (basically 70 years or so...depending on when it was created) and then it becomes public domain for everyone. While you can have an image copyrighted and trademarked, your protection with it as a trademark runs out when it becomes public domain. Consequently, organizations vigorously protect their trademark and don't copyright them.

So, the question remains, what do we do about trademarked images that expressly state they are such (i.e. they have a TM or (R) on them)? Can we use those with no restrictions? Can they be used on user pages? Can they be used in discussions? In short, we aren't outside of the law here, but it's just a matter of defining how we use such images. This is the way I see it:

Content moved to comments. So much was wrong with it that I didn't exactly mean that it is simply easier to start over and re-explain what I really meant.

Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"What is trademarked" is an irrelevant question. Unless we replace our logo with something that looks like this, trademark is not our concern, as there's almost nothing we could do to infringe on a trademark with normal editing. Almost everything you wrote is totally wrong. "organizations vigorously protect their trademark and don't copyright them" – This makes no sense at all. Copyright protection is separate from trademark protection and both are automatic. Not copyrighting a trademark will not help protect it in any way and trademark doesn't expire when the work copyright expires. Forget about trademark. Unless there is strong evidence that a work is not copyrighted, we assume that it is. Strong evidence would be: 1) Evidence that the copyright expired due to age, 2) Evidence that the copyright owner has released the work into public domain, or under a copyleft license, or 3) The work clearly does not meet the threshold of originality. We don't wait for people to complain before we consider an image copyrighted. Whether or not an image is trademarked has no bearing on whether or not its copyrighted. Mr.Z-man 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"What is trademarked" is certainly a valid question to specify an answer to. Organizations indeed protect their trademarks vigorously. Copyright is automatic, as is trademark, but you must defend the trademark as courts have decided that failure to bring timely action against a known infringer may give the defendant a defense of implied consent or estoppel. Furthermore, a trademark goes out of trademark status for 5 years after failure to use. You are absolutely correct that we are concerned about copyrights. Trademarks on Wikipedia are of little concern within Wikipedia and the general disclaimer pretty much covers everything else. I will re-summarize what I wrote above with a little better context:

1. Trademarked images with no possibility of being copyrighted or that have expired copyrights: Can be used with no restrictions within Wikipedia, but need to be identified as trademarked images. Restrictions oustide Wikipedia fall under other disclaimers.
2. Trademarked images, regardless as to whether they are clearly marked or not, as trademarks, that do meet the threshold of originality: Should be treated as copyrighted images and all afforded protections under
   WP:NFCC
3. Copyrightable/copyrighted images: used in accordance with
   WP:NFCC
   .

Hopefully that clears things up a little. Sorry about the ambiguity in my previous response. I can see how that would have been taken the wrong way. My bad. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Greg L

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

---

Resolved

 – edit was in good faith, editor has been made aware. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This user is banned from discussion regarding guidelines about date delinking and any related discussions. However, he has opted to participate in this discussion about a bot for date delinking. Accordingly, he should be blocked for up to one week per ArbCom's decision/ruling. He knows this and is aware of it. I recommend a 24-72 hour block as it would seem to be consistent with other blocks; it should also be annotated here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You may get a quicker response at

WP:AE. Nakon

17:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend not blocking him. I don't know what he did originally to get banned, but his support of this was very constructive and thought out and it's best to not punish some one for being constructive even if they have been told to stay away from a certain area. Call this a use of

WP:IAR.Rgoodermote

  17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you should have notified Greg of this topic. I've gone ahead and notified him. Rgoodermote  17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Added after "archive". Sorry about a lack of notification; should've done that, but I forgot to actually send the post. Seeing as he's already been warned (and I somehow missed that earlier), this is a non-issue. I don't support blocking willy-nilly, but ArbCom did say that. Considering he's already had a discussion with an ArbCom member regarding the subject and clarification, I think that is more than enough. An honest mistake is an honest mistake (

WP:IAR applies in spades here...). — BQZip01 — ^talk

02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He was already warned about this, the only edit he made to the page was 5 days ago, and the arbitration enforcement provision requires "repeated violations". Mr.Z-man 17:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of the warning. Rgoodermote  17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The "repeated violations" arbitration enforcement clause applies to the maximum amount, not to violations in general. He could have been blocked immediately and that would have been completely within bounds. --Calton | Talk 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a case where

WP:IAR should be used, the editor was very constructive with their comments. We shouldn't punish an editor for that even if they have been "banned" from doing something in that area. It's sorta like if you were banned from say a Nascar article and you see something that can be fixed and you fix it and then you are automatically blocked for doing that even though it was good. This user didn't do really anything wrong. Whatever the reason for being banned from that area it certainly was for being constructive and said user should not be warned so harshly or blocked. Rgoodermote

  17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• As explained on my talk page after my warning, I thought “style guides and related discussions” meant I was supposed to stay away from WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM (our style guides) and their talk pages. I did not think I was prohibited from adding my vote to an RfC regarding a bot. I was warned here on my talk page about it. It was explained to me that the restriction was intended to be applied broader than that. So I agreed to stay away from anything at all related to date linking or bot activity related to date linking anywhere on Wikipedia. This restriction was imposed by ArbCom and I’ve been getting clarification from one of the Arbitrators, John Vandenberg here on his talk page. Would someone like more pounds of flesh than this? Greg L (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Utterly no harm done by Greg L here. The edit was in good faith and only unknowingly strayed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Indef blocked editor asking other editors to create and edit articles for them

Top Gun (talk · contribs) was indefinitly blocked in August last year for sock puppetry, lying about their sources and edit warring. Since then they have created several sock puppet accounts to evade this block (listing at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Top Gun) and continue their behavior and have now moved to IP editing (I've been tracking IP accounts used at User:Top Gun). This has included asking other editors to insert material into articles admins are watching (eg, [50]) and now asking them to create entirely new articles (eg, [51]). User:Againme created an article - in good faith - which Top Gun asked for after I had warned them that the IP was an indef blocked editor with a history of block evasion: [52] (the IP had admitted being Top Gun sock BobaFett85 (talk · contribs) in the message to Againme where they asked that the article be created: [53]). What are the rules surrounding this? Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't discourage creating a good page just because someone banned asked. I don't think there is a huge problem however meatpuppetry should be discouraged. Triplestop x3 02:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks extremely problematic, but I remain unconvinced that the article isn't one that Againme wouldn't have created eventually on his own. Worthy of a stern warning to Againme, and active monitoring to prevent re-occurrence.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Triplestop, I was going to create the page anyway, it was like the natural outcome of my work, see how much I've been working in the Afghanistan related list. The article is useful and I do not see any problem... I'm not a "meatpuppet"... Plus: to prevent re-occurrence is impossible. I'm communicating now by other means (email) with the devil in the flesh, I mean, TopGun. How would you know if everything I do from now on is the fruit of his mind control???? Just kidding, I mean, if you say it's wrong, I won't do it, but... it sounds really silly to me... Regards. --Againme (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Dt128

This user has been making disruptive edits. After warning him to stop reverting a

page over and over, his angry response is "DO NOT tell ME HOW TO EDIT. I HAVE PROMOTED A DISCOGRAPHY TO FEATURED LIST STATUS IN THE PAST. THE REFERENCES DO NOT GO WHERE YOU SAID. YOU ARE ACTUALLY MAKING THE PAGE WORSE. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO. Dt128

, 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"

I have tried to nicely warn to stop by telling him how to easily organize a discography page. I kindly told him ,

"Your recent edits were reverted back to my version. The reason is listed below,

• Album titles are not bold case
• References need to go beside Album information at the top of Albums
• References need to go beside Song at top of Singles
• Hot R&B Airplay is a component charts.[54] and does not need to be added back alongside the other charts.

So in retrospect, you might need to cut down on the Solange edits. You have edited the back on 20x in a row.[55] Also when editting a page, don't go back over again and again making minor edits to improve your contributions and preferences. When you edit, use the preview button below or go to the sandbox for testing. Lovejonesfly (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"

After warning this user over and over, he responds with "YOU CANT JUST SAY, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME. IT IS NOT "YOUR" DISCOGRAPHY! and "It's your edits that are being disruptive, not mine. I was not nicely warned. You still have not replied to any of my questions/queries. 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)".[56]

I have a list of his angry response here.[57] I propose that he is block for two weeks. Lovejonesfly (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Dt128 could have handled things better, but I have to say that both seem to be at fault here. You have a dispute over the way content is laid out. You've been reverting each others edits without trying to discuss the situation. Lovejonesfly, your reverts, in addition to removing the formatting you dislike, also removed additional information and notes that were added by Dt128 - that's definitely an issue. I'd suggest you stop reverting, try talking to the other editor nicely and head over to the album wikiproject if there's a formatting concern. Shell ^babelfish 14:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have look at his edits, and I'm not editting what I want. I'm doing what needs to be done. When looking at the formating Ashanti, Mary J. Blige, etc vs Beyonce discographies, references have been put all over the place. However, over three sources were placed under the chart name, So I moved it to "Album information". I also removed a component chart "Hot R&B Airplay" which he also says is wrong. I'm keeping a leveled head and are open to any suggestions and advice to handle the dilemma. Shelly Kinney, I agree! But it seems you can't through to him without him getting mad.[58]Lovejonesfly (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at it this way - you're doing what you feel needs to be done - clearly, another editor disagrees that things need to be done that way. I'm not saying I disagree with any particular edits by either of you, but I am concerned that you've overlooked the fact that Dt128 added information to the charts that was missing and added a referenced note for a particular album while moving around references and bolding and that sort of the - surely that added information didn't need a simple revert? Let me try leaving a note - if I get the same kind of response, we can figure out where to go from there. Shell ^babelfish 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay Lovejonesfly (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)